Purposes and selective traditions in science education

The purpose of science education has been discussed by researchers for a long time (Goodson 1987). Peter Fensham (1988) discussed that there are two main reasons for the teaching of science, which he called induction into science and learning from science. The induction into science aims to make all students become scientists and is about learning core science, for example scientific concepts and the hierarchical structure of science. Leaning from science aims to teach science and scientific knowledge for everyday use as a citizen. Douglas Roberts (1982) discerned the purposes of science education in written North American curriculum material and developed the concept of curriculum emphasis. The same scientific content can be taught with different emphases. These should not be considered as mutually exclusive categories, but as capturing ‘the essence of very broadly different orientations which science can assume’ (Roberts 1982).

Roberts developed these discussions further and claimed that there are basically two different visions of how to make students more scientifically literate (Roberts 2007b). Vision I is product-oriented towards science knowledge per se, while Vision II concerns the application of scientific knowledge. Teachers working with Vision I believe that the acquisition of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to a more correct application of knowledge. In contrast, teachers teaching in Vision II do not believe that the application will happen automatically. Education needs also to focus on the knowledge and skills needed for the application of knowledge. Researchers such as Dana Zeidler (2003) also claim that in addition to acquiring scientific knowledge, students need to learn how to use it in practical, existential, moral and political situations and societal contexts.

Three selective traditions, with theoretical reference to their roots in educational philosophy and how environmental and developmental problems are perceived by teachers, have evolved in environmental and sustainability education (ESE) in Sweden (Sandell, Öhman, and Östman 2005). The three Swedish selective traditions are: the fact-based tradition, the normative tradition and the pluralistic tradition. In the fact-based tradition, environmental issues are regarded as ecological issues. Environmental problems are based on a lack of knowledge and can be solved by learning more science. The pedagogic task is to teach students the right and true knowledge. In the normative tradition, environmental issues are primarily a question of values, where people’s lifestyles and their consequences are the main threats to the natural world. Scientific knowledge gives hints about the best ways of living. Increasing uncertainty about environmental issues is an important point of departure for the pluralistic tradition. Here, environmental issues are viewed as both moral and political problems.

These selective traditions are useful in the development of teaching because they act as tacit frameworks for teachers’ content and method selection (Sund and Wickman 2011a). This is why selective traditions are interesting in pedagogical purposes in science education (Wickman 2012). At present, knowledge about the selective traditions in science education is limited to theoretical descriptions of teachers’ characteristic teaching, which are often used as analytical tools (Gyllenpalm, Wickman, and Holmgren 2010). These earlier studies do not address teachers’ practices. Roberts’ (1995) concepts alone are not sufficient to understand how teachers could develop their pedagogy. For example how the introduction of new issues such as SSI in science teaching may support students’ academic performances in for example large-scale tests.

Arguments for this study

A major argument in this study is that earlier research on selective traditions does not go far enough. Theoretical research has been conducted on selective traditions, but few studies have focused on how they can be discerned and emphasized in teachers’ responses. Earlier results have been used as analytical tools to study curriculum material (Östman 1995) or written enquiries (van Driel, Bulte, and Verloop 2008). In contrast, this research study focuses on questions about teachers’ teaching and analyzes their utterances about for example the relation to the surrounding society and to students, and on ethical issues in an era of globalization. The way that teachers teach and think about science affects how students understand and make meaning of the science content that is taught (Sund and Wickman 2011b). It is when teachers communicate ‘why this specific science topic is important to learn’ that their teaching habits can be discerned.

Another important argument is that this study has more practical implications. The introduction of national test in science in Sweden 2010 risks failing in some aspects due to teachers´ different personal views about what a good science test problem consists of. The tests are implemented for helping to create conditions for a more equal and fair assessment of students, but also as a systematic intervention focused on the introduction socio-scientific issues in the Swedish science education generally. The tendency to incorporate socio-scientific issues, SSI in contemporary science curricula is common world-wide (Levinson 2010; Prain 2012). SSI are real world issues that are socially significant and at the same time deeply rooted in science (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, and Simmons 2002), and include for example environmental and sustainability issues (Summers, Childs, and Corney 2005). However, some teachers think that some of the questions in the national tests that are formulated and related to SSI do not belong in a science test at all, while others appreciate the links between scientific knowledge and how it through valuing can be applied to societal issues (Lundqvist and Sund in press). An important practical consequence of some teachers avoiding SSI is that teachers who primarily teach scientific facts do not fully support students’ development of the knowledge qualities required in the tests. There is a risk that a great number of teachers, who primarily focus on conceptual knowledge, will be unable to offer students the SSI qualities, for example argumentative skills about moral issues often required in large-scale tests (Jakobsson, Davidsson, Karlsson, and Oskarsson 2013; Lundqvist, Lidar, Almqvist, Sund, and Östman 2013). One way of approaching this discrepancy between some teachers’ teaching and the knowledge requested in tests is to study teachers’ selective traditions and make them more visible and easier to scrutinize. However, these traditions should not be regarded as a collection of simple repetitive actions. Rather, they are complex everyday teaching approaches that work well in everyday practice.

Background

SSI in national testing in science in Sweden

This study is part of a larger research project entitled ‘National tests in biology, physics and chemistry: potential influence on teachers´ teaching practices’. In Sweden the testing of science in secondary school (year 9, 15–16 years) began in 2010. This study is following the written enquiry which was answered by more than four hundred teachers about the benefits and problems with national test in science in general. The twenty-nine teachers in this study were selected from ‘clusters’ that occurred in the statistical analysis of the enquiry.

The idea of approaching science teachers about their teaching using tools from ESE research arose when the author realized that there was a tendency in these large-scale tests to include SSI (Lundqvist, Lidar, and Almqvist 2013). 20 % of the questions in Swedish national tests are stated by the Swedish school agency to be related to SSI (N. A. f. Education 2010) and in PISA tests they are common (OECD 2013). In teachers science courses students are expected to deliver scientific facts and to learn how to argue in more complex societal discussions. This puts pressure on teachers to develop their pedagogical approach in the teaching of science and to support students’ development of abilities to communicate and use the subject knowledge.

The inclusion of SSI in teaching is evident in environmental and sustainability education (Robottom 2012). There are researchers who claim that in order to develop science education research further methods from adjacent research fields, such as ESE, should be used (Tytler 2012). This study elaborate on and test these claims by applying a research methodology developed in ESE research to discern selective traditions in science teaching. These methodologies embrace the range of teachers’ teaching approaches—from an emphasis on canonical science to SSI teaching and the inclusion of societal and global developmental issues (Sund and Wickman 2011b). The analytical tool has primarily been developed to illuminate important value-related teaching aspects in pedagogy (Sund 2008)

In this article the meaning making teaching context is studied qualitatively in detail and is called the socialization content (Englund 1997). The subject content, teaching methods and purposes together form an overarching educational content (Fig. 1) (Sund and Wickman 2011a).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Four educational aspects enlarging teachers’ socialization content

Full size image

Purpose

The purpose of this article to discern selective traditions in science teaching by drawing on teachers’ utterances about their teaching. Compared to earlier research on selective traditions in written curriculum material, this study is close to teaching practice. Teachers’ educational content in an overarching sense and consists of value-laden messages about what, how and why teaching issues. The research question is:

Which selective traditions in science teaching can be discerned in teachers’ responses about their teaching?

This study discerns patterns in science teachers’ responses and show that teaching habits exist. Personal habits, together with institutional/disciplinary traditions, make up a substantial part of a teacher’s knowledge. The results aim to contribute to teachers’ practical pedagogical development. This research is important for understanding how teachers can improve their teaching to support students’ academic performances and help them to develop a deeper interest in science.

Methodology

Theory: individual and collective habits

Selective traditions in science teaching can be understood as collective habits. This way of approaching the traditions is based on the pragmatist tradition attributed to John Dewey, where the meanings of one’s expressions are primarily understood from the way in which they help people take actions. What are usually called beliefs or views are in this study approached as habitual ways of acting (where speech is regarded as action). According to Dewey (1922), an analysis of such habits does not mean comparing simple repetitive behaviour, but rather looking at more complex actions and determining their meaning through their specific consequences. In this sense, a habit cannot always be explicitly articulated by the teacher, although it can be discerned through reflection in terms of the patterns of one’s own actions. However, before these habits can be reflected on they need to be acknowledged, because they guide teachers in their search for ways to change (Wickman 2004). Individuals develop their personal habits on the basis of the contextual situations created by earlier generations of teachers or disciplinary traditions (Dewey 1938/1997). Dewey’s (1922) discussion of individual habits, and their interplay at an individual and collective level, seems to be an accurate description of how selective traditions in science teaching evolve and are consolidated in the formal school system. The reason for studying habits and traditions is not to produce conceptual categories or reveal the underlying views of individual teachers, but rather to find functional ways of reflecting on teachers’ actions in order to understand how teachers approach their everyday science teaching.

Analytical tool: selective traditions in teachers’ socialization content

In an earlier study in ESE research, Swedish teachers’ responses were analyzed by referring to educational aspects (Sund 2008). These aspects are related to teachers’ views of knowledge, ethical starting points, connections with the surrounding world and relations to students (Table 1). In this study selective traditions are discerned by examining the qualitative differences in teachers’ socialization content (Englund 1997) with the aid of a previously developed analytical tool including educational aspects (Sund 2008). The four questions that have been used to discern four educational aspects in the data from teacher interviews are: (1) What is the aim of science teaching? (2) How can knowledge learned in school be used? (3) What role do students play in teaching/education? (4) Which different inter-human relations are established? The fourth aspect regarding ethical starting points concerns a shift from the relation human–nature, which is important in environmental education and science education, towards the inclusion of socio-scientific issues, where the inter-human relation, i.e. human–human on a societal and global level, is important.

Table 1 A summary of the analytical question related to each specific educational aspect
Full size table

Table 1 shows the analytical tool with four analytical questions related to the essential educational aspects of teachers’ socialization content. Teachers’ ways of answering these questions highlight the characteristics of the aspect that teachers communicate to students. In the first column, an opposition of positional terms is identified in relation to each aspect. These oppositions should not be considered as essential, but rather aspects that typically appear in the current ESE research literature.

Educational aspects are qualitative shifts in the socialization content

The relation between subject matter content, socialization content and how the educational aspects ‘open up’ the socialization content of science education to include more SSI is illustrated in Fig. 1. The positions that are furthest from the centre in Fig. 1 in all four aspects are evident in the socialization content of teachers when they include SSI related issues, such as environmental and sustainability (Sund and Wickman 2011a). A position close to the centre (Fig. 1) in each aspect shows teachers who mainly work with traditional science and communicate ‘to become a scientist’ to students, while teachers in the regions adjacent to the centre work with students’ development by applying scientific knowledge in everyday life or in societal development work.

Methods

The object of interest in this study is science teachers’ selective teaching traditions and the study object is teachers’ utterances about their science teaching. The data was collected during 35–60 min long semi-structured telephone interviews conducted by two senior researchers. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. The author has analyzed the transcripts. The teachers were asked to describe how they conducted their teaching by answering the following questions about the content: What is to be learned in science? How is the teaching conducted? Why should students learn this content? (see “Appendix”).

Selection

In an initial sub-project a web-based inquiry was answered by 402 out of 957 science teachers (42 %) (cf Background). They responded to questions about their teaching and the implementation of national test. The starting point for the formulating inquiry questions was inspired by the concept of curriculum emphases (Roberts 1982). They are used for analysis in earlier research (van Driel et al. 2008; Gyllenpalm et al. 2010; Roberts 1995) so the initial idea was to build in an analytical tool in the enquiry questions. In the following statistical analysis distinctive patterns occurred (Lidar, Karlberg, Lundqvist, and Almqvist 2012) and there were seemingly three or four different ways to approach science teaching. Data from the enquiry was not sufficient enough to delimit categories well so follow-up questions in interviews were needed. In the end of the inquiry teachers were asked about volunteering to participate in interviews, and many answered that they were prepared to participate. From these positive answers twenty-nine teachers were carefully selected from the different clusters found in the statistical analysis.

The teachers teach physics, chemistry and biology at secondary school level. The ambition with the sample is also to provide a balance, for example of gender, subjects and number of years in teaching. In this sample there are 21 female and 8 male teacher with working experiences from 2 to 30 years with a mean value of 13 years. Consequently, the selection allows for a maximum variation in the way that teachers talk about and describe their science teaching, and also the possibility to deepen the knowledge about the statistical clusters into research about selective traditions.

Analysis and results

The ESE analytical tool outlined above has been used to analyse the data. Initially a summary of the results is presented as guidance for a more detailed reading of the analysis. The findings in this study show that there are three selective traditions in science teaching. In order to make the analysis easier to follow, the four qualitative aspects, together with a general description of responses for each of them, are given for each tradition. These descriptions facilitate the study of the qualitative differences in teachers’ pedagogy in the data presented (below).

Science disciplinary tradition (close to the centre in Fig. 1)

Aspect (1):

Purpose of the education: Individual–Collective

General description–focus on scientific knowledge and skills

Aspect (2):

Teaching relation: School–Society

General description–school centred and classroom centred.

Aspect (3):

Power relation: Teacher–Student.

General description–lecturing and occasionally well-prepared group work (teacher centred).

Aspect (4):

Ethical dimension: Environmental ethics–Human and global ethics.

General description–the contextualization of discussions within the discipline

Rare occurrence of value-based discussions.

Scientific informal application tradition (An intermediate shift outwards from the centre in Fig. 1)

  1. 1.

    Focus on scientific knowledge and skills for everyday applications

  2. 2.

    Collect examples from students’ everyday lives and make some links to societal issues

  3. 3.

    Teacher centred and teacher initiated group work occurs. Teachers care about students and show them consideration

  4. 4.

    Some shift towards the ethical discussion of issues such as lifestyle and health.

Scientifically informed societal tradition (A major shift outwards from the centre in Fig. 1)

  1. 1.

    Focused on applying scientific knowledge to everyday situations and societal issues

  2. 2.

    School co-operates, influences and attempts to make changes in the local community

  3. 3.

    Teachers act as learning guides in group work and discussions

  4. 4.

    There is a shift towards moral issues, including the social and global development of the environment and sustainability.

In the analysis process an estimation is done, for each teacher respectively, of the position of teachers’ answers in each educational aspect (Table 2). The estimation concerns the amount of utterances towards one or the other end-term (close to the centre or outwards) in the educational aspects could be described as a ‘position’. A position is close, intermediate or outwards from the centre (Fig. 1). Answers in the four inner positions of the aspects (close to the centre) position the teacher mainly within the Science disciplinary tradition. Four more or less intermediate positions put a teacher activities in Scientific informal application tradition. Teacher expressions in the outer parts of the aspects put the teachers working mainly within the Scientifically informed societal tradition. In some few cases where teacher answers in different positions in different aspects. In these situations is an interpretation done to the most common positioning in the aspects and then the categorization is done. This is the reason to call the positions mostly left or mostly right (Table 2)

Table 2 In the analysis process an estimation for the teacher is done of the position of teachers’ answers in each of the four educational aspec
Full size table

Table 2 facilitates an estimation of how the teachers’ communicated socialisation content can be positioned on type of scale for each aspect. The number of the statements position them relatively close to one of the oppositional terms of each of the four educational aspect. As a convention for describing a teacher’s habitual position in this more fine-grained way, the positional descriptors mostly left, indeterminate, and mostly right were used (no teachers consequently positioned themselves only to the left or right).Presenting a comprehensive analysis of the extensive amount of qualitative data generated in this study is not possible. Selection is essential, which naturally leads to limitations in the presentation. For example, instead of showing three or more teachers’ responses in all four educational aspects and in each of the three traditions, the author decided to allow the responses of three teachers to represent the three different traditions. Thus, Anna, Benita and Barbro each represent one of the traditions. This has been done in order to show a more in-depth analysis. These three teachers’ responses offer the reader a developed picture of the data.

The analysis presented here (below) contains three teachers’ responses to the four educational aspects in the three different traditions. The presentation of the analysis describes one aspect at a time in four separate sections, including one analytical question, and then gives an example of an answer from each of the selected teachers, and at the end of each section there are brief overall comments. The aim of the analysis is not to put teachers in categories and claim that this is how they always teach Rather, the claim in this study is that there are three distinct selective traditions in science teaching in which these science teachers mainly work, and which they can reflect upon and, if they want, be able to change in an informed reflective way.

The teacher responses provided below are quotes, but when there are dots in the text this means that a minor part has been omitted. This is a way of shortening and making the presentation of the analysis easier to follow.

Selective traditions in science teaching

Science disciplinary tradition

Scientific informal application tradition

Scientifically informed societal tradition

(1) Purpose of the education

 View of knowledge

 Analytical question: What is the aim of science teaching?

Position in the specific aspect Fig.  1

Centre

Intermediate

Peripheral

Individual’s facts

 

Collective abilities

Anna’s answer

I What is the nature of your science education?

A What is important to me is the formation of concepts and open experiments. The scientific inquiry is to be able to scientifically measure and evaluate. This way of working and thinking is something that I want the students to adopt

Benita’s answer

I Why is it important to learn science, in the short-and long-term?

B So that students can take care of our Earth and take care of themselves in the best possible way. Awareness. I think about diseases, what do you do and how do you avoid them? If you read about sex and life together there are plenty of examples

Barbro’s answer

I Can you describe what is important for you in your teaching? [first question]

B You can put it like this, the thing that permeates everything is my genuine interest for the students. This answer is perhaps not what you expected, but I see it as my duty to get children to grow mentally and I use science as an arena. I use science to support the development of students’ confidence and credit. You can say that I foster abilities. Abilities are more important than facts; of course you need those too as a sort of foundation. Without them you probably won’t achieve your aims, but the important thing is not to stop at factual knowledge. I put a great emphasis on deconstructing knowledge and reassembling it to look for connections. I think I believe that reflection is the most important part of learning

Brief comments on the purpose of education

Teachers in the scientific tradition focus on knowledge enabling students to become scientists. Scientific methods are practised in order to enhance students’ disciplinary work. In the informal tradition teachers focus on facts and values are developed so that students can enhance their lives. It is often about better and healthier life styles and attitudes.

The empowerment of students is central where the deconstruction of knowledge support the development of communicative and democratic abilities in order to develop well informed citizens.

Selective traditions in science teaching

Science disciplinary tradition

Scientific informal application tradition

Scientifically informed

societal tradition

(2) Teaching relation: School – Society

 Views of the context of educational issues

 Analytical question: How is the knowledge that is learned in school used?

Position in the specific aspect Fig.  1

Centre

Intermediate

Peripheral

School based

 

Societal collaboration

I Why should students learn scientific concepts?

A When they start to work and talk about for example corrosion. To know about what other people are talking about

………….

I What kind of material do you use in your planning?

A I start by looking at the curriculum… and previous national tests…and textbooks and also in the literature from my studies at university. I also look at some newspaper articles in order to make connections to a debate that has appeared in the paper

I What is it that make this teaching [in genetics] especially good?

B Because it relates to the students themselves. It is interesting to know why I look like I do, and behave as I do, and learn about my heritage and environment. It is fun to discuss things, and there are lots of issues to discuss. It feels as you really catch their interest. The same goes for sex and life-together and the human body—it all comes ‘close’ to home. The atomic nucleus is too abstract; there is nothing to see. But if it is about me as a teenager, then it is interesting

I What is important in your teaching?

B We [teachers and students] try to find applications for the knowledge we are going to work on, to develop. It can be about doing experiments, but it can also be about writing articles. We have a school newspaper. It is about applying your knowledge. We help the students to understand and describe their local community and how they can influence it. This is an important part, I think. To give them tools so that they can see that their standpoint really is important, that they are needed and that in the future they will have to make important decisions for themselves and about society in general

Brief comments on the relation school–society

In the science tradition the scientific knowledge is useful in future school situations, and planning often starts in the curriculum and subject traditions. The example is very oriented towards the science discipline by using earlier university literature.

Teachers in the informal tradition often collect teaching examples that are close to students’ everyday lives. They are looking for students’ interests and preferably their own body and life as a motivation for learning. Teachers in the scientifically informed tradition starts in knowledge and skills that are useful in the communication with the local community. The teaching is a type of interaction with the surrounding to support the development of skills/tools.

Selective traditions in science teaching

Science disciplinary tradition

Scientific informal application tradition

Scientifically informed societal tradition

(3) Power relation: Teacher – Student

 Views of students’ participation

 Analytical question: What role do students play in teaching/education?

Position in the specific aspect Fig.  1

Centre

Intermediate

Peripheral

Teacher centred

 

Students are active

I What do you think about student influence?

A Not much. I know they like lectures and doing experiments

I If we talk about the method of working, what characterizes your work in the classroom?

B I believe it is good for them to talk a lot too. I do not have a lot of texts with facts and answers to question and so on, but do include plenty of discussion. And then I sometimes mix it a bit so that I talk and they work in pairs and groups, and make oral presentations, watch films, and read news articles about what happens in the world

I What characterizes your teaching?

B It is of course important for students to have the opportunity to use and apply knowledge and inquiry based methods….

But in this inquiry it is important that the students have some idea about what kind of arguments they need to gather on order to draw conclusions. That you know the difference between what we call a scientific argument and other arguments. This does not mean that one is better or worse than the other, but that they fit the different contexts

Brief comments on the teacher–student relation

Students are asked about their interests and teachers in the science disciplinary tradition use these according to their earlier subject teaching experiences. Teachers in the informal tradition arrange student discussions frequently, but the topics are generally still strictly directed by the teacher. Teachers in the scientifically informed tradition often let the group work be student initiated and open-ended discussions are quite common.

Selective traditions in science teaching

Science disciplinary tradition

Scientific informal application tradition

Scientifically informed societal tradition

4) Ethical starting point: Environment – Human and global

View of inter-generational and human inter-dependence

Analytical question: Which inter-human relations are established?

Position in the specific aspect Fig.  1

Centre

Intermediate

Peripheral

Environmental ethics (‘true’ objective science)

 

Human and global ethics

I What is important in your science teaching?

A Students need to know the difference between science and subjective judgements and know how to look for facts

I What is important to learn in science?

B Not to accept everything that you read in the newspapers and what you see on the TV, because it does not always reflect the truth. You need to be aware of the facts and be critical

I How have the national tests affected your teaching?

B By and large the national tests have not affected me very much

I Have they affected your content selection, for example?

B No, very little. I have always loved the questions related to societal issues, such as the environment, genetics, and these kinds of discussion issues—right and wrong and so forth, what do you think? I know that there is quite a strong emphasis on them in the national tests [in science]

Brief comments on neutral facts–value-laden opinions

Scientific knowledge is objective, which make values less important. Values and critical thinking are important in discussions about everyday life. Ethical discussions about complex issues on for example the environment are common.

Concluding comment from this interview and the science disciplinary tradition

The focus is mainly to teach value-free core science content and concepts. The main use of knowledge is within the science discipline and in school. The application outside school is to ‘be aware’ and the teacher has ideas about how the best way of using the knowledge. Students are hardly mentioned in this interview. The teacher leads and prepares student discussions which occur relatively seldom. Few connections to environment (one water theme) or other value-laden societal discussions.

Concluding comment from this interview

Scientific informal application tradition: The focus is to teach students knowledge that is closely related to their lives, because that makes them more interested. The application of knowledge aims to support the improvement of students’ lives. The focus is not on becoming a scientist. Students participate in pairs and in groups, but in direct questions about student influence the teacher is clear that the main content is from the curriculum. Connections to health, environment and the surrounding world at large are made several times.

Concluding comment from this interview

Scientifically informed societal tradition: The focus is to discern and use different types of knowledge in various contexts. To use knowledge on a societal level in debates but also for the development of self-confidence and self-esteem. The focus is also to develop abilities to become an informed citizen. Students often work in groups and discuss a lot, but also in this example the initiatives mainly come from the teacher. Connections to the environment, sustainability, rural development using the media and the Internet are frequent.

Summary

There are three selective traditions in science teaching which can be discerned with an ESE methodology (Fig. 2). First, there is the science disciplinary tradition, where the focus in on teachers’ science teaching and the transmission of essential core concepts and facts. There is often an ambition to connect teaching to students’ lives, but this is often from a strong disciplinary perspective and an adult’s everyday perspective. Second, the scientific informal application tradition is a prescriptive form of teaching in the sense that it tells students how to apply the learned scientific knowledge and skills in informal situations related to students’ lives. Finally, the scientifically informed societal tradition, where the relation between facts and values is important and teachers offer situations in which students can develop abilities to use their knowledge in daily life and also at a societal level. The latter is not prescribing, it offers students possibilities to use their knowledge in situations which they have found interesting and are eager to change.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Three selective traditions in science teaching in teachers’ socialization content. Teachers whose responses are close to the centre in all four aspects are mainly working in the Science disciplinary tradition. Teachers whose responses are intermediate in the aspects are mainly working in the Scientific informal application tradition. Teachers whose responses are outwards from the centre are mainly working in the. Scientifically informed societal tradition

Full size image

Summary of the results from all teacher interviews

Anna’s, Benita’s and Barbro’s main selective traditions are by now well-known, and their names are provided in italics in Table 3 (below). The twenty-six teachers’ responses, which are not shown in the analysis, have been categorized into the selective traditions in science teaching (Table 3). Among the twenty-nine interviewed teachers, eight teachers mainly teach within the science disciplinary tradition, nine teachers in the scientific informal application tradition and twelve in the scientifically informed societal tradition.

Table 3 The distribution of the twenty-nine interviewed science teachers in the three selective traditions in science teaching
Full size table

Discussion

The Traditions

The result of this study shows that the three selective traditions in science teaching outlined in this article can be identified in science teachers’ responses to questions about their teaching. Science teachers communicate that they mainly work within one of these traditions: (1) the science disciplinary tradition, (2) the scientific informal application tradition, and (3) the scientifically informed societal tradition.

The purpose of this study is to discern and describe patterns in science teachers’ teaching approaches. The aim is not to put teachers into categories and make claims, for example that some of them lack specific knowledge. It is not about looking for deficits. The ambition of this study is rather to deepen the scientific basis for the selective traditions and develop a foundation for discussions about teaching habits in general. This is achieved through the use of an ESE methodology in the research field of science education. The four educational aspects in the analytical tool open up the possibilities for discussion about how science teaching can be approached in a more informed and reflective way (Sund 2008).

But, how can research on conceptual schemes change teaching? According to Per-Olof Wickman (2012), the relationship between research and practice has historically occurred in three steps: (1) teacher deficit and social engineering, where conceptual schemes are hardly acknowledged, (2) reflecting practitioners, where conceptual schemes aid the choices of already knowledgeable teachers, and (3) the mangling of the conceptual schemes by researchers through practice with the purpose of revising theory. The result of this article lies within step two.

The purpose has been to show that teachers’ overtime develop habits that place them within a certain tradition. The alignment to a tradition can often be unconscious. The traditions and the educational aspects can often remind teachers how they can begin to reflect on their current teaching. There are many reasons for teachers to consider widening their views about teaching, for example in connection with curriculum reforms, national tests, students’ interests, expectations from parents and the principal.

Many teachers in this study work in the scientifically informed societal tradition and often reflect a great deal on expectations outside school. The distribution of teachers working in different selective traditions in Sweden is outside the scope of this study’s limited sample. However, a possible explanation for the fact that twelve out of twenty-nine teachers are in the ‘societal’ tradition could be the selection process of teachers. This figure of 41 % is high compared to earlier ESE research, which indicates 30 % of teachers in this tradition (T. S. N. A. f. Education 2002). The teachers who participated in an initial inquiry in the larger research project about national tests were encouraged to volunteer and take part in follow-up interviews, which could also help to explain the percentage figure.

Selective traditions in science teaching

The author claims that theses discerned selective traditions in science teaching tally with earlier discussions about teaching purposes. They relate to Roberts’ seven curriculum emphases (1982), Fensham’s discussions about two main purposes of teaching science (1988), Östman’s selective traditions and Roberts’ (Roberts 2007a, b) discussion about Scientific Literacy, Vision I and Vision II (Table 4).

Table 4 Different starting points for of categorization of science teaching
Full size table

In Table 4, the empirically discerned selective traditions in science teaching are presented and compared to earlier theoretical discussion about teaching purposes and selective traditions. The selective traditions in science teaching discerned in this study with ESE research methods appear to be logically related to earlier discussions in science education. Teachers approaching teaching with a Vision I perspective focus on the epistemological characteristics of science. Vision II is here divided into two categories: IIA concerns the applications of scientific knowledge to inform everyday life, while IIB stresses applications in value driven societal discussions.

These different categories of science teaching are related to each other but have different starting points. The curriculum emphases answer the students’ question of ‘why they are supposed to learn science’ through the analysis of written curriculum material (Roberts 1982). Roberts claims that one emphasis at a time is usually emphasized in a curriculum or text book. Roberts’ research shows that in written material there are seven ways of arguing for the main purpose of learning science. Fensham (1988) conducts a more theoretical discussion about two main purposes for teachers to teach science. He makes the distinction between learning science as an intellectual enterprise and learning science knowledge for application. Östman (1995) repeats Roberts’ studies in a Swedish context and analyzes science curriculums and textbooks. All the identified selective traditions were in the scientific rational discourse (ibid).

Roberts (2007a) describes the theoretical discussion about science teaching in terms of ‘Visions’. In principle, two different visions have been favoured in the western world with regard to how science should be framed in order for pupils to be ‘scientifically literate’. Roberts calls these Vision I and Vision II. In brief, in Vision I it is the scientific discipline content that is to be taught. In Vision I, there is a notion that the learned scientific knowledge can automatically be applied when an application is required. In Vision I, the content presents the truth (cf. Lyotard 1984) of how something is (Putnam 2002). In Vision II this is not the case, and here it is pointed out that in addition to subject knowledge, education must also include knowledge and skills that enable pupils to apply scientific knowledge in everyday, existential, moral and political contexts (Roth and Désautels 2002).

Roberts’ Vision II can be divided into Vision IIA and Vision IIB (Roberts 2007a) (Table 4). Vision IIA can be regarded as science offering guidance to individuals in everyday situations. This single offer from science implies that there is one ought, namely that students should be offered the way, a pattern, of how to use the answer effectively (Putnam 2002). This type of prescribing is common in the normative teaching traditions in ESE. Science can guide informed individuals to for example to live healthier lives or in a more ecologically correct way. Vision IIA can in this way be considered as prescribing students how to use their knowledge in everyday applications. Vision IIB offers multiple possible solutions. There are many possible fruitful ways forward in societal development. There are many rights, argumentation is needed to achieve one collective ought. Patterns for future actions are not in the teaching from the beginning, instead they are something that needs to be scrutinized in democratic discussions.

There are similarities in the characteristics of the selective traditions in this study and Vision I, Vision IIA and Vision IIB as discussed above, although when making a distinction in terms of traditions the starting points for research are different. Earlier research on Visions starts from written material and theoretical discussions, whereas this study starts in ESE research and applies a methodology to empirical data from teacher interviews. This is why these categories are called selective traditions, in that they are about teachers’ choices of content and methods and their views of good science teaching (Williams 1973).

Naming of the selective traditions

The names of each selective tradition in science teaching indicate the ought, the application, of the science knowledge for the traditions and the starting point for the demands respectively. The names answers: where the knowledge gained ought to be applied and what the outcomes might be. The two first traditions start in the traditions of disciplinary science. Science knowledge is often learned according to university disciplinary traditions, but has different applications. In the first tradition, the acquired knowledge is used within science with the aim of becoming science literate (cf Fensham 1988 and induction to science). In the second, knowledge is applied in informal and individual situations with the aim of improving scientific literacy (Roberts 2007b). In the third tradition, the teaching often starts in complex SSI questions/problems/issues, where science offers many possible answers. Teaching is not always starting in the discipline since science cannot often give final guidance on how to approach complex SSI such as climate change. By being more scientifically informed, teachers stress that students should have a set of scientific possible ways forward from which they can negotiate for a possible solution. Here, students need to learn argumentation (Rudsberg, Öhman, and Östman 2013). Science offers a palette of scientific knowledge from which scientifically informed students can choose their arguments. The term scientifically is here used to point out the difference in starting points compared to scientific literacy. The scientifically informed tradition implies that teachers often start with complex real-life issues to determine how science knowledge can support a solution or understanding. They act on a need for scientific knowledge, but not necessarily starting in the disciplinary roots of science. This change of starting point has earlier been studied among experienced ESE teachers (Sund 2013).

Consequences for pedagogy

Ivory Goodson (2005) says that change is not obvious after a new steering function, such as curriculum or national test has been introduced. He claims that a great deal of ‘the change has to confront traditions, collective memories’, of schools and their activities. This is another way of acknowledging selective traditions and understanding this type of resistance towards change.

What makes teachers to develop specific teaching habits? This is outside the theoretical scope of this article. What are usually called beliefs or views are in this study approached as habitual ways of acting. This study do not study reasons on a meta-level ‘behind’ teachers’ action for the development of habits. The focus is what they actually do, where speech is also regarded as action (see theory), not why they do it. There are probably not any specific reason but a combination of life-experiences from many different situations for example university studies, former school teachers as role-models, personal and political interests. Other studies show that the peer-group of science teachers are affecting science teachers thinking about what counts as ‘good’ science education In peer-groups conversations the common view on what regards as real science tend to converge towards a scientific rational discourse (Lundqvist and Sund in press; Östman 1996).

The participating teachers’ actual teaching practice, what they do in the classroom, is out of the scope of this study. However, other research studies in science education have shown that a continuation exists between teachers’ personal views of the purpose of education, as revealed in the interviews, and those that appear in the classroom (Brickhouse 1989). These personal thoughts about science education can be regarded as constituting a kind of socialisation content. Paul Hart (2003) has identified similar links between personal views and classroom action in environmental education. It is thus possible, with a starting point in earlier research, to assume that the responses in the interview situations also is encountered by the teachers’ students. Earlier studies about selective traditions in environmental and sustainability education show that students learn the socialisation content communicated by their teachers. Students taught in the Science disciplinary tradition will mainly argue for the reasons to learn science in a similar way as their teachers (Sund and Wickman 2011b).

Aligning with Wickman (2012), research on how conceptual schemes can change teaching is valuable for reflecting practitioners. An education that is better connected to the surrounding world can be attained in several different ways, for example, by consciously changing the meaning making socialization content ‘more outwards’ in one or more of the educational aspects (Fig. 1). This could be achieved by changes in the working methods and by incorporating real world issues, both local and global, in science education. If students worked collaboratively in and with their local communities and surroundings, economic and social issues would be included in their education in a more natural way. Teachers could also incorporate more ethical starting points and human ethics in their teaching, and thereby encourage people to work for a better world for all. Furthermore, the school would become a natural part of societal work, rather than simply being regarded as undertaking school-based activities (Breiting 2000). The aspects can help teachers to change their pedagogy and include more SSI in their teaching.

Conclusion

Historically, there is an important dividing line in science teaching approaches between in Biology science of life and science for living (Rosenthal and Bybee 1987), induction to science and learning from science (Fensham 1988) and Vision 1 and Vision II (Roberts 2007b). The first expression in each pair focuses on the disciplinary science content, while the second focuses on the application. They therefore offer different patterns for applications and solutions.

At a first glance this can appear to be a dichotomy, but if students are to develop abilities and use knowledge, they need subject knowledge to work with. The first approach is subject-centred, whereas the second focuses on the development of abilities that require some kind of content. This resembles Dewey’s (1916/1999) discussion about the development of abilities, in which he regards an attempt to develop general abilities without subject matter as nonsense. The second approach needs the content from the first, although teachers mainly working with the content need to be reminded about the need for an enhanced informed use of the knowledge. The approaches are not wholly contradictory, however, and have a firm common starting point in the science discipline for teaching; the difference being the application and the focus of the teaching. The focus is extended to embrace the ability to use the scientific knowledge in different types of life situations.

The application is a normative dimension (world views, values, interests, power) and is an important difference between Vision 1 and 2. Vision 1 represents a perspective in which normativity is seen as irrational or possible to rationalise—to become objective—with the aid of scientific knowledge and reasoning. Vision 2 represents a view where normativity is seen as something natural, unavoidable and non-reducible in human lives, and something that can and should become an acknowledged part of science education (Wickman, Liberg, and Östman 2011). The differences in normativity between the teaching traditions of offering patterns for solutions in different situations are visible in this study.

A shift in paradigm: Offer patterns for future use and/or discern needs of knowledge?

The methodology from ESE used in this study is able to bridge the theoretical gaps, such as differences in the inclusion of SSI in science teaching, between these two main approaches to science. It is possible to study selective traditions in science teaching that extend from non-normative (objective) science to value-laden and normative socio-scientific issues. The ESE methodology also indicates future areas of research. The starting point for the teachers in this study working in the science disciplinary tradition and scientific informal application tradition is the science discipline. Here the focus is on producing individuals who knows their science well. Teachers working in the scientifically informed societal tradition start out from complex societal issues, where science is needed for solutions at a societal level, via debate. The first two traditions have an application perspective in the normativity—‘learn the science first and then use it’. The third tradition’s normativity starts in the need for science knowledge—‘we need to look for what kind of science knowledge we need to know more about’ (cf. (Sund and Wickman 2008). This is an interesting difference in starting point and an anticipation of science knowledge and teaching that needs to be investigated further. A pragmatist theory inspired by Dewey’s discussion about what makes people learn and act could offer ways of approaching the balance between application and need orientations in science teaching.

The consequence of this result is that practitioners and researchers now know that teachers privilege certain content and at the same time exclude others, and that this is done continuously in various educational situations. This knowledge is vital for a more informed change of science teaching that includes SSI and follows international tendencies for science education. However, the inclusion of SSI is only one issue in contemporary science teaching. The involvement of students in the use and discernment of the needs of science knowledge is important main issue which need to be studied further in depth.