Durham Research Online

Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO:
08 October 2015
Version of attached le:

Accepted Version
Peer-review status of attached le:

Peer-reviewed
Citation for published item:

Kind, V. (2016) 'Preservice science teachers' science teaching orientations and beliefs about science.', Science
education., 100 (1). pp. 122-152.
Further information on publisher's website:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21194
Publisher's copyright statement:
This is the accepted version of the following article: Kind, V. (2016), Preservice Science Teachers' Science Teaching
Orientations and Beliefs About Science. Science Education, 100(1): 122-152, which has been published in nal form at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21194. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley
Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
http://dro.dur.ac.uk
RUNNING HEAD: CLARIFYING ORIENTATIONS AND BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENCE
Pre-service science teachers’ Science Teaching Orientations and

Beliefs about Science
Submitted to Science Education

CLARIFYING ORIENTATIONS AND BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENCE
High-quality teachers are regarded as the single most important factor in driving
educational achievement (Hattie, 2012). The European Commission (Education Audio-visual and
Culture Executive Agency [EACEA], 2012) identify a lack of qualified teachers in mathematics,
science, and language of instruction in many schools across Europe as a major contribution to
variation in performance in international assessments such as PISA (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, OECD, 2014). Successive reports (EACEA, 2011; 2012) imply
this overrides factors such as: ranking science education improvements high on political agendas
(2011); maintaining funding levels for education, including through the recent recession (2012);
and providing infrastructures of initiatives including school partnerships, science centres, and
teacher professional development (2011). These reports suggest education systems do not
produce high-quality teachers consistently or in sufficient numbers. The current fashion for
widening access to teaching via school-based, alternative certification routes over or alongside
reduced-scale, university-based teacher education (e.g. Department for Education, DfE, 2010) is
unlikely to improve this situation (Ball & Forzani, 2010). Darling-Hammond (2010) points out
that teacher education programs vary in quality. In the UK, for example, only 20% of initial
teacher education courses receive the top “outstanding” grade from the national inspectorate
(Office for Standards in Education, Ofsted, 2013). Teachers must be educated effectively in order
to become capable of promoting student achievement. Science teacher education research should
contribute by defining issues and bringing clarity to practice and methodology.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, Shulman, 1986b) offers a potential contribution to

developing high-quality (science) teacher education (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins & Major, 2014).
However, PCK research frequently adopts theoretical, not evidence-based positions, and so is
prone to individual researchers’ interpretations. Barnett (2003) points out that “what counts as
PCK is often defined by the researchers rather than emanating from the definitions of the
teachers” (p. 617). Consequently, PCK lacks significant impact on teacher education practices.
Settlage (2013) notes persistent “unsteadiness” surrounding PCK, contributing to its absence
from the US K-12 Science Education Framework (National Research Council [NRC], 2011).
Consensus on PCK’s components and development mechanisms awaits (Author, 2009) nearly
thirty years since Shulman’s (1986a) proposals were made.
Friedrichsen, van Driel and Abell (2011) highlight science teaching orientations (STOs)
as a PCK component that requires specific attention. Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko define a
science teaching orientation as: “knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for
teaching science to specific age groups” (1999, p. 97). Magnusson et al.. note an orientation is a
“general way of viewing or conceptualising science teaching” (p. 97). These and other authors
consider orientations as a central component of PCK directing how teachers teach. Knowing
more about orientations may improve understanding of how to develop high-quality teachers and
PCK as a construct. Accordingly, Friedrichsen et al. (2011) call for “empirical studies to
determine which distinctive different science teaching orientations exist in practice” (p. 372).
These authors propose that STOs comprise three dimensions: beliefs about the goals and
purposes of science teaching; the nature of science; and learning and teaching science. This study
explores the latter two, providing empirical data to test Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) proposal that
STOs include beliefs about learning and teaching science and the nature of science. Outcomes
help clarify this proposed PCK component, contributing to an evidence-based PCK model.
2|Page
Methodologically, researchers to date have investigated beliefs about science and STOs
separately. This paper presents an independent contribution, providing data on both, obtained
simultaneously from one large sample of PSTs at the start of their teacher education.
Theoretical Background
Shulman (1986a; 1986b; 1987) conceptualised PCK as knowledge that distinguishes a

teacher from someone with solely academic understanding about a subject. Re-workings of
Shulman’s original proposals have generated many PCK models (Lee & Luft, 2008; Author,
2009) including the Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko (1999) model (“the Magnusson model”),
popular among science teacher educators (e.g., Friedrichsen, Abell, Pareja, Brown, Lankford &
Volkmann, 2009; Schwartz & Gwekwerere, 2007; Park & Oliver, 2008; Avraamidou, 2013). The
Magnusson model is a theoretical compilation drawn from research and curriculum projects. The
model comprises five components: Orientation to Teaching Science; Knowledge of Assessment
of Scientific Literacy; Knowledge of Instructional Strategies; Knowledge of Students’
Understanding of Science; and Knowledge of Science Curricula. Orientation to Teaching Science
(STO) lies at the apex, implying this component impacts teaching most. Magnusson et al..
proposed nine STOs (1999, p. 100-101; Table 1) reviewed below. Magnusson et al..’s definition
proposes STOs comprise knowledge and beliefs and determine teachers’ classroom actions
(Borko & Puttnam, 1996). The nature of “knowledge and beliefs” in this context requires
consideration. McComas, Clough and Almazroa (1998) note science teachers are responsible for
providing an “accurate description of the function, processes and limits of science” (p. 6),
arguing knowledge of the nature of science (NOS) helps students learn science content (p. 11).
Probing teachers’ beliefs about science and their science teaching orientations would seem useful
to determine the extent of any intersection in determining teachers’ practices. Investigation of
teachers’ beliefs about science and their science teaching orientations simultaneously was
identified by Friedrichsen et al.. (2011) as an example of multi-angle research needed to
categorise and define science teacher orientations clearly.
PSTs’ Orientations, Beliefs and Knowledge
The terminology used in Magnusson et al.’s (1999) STO definition may contribute to
researchers using orientations, knowledge, and beliefs as synonyms and/or separate terms. To
clarify the nature of STOs, investigating if this is justified would seem valuable. From a
theoretical perspective, Nespor (1987) uses four criteria to separate beliefs from knowledge.
These are: existential presumption, alternativity, affective and evaluative loading, and episodic
structure. Existential presumptions are personal truths, such as beliefs in gods or aliens, based on
chance or intense experience. Alternativity means creating fantasy worlds without direct
experience. Teachers may generate imaginary environments to prompt children’s learning. The
fantasy defines the learning goal, but is not knowledge. Affective loading describes a teacher
applying personal preferences to decide how long to teach a topic. Evaluative loading describes
beliefs such as “Year 9 students are always difficult to teach last lesson on a Friday,” or “girls do
not enjoy advanced physics.” Beliefs have stronger affective and evaluative loading than
knowledge. Nespor (1987) argues that affective and cognitive aspects of beliefs operate
independently, but both influence learning. Episodic memory acts as a mental depository of past
experiences that can impact on the present. Episodic memories may lead a teacher replicating
3|Page
teaching received as a child or utilising external experiences, such as working as a research

scientist.
Nespor (1987) also distinguishes between belief and knowledge systems. Belief systems
are non-consensual: variability leads to teachers with common knowledge about a science topic
teaching it differently. As beliefs are non-consensual, there is no organised means of prompting
change. Changing beliefs requires a shift in thinking, not “just” an accumulation of further
evidence. Contrastingly, knowledge is learned and held according to established procedures,
resulting in consensus about how and what adjustments to make. Thus, while knowledge
accumulates and adjusts systematically, beliefs are fixed, personal, and resist alteration. Further,
beliefs are “un-bounded,” lacking “clear logical rules for determining the relevance of beliefs to
real-world events and situations” (p. 322). Hence, people choose and apply beliefs freely (subject
to societal laws and mores). Knowledge systems are bound by structures and rules governing
rejection and acceptance of information, and the quality of evidence by which such judgements
are made.
Are “science teaching orientations” Knowledge and /or Beliefs?
Applying Nespor’s (1987) criteria to the Magnusson model STOs (Table 1) suggests
initially that curriculum-centred orientations (Table 1) correspond more to knowledge than
beliefs. Curriculum knowledge represents procedures establishing how science “should” be
taught. Changes occur systematically. Thus, a curriculum is unlikely to be an existential
presumption. Curricula generally do not promote fantasy worlds, failing to satisfy Nespor’s
(1987) alternativity criterion. Affective and evaluative loading affect curriculum implementation,
but not contents. Episodic memory applies weakly to curriculum materials, as these reflect
societal trends, independent of teachers’ past experiences. Changing from one curriculum to
another involves adjusting and accommodating knowledge into a new style of delivery.
The four research-derived orientations (Table 1) meet Nespor’s (1987) belief system
characteristics. These are underpinned by teachers’ deeply held, intuitively preferred teaching
styles, meeting the existential presumption criterion. For example, a teacher may believe
explaining (Didactic) prompts learning, also applying evaluative loading when deciding how
long to spend explaining a concept. Teaching with a Conceptual Change orientation requires
change in practice for, say, Didactic, Discovery, or Activity Driven teachers as this is unlikely to
be intuitive for them. Anderson and Smith (1987) note, “most teachers must themselves undergo
conceptual change in order to engage in conceptual change teaching” (p. 103). Posner, Strike,
Hewson and Gerzog’s (1982) conceptual change criteria are cited as a mechanism for generating
change.
However, Lewis (1990) suggests knowledge and beliefs are synonymous. Accepting this
perspective allows an STO to comprise knowledge and belief. Nespor’s (1987) criteria can be re-
applied to illustrate this for curriculum/reform-centred orientations (Table 1). A teacher may
develop existential presumptions about a novel curriculum long term, as engagement leads to
personal belief, this represents “the” way to teach. Also, novel curriculum projects (as distinct
from national curricula adopting societal aims) may use science contexts as “fantasy” worlds,
meeting Nespor’s (1987) alternativity criterion. Through enactment, all curricula become subject
4|Page
to affective and evaluative loading. Arzi and White (2007) demonstrate that over time, curricula
organise teachers’ knowledge and practice. Finally, teachers’ episodic memories lead to prior
experience as a factor contributing to beliefs about how best to teach a topic. Curriculum
changes, even if systematic, may enforce major change and gestalt shifts in teachers’ practices.
Hence, the Magnusson model curriculum/reform-based orientations could equally become
examples of belief as knowledge.
Thus, given the uncertainty, inclusion of both “knowledge” and “beliefs” in an STO
definition may be justifiable. To ensure science teachers are effective instructors, investigating
their knowledge and beliefs and prompting change if these are contrary to achieving desirable
student learning outcomes would seem reasonable. However, methodologically, lack of clarity, as
Friedrichsen et al. (2011) note, contributes to researchers using STOs in different or unclear
ways; an unclear or absent relationship between STOs and other PCK components; research
assigning teachers to one of the Magnusson model nine STO categories propose; and/or research
ignoring STOs as an over-arching component.
Literature Review
The Origins of Science Teaching Orientations
Anderson and Smith (1987) used “orientation” to describe a teacher’s “general patterns of
thought and behaviour” (p. 99) in research designed to promote students’ achievement by
focusing on learning science concepts. They describe an “orientation” as a flexible stance
changeable by specific circumstance, alterable by improving teachers’ knowledge of science
content and students’ misconceptions, and developed by understanding teaching strategies.
Magnusson et al. (1999) borrow “orientation” from Anderson and Smith, but define it differently.
Their definition arises from Grossman (1990), who identified variations in pre-service English
literature teachers’ practices calling these “purposes for teaching.” Grossman regarded these as
deeply engrained and exerting extensive control over a teacher’s classroom practice. Magnusson
et al. (1999) combined both sources, creating a meaning for “orientation” as a deeply held,
personalised classroom stance impacting on a teacher’s daily practice, dictating organisation of
activity and teacher-student interactions. Their position shifts Grossman’s empirically-based
“purpose” and Anderson and Smith’s (1987) view that a teacher’s “orientation” is flexible and
alterable.
The Nine Orientations Proposed by Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko (1999)
Origins of the Magnusson model STOs (Table 1) are reviewed. This review supplements
that of Friedrichsen (2002) and Friedrichsen, van Driel and Abell (2011), who distinguish
between teacher-centred and STOs based on “reform efforts and associated curriculum projects”
(p. 362). This paper distinguishes between STOs first identified in research projects (Research-
based) and those proposed from curriculum reforms or novel curriculum innovations
(Curriculum/reform-based).
[Insert Table 1 about here]
5|Page
Academic Rigour emerged from Lantz and Kass’s (1987) research probing secondary
chemistry teachers’ interpretations of the Canadian Alberta Chemistry (ALCHEM) curriculum
materials. Lantz and Kass described teachers’ practices using Crocker’s (1983) functional
paradigms of common “beliefs, values, exemplars and routines.” Magnusson et al. (1999)
ignored two other functional paradigms, “Pedagogical efficiency” and “motivating students”
(Lantz and Kass, 1987, p. 123), as possible “orientations” without explanation. An Academic
Rigour orientation involves giving “detailed background materials, challenging problems and
activities aimed at developing students’ intellectual abilities” (Lantz & Kass, 1987 p. 123). This
seems a rigorous version of Anderson and Smith’s Didactic orientation, which is observed most
frequently in teachers across all phases. Adey (2001) describes Didactic teaching as “I give them
information, they write it down, they learn it” (p. 41). Anderson and Smith (1987) claim a
didactic teacher emphasizes rote learning of factual content knowledge.
Anderson and Smith (1987) also identify Activity Driven and Conceptual Change
orientations. An Activity Driven orientation involves carrying out activities without planning
students’ learning outcomes, limiting progress. The authors claim this is typical of primary
teachers “uncomfortable teaching science” who lack deep understanding of how experiments and
questions generate students’ learning (1987, p. 99). A Conceptual Change orientation is
characterized by awareness and diagnosis of students’ naïve conceptions; challenges to students’
responses; correction of thinking; and application of the scientific concept to a new phenomenon.
The authors claim this leads to “superior student learning.”
Discovery, Process, and Inquiry orientations arise from 1950s curriculum projects.
Discovery and Process projects both train science process skills for elementary (primary)
children (Adey, 2001), but with different aims. Discovery relates to the Science Curriculum
Improvement Study (SCIS) (Karplus, 1964). This gave pupils “first-hand” experiences of natural
phenomena via open-ended activities; identified “abstract relationships;” and offered
“intellectual challenges that will stimulate further cognitive development” (p. 294). SCIS was
conceptually based and sequentially organised, offering learning based on themes centred on
major concepts. Anderson and Smith (1987) also noted the “Discovery” orientation, but
described this as “teachers using activity-based programs to avoid telling their students answers,
encouraging them to develop their own ideas from the results of experiments” (p. 100). The
Process orientation emerges from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) programme Science: A Process Approach (SAPA). SAPA developed children’s “skills in
using the processes of science” (Livermore, 1964, p. 271), through engagement with curriculum
materials emphasising development of observing, inferring, predicting, communicating, and
interpreting as independent and important traits separate from understanding content knowledge.
Contrastingly, the Discovery orientation utilises application of skills in open-ended settings. The
discovery/process heuristic also occurred in UK science programmes such as the Nuffield
Foundation Science Teaching Project (1961) and Warwick Process Science (1980).
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which began in 1958, provides an
origin for the Inquiry orientation. BSCS devised a teaching method (BSCS, 2006; 2008; 2010)
for secondary biology that combines conceptual and investigations-based information. Schwab
(1963) supported this style, stating:-
6|Page
“teaching science as enquiry would …show some of the conclusions of science in the
framework of the way they arise and are tested… tell the student about the problems
posed and the experiments performed…indicate the data thus found and…follow the
interpretation by which these data were converted into scientific knowledge.” (p. 40)
Tamir (1983) argues inquiry clarifies “what science really is” (p. 659). He shares
Anderson and Smith’s (1987) scepticism of process/discovery teaching, noting the unstructured
nature of SAPA and SCIS placed science “beyond the capabilities” of some students. Tamir finds
teachers confuse “science as inquiry” and “teaching science by inquiry” (p. 660). Magnusson et
al.’s (1999) Inquiry orientation definition (Table 1) mirrors this. Inquiry-based science remains a
desirable quality of school science curricula (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA],
1999; Department for Education and Science [DfES], 2004; DfE, 2013; NRC, 2011).
The Guided Inquiry orientation emerges from combining teaching science content and
science process skills using investigations or an inquiry-based context. Gowin’s Vee (Novak &
Gowin, 1984) is an organising heuristic. Guided Inquiry imitates scientific practices by team-
working or using authentic context-based activities. Teachers scaffold learning while students
carry out a practical experiment or a theoretical exercise. For example, students experiencing the
(confusingly named) Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL, 2013) follow a
learning cycle (explore, concept formation/ invention, application), completing activities by
taking roles in teams. Great Lakes Science (University of Michigan, 2013) provides “real-world”
data sets relating to events occurring around the Great Lakes in central North America. The
Salters science projects (University of York, 2008) are UK-based examples. Authors claim this
approach promotes students’ active engagement in learning.
The Project-based orientation derives from a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded
“teacher-support” project called LabNet (Ruopp, Gay, Drayton & Pfister, 1993) that ran from
1989 to 1992 to develop secondary school physics teaching. LabNet adopted three principles:
using projects to enhance students' science learning; building a community of practice among
LabNet teachers and science researchers; and (pre-world wide web) adopting “new technology,”
namely “computer-to-computer communication via telephone lines.” Projects used contexts such
as “Acid Rain,” “What are we eating?,” and “Too much trash.” Ruopp et al. (1993) claim LabNet
demonstrated “enormous success.” No evidence shows LabNet continued beyond the original
timescale.
Thus, the Magnusson model STOs comprise curriculum innovations and (limited)
findings from research evidence of teachers’ classroom practices. Some curriculum innovations
are outdated (Project-based); have been superceded (Guided Inquiry); or fallen from favour
(Discovery, Process). The “pupil as scientist” (Adey, 2001; Driver, 1983) heuristic is apparent in
Discovery, Process, and Guided Inquiry orientations. Content-based teaching is represented by
Didactic and Academic Rigour. Constructivist philosophies (Carey, 1985; Hewson, 1981; Duit &
Treagust, 2003) are represented by Conceptual Change. The Project-based orientation
emphasizes research and technology. Inquiry represents a trend for investigative science that
remains desirable. Activity driven describes teaching lacking focus on students’ learning.
7|Page
Science Teachers’ Beliefs about Science
McComas, Clough and Almazroa (1998) review a teacher’s role in communicating

science, noting claims that science teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices represent “the
bulk” of students’ science instructional experiences. Accepting this and that students should
know about NOS means science teachers’ NOS beliefs about science may influence those of
their students. PSTs studied science and may have worked as scientists, but hold varied
backgrounds (Context; Table 2). Schwartz and Lederman (2008) found variation in beliefs
among twenty-four practising scientists from different subjects. PSTs are therefore likely to hold
varied NOS beliefs. Prior research suggests these may be usefully described as informed,
partially informed, or naïve.
Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Schwartz (2002) describe Informed beliefs about
science as features of scientific knowledge students should acquire. These include: science
knowledge is empirical; observations and inference differ; scientific theories are internally
consistent explanatory systems that guide research and investigations; laws represent
relationships, such as “V=IR”; science relies on human imagination and creativity, and is not
lifeless or always rational; science is theory-laden, consequently observations are not objective;
science is a human enterprise embedded in a social culture; there is no one scientific method; and
scientific knowledge is tentative.
Lederman et al. (2002) also describe naïve beliefs about science. These include that
science: comprises facts established through empirical evidence, generating a knowledge base;
searches for objective truth about the world; relies on direct observation; utilises a single (tacitly
agreed) scientific method; does not require creativity and/or imagination; prompts change in
theories by accumulation of evidence; enables theories to become laws by repeated testing; and
is independent of social and cultural factors.
Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson’s findings (2009) from an intervention study designed to

impact 49 primary (elementary) teachers’ beliefs about science provide a source for “partially-
informed” NOS beliefs. These combine aspects of informed and naïve beliefs. For example, a
partially-informed belief recognises science as empirical subject involving observations, making
and testing predictions, but implies a simplistic mechanism for collecting data, and lacks
acknowledgement that knowledge acquired is tentative. An alternative, partially-informed belief
is that technological developments enable scientists to accumulate knowledge and changes to
understanding occur, but omits that “old” knowledge is discarded. A third example is the belief
that imagination plays a limited role in science, such as enabling a scientist to devise an
experiment. This improves on the naïve position that imagination has no role to play, but falls
short of the informed view.
Science Teachers’ Beliefs about the Nature of Science in Practice
Teachers’ beliefs about science have been studied by researchers including Lederman
(1999), who followed five experienced biology teachers over one year in a multi-method study.
Data indicate teachers’ science beliefs were informed, as they believed scientific knowledge to be
tentative; acknowledged the role of creativity and imagination; understood differences between
8|Page
observation and inference and between theories and laws; and accepted science knowledge is
embedded in society and culture (p. 922). However, only two of the five taught science in a
manner consistent with their beliefs and did so unintentionally. These two teachers’ practices
aimed to develop students’ enjoyment, confidence, and abilities in science. A third teacher
believed that conveying a body of basic facts was important, as other features of science were
too abstract for her students to learn. Two (less experienced) teachers believed that developing
secure classroom management took precedence over teaching nature of science. Thus, despite
holding informed views, none explicitly taught their NOS beliefs.
Waters-Adams (2006) reports dominance of practice over beliefs among four primary
(elementary) teachers. In this case, participants held naïve beliefs about science centred on
science as a body of knowledge and a hypothetic-deductive rationale. Waters-Adams found that
teachers wrestled with dissonance between their NOS beliefs and teaching practices, over time
becoming confident in teaching science when beliefs aligned with their understandings of
appropriate pedagogy. Waters-Adams notes that “a teacher is also preoccupied with his or her
children’s position relative to the knowledge he or she has to teach” (p. 937). He positioned NOS
beliefs last in the “direction of influence” on teachers’ practices, following beliefs about
teaching, children, and curriculum.
The extent to which professional development may alter teachers’ NOS views was
investigated by Faikhamta (2013). He probed NOS views of 25 Thai in-service teachers before
and after an intervention promoting NOS teaching. Coding for Magnusson et al.’s (1999)
orientations, he reports that initially teachers chose instructional strategies consistent with
project-based, process, discovery, and guided inquiry orientations for NOS teaching. None
showed activity-driven or didactic orientations. Post-intervention, the inquiry orientation
dominated. Faikhamta also discerned teachers’ NOS beliefs from documentary evidence,
categorising these into three levels. Pre-intervention, about 60% held partially informed beliefs.
These included viewing science as developing students’ observation and hypothesising skills;
and answering questions about nature. Informed beliefs included acknowledging the process of
knowledge generation involving empirical evidence, drawing conclusions, utilising an element of
subjectivity, creativity, and embracing uncertainty in knowledge. Naïve beliefs included science
comprising a body of knowledge and an explanation for natural phenomena. Although more
teachers showed informed beliefs post-intervention, a significant proportion retained partially-
informed beliefs. These data suggest that developing teachers’ beliefs about NOS seems separate
from enhancing their instructional strategies, a pattern consistent with Waters-Adams (2006) and
Lederman (1999).
Science Teachers’ Initial Beliefs about Teaching
Research evidence points to initial beliefs being hard to change. PSTs’ initial STOs
emerge from their primary and secondary education experiences (Brown, Friedrichsen & Abell,
2013) a feature Pajares (1992) calls “insider” beliefs. These can be limited to “telling” students
information, as Brown et al.’s (2013) investigation of PCK developed by four prospective
biology teachers found. This matches Magnusson et al.’s (1999) Didactic orientation.
Participants in Brown et al.’s study persisted in sequencing instruction to prioritise didactic
transmission, leading to the conclusion that their beliefs (i.e., STOs) resisted change. The authors
9|Page
suggest that to develop practice, teacher education must prompt dissatisfaction with “telling” and
be explicit about active science teaching styles.
Schwarz and Gwekwerere (2007) also show that moving PSTs’ orientations from initial
positions is challenging and inconsistent. Their case study data, obtained from twenty-four pre-
service elementary teachers, showed initial dominance of Activity-driven and Didactic
orientations. The teachers participated in a one-semester long intervention to prompt change to
Guided Inquiry. Overall, post-intervention, fourteen categorised themselves as holding the
desired Guided-Inquiry orientation. Of ten remaining, two each held Didactic and Activity-
Driven orientations; two were categorised as Inquiry and four as Conceptual Change. The
authors imply a hierarchy of orientations, regarding Didactic and Activity-Driven negatively and
“reform-oriented” orientations such as Conceptual change, Inquiry and Guided Inquiry as
positive and desirable.
Kang (2008) also found PSTs’ initial beliefs persisted following instruction. She
investigated connections between PSTs’ ontological and epistemological beliefs. Kang found
three patterns: eleven of twenty-three PSTs retained their initial epistemological beliefs and
enacted these in teaching; seven developed and enacted beliefs different from their initial ones;
the remainder did not enact their beliefs. As Schwarz and Gwekwerere (2007) report, PSTs’
emerging teaching practices do not necessarily reflect initial personal epistemologies and
espoused teaching goals. Inconsistencies between beliefs and actions occur, and PSTs vary in
their tendency to change these as they progress through teacher education.
Summary and Research Questions
Literature reviewed above illuminates theoretical and methodological issues associated

with science teaching orientations and beliefs about science. The Magnusson model STOs
represent possible theoretical rather than secure, evidence-based orientations. Their origins vary
and data supporting their existence is insecure. Hence, the first research question this paper seeks
to answer is:
 What evidence for any of the nine science teaching orientations proposed
by Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko (1999) is demonstrated in written PCK statements by
pre-service science teachers (PSTs)?
The nature of STOs is imprecisely defined as comprising knowledge and/or beliefs.

Theoretical positions (Nespor, 1987; Lewis, 1990) provide background reasoning for this, but not
resolution. Establishing if any distinction is observed in STOs held by PSTs would be helpful.
Friedrichsen et al. (2011) propose that studies combining beliefs about science and STOs may
resolve issues relating to STOs. Research evidence suggests graduate scientist PSTs’ beliefs
about science are likely to vary. The second and third research questions investigate this and
examine any overlap between PSTs’ STOs and beliefs about science. Thus, for the same
population of PSTs answering the first research question,
 What beliefs about science do PSTs hold? and:
10 | P a g e
 To what extent do PSTs’ beliefs about science align with their science
teaching orientations?
Context
Data were collected from a convenience sample of 237 PSTs attending a full-time initial
teacher education course, the “Postgraduate Certificate in Education” (PGCE) at a university in
northern England. The PGCE qualification is available at many higher education institutions in
England and Wales. Obtaining a PGCE is a popular route to gaining “Qualified Teacher Status”
(Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2008) leading to employment as a teacher. Full-
time PGCE programs span one academic year from September to June. Time is divided between
twenty-four weeks of teaching practice in two contrasting schools and twelve weeks work in a
university or college. This Science PGCE program provides initial teacher education for teaching
science to 11-14s, and a “specialist” science (physics, chemistry, or biology) to 14-16s.
Potential teachers meet national entry requirements (Universities and Colleges

Admissions Service, 2014), which when data were collected included holding a degree graded
2:21 or better (see Table 2). Some PSTs did not meet this threshold due to: strict government
requirements to fill all places; faculty allocating places across all three specialist sciences; more
applications from biology- than physical science-related graduates; mitigating circumstances
contributing to poor academic outcomes; and outcomes of interview assessments of applicants’
suitability for teaching. Thus, in admitting PSTs to the program competition for biology places
and vacancies in physics were considered with requirements to fill all places, treat applicants
fairly and judgments of suitability. A majority of these PSTs are regarded as academically able.
PSTs’ backgrounds may contribute to the quality and type of beliefs about teaching and learning
science.
PSTs’ scientific backgrounds decide their specialist, or “in-field” science subjects. PSTs’
backgrounds are diverse. Biology teachers hold degrees in biology or related subjects including
biomedical science and ecology. Those specializing in chemistry hold degrees in chemistry or
related subjects such as biochemistry or geology. Some physics specialists’ degrees are in
physics or theoretical physics, but most hold physics-related backgrounds in subjects such as
astrophysics or mechanical engineering. PSTs’ backgrounds may contribute to their beliefs about
the nature of science.
PSTs’ Backgrounds
Table 2 shows over half are biological science graduates. This is consistent with
anecdotal evidence about similar programs elsewhere.
[TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
1
UK undergraduate degrees are awarded in five grades: “First” (Equivalent to secured marks 70+ / US Grade Point Average (GPA) 4.00
/German “Outstanding” /Australian “High Distinction”); “2:1” (60-69/ GPA 3.3-3.9 /Substantially above average/ Distinction); “2:2” (50 – 59 /
GPA 3.0 – 3.2 / Good average / Credit); “Third” (40-49/GPA 2.3 – 2.9 / Average / Pass); and “Ordinary” (35 – 40 / 2.0 – 2.2/ Barely meets
requirements/ Fail)
11 | P a g e
Most non-biologist PSTs are chemists, creating imbalance in subject group sizes. Most
PSTs are graduates aged 21-25 choosing teaching as their first career. A higher proportion of
chemists are mature entrants changing career. Chemical companies located near the university
enable recruitment of well-qualified, experienced chemists. More chemists, with the oldest age
profile, also hold higher degrees. Degree class data show biologists have higher quality
bachelor’s degrees than chemists or physicists. More physicists hold low-class degrees. Relevant
master degrees were in science subjects. Non-relevant master qualifications were in subjects
such as law and psychiatric nursing. PSTs’ ethnicity comprised 95% white British or European
(Spanish, Irish, Greek) with the remainder being Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Chinese) or African
(Nigerian, Ghanaian).
Methodology and Data Analysis
This is a mixed methods study (Merriam, 2002) in which data were collected from 237
PSTs between 2005 and 2007 (2005 n = 43; 2006 n = 48; 2007 n = 48) and 2009-2010 (2009 n =
44; 2010 n = 54) by written questionnaire in September each year at the start of their one-year
full-time teacher education programmes (see Context). Background contextual data about PSTs’
degrees in science, possession of higher degrees, age, gender and science teaching specialism
were collected (Table 2). Data collection was timed prior to science methods, teaching
instruction classes and teaching practice periods. PSTs were given one hour under examination
conditions to complete the written tasks, with extra time if necessary. They were encouraged to
give as full and detailed responses as possible. The author stressed there was no “right” or
“wrong” answer to any question. Data were collected in accordance with the university’s ethical
code for research involving human subjects, which aligns with British Educational Research
Association (updated, 2011) guidelines. PSTs were informed that data were collected for research
purposes only; that information given was completely independent of PGCE progress
assessments; participation was optional; data were not kept in formats enabling identification of
individuals; and individuals would remain anonymous in any publications.
Although PSTs comprise a convenience sample, this is advantageous in that all were
selected using identical, consistent procedures annually by the same faculty. A faculty member
(author) engaged in data collection, then taught and was involved in PST progress assessment.
Independence of data-gathering procedures from PGCE program content and assessment was
guaranteed by the author. No queries or issues relating to data collection or ethics procedures
have ever been raised at any time either during the data collection period or since.
The Data Collection Instrument
The vignettes (Appendix 1) probed thinking about three topics taught to 11-14 year olds
in English state-funded secondary schools (DfES, 2004). Producing a new substance in a
chemical reaction, electricity flow in a simple circuit and plant growth via photosynthesis were
selected as characteristic of chemistry, physics, and biology respectively. Care was taken to avoid
potential overlap to prevent repeat responses without PSTs’ clear intent. The decision to use
vignettes emerged from extensive reading of methods for probing PCK (Author, 2009). Veal’s
(2002) content-specific vignettes offer classroom-based scenarios that invite a range of
12 | P a g e
responses. The vignettes were preceded in the questionnaire by three questions, including “What
is your definition for science?” This is based on question 1 in Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell
and Schwartz’s (2002) Views about the Nature of Science-Form C (VNOS-Form C) questionnaire
and so seemed suitable for gathering data about PSTs’ beliefs about science.
Coding PSTs’ Written Statements for Evidence of Science Teaching Orientations
Content analysis procedures (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Ryan & Barnard, 2000) were
applied to PSTs’ responses. Each was assessed for evidence of any of nine STOs (Magnusson et
al. 1999, p. 100-101) using definitions in Table 1. Responses were allocated a code number from
1-9 for entry into an Excel (Microsoft Office 2010) spreadsheet. For example, a PST’s response
coded “1” represented a “Didactic” orientation, while 4 represented “Conceptual Change.”
Responses coded 0 were “Content Knowledge (CK) only.” These showed no evidence of any
orientation but stated scientific knowledge. Table 3 shows numbers of responses in each
category. Table 4 gives exemplars. No responses corresponded to descriptors for Project-based
and Guided Inquiry orientations, so zero is recorded in Table 3 and these are omitted from Table
4. “No response/uncodeable” was recorded when PSTs did not respond, or responded with no
evidence of either content knowledge or an orientation. Responses were not excluded for stating
incorrect content knowledge or unrealistic instructional strategies. Although responses did not
show more than one orientation, on initial reading some could be coded in two or occasionally
three ways. Thus, to arrive at a reliable coding scheme, repeated readings and revisions were
undertaken to achieve consistency. Experienced faculty in each subject (physics, chemistry,
biology) were invited to confirm coding of a 25% sample, including potentially dually code-able
responses. The following description and Table 4 present the outcomes of this process.
Responses coded as consistent with Academic Rigour (Tables 1 and 4) described a

sequence of activities for students relating to the classroom situation in the vignettes. Responses
coded Conceptual Change also showed this feature. A consistent distinguishing quality in
Conceptual Change-coded responses was reference to students’ knowledge pre- and post-
teaching (see Table 4 Line 2). Academic Rigour responses did not mention prior knowledge or
changes in students’ misconceptions, but focused on student-centred activities, with the teacher
assuming tabula rasa (see Table 4 Line 3).
Academic Rigour and Didactic both involve knowledge verification. The Didactic
orientation focuses on passive development of student learning. Academic Rigour emphasises
connecting activities to verify concepts in ways likely to lead to students’ deeper understanding
(compare Table 4 Lines 1 and 3). Didactic responses utilise “I would explain/tell/show
/demonstrate…” to inform students about the “real” scientific or “correct” position described in a
vignette. The link to the vignette is explicit. Academic Rigour responses draw on additional
relevant information, proposing an extended sequence that builds knowledge of featured
concepts. These responses include associated or higher order concepts not mentioned in a
vignette, such as energy, patterns in chemical reactions and photosynthesis. Academic Rigour
responses focus on students’ learning; the word “I” is not used.
Responses coded for evidence of an Inquiry orientation (Tables 1 and 4) adopted a

questioning stance and included reference to students carrying out their own experiment(s).
13 | P a g e
Discovery shares the Inquiry orientation emphasis on student experiments, but differs in the
degree of structure (compare Table 4, Lines 5 and 6). A Discovery orientation emphasises pupils’
self-discovery through experimentation, with the teacher standing back (for example, the
biologist’s response to the biology vignette). No conceptual ideas are mentioned. An Inquiry
orientation response focuses around a central idea or concept under teacher direction. Inquiry
responses draw on related ideas, such as heat, energy, and photosynthesis, and/ or the concepts’
abstract nature.
Two responses were consistent with a Process orientation (Table 4, Line 7). These
included statements suggesting development of new knowledge, and implied students would
undertake a confirmatory practical activity. These differ from Inquiry responses discussed above.
Responses coded Activity-driven gave generalised statements (Table 4, Line 4) about

possible questions and student-focused tasks. Relevant correct content knowledge was often
absent. Evidence for incorrect content knowledge was present (for example, the physics vignette
response, Table 4). CK only responses (Table 4, Line 9) are the opposite of Activity-driven,
showing nothing about how information should be presented to students.
Coding PSTs’ Responses to “What is your definition for science?”
PSTs’ responses to “What is your definition for ‘science’?” were analysed using content
analysis procedures. Twelve non-pre-determined categories (Table 5, Column 2) emerged. These
were grouped into naïve, partially informed, and informed categories (Table 5, Column 1) based
on descriptors in NOS literature (see above). Naïve beliefs (Schwartz & Lederman, 2008) are
consistent with science being a fixed body of knowledge; finding an absolute “truth;” science for
positive social benefits; and studying the world, or how “things are.” Informed beliefs (also
Schwartz & Lederman, 2008) indicate science knowledge as tentative, involving investigation
and intellectual curiosity in order to develop rules, theories and models. Partially-informed
beliefs recognise the role of experimental practice, implying application of a specific scientific
method to acquire “objective” knowledge that adds to pre-existing information and explains
phenomena/experiences. Exemplar responses are shown from PSTs in each subject specialist
sub-group. “None” is used where no example was available. Percentages of the total sample
giving each response type are shown in Column 3 (Table 5).
Examining Alignment between PSTs’ Science Teaching Orientations and Beliefs about
Science
Data were examined to investigate if PSTs’ beliefs about science align with their STOs.
For this analysis, orientation definitions (Table 1) were cross-matched with naïve, partially-
informed, and informed belief descriptors (Table 5) producing Table 6. Didactic and Academic
Rigour orientations present science as a fixed body of knowledge comprising mainly facts and
concepts to be learned. This is consistent with naïve beliefs about science, which emphasise
understanding natural phenomena and searching for objective truth about the world. Discovery
and Guided Inquiry are consistent with partially-informed beliefs. These acknowledge science is
an empirical subject, involving making and testing predictions and data collection by
14 | P a g e
investigation, but do not emphasise knowledge is tentative and may be discarded. Inquiry,
Process, Conceptual Change, and Project-based align more closely with informed beliefs. These
emphasise uncertainty in knowledge, the possibility of rigorous investigation by different
methods, and application of intellectual curiosity to arrive at, for example, a new explanatory
theory. Conceptual Change specifically assumes that knowledge is tentative and subject to
change and allows for the possibility of changing students’ NOS beliefs towards an informed
view. The Activity-Driven orientation definition does not match any proposed NOS belief, so is
excluded from this analysis.
Data were examined to establish consistency between PSTs’ STO codes and NOS beliefs.
This analysis included only data from 118 PSTs who responded to all three vignettes with
evidence of an orientation (see Table 3) AND answered “What is your definition for science?” as
shown in Table 5. This analysis excluded PSTs giving CK-only, uncodeable or no response to
one or more vignettes and/or the NOS beliefs question. These counts resulted in Table 7.
Findings
PSTs’ science teaching orientations
Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko’s (1999) STO definitions are sufficiently detailed and
discriminating to form a reliable coding scheme for PSTs’ written vignette responses (Tables 3
and 4).
Table 3 shows Didactic, Academic Rigour, Conceptual Change, Inquiry, and Activity-
Driven STOs dominate responses to all three vignettes. Three, Didactic, Academic Rigour, and
Conceptual Change, represent about two-thirds of responses. Around 79% of responses to the
chemistry vignette were coded Didactic, Conceptual Change, or Academic Rigour. Comparison
figures for biology and physics were about 60% and 58% respectively. The chemistry vignette
generated these STOs most frequently among PSTs in all three subject specialist sub-groups.
This suggests the chemistry concept was understood by most PSTs, who were eager to
disseminate their knowledge. Conversely, the physics vignette generated the lowest proportions
of these three STOs, accounting for only around 50% of chemists’ and 59% of biologists’
responses. The biology and physics vignettes prompted higher numbers of other STOs than the
chemistry vignette: around 6% of biology responses were coded Inquiry; while 11% of physics
vignette responses were coded Activity-Driven and approximately 3% Discovery.
Didactic alone represents about 50% of all responses (Tables 3 and 4). The Didactic
definition (Table 1) describes an intuitive “teacher” instinct to explain, tell, or show confirmed
knowledge (see examples, Table 4). Responses suggesting questioning and reminding students
were also coded Didactic, for example:-
“Question the suggestion of the ash theory more. Ask about the reactive components of air… Suggest
this may be a component of the reaction. Ask about the burning reaction of something else they may have seen…”
(Chemist, chemistry vignette)
15 | P a g e
“I would remind the pupils of what an ammeter does and how a bulb works. I would then draw the
[circuit] diagram on the board with boxes all around it. Students would then come up and fill in what the
ammeter readings would be. Being all the same, the students would see this.” (Biologist, physics vignette)
The Didactic definition is satisfied in multiple ways compared to other STOs which
require fulfilment of specific qualities (Table 1). Second, the vignettes may unintentionally
prompt didactic-style responses. Each presents a misconceptions-based situation inviting
respondents to address students’ ideas. About half of respondents excluded student knowledge
statements, describing the scientific position only, thus being coded Didactic. They may have
assumed there was no need to refer back to students’ understandings. However, this shows PSTs
focused on teacher content knowledge transmission, not students’ perspectives. Thus, although
the vignettes may be a limitation, responses are likely to reliably represent PSTs’ thinking about
the situations. Evidence collected from experienced teachers (currently under analysis) indicates
that shifting to considering students’ thinking in planning and delivering lessons takes time.
About 15% of all responses seemed consistent with Conceptual Change (about 8%) and
Academic Rigour (7%) orientations. The frequency of these responses varied across vignettes.
About 7% of biology and 8% of physics vignette responses corresponded to Conceptual Change,
compared to 10% for the chemistry vignette. This suggests more PSTs understood and could
handle students’ chemistry misconceptions. Similarly, the chemistry vignette drew more
Academic Rigour-coded responses (10%) compared to about 4% and 6% for biology and physics
vignettes respectively. This indicates PSTs’ familiarity with relevant additional concepts,
including combustion, oxidation of metals, and symbolic representations. The biology vignette,
presented last in the questionnaire, may have generated lower numbers of Academic Rigour
responses due to respondent fatigue, as PSTs devoted less time to completing this in sufficient
detail to satisfy the definition. However, Table 3 shows only five fewer PSTs gave Academic
Rigour responses to the biology vignette compared to physics, which was presented second.
Thus, numbers affected by fatigue are likely to be small.
About 5% of responses were Activity-Driven. Table 3 shows the physics vignette

prompted more Activity-Driven responses (11%) than biology (1%) or chemistry (1.6%).
Anderson and Smith (1987) indicate this STO may arise when a teacher possesses poor quality
subject-matter knowledge: in this case, Activity-Driven responses occurred most frequently when
biologists responded to the physics vignette (Table 4). PSTs proposed children testing the electric
circuit, implying this would be sufficient to ensure understanding of constant current.
Twenty-four responses (3.4%) showed evidence of the Inquiry orientation, split between
fourteen for biology and five each for physics and chemistry vignettes. This low overall figure is
surprising, given that investigations have featured in UK school science education since the
1990s (DfES, 1989). Biology vignette Inquiry-coded responses cited experiments to provide firm
evidence for plant growth conditions. These share a characteristic with the Activity-Driven
responses given to the physics vignette discussed above, as PSTs propose activities to prompt
children “seeing” and therefore understanding a phenomenon without a teacher-based
explanation. Across the three sciences, Inquiry-coded responses proposed investigations of
varying degrees of openness (Table 4). The biology response proposes students raising their own
16 | P a g e
questions; the physics response proposes a controlled experiment; and chemistry response
suggests inviting the class to hypothesise.
Two responses to the biology vignette were consistent with Process. No responses in over
700 were consistent with definitions for Guided Inquiry and Project-Based. Evidence supporting
a Guided Inquiry orientation requires adaptation of contexts for investigation, and scaffolding
students’ learning. Teaching this way requires managing student-led investigations in contextual
settings. The Project-Based orientation requires use of an authentic, organising question to
mimic scientific practice. These orientations derive from specific curricula (Table 1).
About 18% of responses showed no orientation but described science, so were coded
Content Knowledge only.
PSTs’ Beliefs about Science
Table 5 shows exemplar responses and percentages coded as Informed (14.3%), Partially
Informed (38.4%) and Naïve (43.5%). Data suggest that these classifications are sufficiently
discriminating to code PSTs’ responses reliably. The style and content of responses varied across
subject-specialist sub-groups. For example, biologists tended to draw on medical or biological
examples (see Table 5, “to gain positive social benefit”, Biologist). Chemists and physicists
focused on application of experimental method, objectivity, systematic processes, and logical
thinking.
The most common belief, held by about one-quarter of respondents, is the Naïve response
that science is studying or understanding “how the world works.” This was expressed in slightly
different ways depending on PSTs’ science background. Subject-specialist PST sub-group data
(not reported in Table 5) show 45% of physicists favoured this (although numbers are small),
compared to around 20% of biologists and chemists. Less frequent responses include fourteen
coded “body of knowledge” (Table 5, line 11) and the idealistic response that science generates
positive benefits (Table 5, line 12). Around 5% in total stated science is studying “how things
are.” This response was given by 9% of biologists but few chemists and physicists.
About 45% of chemists compared to 40% of biologists and 23% of physicists stated a
Partially Informed belief. The higher figures for biologists and chemists may correspond to
greater involvement in open-ended experimental work compared to physicists. For example,
responses coded “investigations” comprised twenty-one (16%) biologists, seven (10%) chemists
and only two physicists. Similarly, a higher proportion of physicists (13%) stated “application of
scientific method”, compared to only 9% of chemists and 4% of biologists.
Informed responses were given by about one in seven of all PSTs, and small proportions
of specialist science sub-groups. No background factors, such as possession of higher degree or
age, corresponded with possession of informed beliefs.
17 | P a g e
Alignment between PSTs’ Beliefs about Science and their Science Teaching Orientations
Table 6 shows theoretical alignments of PSTs’ beliefs about science with STOs. Table 7
shows corresponding data.
[TABLES 6 and 7 ABOUT HERE]
Alignment patterns in Table 7 do not match those predicted in Table 6 consistently. Only
five responses were coded Inquiry, Process or Conceptual Change from twenty PSTs stating
informed beliefs. Only three vignette responses were coded Discovery, although 47 PSTs
indicated they held partially informed beliefs. However, alignment is observed between naïve
beliefs, Didactic and Academic Rigour STOs. For example, this biologist illustrates alignment
between belief that “science is study of the world” and the Didactic STO:-
“Science is the study of everything around us, involving biology, chemistry or physics” (Naïve, Study of
the world)
“Speak to them about the chemical reaction involved and what were the products… this would be done in a
discussion with the whole class…” (Chemistry vignette, Didactic)
“I would talk to them about the theory behind electricity and that electricity is not used up…” (Physics
vignette, Didactic)
“Talk to them about how the plant makes energy with photosynthesis and how it takes up nutrients and
water from the soil…” (Biology vignette, Didactic)
Alignment also occurred between all belief categories and Academic Rigour / Didactic
STOs.
Inspection of responses revealed alignments additional to those proposed in Table 6. For

example, this physicist stated that science is:-
“…the development of models that describe the Universe based on observation. They allow us to use and
understand the properties of the world and make informed choices.” (Informed; Rules, theories, models)
His vignette responses all proposed use of models or analogies, but met the Didactic
definition:
“I would use Duplo® bricks of different colours to represent the different atoms and allow the children to
use them to work through the reaction on the desk with these bricks…” (Chemistry vignette, Didactic)
“Use ping pong [table tennis] balls. A basket of ping pong balls would be the battery. Another would be the
bulb. Children would be electrons and file round the room…” (Physics vignette, Didactic)
“I would compare the plant to humans breathing and eating.” (Biology vignette, Didactic)
This suggests alignment between STO and “beliefs about science” by descriptors alone is
imperfect.
Discussion
18 | P a g e
The Nature of PSTs’ Science Teaching Orientations
Based on this dataset, PSTs’ STOs classify consistently as Didactic, Academic Rigour,
Conceptual Change, Inquiry, or Activity-Driven. This finding is consistent with Anderson and
Smith (1987) and Lantz and Kass (1987). The dominance of these STOs suggests they are
representative, intuitive teacher attributes in well-qualified science graduates. Four STOs
(Process, Discovery, Guided Inquiry, and Project-based) are based on curriculum projects, some
out-dated. Low/zero response levels arose partly because these PSTs lacked exposure to these
projects. Hence, these are not intuitive STOs for these PSTs and do not represent their proposed
teaching practices. Although procedural and other reasons may contribute to this response pattern
(see Limitations, below), all respondents had complete freedom to respond as they wished.
Consistent response patterns were found in a large population of PSTs over a five-year period.
Data corroborate Anderson and Smith (1987) in finding the Didactic orientation
dominates. The Didactic orientation encompasses teacher actions such as “explaining,” “telling,”
and “showing” knowledge. As data were collected prior to engagement in a teacher education
program, PSTs’ statements represent cultural transmission favouring Didactic teaching as PSTs
drew on past “insider” experiences as students and employees (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992).
PSTs’ Beliefs About Science
Data provide evidence that these science graduates hold mainly naïve and partially
informed beliefs about science. Few hold informed beliefs. This confirms Lederman et al.’s
(2002) and Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson’s (2009) categorisations and, as far as the author is
aware, represents a novel finding for a relatively large population of PSTs. The low level of
informed beliefs is unexpected as all PSTs are qualified scientists, some with significant
scientific experience. One factor may be that asking one “beliefs” question gives an incomplete
picture, representing only PSTs’ most instinctive thoughts. A larger proportion of the cohort may
have shown beliefs characteristic of an informed view on responding to additional questions.
Nevertheless, that consistent response patterns showing naïve and partially informed notions
rather than sophisticated informed beliefs were obtained over five years is significant.
Alignment between PSTs’ Beliefs about Science and their Orientations
Connections between STOs and epistemological beliefs were mixed. The dominant
Didactic and Academic Rigour STOs seemed to override all three belief categories. Thus, where
the predicted combination between naïve and these STOs occurred, connections were strong.
Elsewhere, connections were limited or non-existent.
Tentatively, these data suggest PSTs’ instinctive ideas about teaching and learning science
more strongly influenced their responses than their beliefs about science. These PSTs’ STOs are
personal, intuitive proposals, separate from partially informed and informed beliefs about
science. Revisiting Friedrichsen et al. (2011), these data suggest that STOs comprise notions
about learning and teaching science, but are inconclusive about “beliefs about science” as a
component. Further, these data imply support for Nespor’s (1987) arguments, but contradict
19 | P a g e
Lewis (1990) in showing that knowledge and beliefs relating to orientations appear to be
separate, not synonymous.
Implications
Defining PSTs’ Science Teaching Orientations: Clarification
The study aimed to clarify the nature of STOs as a PCK component, testing aspects of
Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) proposals from PSTs’ perspectives. An implication emerging is that
PSTs’ STOs more strongly emphasise notions about teaching and learning science than their
beliefs about science. Hence, PSTs’ STOs could be defined as “ideas and knowledge about
learning and teaching science.” STOs may vary according to teachers’ experiences and expertise
so will not necessarily remain constant throughout a career. However, research reviewed above
suggests that changing teachers’ intuitive STOs is challenging. The dominance of Didactic
practices linked to naïve beliefs about science, may, if left unaltered, mean that achieving high-
quality science teaching and learning may be problematic. Including beliefs about science in an
STO definition should be withheld until confirmatory evidence justifies this. For the moment,
these may be more usefully classified as aspects of a teacher’s subject-matter knowledge.
A Developmental Science Teaching Orientations Continuum
A second implication is that the Magnusson model STOs are simplified to five: Academic
Rigour, Didactic, Conceptual Change, Inquiry, and Activity Driven. The remaining four STOs,
Discovery, Process, Guided Inquiry, and Project-based, should be reclassified as curriculum
knowledge. These five STOs (Table 4) can be represented on a continuum (Figure 1).
[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Activity-Driven responses are the lowest quality. An Activity-Driven instructional strategy

does not generate student learning. One step up is the Didactic orientation, which promotes
student learning often via teacher-centred instructional strategies. A precursor for the Didactic
STO is possession of relevant content knowledge. The Academic Rigour orientation features
sequenced activities and links to additional concepts. This develops the Didactic STO, requiring
a teacher to possess deep content knowledge allied to conceptual understanding. The Conceptual
Change and Inquiry orientations represent higher quality teaching. These involve taking
students’ prior knowledge into account and /or promoting learning via investigative techniques.
Instructional strategies consistent with these STOs require teachers to adopt student-centred
perspectives on their practice. The continuum may be useful to teacher educators in supporting
PSTs as they progress in their practice, contributing to developing and retaining a strong student
learning focus. To achieve this, teacher education programs may characterise STOs usefully in
terms of teaching and learning, explicitly relating these to science concepts, scientific knowledge
and aspects of the nature of science as appropriate.
Limitations
20 | P a g e
The study is exploratory and limited by the fact that PSTs attended one institution.
However, data were collected over five years. Response patterns were consistent, suggesting
reliability. Only one data source is utilised. Vignettes were limited, as they featured one science
concept each. The open structure permitted freedom of response. Few null or uncodeable
responses were obtained, implying most PSTs understood the vignettes, recognised the concepts
presented, and could respond adequately in the permitted time. Only one “beliefs about science”
question was posed. Corroborative data using a full “beliefs about NOS” questionnaire would be
useful. Additional data from additional vignettes, observation, and/or interviews would help
confirm these findings.
21 | P a g e
References
Abell, S.K. (2007). Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In S.K. Abell, and N.G. Lederman,
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (1104 – 1149). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on

preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of
Science Education, 31, 2161–2184.
Adey, P. (2001). 160 years of science education: an uncertain link between theory and practice.
School Science Review, 82, 41-48.
Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and
preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science
Education, 20(1), 45–58.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Commission on Science

Education (1963 – 1983). Science a Process Approach. Retrieved from
http://archives.aaas.org/aids/SAPA.php
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for All Americans. New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C.W. & Smith, E.L. (1987). Teaching Science. In V. Richardson-Koehler, (Editor),
Educators’ Handbook A Research Perspective (84 – 111). London: Longman
Arzi, H., & White, R. (2007). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17-year
longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221–251.
Author (2009)
Avraamidou, L. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’ science teaching orientations and

experiences that impacted their development. International Journal of Science Education,
35 (10), 1698 – 1724.
Ball, D.L. and Forzani, F.M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher? The Phi Delta Kappan,
92 (2), 8 – 12.
Barnett, J. (2003). Review of Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its
Implications for Science Education, by Julie Gess-Newsome and Norman G. Lederman,
1999. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, Netherlands. Science Education, 87, 615 – 618.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (2006). BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach Level 1.
22 | P a g e
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (2013). Retrieved from http://www.bscs.org/history .
Borko, H. & Puttnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to Teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee, (Eds.),
Handbook of Educational Psychology (673 – 708). New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan
British Educational Research Association (2011). Ethical guidelines for Educational Research.
Retrieved from http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-Ethical-
Guidelines-2011.pdf
Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P. & Abell, S.K. (2013). The development of prospective secondary
biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
24, 133 – 155.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S.E. & Major, L.E. (2014). What makes great teaching? Retrieved
from http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/What-makes-great-teaching-
FINAL-4.11.14.pdf London: The Sutton Trust
Crocker, R.K. (1983). The functional paradigms of teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 8
(4), 350 – 361.
Crocker, R.K. (1984). Determinants of implementation of an elementary science program.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (2), 211 – 220.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher Education and the American Future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61, 35 – 47.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Department for Education (DfE, 2010). The importance of teaching. London: The Stationery
Office
Department for Education (DfE, 2013). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208682/Teac
hers__Standards_2013.pdf
23 | P a g e
Department for Education (DfE, 2013). Science programmes of study Key Stage 3 The National
Curriculum in England. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Science (DfES, 1989). Science in the National Curriculum.
London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2004). The National Curriculum Science. London:
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving
science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 671 –
688.
Education Audio-visual Culture Executive Agency, EACEA (2011). Science Education in

Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: EACEA P9 Eurydice.
Retrieved from
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/133EN.pdf
Education Audio-visual Culture Executive Agency, EACEA (2012).Developing Key

Competencies at School in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy. Brussels:
EACEA P9 Eurydice. Retrieved from
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/145EN.pdf
Faikhamta, C. (2013). The Development of In-Service Science Teachers’ Understandings of and

Orientations to Teaching the Nature of Science within a PCK-Based NOS Course.
Research in Science Education, 43, 847–869.
Friedrichsen, P. (2002). A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondary biology

teachers’ science teaching orientations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(07),
2496A (UMI No. 3060018).
Friedrichsen, P., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Brown, P., Lankford, D., & Volkmann, M. (2009). Does
teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in
an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357 –
383.
Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J.H. & Abell, S.K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching
orientations. Science Education, 95 (2), 358 – 376.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher. Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
24 | P a g e
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for teachers Maximising impact on learning. London:
Routledge.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of

Science Education, 3(4), 383-96.
Kang, N.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: personal epistemologies, teaching goals and
practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478 – 498.
Karplus, R. (1964). The Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 2, 293 – 303.
Lantz, O. & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry Teachers’ Functional Paradigms. Science Education, 71
(1), 117 – 134.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers conception of the nature of science: A review of
the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers’ Understanding of the Nature of Science and Classroom
Practice: Factors That Facilitate or Impede the Relationship. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(8), 916 – 929
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of Nature of
Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’
Conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497 –
521.
Lee, E. & Luft, J.A. (2008). Experienced Secondary Science Teachers’ Representation of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10),
1343 – 1363.
Lewis, H. (1990). A question of values. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Livermore, A.H. (1964). The Process Approach of the AAAS Commission on Science Education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 271 – 282.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of
science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science
education: Rationales and strategies (3–39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical
content knowledge for science teaching. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G. (Eds.),
Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (95 – 132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25 | P a g e
Magnusson, S. & Palincsar, A.S. (1995). Learning environments as a site of science education
reform: An illustration using interdisciplinary guided inquiry. Theory into Practice, 34, (1)
43-50.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B. A., Kelly, B., et al..
(1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers.
Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517-538.
Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice Examples for Discussion and Analysis.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS, 2002). What teachers should know
and be able to do. Retrieved from
http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/what_teachers_should_know.pdf
National Research Council (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
19 (4), 317 – 328.
Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project (1961) retrieved from

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=100 -
kclcacnunuffcddcnu_2&cid=0#0
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 2013). Official statistics release: Initial Teacher
Education inspections and outcomes. London: Ofsted
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2014). PISA 2012 Results in
Focus: What students know and can do with what they know. Paris: OECD Publishing
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: clearing up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307 – 332.
Park, S.Y. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals.
Research in Science Education, 38, 261 –284.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gerzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211 – 227.
26 | P a g e
Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL, 2012-2014) retrieved June 10, 2015 from
https://pogil.org/about
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, QCA (1999). The National Curriculum. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office
Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B. & Pfister, M. (1993). LabNet Toward a Community of Practice.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ryan, G.W. & Bernard, H.R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin, N.K. &
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition (769 – 802). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Schwab, J.J. (1963). Biology Teachers’ Handbook. New York: Wiley
Schwarz, C.V. & Gwekwerere, V.N. (2007). Using a grounded inquiry and modeling
instructional framework to support pre-service K-8 science teaching. Science Education,
91, 158 – 186.
Schwartz, R.S. & Lederman, N.G. (2008). What scientists say. Scientists’ views of nature of
science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30,
727 – 771.
Settlage, J. (2013). On acknowledging PCK’s shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 24, 1 – 12.
Shulman, L.S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd
Edition (3 – 36). New York, Macmillan.
Shulman, L.S. (1986b). Those who understand: a conception of teacher knowledge. American
Educator, Spring 1986, 9 – 15 and p 43.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1 – 22.
Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the Science Teacher. Science Education, 67 (5), 657 – 672.
Training and Development Agency for Schools (2008). Professional Standards for
QualifiedTeacher Status and Requirements for Initial Teacher Training (Revised 2008).
Retrieved from http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/qts-professional-standards-2008.pdf
Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS, 2014). Teacher training entry
requirements. Retrieved from http://www.ucas.com/how-it-all-works/teacher-
training/entry-requirements
27 | P a g e
University of Michigan (2013). Great Lakes Science. Retrieved from

http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/lessons/teacher-tools/guided-inquiry-process/
University of York (2008). Salters Advanced Chemistry Chemical Ideas. 3rd Edition. Harlow:
Heinemann
Veal, W.R. (2002). Content specific vignettes as tools for research and teaching. Retrieved from
http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/veal.pdf
Warwick Process Science (1980). Retrieved from

http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/collection/1653/warwick-process-science
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The Relationship between Understanding of the Nature of Science and
Practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 28 (8), 919-944.
28 | P a g e
RUNNING HEAD: CLARIFYING ORIENTATIONS AND BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENCE
Curriculum
Curriculum /reform- (C) Possible teacher action:
Orientation Definition reform /Research- References Acids and bases
/ materials (R) based
Academic Provides a range of activities to Alberta R Lantz and Kass Shows a wide range of examples,
rigour verify concepts, showing links; Chemistry (1987) including non-typical; links topic to
represents science as a body of (ALCHEM) other areas, e.g. ions, solutions.
knowledge
Didactic Tells, shows, explains, questions None R Anderson and Smith Describes / defines “acid” and “base”;
students to verify knowledge; (1987) shows examples of acids and bases;
teacher presents content demonstrates reactions;
knowledge and focuses on
students’ recall
Activity- Offers hands-on activities, may None R Anderson and Smith Provides a range of acids and bases to
driven lack conceptual coherence (1987) test, e.g. pH, but little information.
Focuses on “fun” tasks.
Conceptual Asks for children’s views and None R Hewson (1981) Probes prior understanding of acids and
change helps establish valid claims; Anderson and Smith bases; uses this to plan activities that
prompts dissatisfaction with (1987) develop students’ understanding about
initial thinking and/or intuitive Duit and Treagust the topic.
ideas (2003)
Discovery Allows children to experiment Science C Karplus (1964) Poses conceptually-based questions
following their interests and Curriculum Anderson and Smith such as “What makes a substance
discover scientific concepts for Improvement (1987) acidic?” allowing students to investigate
themselves Study for themselves.
Nuffield
Curriculum
Projects
Process Science is a process creating new Science: A C American Focuses on developing skills, e.g.
knowledge; help students develop Process Association for the measuring pH using different indicators;
scientific skills Approach Advancement of making indicators from plants; how to
Science, (1963 – carry out a titration.
1983)
Gagné (1965)
Inquiry Represents science as inquiry; Biological C BSCS (1958, 2006, Offers opportunities to investigate
instruction requires students to Sciences 2008, 2010) questions such as “What kinds of
investigate problems & assess Curriculum Tamir (1983) chemicals are acids and bases?”
knowledge Study (BSCS):
An Inquiry
approach
Guided Participates in investigating, Gowin’s Vee C Novak and Gowin Presents contexts such as “How can we
Inquiry scaffolds learning to achieve Guided (1984) make glue from an acid and a base?”
students’ independence; adapts Inquiry Magnusson and Students work in groups to solve the
genuine scientific contexts for Process Palinscar (1995) problem with teacher support.
investigation environments Process University of
Oriented Michigan (2013)
Guided POGIL (2012 –
Inquiry 2014)
Learning
(POGIL)
Project- Uses a driving question to LabNet: C Ruopp, Gal, Drayton Asks “How do we use acids and bases?”
based organise concepts and activities; Toward a & Pfister (1993) Promotes experiments using real-life
students investigate authentic Community of Marx, Blumenfeld, examples
problems working “as a scientist” Practice Krajcik, Blunk,
Crawford, et al.
(1994)
Table 1: Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko’s (1999) science teaching orientations
30 | P a g e
All PSTs Biologists Chemists Physicists

Background characteristic N = 237 N = 128 N = 69 N = 40
Male 104 (43.9) 45 (35.2) 31 (44.9) 27 (67.5)
Female 133 (56.1) 83 (64.8) 38 (55.1) 13 (32.5)
Totals (percentages of whole sample) 237 (100.0) 128 (54.5) 69 (29.1) 40 (16.9)
Age
21 – 25 140 (59.0) 86 (67.2) 26 (37.7) 28 (70.0)
26 – 30 49 (20.7) 25 (19.5) 18 (26.0) 6 (15.0)
31 or over 48 (20.3) 17 (13.3) 25 (36.3) 6 (15.0)
Degree class
1st 26 (11.0) 9 (7.0) 9 (13.0) 8 (20.0)
2:1 93 (39.3) 60 (46.9) 24 (34.8) 9 (22.5)
2:2 84 (35.4) 45 (35.2) 23 (33.4) 16 (40.0)
3rd or other, e.g. overseas 34 (14.3) 14 (10.9) 13 (18.8) 7 (17.5)
Higher degree
None 191 (80.6) 105 (82.0) 49 (71.0) 37 (92.5)
PhD 16 (6.8) 6 (4.7) 10 (14.5) 0
Non-relevant Masters 8 (3.4) 5 (3.9) 2 (2.9) 1 (2.5)
Relevant Masters 19 (8.0) 12 (9.3) 7 (10.1) 0
Other 3 (1.2) 0 1 (1.4) 2 (5.0)
Figures in parentheses are percentages of n values relating to each column, except where indicated.
Table 2: PSTs’ background data: gender, age, degree class, possession of higher degree
31 | P a g e
Total responses Biologists’ responses Chemists’ responses Physicists’ responses

All to each vignette
Orientation responses Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry
Totals
Academic 47 9 14 24 8 8 13 1 2 8 0 4 3
Rigour (6.6) (3.8) (5.9) (10.1) (6.3) (6.3) (10.2) (11.6) (10.0) (7.5)
Didactic 363 118 105 140 66 60 77 31 28 42 21 17 21
(51.1) (49.8) (44.3) (59.1) (51.5) (46.9) (60.2) (44.9) (40.6) (60.9) (52.5) (42.5) (52.5)
Activity- 32 2 26 4 2 18 3 0 4 0 0 4 1
Driven (4.5) (0.8) (11.0) (1.7) (14.1) (5.8) (10.0)
Conceptual 60 16 20 24 8 8 12 5 5 8 3 7 4
change (8.4) (6.7) (8.4) (10.1) (6.3) (6.3) (9.4) (7.2) (7.2) (11.6) (7.5) (17.5) (10.0)
Discovery 11 4 7 0 2 2 0 1 4 0 1 1 0
(1.5) (2.9) (5.8)
Process 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inquiry 24 14 5 5 7 4 3 5 0 1 2 1 1
(3.4) (5.9) (5.5) (7.2)
Guided 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inquiry
Project- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
based
CK only 131 60 40 31 29 17 16 22 18 9 9 5 6
(18.4) (25.3) (16.9) (13.1) (22.7) (13.3) (12.5) (31.9) (26.1) (13.0) (22.5) (12.5) (15.0)
No 41 12 20 9 4 11 4 4 8 1 4 1 4
response/ (5.8) (5.1) (8.4) (3.8) (9.1) (5.8) (11.6) (10.0) (10.0)
uncodeable
Totals 711 237 128 69 40
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of the totals shown.
Table 3: Frequency of PSTs’ science teaching orientations shown in responses to vignettes in biology, physics and chemistry
32 | P a g e
Exemplar responses to each vignette

Orientation Biology Physics Chemistry
Academic “Ask, ‘How do plants/ trees get “Go back to the basics of electricity to “The class needs an understanding that it
Rigour water/nutrients from the soil?’ …draw a remind them what electricity is and how it is is O2 in the air that causes the reaction.
picture of different plants, without different a form of energy. Demonstrate that energy Therefore … perform the experiment
nutrients, P, K, N, so that they can see that cannot be created or destroyed, only demo again using another gas… Use a
without these the plant cannot grow. Then converted from one form to another and that diagram or molecular model to show the
explain photosynthesis [Equation light is a form of energy. Combine the ideas class the formation of the MgO2 (sic)…
provided]. The glucose produced is used to of energy and electricity to show that the Use a word equation to visualise the
provide energy for plant growth. Discuss conversion has no bearing on the ammeter information and talk about other metals
/explain suggestions – air – without soil reading. Further demonstration using a burning. Show that there is a pattern of
would the plant grow? Soil- without air / buzzer for sound should cause a similar result metal reactions with O2 to form oxides.”
CO2 would the plant grow? Air + soil – and would not limit the experiment to light (Chemist)
explain nutrients + photosynthesis.” only. Go over the basics of electricity and
(Biologist) current and energy.” (Biologist)
Didactic “I would advise...that plants are different to “Thought experiment, either with little bricks “introduce an idea of particles of
animals…I would advise that this process is or using children, of an electric circuit… We magnesium and oxygen in the air
called photosynthesis… I would inform the can show that in a circuit, the flow must be combining…explain the white light
students of the composition of the air…” constant… We can demonstrate why it would came from energy given off as particles
(Biologist) be equal on both sides.” (Physicist) combined and the ash was the mass of
particles coming together” (Biologist)
Activity “As regards minerals…students could carry “If resources are available then get pupils to “Encourage the class to discuss the
Driven out a series of experiments, e.g. one lacking carry out a practical and record both sets of responses and the reasons for the
in phosphate… from the air, if the plants results. Set up experiments that do “use” up responses. Remind the class of other
are placed in pots under airtight glass jars it electricity to show different examples.” lessons using similar concepts. Work
would be possible to remove CO2 from one (Chemist) through the equation [Not stated] with
jar to compare the effect of limiting the group. Use similar experiments to
chemicals from the air.” (Chemist) illustrate the point.” (Biologist)
Conceptual “I would explore the answers the children “1. Talk about current – ask question to “I would find out what students know
Change gave and use the information they should determine what they already know. 2. about reactions and combustion. I would
know about photosynthesis. [I would do] Discuss why it would not be higher or lower get the students to think in terms of
the experiment and have the children than before. 3. Ask why they thought it gases given off… I would also get the
explain the results…” (Biologist) would be the same. 4. Do experiment to show class to think about why it might be
it was the same as before. 5. Use open/closed oxygen… and relate it to any prior
questions to determine if children understand knowledge… I would show the chemical
the concept.” (Chemist) equation ... so that students can
33 | P a g e
understand and see what is reacting. I
would use a clear, exploratory and
knowledge building approach. I would
test students’ knowledge at the end.”
(Chemist)
Discovery “Allow the children to do this experiment “Use a practical in which the children would None
for themselves – using different methods, see for themselves and ask each group of
i.e. removal of carbon dioxide from around responses why they think that. When
one plant. See if a plant grows without soil discussed as a class, explain it fully.”
etc. Lots more discussion and questioning. (Biologist)
Try to allow the class to think it through
themselves, for a while.” (Biologist)
Process “Write the suggestions on an acetate [sheet None None
for use on an overhead projector] –
Brainstorming. Suggest the new scientific
theory – your idea + discuss + explain using
questions building on ‘the plant has just
grown’. Use a classroom activity to
reinforce this. Extend this knowledge with
an activity.” (Biologist)
Inquiry “Question pupils to find out their “Electricity and charge are “invisible” “They need to be taught that the heating
understanding and pre-conceptions of how concepts and so in order to explain them you is just a way of providing energy for the
plants grow then challenge them on their must show them in action… My question to reaction to happen. The teacher could
understanding. Ask the kids to think of the class would be “find out how the reading also get the class to hypothesise what
ways to investigate how to test their on the ammeter changes between the two set will happen and use the experiment to
theories. In addition explanations of the ups.” Each group would do the experiment prove or disprove this.” (Physicist)
detail of photosynthesis will be required.” and then we would discuss the results. I
(Chemist) would ask what they observed” (Physicist)
Content “Plants are special and can do a process “I would use an analogy of water flowing “What is inside the magnesium = atoms
knowledge called photosynthesis which takes energy through pipes and coming to a water wheel of magnesium. Therefore the white stuff
(CK) only from sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to (bulb) water isn’t used its conserved and pass can’t be inside the magnesium. When
produce simple sugars. The plant uses these on to complete its journey through the pipes.” the magnesium and oxygen react, they
sugars to grow and to survive.” (Chemist) (Chemist) form magnesium oxide.” (Biologist)
Note: Guided Inquiry and Project-based orientations are excluded as no examples were found.
Table 4: Exemplar PST responses coded for science teaching orientations using Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko’s (1999) definitions
Exemplar responses from
34 | P a g e
Category Science is … % A biologist A chemist A physicist
using skills to 5.9 “… a subject which provides “…understanding and “… a process of (a) creatively
investigate transferable skills used to analyse, exploration of the world and forming a hypothesis; (b) testing
tentative investigate and problem solve…” materials around us using this hypothesis against the
knowledge multiple disciplinary skills. It world; (c) building up detail.”
involves the use of key
scientific skills, evaluation and
Informed re-evaluation.”
(14.3%) intellectual 4.2 “… a foundation for the “…study of everything in the “… the basis of exploration and
curiosity development of curiosity and Universe to gain a deeper explanation.”
creativity as well as learning about knowledge of existence, etc.”
everyday life.”
to develop rules/ 4.2 “… the study, research into, and “…an attempt to qualify and “…the development of models
theories/ models application of the rules by which quantify our physical that describe the Universe based
we understand how the world environment.” on observation. They allow us to
around and within us works.” use and understand the
properties of the world and
make informed choices.”
investigation 12.6 “…an area where we investigate + “…understanding & “…the investigation of how
explain things happening in the investigation of why and how things work and why they
world around us.” things happen in the world, happen. Science allows
Universe and inside principles to be used to solve a
ourselves.” specific problem.”
experiment / 11.4 “…the pursuit of knowledge and “…an objective method of “…the pursuit of knowledge of
testing understanding through understanding the Universe the environment around us by
experimentation and testing.” around us by experimental observing & experimenting.
Partially- procedure and imaginative, Also it is using this knowledge
informed applicable theory.” to make informed decisions.”
(38.4%) explanations for 7.6 “…what we know about the world “…explanations and ideas of None
events / and Universe in which we live. It is everything that surrounds us,
phenomena the explanation of how things work with a view to encourage a
and evolve and of the interaction child to probe these ideas
between things.” about their environment and
understanding why things
happen the way they do.”
scientific method 6.8 “…a fun and exciting subject that “…any systematic knowledge “…the broad method of using
uses experimental and or practice. It is the system of empirical evidence…to
35 | P a g e
observational methods to quantify acquiring knowledge based on hypothesise and apply the
concepts that could be related to scientific method as well as to findings of results. The scientific
everyday life.” the organised body [of method...involves clear logical
knowledge] gained through thinking as well as creative
such research.” theorising…”
how the world 24.9 “…the understanding and “…an understanding of how “…fundamental to
works appreciation of biological, chemical the world works relative to the understanding the world and
and physical properties in the world parts it is made up from.” Universe around us.”
around us.”
finding the truth 6.3 “…knowledge gained from “…an all encompassing “…study of natural phenomena
objective principles and asking of subject that help[s] give and the world about you to
questions from observations and answers to the why of life. If obtain the truth.”
Naïve experiments, trying to find the not the answers it gives you
(44.3%) reason ‘why’.” the tools needed to work out
some of these answers for
yourself.”
study of the world 5.9 “…the study of the world around us “…the underlying nature of “…the logical study of why and
/ how things are from particles to whole organisms how everything works/ how things are like they are.”
and their interaction to their happens.”
environment.”
a (fixed) body of 5.1 “…a body of knowledge formed “…the study of all things in all “…about the knowledge of man
knowledge from the results of observation and environments. How and why and [his] environment.”
analysis, experimentation and these things (living and
discussion of phenomena in the inanimate) interact and how
biological, chemical and physical they have come to be.”
world and Universe.”
to gain positive 2.1 “Science allows us to develop “…discovery & exploration of “…an understanding of things
social benefit medical technique (sic) so we can the how, what & why of that happen to and around us
live longer. Physics is responsible everything around us to and is essential to enable us to
for a much more comfortable life in progress our understanding make informed choices in our
respect to material things, mobile and to develop new & lives.”
phones, aeroplanes, etc.” improved technologies /
methodologies.”
N= 237 No response / uncodeable = 3.0%
Table 5: Exemplar beliefs about science: PSTs’ responses to “What is science?”
36 | P a g e
Orientation Definition Belief about science

Academic rigour Provides a range of activities to verify concepts, showing links; represents science Naïve
as a body of knowledge how the world works / a (fixed) body of knowledge
Didactic Tells, shows, explains, questions students to verify knowledge; teacher presents / study of the world /how things are/ to gain
content knowledge and focuses on students’ recall positive social benefit / find the truth
Discovery Allows children to experiment following their interests and discover scientific Partially informed
concepts for themselves investigation /experimentation /testing /
Guided Inquiry Participates in investigating, scaffolds learning to achieve students’ independence; explanations for events / phenomena/ scientific
adapts genuine scientific contexts for investigation environments method
Conceptual Asks for children’s views and helps establish valid claims; prompts dissatisfaction Informed
change with initial thinking and/or intuitive ideas To investigate tentative knowledge/
Inquiry Represents science as inquiry; instruction requires students to investigate problems satisfy intellectual curiosity / develop rules or
& assess knowledge models
Project-based Uses a driving question to organise concepts and activities; students investigate
authentic problems working “as a scientist”
Process Science is a process creating new knowledge; help students develop scientific skills
Activity-driven Offers hands-on activities, may lack conceptual coherence No alignment
Table 6: Science teaching orientation definitions aligned with PSTs’ beliefs about science
37 | P a g e
Vignette Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry
Belief about Informed Partially informed Naïve
science N=20 Total N=47 Total N=50 Total
Orientation
Academic
Rigour/ Didactic 19 16 18 53 31 32 37 100 36 25 41 102
Discovery 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3
Inquiry/
Process/ 1 2 2 5 14 6 9 29 13 13 9 35
Conceptual
Change
Note:
 N= number of PSTs with a belief coded in this category, who also gave three coded vignette responses
 Exclusions
o Guided Inquiry and Project-based orientations because no vignette responses corresponded to these
o Responses coded Activity-Driven as these do not align with any NOS belief: hence numbers do not always add up to N values
o CK-only responses as these do not include an STO
Table 7: Comparing PSTs’ beliefs about science and science teaching orientations
38 | P a g e
Science Teaching Orientations
Inquiry
Activity Driven Didactic Academic Rigour Conceptual Change
Student
Learning
Figure 1: Proposed continuum for pre-service teachers’ science teaching orientations

and Nature of Science beliefs
39 | P a g e

Durham Research Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham Research Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham Research Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham Research Online

Version of attached le:

Peer-review status of attached le:

Citation for published item:

education., 100 (1). pp. 122-152.

Further information on publisher's website:

Publisher's copyright statement:

Pre-service science teachers’ Science Teaching Orientations and

Submitted to Science Education

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, Shulman, 1986b) offers a potential contribution to

Shulman (1986a; 1986b; 1987) conceptualised PCK as knowledge that distinguishes a

PSTs’ Orientations, Beliefs and Knowledge

teaching received as a child or utilising external experiences, such as working as a research

Are “science teaching orientations” Knowledge and /or Beliefs?

The Origins of Science Teaching Orientations

The Nine Orientations Proposed by Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko (1999)

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Science Teachers’ Beliefs about Science

McComas, Clough and Almazroa (1998) review a teacher’s role in communicating

Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson’s findings (2009) from an intervention study designed to

Science Teachers’ Beliefs about the Nature of Science in Practice

Science Teachers’ Initial Beliefs about Teaching

Summary and Research Questions

Literature reviewed above illuminates theoretical and methodological issues associated

The nature of STOs is imprecisely defined as comprising knowledge and/or beliefs.

 What beliefs about science do PSTs hold? and:

Potential teachers meet national entry requirements (Universities and Colleges

[TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

Methodology and Data Analysis

The Data Collection Instrument

Coding PSTs’ Written Statements for Evidence of Science Teaching Orientations

Responses coded as consistent with Academic Rigour (Tables 1 and 4) described a

Responses coded for evidence of an Inquiry orientation (Tables 1 and 4) adopted a

Responses coded Activity-driven gave generalised statements (Table 4, Line 4) about

Coding PSTs’ Responses to “What is your definition for science?”

PSTs’ science teaching orientations

[TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]

[TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]

About 5% of responses were Activity-Driven. Table 3 shows the physics vignette

PSTs’ Beliefs about Science

[TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE]

[TABLES 6 and 7 ABOUT HERE]

Inspection of responses revealed alignments additional to those proposed in Table 6. For

The Nature of PSTs’ Science Teaching Orientations

PSTs’ Beliefs About Science

Alignment between PSTs’ Beliefs about Science and their Orientations

Defining PSTs’ Science Teaching Orientations: Clarification

A Developmental Science Teaching Orientations Continuum

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Activity-Driven responses are the lowest quality. An Activity-Driven instructional strategy

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Commission on Science

Avraamidou, L. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’ science teaching orientations and

Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (2013). Retrieved from http://www.bscs.org/history .

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Crocker, R.K. (1984). Determinants of implementation of an elementary science program.

Department for Education (DfE, 2013). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved from

Education Audio-visual Culture Executive Agency, EACEA (2011). Science Education in

Version of attached le:

Peer-review status of attached le: