SCIENCE TEACHER
EDUCATION
Alternative Perspectives of
Effective Science Teaching
KENNETH TOBIN
Science Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306
MARIONA ESPINET
Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, A thens, GA 30602
STEVEN E. BYRD
Charleston County Schools District, Charleston, SC 2940 7
DARYL ADAMS
Department of Science Education, Mankato State University, Mankato, MN
56001
“Hoskin Named Teacher of the Year by Science Group”. So read the
headline of the local newspaper. The members of our research team were
attracted to the banner headline and the photograph of a teacher in a familiar pose, his right hand poised at the blackboard as he explained some aspect
of science to one of his five science classes at Rural County High. We were
pleased at the recognition that had been given to a hard working teacher
we had come to know and respect over a period of six weeks of intensive
observation and interviews. At the same time we were perplexed. What we
had seen in Mr. Hoskin’s class was not always what you would associate with
exemplary teaching. As we scanned the columns of the newspaper, we read
that Mr. Hoskin was a popular choice for the award, and had been the
recipient of similar awards during the past six years. Convincing evidence was
provided t o support his claims t o the award; his teaching was held in the
highest regard by his students, his colleagues and professional educators
throughout the state. This “discrepant event” induced a state of conflict in
the minds of the research team. Why would one set of educators regard Mr.
Hoskin’s teaching as exemplary, and another set of educators have serious
concerns about the quality of science education in his classes? Was it that
our research team had been too long in the “ivory tower” and had lost touch
with the practical realities of classroom life? Many would claim this t o be
the case, yet each member of the research team had extensive high school
science teaching experience, and two had been classroom teachers within the
past two years.
Science Education 72(4): 433-451 (1988)
0 1988 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CCC 0036-8326/88/040433-19$04.00
434 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
The study was designed to investigate the forces which shaped the implemented curriculum in classes taught by an exemplary science teacher. Consequently, we started the study with a mindset that we would observe an
experienced science teacher creating an environment which was conducive to
learning science in a meaningful way. However, as the study progressed, the
findings which emerged were not expected, and we realized that Mr. Hoskin
had a perspective on science teaching which differed markedly from that of
the researchers. The differences were graphically portrayed at the conclusion
of the study when he compiled a 17 page written reaction to a draft of this
paper.
Several aspects of the teacher’s reaction were not anticipated. We predicted that the teacher would not be pleased with some of the findings of
the study because we had highlighted a number of concerns about his teaching and the learning environments in his classes. However, in our minds
there was little in the paper that was judgmental. The following extracts
from his reaction provide an indication of the extent to which he disagreed
with views expressed in the paper.
If this paper was written to stimulate rebuttal from classroom teachers, it has
certainly done that. If, however, it was written as a true representation of the
observations made, I’m afraid that it has missed the mark terribly.
It is good that classroom teachers allow University personnel to come into the
classroom and observe. It is good also that opportunities for classroom teacher
rebuttal are possible. This does two things. It forces the classroom teacher to
think and reevaluate all the techniques and it allows the teacher a chance to
burst the bubble of the University educator. Both of these things need to be
done periodically. Never will the classroom teacher and the University professor
see eye to eye. University professors have no idea what occurs in a real school
situation. This is not a condemnation; it is merely a statement of fact! There is
no way that University personnel can understand the school process if they are
not in the classroom all day every day.
Of course, everything in the paper was judgmental in an implicit way.
Even though we set out t o describe the classes in an objective manner, every
observation and every interpretation of data reflected our perspectives on
teaching. When Mr. Hoskin read about our view of his classroom, it was not
recognizable to him. Clearly we had looked into his classroom through a
different window, one which was shaped by our own knowledge and beliefs.
The research team had a constructivist view of knowledge acquisition and
understanding (Pines & West, 1986; von Glasersfeld, 1981 ) according to
which meaningful learning occurs as a result of active student engagement
during learning activities. Learning and growth of understanding always
involve learners in the construction of personal understandings. Opportunities to learn imply, among other things, that students have time to reflect
on their own knowledge, t o clarify understandings, and to elaborate on
existing knowledge. Because learning is a personal endeavor, each student
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES 435
needs to have a set of experiences that takes account of his/her current
knowledge and the way the he/she can make sense of science content. Consequently, the teacher has an active role in promoting a classroom environment
in which students can obtain and process information and develop understandings about science.
Method
An interpretive research methodology (Erickson, 1985) was used to investigate the science classrooms. The observations focused on teaching and
student engagement in science activities. Interpret ation of the observations
provided insights into the major forces which drove the academic work
system and shaped the implemented curriculum in these high school science
classes.
Mr. Hoskin, a high school science teacher who had earned a reputation as
an exemplary teacher over a six year period, was the one person studied. His
five classes included one 10th grade general science class, one 12th grade
physics class and three chemistry classes with grade 10, 11 and 12 students.
At the time of the study Mr. Hoskin was in his late thirties, had a master’s
degree in education with a concentration in chemistry, and had commenced
doctoral studies in science education on a part-time basis. He attended professional meetings of science teachers, published articles in the state science
teachers’ magazine, was a member of the National Science Teachers’ Association, and read the state science teachers’ magazine and popular science
magazines such as Omni, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science. As departmental chairman, Mr. Hoskin was responsible for academic leadership in
science and he maintained an active role in formulating school philosophy
and policies. He perceived his role in the school in broad terms and was concerned for the total education of students rather than their science education
only. Students said they liked Mr. Hoskin, respected him, and enjoyed his
company.
The school is located in a rural county in the southeastern United States
and enrolls approximately 520 students. At the time of the study, the racial
mix of students was 66% white and 34% black. According to school statistics, the IQ of students was normally distributed with 60% falling in the 84
to 116 range, 19% above 117, and 21% below 84. Thirty-seven percent of
the school’s graduates went on to some form of post-secondary education.
Data Collection
Four participant observers collected data in a manner that was as nonobtrusive as possible, At least two observers were present in each class
period for five periods per day for four weeks. Three researchers observed
436 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
two periods each and a fourth researcher observed all classes throughout the
day to obtain a comprehensive view of Mr. Hoskin’s teaching.
Informal interviews with students and the teacher were undertaken before, during and after lessons t o obtain contextual information and clarification on events observed during the lesson. The information obtained in this
way was incorporated into the field notes. At the end of the study, a formal
interview was conducted with four students from each class. The students
to be interviewed were carefully selected because of their role in class and
the relevance of the information they might provide. Mr. Hoskin also was
formally interviewed when all observations were completed. All interviews
were recorded and transcribed.
A further data source was the teacher’s written reaction to an initial draft
of this paper and verbal testimony from a concluding interview in which
results of the study were discussed and differences and similarities in interpretations were highlighted.
Data A nalysis and Interpretation
Regular team meetings were held t o discuss the assertions and evidence
for them. Discussion led to rejection, acceptance, or modification of assertions and provided a focus for subsequent observations. Through this interactive process, we slowly generated grounded theory to explain the observations of Mr. Hoskin’s science classes. Decisions to retain assertions were
based on a decisive imbalance of the evidence for an assertion versus the
evidence against.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of the study, we defined several key terms as follows:
1. A lesson is one hour of instructional time.
2. An activity is a segment of a lesson which deals with similar content
and utilizes one particular group structure. An activity ends and
another begins when the group structure changes or when the content
changes.
3. An academic task is the product of student engagement is an activity.
The products may be overt or covert. Examples in science include
constructing an understanding of a teacher explanation, providing a
response to a teacher question, interpreting data from a graph, collecting data in an investigation, applying a formula t o solve a physics
problem, manipulating equipment during a laboratory activity, evaluating the adequacy of an explanation of another student, and recalling
specific factual information. A given activity may involve several
academic tasks.
ALTER NATl VE PERSPECTIVES 437
4. Academic work for a student is the sum of the tasks completed in a
lesson. Students do work when they engage in academic tasks.
Findings
Assertion 1: The teacher emphasized getting the work done in the scheduled
time rather than learning.
Mr. Hoskin’s routine was extremely predictable. Three group structures
were used in most of the observed lessons. In a typical lesson he allocated
approximately 40 minutes to whole-class interactive teaching, 15 minutes to
individualized activities and five minutes to whole-class non-interactive
teaching. This pattern of activities was consistent for all except the physics
and chemistry I1 classes which had approximately 30 minutes of whole-class
interactive teaching and 30 minutes of individualized activities. Small group
activities were only observed during laboratory investigations which were
conducted in each class for one hour per week. Laboratory activities were
not scheduled as frequently in general science or physics.
Use of whole-class interactive activities for so much of the time necessitated a teaching and learning style that could cater t o one group of students.
According to Mr. Hoskin he pitched instruction to the ability level of students just below the top. As a consequence, if the lesson was implemented
as planned, most students in class would cover the work during class time
and would experience learning difficulties. The difficulty of the work and
the pace of coverage was too fast for most students who were interviewed.
Learning was delayed until they could work with the text at a later time or
until they could seek clarification from the teacher.
The teacher’s priority appeared t o be to cover the work in the scheduled
time and to place the responsibility for learning the content with the students. Mr. Hoskin confirmed that content coverage was his priority during
class time. He stated that:
I totally agree that I emphasize covering material. Concerning whether students
learn in class. I don’t expect them to learn in class. You don’t either. You give
them in class those things that allow the students to go home and learn the
material.
During one chemistry lesson Mr. Hoskin demonstrated six types of chemical reactions in approximately one hour. Although the chemistry involved
in the reactions was complex, it was apparent that he did not expect students to learn the chemistry as he did not highlight or reinforce the main
points. Furthermore, students were so far away from the demonstration
that they could not see many of the salient points.
On the following day the same lesson was taught to the general science
class. At best, the lesson would have had entertainment value t o these low
438 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
ability and relatively unmotivated students. Students talked to one another
as the teacher set up the demonstrations on clock reactions, and did not
appear to listen as he provided a conceptual level explanation of what was
happening. The teacher explained the color changes in oscillating reactions
in terms of electrons, orbitals, and energy being given out. Certain students
attempted to communicate their lack of understanding with peer-attracting
“calling out.” For example, at one stage the teacher invited questions from
the class. One boy called out: “Yeh. What’s happening?” Other comments
suggested that the students perceived the entire demonstration as some type
of gimmick or perhaps magic show. One youth remarked that the oscillating
reaction demonstration would make a good Christmas present, and another
indicated that if he saw that in the street “I’d be off man!”.
Mr. Hoskin was especially concerned with completing the work before
scheduled tests. In a lesson in the chemistry I class in which Mr. Hoskin
dealt with empirical and molecular formulae, he allocated the last five
minutes of class to hybridization and resonance. Each of these concepts was
complex and would have justified considerably more class time. These two
areas of the curriculum were completed so that students would be able to
answer questions on the test which was scheduled for the next day. The
work was not reviewed after the test. Mr. Hoskin justified his approach to
those topics with the following comment:
Resonance and hybridization are covered in chemistry I1 and as I stated in class,
only a definition would suffice for chemistry I. These topics are better skimmed
over and saved for later because of the amount of additional background information required and the amount of confusion that would occur if these topics
were really studied in chemistry I.
In all classes there was little discussion on the conceptual aspects of
science. The emphasis was on correctly answering assigned problems using
“seek and find techniques” from the textbook or procedures to obtain
correct answers to quantitative problems. For example, the following topics
show the procedural orientation of the work covered during the time we
observed Mr. Hoskin’s chemistry I classes: rules to determine oxidation
numbers of elements; problems to calculate empirical and molecular formulae; how to name compounds for which a formula was given, and how to
write a formula for a given named compound; and writing balanced equations.
Mr. Hoskin did not monitor student understanding of science concepts
during instruction. During most lessons, he explained specific content,
assigned seatwork activities from which students could learn the content,
and responded t o student requests for assistance. His role was consistent
with his belief that students ought t o be responsible for their own learning.
It was up to students to recognize that they had a misunderstanding and
to request assistance from the teacher. Similarly, students were left to
decide whether or not they worked during class time. Although Mr. Hoskin
ALTER NATlVE PERSPECTIVES 439
moved systematically about the classroom, he did not ask questions to ascertain whether students understood what he had been teaching.
The value of students accepting responsibility for their own learning was
a driving force behind this and other findings of this study. Mr. Hoskin left
students to identify resources which could assist them t o understand the
science content which was covered in class. This strong tendency, together
with a pace and difficulty level which was conducive to the learning needs
of the more-able students could lead t o a situation where less-able students
become demoralized by the difficulty of science. There was some evidence
t o suggest that this had happened in the general science class where students
appeared to have given up attempting to understand the science which was
taught.
Assertion 2: The assessment schedule influenced the nature of the academic
work.
Tests that were scheduled every two weeks, nine-week examinations and
semester examinations provided a strong incentive for students to focus on
components of the course that were likely to be assessed. In addition, Mr.
Hoskin frequently mentioned tests and identified content and procedures
that had t o be known for the test. Students appeared to rely on these
teacher cues for what was important. If a difficult concept or procedure
was being taught, students could be relied on to ask whether or not it would
be on the test. Consequently, whether or not content or procedures were
to be assessed became the criterion for determining the importance of
academic work. This perception was reinforced by teacher responses to
student questions. If questions were asked about conceptual aspects of
science, frequently they were answered in terms of procedures t o be applied
or were deferred t o some indeterminate future occasion. For example, in a
discussion of partial pressure the teacher presented a formula to calculate
the pressure of a dry gas. The information in the formula was presented
without interaction with students. Brian, a target student (i.e., a high-ability
student who dominates classroom interaction, Tobin & Gallagher, 1987a),
asked about the solubility of hydrogen in water. After acknowledging the
good question, the teacher informed Brian that they would not deal with
this issue at the present time and t o assume ideal gas behavior.
A close relationship between assessment and academic work did not
produce an environment in which students were encouraged t o take risks
since almost everything written by students was graded. Students in all
classes had few opportunities to practice skills and concepts in a formal
sense without the threat of a grade. The students in the classes had been
evaluated an average of 28 times during the first 40 days of instruction.
Consequently, there were few opportunities for different types of responding and thinking.
The day prior t o a test was set aside for review activities which differed
440 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
substantially from activities in which new content was introduced or practiced. A typical review lesson consisted of two activities. In the first of these,
the teacher asked students if they had any questions. This activity, which
continued until all questions were answered, was dominated by three to five
students in each class. In one of these activities with the period four chemistry I class, 36 questions were asked in 15 minutes. Four boys asked 19
questions, and one girl asked 17 questions. The other 15 students did not
speak during the activity. Not surprisingly, the majority of the questions
were phrased in terms of whether or not a particular content area would be
tested. Very few public questions were specific to an aspect of content
that was not understood. The only time when content was identified in this
way was when the teacher mentioned two or three alternative content areas,
and the students selected one for clarification.
The second activity in the typical review lesson consisted of a seatwork
exercise in which students were given a worksheet which contained questions
similar t o those on the test. For example, students in general science were
given a worksheet with 43 review questions on nuclear energy. They were to
use their textbook to find the answer. This process required little work besides copying because the questions referred to italicized words or lists
from the book. Students raced through the chapter finding and sharing
answers. Mr. Hoskin justified this approach to review in the following written comments.
As far as students racing through the chapter finding answers and sharing them
on classroom exercises, at least that exposes them to the textbook material. It
forces them to read a textbook chapter and/or help others dig things from the
chapter.
Mr. Hoskin and the students were aware of the focusing effect of the
assessment system and the teacher was obviously prepared t o continue the
practice. He noted that:
I took it upon myself to ask this question when students were doing a classwork
exercise; “If this exercise was not going to be graded, how many of you would
do it?” The first response was “Are you kidding?” Then when they saw that I
was not, the responses varied from “No!” to “Like Hades I would!” Teachers
and students see grades as the only guarantee that any learning will take place.
Tests appeared to be conceptually difficult, however, the cognitive demand was reduced because most items had been covered in class in the same
form in which they were presented on the test. A chemistry I test on empirical and molecular formula and oxidation number was administered in 50
minutes. The test contained 64 questions, 27 at knowledge level, 32 requiring application of procedures and 5 comprehension level items.
Essentially there were two types of questions, each requiring low level
skills to obtain an answer. The first type required recall of information
learned in the course. A representative question of this type was:
A L T E R N A T I V E PERSPECTIVES 441
An example of hybridization is:
(a) Lewis dot (b) SP3 (c) ionic charge
(d) covalent bonds
The second type of question required knowledge of how t o use a procedure or algorithm in order to obtain a correct answer. For instance:
The oxidation number of manganese (Mn) in KMn04 is:
(a) +7 (b) +5
(c) +2 (d) +6
The time allowance required students t o answer each question in less than
one minute and provided little time for thinking during the test. However,
some items involving calculations needed more time. As a consequence,
most students were unable to complete the questions because of insufficient
time. The next day the teacher informed students of their results, provided
the correct answers to the items, but did not work through the items which
provided most difficulty.
Aspects of the laboratory were also emphasized through the assessment
system. Laboratory reports were graded and a laboratory test assessed
knowledge from laboratory activities. The questions for the laboratory test
came directly from the printed sheets that were distributed for each laboratory activity. The teacher stated that “every question comes from a question
in those printed sheets or some fact in those printed sheets or is based on
some results from the laboratory activity. The lab final makes the labs
honest”. Inspection of the laboratory tests revealed that most items were
at the knowledge level and that the rest required application of procedures
in a routine manner.
The written reaction of Mr. Hoskin to the initial draft of this paper indicated that he was aware that low level cognitive skills were being assessed
on tests, but that external factors influenced the way that he tested students.
Concerning the testing and development of higher cognitive levels of learning,
my use of these has declined in the last five years; again due to the forces that
teachers are under. One would love to ask high level cognitive questions, but the
failure rate is very high. When the principal says that teacher evaluation is based
in part upon the percentage of failure, what is the teacher to do? Obviously the
teacher will include all the same material but lower the cognitive level of test
questions to decrease the failure rate. In addition, since University freshman
classes are taught almost exclusively at the rote recall level, lowering the cognitive level of test questions also better prepares, in my opinion, the student for
freshman courses.
The findings associated with this assertion provide insights into reasons for
the emphasis on learning facts and algorithms to solve problems of the type
included on tests and examinations. The two reasons offered by the teacher
for emphasizing assessment of low-level cognitive learning related to preparing students for university classes and ensuring that students pass the course.
442 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
With these reasons in mind, it might be predicted that the teaching and learning processes would be consistent with the forces which emphasized and
placed value on low-level cognitive learning.
Assertion 3: Teachers and students adopted strategies which reduced the
cognitive demands of the academic work in science classes.
Most students were covertly engaged in whole-class activities for a large
proportion of the time, and as a consequence, received instruction in a form
that was presented by someone else. In most cases the cognitive load was
carried by the teacher. For example, in all classes Mr. Hoskin demonstrated
how to solve type-examples using rules and procedures. As he worked a
problem on the chalkboard, he involved selected students in a whole-class
interactive activity by asking questions which redefined the task from having
t o know what questions t o ask and be able t o provide the correct answers t o
one of providing correct answers to given questions. The questions were
usually answered by one of the more-able students or the teacher. If the
question was not answered the teacher rephrased it, usually in a more convergent form that prompted a particular correct answer. Little or no attention was given t o why the particular questions were asked and whether other
equally productive questions might have been fruitful. The intention appeared t o be to teach an algorithm which would enable a particular class of
problem to be solved.
When a new topic which was highly conceptual was introduced, the teacher emphasized its procedural and practical aspects rather than the development of the concept. For example, a new topic on chemical equilibrium was
introduced in the chemistry I1 class. The teacher proceeded to provide short
definitions of rate of chemical reaction, activation energy, level of an activated complex and rate determining step. Following this activity the teacher
went straight t o the formula for the equilibrium constant and worked a
problem to show its application. In the final activity students were required
to answer some questions from the book. Most of these required “search and
find” techniques as students used the text to find verbatim answers. During
this activity students assisted one another by sharing relevant page numbers
for specific questions.
A similar situation occurred in the physics classes. Almost 80% of the
time was spent on problems and mathematical formulae. The students were
not involved in many problems that required physics knowledge; however,
they were required to apply mathematics in a procedural manner to obtain
answers to problems. Although these problems concerned physics content,
the emphasis was on correct application of mathematics as procedures were
followed to arrive at a solution.
Mr. Hoskin was conscious of his emphasis on algorithms and low-level
cognitive outcomes and justified this approach in terms of his belief that the
high school science courses should prepare students for further education.
He noted that:
ALTERNATI VE PERSPECTIVES 443
I try to quiz every graduate that has gone on to further education if there is anything that I could change to make them better prepared for those courses. So
far, very little has had to be changed. If the need arises, I will gladly change. So
you see, apparently algorithms and procedures are needed to be successful with
higher studies. Let the higher cognitive studies and concepts come after a base of
knowledge has been developed.
Laboratory investigations also tended to be of a procedural type where
students followed instructions from a laboratory sheet. When students
arrived in class they were told what to do and were given a laboratory sheet
containing the steps to follow. Each laboratory activity consisted of a “cookbook” exercise in which students followed directions on the prescribed
worksheet to obtain a predetermined answer. Students were not involved in
planning the activity and were not responsible in any way for being prepared
for a laboratory exercise. Students worked in self-selected and self-paced
groups which varied in size from two to six. Observation of these laboratory
activities revealed both sustained and intermittent engagement. In most cases
the pace of work was relaxed, and students dealt with their social agendas as
well as the academic work. The students knew that the write-up could be
completed at home if it wasn’t completed during class time. Although there
were students who engaged intensively in laboratory activities, more than
50% of the students engaged in a covert manner. In most instances they
stood back and watched their peers carry out the investigation.
Mr. Hoskin acknowledged that a cookbook approach to laboratory activities was adopted. He noted that:
Yes the laboratories are cookbook; that is the only way that a teacher can control in some measure what goes on in the laboratory. Don’t burden the teacher
with the idea of free experimentation in the chemistry lab. Possibly in grade
school this would work, but if one requires free experimentation in high school,
there will be no labs in science courses, and you will relegate science down to the
level of English and mathematics classes.
The above response is consistent with Mr. Hoskin’s overall approach to
science teaching. Laboratory activities, just like any other activities, are a
part of the academic work which needs to be completed. The role of learning
from a laboratory activity is largely ignored in his response. Students could
be involved in planning investigations in numerous ways which would not
lead to safety problems. However, Mr. Hoskin has associated involving
students in planning investigations with implementing dangerous investigations and has not addressed himself to the cognitive aspects of designing an
investigation to solve a particular problem. His tendency to ignore the cognitive engagement of students was apparent in other responses as well.
For example, a common activity in all science classes was for students to
copy notes that were summarized on the board by the teacher. One frequent
problem with this strategy was that the teacher elaborated on the notes and
clarified what was meant as the students copied them from the chalkboard.
444 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
As a consequence, students effectively were required to engage in two tasks
at one time. Because of the importance of having good notes to prepare for
tests and examinations, students would most likely concentrate their efforts
on copying the notes and not attend to the oral presentation as closely as
they should in order to gain most benefit from it. Mr. Hoskin’s written response to the draft paper ignored the cognitive problems of having to decode
verbal input from the teacher at the same time as related but different information is being copied from the chalk board.
What is wrong with engaging in two things at once? I know of no person that is
not required to do multiple things. If students were not accustomed to doing
two or three things at a time, they could not survive. On the contrary, most
students feel bored without two or three things occurring simultaneously.
The cognitive demands were reduced also by students seeking assistance
from peers. During individualized activities students often formed groups
and worked together to solve problems. Although group cooperation has the
potential to enhance the learning of all group members, this was not the
case in the observed classes. In most instances informal groups were set up
by students requesting help from peers. Discussions appeared t o consist of
one student asking, and another student giving oral assistance. In many
cases the assistance was much more blatant as students took and copied another student’s work.
Reducing the cognitive demands of the work facilitated content coverage,
which appeared to be Mr. Hoskin’s main concern. For most students the
effect of these strategies was t o allow them to succeed in science without
necessarily understanding the concepts involved. The findings reported in
conjunction with this assertion are consistent with Mr. Hoskin’s intention
of covering the work so that students can learn at home and pitching the
level of instruction just below the ability of the more-able students. As a
consequence, many activities were presented in a manner that stimulated the
involvement of a few of the more-able students.
Assertion 4: A relatively small number of target students dominated wholeclass interactions and laboratory activities.
In four of the five classes taught by Mr. Hoskin, three to five target
students dominated the whole-class interactions. There were no target students in the general science class. Target students asked most questions and
overtly responded t o teaching cues more often than others in the class.
Responses largely involved calling out, and hands were seldom raised. For
example, in the period four chemistry class, three grade 10 males, a grade 1 1
male and a grade 12 female were target students. The tendency for target
students to be male was evident in the other classes as well and is consistent
with other research in science classes (Sadker & Sadker, 1985; Tobin &
A L T E R N A T I V E PERSPECTIVES 445
Gallagher, 1987a). These students dominated the whole-class interactions.
For example, 36 questions were asked in a 15 minute segment of one lesson.
Seventeen questions were asked by the female target student and the four
male target students asked 19 questions. The remaining students in the class
were involved in a covert manner only.
Target students also appeared to dominate many laboratory groups.
Activities in two separate physics laboratories were monitored to determine
how much time was spent doing and how much time was spent watching.
One laboratory had the students divided into two groups, and the other had
all students in one group. The average time spent doing was 25% with a range
from 0% t o 74%. Because of equipment limitations, it was not possible for
all students t o participate by doing. Consequently, the stage was set for
one or two students to monopolize the use of equipment. The interview data
suggest that students who took the initiative in laboratory activities were
permitted to continue to do the work. In one particular instance, one
student was dominating the activity but relinquished control to another
student. However, the new student could not get the equipment to function
properly so the first student again resumed command. The data suggest that
for most of the time the majority of the students watched someone else
doing the experiment. Most students seemed happy with this arrangement
since for most of them the desired outcome of the laboratory was to complete the worksheets and the report, not learning t o manipulate experimental apparatus.
The teacher’s written comments regarding target students indicated that
he knew about them and considered the disproportionate involvement
inevitable. He did not relate target student involvement to possible enhancement of learning for them and deprivation of learning opportunities for
others.
Whenever any group interaction is held, only a few people dominate the answering of questions. This is nothing new. There is nothing wrong with this. I feel
that your assumption that more female target students might be expected in
advanced sciences is wrong. Very few females actively participate in any higher
level math or science courses. This is fact, not assumption.
Target students and risk takers are merely those students that will be the leaders
of the future. They have personalities that are such that they ask many, many
questions. They are not “target” or “risk” students, that is their personality. If
people do not answer because they are afraid, that is merely an indication of
what they will be like in the future-not an indication of preferential treatment.
Risk level in a class has several dimensions, which are influenced by teacher and student expectations, peer influence and other factors associated with
the implemented curriculum. Risk level is an important concept in classroom
research because of the public nature of teaching and learning in classrooms.
When a teacher asks a question or calls for students to ask a question, there
are risks associated with providing an answer. The risks depend upon the
446 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
difficulty of the question, the ability of the student t o answer the question,
the anticipated reaction of the teacher following a response to the question,
and the reaction of students in the class t o a response to the question.
Associated with risks are payoffs. These would include the opportunity to
receive feedback or knowledge as a result of answering the question, the
opportunity to receive a higher course grade and the opportunity to receive
peer approval by answering or by not answering. Thus, whether or not
students interact in classrooms may be dependent on the balance between
the risks and the payoffs. If the gap is too great in favor of the risks students
are unlikely to participate; however, if the gap is narrow or if the payoffs
outweigh the risks, then student engagement will probably occur.
The teacher’s responses to the presence of target students suggested that
he expected certain students to dominate in science activities and that
gender-related differences were inevitable. Consequently, what happened in
his classroom was consistent with his expectations for student involvement.
Throughout the study, it was apparent that Mr. Hoskin’s expectations for
student engagement and the quality of student work had important consequences for the implemented curriculum.
Assertion 5 : Differential teacher expectations for classes and students influenced the nature of the academic work.
Mr. Hoskin expected students to accept responsibility for their own learning. As a consequence, his management style was distinctive. Although he
circulated about the room and provided assistance as required, there were
few occasions when the teacher actively monitored engagement and took
action to engage off-task students. Students knew what Mr. Hoskin’s expectations were regarding accepting responsibility for their own work in class
and they also knew that he was not assertive in maintaining engagement.
These realizations helped to shape their own behavior in class. Highly motivated students from the chemistry I, chemistry If and physics classes worked
well in this system, however, in each class there were students who were
off-task and distracted others from engaging.
Mr. Hoskin assigned a seatwork activity during the final 20 to 25 minutes
of most lessons. As the end of the lesson approached (i.e. during the last
three to four minutes), almost all students were off-task. It appeared that
students were more concerned with pursuing their social agenda during
class time and would complete the work at home. When asked about the
three to four minutes of dead time at the conclusion of each lesson, Mr.
Hoskin said that sometimes it was intentional, but it was not a part of a
bargain in which rewards were exchanged for work. He said that he had a
specific amount of work to get done and “if I’ve finished what I set out to
do, I won’t start something new. It is not for socializing; it is not related to
that at all”.
Mr. Hoskin had high expectations for the chemistry and physics classes
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES 447
and low expectations for the general science class. Because chemistry and
physics students were more likely to continue to study at a higher level Mr.
Hoskin emphasized study techniques and skills. He felt that higher ability
students would be able to learn facts when they were needed, and it was
more important for them t o develop skills to equip themselves for later
studies. In contrast, the general science course emphasized low-level cognitive learning despite the fact that Mr. Hoskin stated that these students
“should be exposed to things that they have not experienced before, particularly aspects of science that relate the world outside of the classroom to
what they are learning in class”. To facilitate learning he said that he “hit
the same material in three or four different ways” before the test. Consequently, students answered textbook questions, read from the text, took
notes from lectures, completed review sheets, observed demonstrations, and
performed laboratory investigations. He said that through the use of differeqt modalities there was a chance that “some of it would sink in”. Although
Mr. Hoskin stated that these things should occur in the general science class,
the researchers did not observe science being related t o the world outside
of the classroom and few laboratory activities were prescribed for the
class.
Mr. Hoskin stated that a major problem in the school was that students
had so much free choice in terms of subject selection that students with
high ability could opt for low level subjects such as general science which
also enrolled a high proportion of low ability students. He felt that he had
to demand something of these students. Yet the demands or accountability
were not made in terms of how students were to engage; rather, the accountability was associated with the assessment scheme. Students in general
science expected to be able to come to class and not engage in a sustained
manner. They knew that they were expected t o complete specified tasks
in order to obtain credit and to perform at specified levels on tests. There
was no requirement that they engage in class, and in most instances students
did not engage in class. Their behavior was consistent with Mr. Hoskin’s
expectations which are graphically represented in the written statement
below.
The general science class is called middle group. Students in the middle group
are there for one of two reasons; either they should be in college preparatory
courses and have opted for the easy way out or they are too immature to study
and take school work very seriously. No, they couldn’t explain the labs; they
don’t listen to instructions given the day before and repeated the same day; no,
they hadn’t read the lab sheet due to immaturity and the essence of the middle
group child which is a desire for uncontrolled freedom with no limits . . . These
are the kids that are very sharp but have no home, or one parent, or drunk parents, or abusive parents. No, they do not get turned on by school; they are glad
to be alive. Besides, we need good chicken pluckers and factory workers, and the
middle group is the pool from which they come.
Several questions might be asked about the general science class. For
448 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
example, what would be the effect of insisting that students engage in wholeclass and individualized activities? Furthermore, if the curriculum was
selected with student interest in mind and was implemented with learning
as the major goal, it is possible that interest levels might increase, and that
motivation to learn might increase as well. The interactions between teacher
and student expectations appear to have resulted in a degenerate learning
situation in which management was a major concern. The learning environment which characterized the general science class was not conducive to
teaching or learning.
The teacher’s differential expectations for performance also operated
within classes. More was expected from some students in a class than others.
An example of this was in the chemistry I class where the grade 10 students
were regarded as bright and capable of good work, and the grade 11 students
were regarded as less-able. Some of the 10th graders had skipped grades and
were “extremely sharp.” Three of the five target students referred to in the
previous section were grade 10 males. One exception was a 12th grade
female who accepted responsibility for her own success and asked very
many questions and the other was an 1 l t h grade male who was almost as
assertive about his own learning. As previously described, these students
dominated involvement in most types of activities, and because they were
the most-able in the group, the level of instruction was matched t o their
interests and needs.
Most of the students that we interviewed felt that Mr. Hoskin had high
expectations for their academic progress. For example, Sally, one of the
grade 1 1 students in the chemistry I class described Mr. Hoskin as a top
teacher who had good control, never raised his voice, who trusted that they
would behave, and who had the utmost of respect for the students as people.
She noted that he expected a 150% effort from everyone. Mr. Hoskin’s views
on his own expectations mirrored those expressed by students. His written
comments are provided below.
I have the highest expectations for students of any teacher that I have met. I
expect them to discipline themselves; I expect them to learn a tremendous
amount of material; I expect them to come to class prepared; I expect them to
prepare papers in correct english; and I expect them to do this with a smile on
their faces! I do not raise my voice because I don’t want to do so. Quiet strength
is a lot more effective than yelling.
When it comes to Mr. Hoskin’s expectations and their effects on academic
work there is clear disagreement between the views of the teacher and
students on the one hand and the members of the research team on the
other. Undoubtedly Mr. Hoskin did expect students to submit a lot of work
if they wanted to succeed in the course. However, the work did not require
high-level cognitive effort. In addition, the work of students in class was
shaped mainly by Mr. Hoskin’s value position that students should accept
responsibility for their own learning. Accordingly, the teacher had a rela-
ALTER NATl VE PERSPECTIVES 449
tively non-active role whereby he was available as a resource but did not seek
t o maintain high levels of student engagement and did not initiate interactions to probe student understanding. Thus, Mr. Hoskin’s expectations
were that the work would be completed if students expected to pass the
course. However, he had low expectations for student behavior in class,
engagement in learning tasks, and learning science with understanding.
Alternative Perspectives on Teaching and Learning
The teacher’s written and oral reactions t o the initial version of this paper
highlight the difficulties faced by teacher educators endeavoring to improve
science teaching. This teacher is generally acknowledged as outstanding by
his peers, the school administration, the students, and parents. The feedback
that this teacher receives about his teaching is extremely complementary.
Faced with a report that suggested that there were some aspects of his teaching that might be improved, the teacher’s first reactions were to rationalize
the results, to defend his actions and t o disagree with many of the interpretations. Although the teacher had expressed a sincere request for feedback
on any and all aspects of his teaching, receipt of the full report was not
welcomed.
This was not the first feedback that the teacher received throughout the
study. At the conclusion of most lessons, members of the observation team
discussed aspects of the lesson in an endeavor to verify the data or to elaborate on aspects that were not clear. In addition, a written report was provided
t o the teacher after the study had been in progress for two weeks.
The intense level of reaction of the teacher to the initial draft of this
paper was not anticipated. It was clear that the distance between the research team and the teacher was relatively large in this study. The teacher
was surprised by the results and regarded the report as an example of “ivory
tower” views of the research team. The question of providing the teacher
with the report was one that was carefully considered before taking that
action. Although we could have written a “special” report for the -teacher,
we felt that it was intellectually honest t o provide him with the initial draft,
t o incorporate his reactions into the paper, and t o use his perspectives to
assist in analyzing the data. We still feel that this was the appropriate course
of action. However, one methodological issue that might be considered is
the desirability of working with a teacher as a co-researcher in studies such
as this. Of course there will be trade-offs. Some data will be accessible that
would not normally be available to a research team; however, regular feedback t o the teacher would result in a continuously changing classroom
environment. Clearly, the research questions will determine the degree of
participation that is desirable in an interpretive research study.
From a theoretical perspective, Schon (1983) highlighted the value of
reflection on practice in professional contexts such as teaching. However,
the work environment of Mr. Hoskin provided few opportunities for reflec-
450 TOBIN, ESPINET, BYRD, AND ADAMS
tion on practice. As well as teaching his classes, he had to prepare laboratory
and demonstration activities, tests and examinations. In addition, he had
papers t o grade and administrative duties to undertake. His “thinking time”
was directed towards assisting students t o succeed within his existing framework. There were few, if any, data that suggested that he should change
that framework. His teaching was highly regarded by his pupils, colleagues,
school administrators and educators in the county and state offices of education and the university.
As we observed Mr. Hoskin’s teaching, we searched for the rationale that
he used to explain his actions in the classroom. It was clear that he was a
concerned teacher with a strong background in science. An important difference between Mr. Hoskin and the research team was in his knowledge of
how students learn, what ought to be taught, and how the teacher can
facilitate learning. These differences were apparent throughout the study in
terms of observations in his classes, interviews and in his written reactions
t o the draft version of the paper. A key to Mr. Hoskin’s perspective on
teaching and learning is his initial comment that “there is no way that
University personnel can understand the school process if they are not in the
classroom all day every day.” The main irony in the comment is that being
in the classroom all day every day probably leads to the type of framework
possessed by Mr. Hoskin. Our on-going research program has shown that
the provision of time to reflect on teaching practice and to observe others
teach leads to an environment in which teachers are prepared to change their
perceptions of teaching and learning (Tobin, Espinet & Byrd, 1987a,b).
We think that these alternative perspectives are understandable and predictable. They are also probably generalizable to a good many teachers. We
feel that the differences are attributable to the work that teachers have to
do throughout their professional lives. The findings of the study have many
implications for science teachers and science teacher education; however,
we think that none is more important than a need for further research to
understand how teachers conceptualize teaching and learning and how
alternative conceptualizations affect the practice and improvement of science teaching.
Conclusion
This qualitative view of Rural County High school is not the only picture
that can be constructed of the complex set of processes which occur as
science is taught each day, week, month and year. The academic work which
occurs in the science classes at Rural County High is similar to that described
in other studies. We make this point to emphasize the fact that, although
contextual factors result in each class being unique, there are similarities
which extend across counties, states and countries (Gallagher, 1985 ; Sanford, 1987; Stake & Easley, 1978; Tobin & Gallagher, 1987 a,b). These
factors appear to be driven by powerful forces, such as teacher and student
ALTER NATlVE PE RSPECTIVES 451
expectations, reward systems and peer influence. To expect one teacher to
change what is happening, or to change in a short period of time, may be
asking too much. Science educators face a formidable challenge in changing
the nature of school science. Tinkering with selected teachers in specific
schools may lead to desirable regional changes; however, it appears to us that
changes of a fundamental nature are necessary. These changes must begin
with the beliefs and assumptions of educators. There is little reward for
changing teaching so as to emphasize high-level cognitive learning and laboratory activities if the assessment system continues to promote recall of
facts.
References
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.)
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition). NY:Macmillan Publishing Co.
Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Secondary school science (Interim Report). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An
interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583-604.
Sadker, D. & Sadker, M., (1985). Is the O.K. classroom O.K.? Phi Delta Kappan, 55(1),
3 58-36 1.
Sanford, J. P. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students’
learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 249-265.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.
Stake, R. E. & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education (Vols. 1 & 2).
Urbana: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee
on Culture and Cognition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.
Tobin, K., Espinet, M. & Byrd, S. (April, 1987a). Impediments to change: A n application
o f coaching in high school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Washington, DC.
Tobin, K., Espinet, M., & Byrd, S. (1987b). Usingpeer coachingto improve mathematics
teaching performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Tobin, K. & Gallagher, J. J. (1987a). Target students in the science classroom. Journalof
Research in Science Teaching, 24( 1), 6 1-75.
Tobin, K. & Gallagher, J. J. (1987b). What happens in high school science classrooms?
Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
von Glasersfeld, E. (198 1). The concepts of adaptation and viability in a radical constructivist theory of knowledge. In Sigel, I. E., Brodzinsky, D. M. & Golinkoff, R. M. New
directions in Piagetian theory and practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
87-95.
Accepted for publication 14 October 1987