Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
A SUBSTANTIVE-LEVEL THEORY OF TEACHING
INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS
Voltaire Mallari Mistades1 and Maricar S. Prudente2
De La Salle University, Philippines
(1voltaire.mistades@dlsu.edu.ph, 2maricar.prudente@dlsu.edu.ph)
ABSTRACT
Using Grounded Theory approach, this study puts forward a substantive-level theory of teaching Introductory
Physics. Sixteen (16) faculty members from the Physics Department of a private higher educational institution
in Manila, Philippines were observed in their actual classroom teaching. From this group, eight (8) were
interviewed regarding their purposes and goals for teaching Introductory Physics. Using the data generated from
classroom observation field notes and interview transcripts, and subjecting said data to a constant comparative
method, the initial core categories and their properties were developed. Analytic memos were written to show
the relationship between and within the categories that had been created. The result of the research process is an
articulation of how the six core categories are related to each other – “The teacher and the learner, together,
working towards learning the language of Physics supported by a conducive learning environment and lesson
design, with the end in mind of understanding the physical world”. The insights gleaned in the study can be used
by both beginning and established Physics teachers in their development and in examining their own teaching
practice.
KEYWORDS
Grounded Theory, Teaching, Learning, Physics Education Research, University Students.
INTRODUCTION
The intricacies of teaching and learning to teach in higher education institutions have been
acknowledged by researchers (Ballantyne, Bain, and Packer, 1997; Calderhead, 1996;
Common, 1989; Dunkin, 1995). Various perspectives had been utilized to study the
professional practice of teaching at the tertiary level. Studies of teaching in higher education
have focussed on the strategies and approaches that teachers employ (Akerlind, 2003; Gibbs
and Habershaw, 1986; Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2004). There had also been a substantial
amount of research at the tertiary level that looked at identifying teachers’ beliefs and their
way of thinking and proposed a link between teachers’ intentions and strategies (Dunkin and
Precians, 1992; Gow and Kember, 1993; Hativa, Barak, and Simhi, 2001; Singer, 1996;
Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor, 1994; Tsai, 2006). However, the investigation carried out by
Norton, et.al. (2005) confirmed the hypothesis of a disjunction between teachers’ beliefs and
intentions initially pointed out by Murray and Macdonald (1997) and Samuelowicz and Bain
(2001).
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Moreover, Kane, Sandetto, and Heath (2002) narrate that in their process of doing
background reading on their project that explored the beliefs and practices of excellent
teachers in their university, they became aware that some studies made claims about teaching
practice based only on information gathered about teachers’ beliefs without observations of
practice. They found ample discussion of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and
teachers’ practices in the primary and secondary education literature. However, they only
found few similar studies documenting teachers’ beliefs and practices at the tertiary level.
They are strong in their assertion that an understanding of university teaching is incomplete
without a consideration of teachers’ beliefs about teaching and a systematic examination of
the relationship between those beliefs and teachers’ practices.
According to Shulman (1987), understanding teaching implies an understanding of the
thinking and action of the teacher. When these two domains are studied together and each is
examined in relation to the other, a fuller understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon
of teaching would be revealed (Clark and Peterson, 1986). Martin, et.al., (2000) argue that to
improve teaching we should focus attention not only on the quality of teaching skills and
strategies, nor just the approaches to teaching adopted by teachers, but to the more
fundamental question which is, “What is it that teachers want their students to learn and how
do they believe their students will come to know this?” (page 411). It is not enough to simply
focus on teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, and intentions, but there is a need to develop a
coherent knowledge about teaching that promotes a learning culture that stimulates positive
learning outcomes (Kruse, Nielsen, and Winsløw, 2009).
Proponents of Physics Education Research acknowledge the important role of the interplay
between views about teaching and learning physics and the actual practice of physics
instruction. In concluding the chapter on “Teaching Physics” in the section they entitled,
Outlook: Desiderata for Physics Education Research, Duit, Niedderer, and Schecker (2007)
advocate that:
“More research is needed, especially concerning the following two issues:
• To investigate how teachers may be made familiar with research findings and
how their views about teaching and learning physics may be improved and
whether instructional practice improves accordingly.
• In order to be able to design more efficient instructional approaches, it is
necessary to be familiar with the actual practice of physics instruction. So far
only a few studies that allow deep insight into actual practice are available.
More studies on the practice of physics instruction are needed.” (page 623)
Responding to the call of Jones and Carter (2007) for continuous research in order to
“unravel the complexities of teacher attitudes and belief systems” and the challenge of Kane,
Sandetto, and Heath (2002) to systematically examine the relationship between beliefs and
teachers’ practices, this study proposes a substantive-level theory of teaching Introductory
Physics in a higher educational institution. Creswell (2007) defined substantive-level theory
as a “middle-range theory that is applicable to immediate situations”. This theory evolves
from the study of a phenomenon situated in one particular situational context and is
“restricted to a particular setting, group, time, population, or problem” (page 240).
Researchers differentiate this form of theory from theories of greater abstraction and
applicability, called grand theories or formal theories. The substantive-level theory of
teaching Introductory Physics presented in this study emerged from a grounded theory study
of Physics teachers in a private higher educational institution in Manila, Philippines.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
GROUNDED THEORY ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
Grounded Theory was utilized as the analytic framework of the study. The primary goal of
grounded theory is to generate theory inductively from data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In
Grounded Theory, researchers become familiar with existing theories in order to develop
sensitivity to meanings in the data, but initially set aside existing theory in order to collect
and analyze data with a fresh perspective (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Classroom observations and interviews were the primary methods of data collection.
Classroom observations gave the researchers a better understanding of the research
participants’ teaching. The research was able to generate classroom observation field notes
from the Introductory Physics class of sixteen (16) teachers from the Physics Department of a
private higher educational institution in Manila, Philippines. During the second trimester of
AY 2010-2011, a senior male teacher was observed for the whole term (13 weeks), four
teachers (3 full-time and one part-time) were observed during the first four weeks of the term
and then again during the last two weeks of the term, and seven teachers (6 full-time and one
part-time) were observed during a four-week period within the term (corresponding to the
beginning of a new topic until the completion of the topic and/or until a long exam). During
the third trimester of AY 2010-2011, five teachers (4 full-time and one part-time) were
visited during the first four weeks of the term to saturate the observation data and to validate
the emerging theory. One full-time teacher was observed during both the second and the third
trimesters.
The classroom observations served as the source of interview questions (Erlandson, et.al.,
1993; Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005). The interview questions were directed toward making
explicit connections between the observed classroom practices and the teachers’ purposes and
goals for teaching Introductory Physics. The research proponent interviewed eight (8) of the
sixteen teachers who were observed. The participants were sent the interview questions in
advance, although some additional questions arose during the course of the interview for
purposes of clarification. Each interview lasted between fifteen (15) to fifty (50) minutes and
was audio-recorded. The interview was transcribed verbatim and a copy of the transcript of
the interview was given to the interviewee for accuracy check and feedback. The interview
transcripts together with the classroom observation field notes served as the primary data
source for the research.
Data collection occurred from September 2010 through February 2011, with data analysis
continuing through June 2011. While data collection was on-going, data analysis proceeded
through a constant comparative method, developing initial core categories and their
properties, as well as generalizing relationships between categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
During the later phase of data analysis, interview transcripts, classroom observation field
notes, and analytic memos were continued to be theoretically sampled. The final stage of data
analysis was the development of a substantive-level theory of teaching Introductory Physics
at a higher educational institution. During this final stage, relevant literature was searched for
extant theories to support and clarify emerging categories, propositions, and theory gleaned
from this study. The data for the substantive area derived from literature was “woven into the
theory as more data for constant comparison” (Glaser, 1998, p. 67).
In putting forward the proposed Substantive-Level Theory of Teaching Introductory Physics
(Figure 1), the research is not trying to re-invent the pedagogical wheel. What the research
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
would like to achieve is an articulation of how the elements of the theory are related with
each other as gleaned from the shared experiences of a group of tertiary-level Physics
teachers.
Figure 1. The elements of a substantive-level theory of teaching Introductory Physics
DISCUSSION
The six elements (core categories) of the substantive theory generated by this study find
parallels in the work done by Kember (1997) and Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne (2007). After
reviewing thirteen studies at the tertiary level and synthesizing the literature available at that
time, Kember (1997) proposed a model which involved five dimensions of conceptions of
teaching: the roles of student and teacher, the content of teaching, the preferred styles and
approaches to teaching, the aims and expected outcome of teaching, and the essence of
learning and teaching. Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne (2007) analyzed what university
teachers considered important in their teaching and what their conceptions of good teaching
were. Six dimensions emerged from their study: (1) teacher’s role (inspiring students and
being an expert in the field); (2) students’ role (self-motivated and ability to process
knowledge); (3) physical environment; (4) atmosphere; (5) teaching context; and (6) teaching
practice (student interaction, variety of teaching methods, and putting teaching into a larger
context).
At the heart of the teaching–learning endeavor is the person of the teacher. Br. Craig Franz
FSC (2006) writes, “Lasallian institutions of higher education are well known for their
outstanding quality of engagement. In all our tertiary institutions, students value highly their
exposure to dedicated faculty. They appreciate the human, caring touch such faculty bring to
instruction. They learn far more than just the materials relegated to a subject-specific area;
they learn ethics and values in every class” (page 31). The study has pointed out certain
personal (genuineness and integrity, positive attitude towards teaching, appropriate use of
humor, and ability to adjust to situations) and professional (passion for excellence, constant
improvement of one’s craft, and mastery of the subject) qualities of a teacher that are
important from the viewpoint of tertiary-level Physics teachers. Beyond this set of qualities,
the research highlighted the teacher’s awareness of “teaching moments” or “learning
moments” (Woods & Jeffrey, 1996). This is characteristic of Lasallian institutions of higher
education, where students learn not just the subject-area content, but morals and character as
well.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Hansen (1998) identified three actions of teachers that foster learning moments: uncovering
students’ misconceptions, challenging the development of students’ personal academic
interests, and helping students recognize and improve their study behaviors. These three
activities develop in the students the features of proper study habits and a positive attitude
towards learning. These two characteristics, together with inquisitiveness, sense of
responsibility, and maturity, are the qualities and attitudes that the Physics teachers involved
in the study expect learners to gain as a result of their experience in the class.
As the study of Physics has been acknowledged as one of the more difficult disciplines to
learn (Angell, 2004), there is a need for the Physics teacher to build student’s confidence
while learning the language of Physics. The study has shown that this is achieved by
beginning with definitions, then moving to representations, and finally by doing problem
solving. The learning environment that is conducive for learning the language of Physics is
best described as one that uses appropriate technology resources and where mutually-agreed
upon policies and procedures contributes to a well-organized classroom setting. The teachers
acknowledge the challenge that the time factor brings to the design of the lesson, and because
of this, the teachers focus on central ideas or “touchstone problems” in the discipline.
During the early stages of the development of the substantive-level theory of teaching
Introductory Physics, the fourth component of the theory was given the name “classroom
management”. As the data collection and analysis progressed, the name evolved to “learning
environment” because this component of the theory is not confined to the four walls of the
classroom due to the technology resources that are available for both the teachers and the
learners. The elements of an organized learning environment include:
• parameters for classroom engagement, which involve
 classroom management policies and routines,
 schedule of activities, and
 agreed-upon grading system;
• appropriate use of technology resources, and
• strategies for the efficient use of class time.
From the observation notes gathered in the study and the interview with the teachers, the key
elements involved in the design of the lesson are the following:
1.
Giving an Overview
2.
Knowing Prior Conceptions and Connecting with Previous Experiences
3.
Involving Students in the Learning Process
4.
Focusing on Core Concepts / Central Ideas / “Touchstone Problems”
5.
Providing Examples using Analogies
6.
Synthesizing the Lesson
7.
Drawing Insights
Teachers situate what will happen in an Introductory Physics course by providing an
overview. This overview includes what topics are included in the course, the kind of activities
the students will experience, and the assessment that will be used. The classroom engagement
acknowledges students’ prior conceptions and their past experiences. The teachers
acknowledge the importance of covering a certain set of ideas that would be important in
understanding the physical world. These central ideas or core concepts allow the class to
learn the material even if there is time constraint brought about by different factors. It was
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
also noted during the class observations that the teachers deepened student understanding by
providing analogies. Zubrowski (2009) reported that the use of analogies serves to help
students to make personally meaning connections to the phenomenon being investigated.
In the present study, the interplay between three elements, namely, language of Physics,
learning environment, and lesson design, corresponds to what Shulman (1987) identified as
pedagogical content knowledge which is defined as “the special amalgam of content and
pedagogy that is uniquely the providence of teachers, their own special form of professional
understanding” (page 122). This body of knowledge includes the analogies, illustrations,
diagrams, examples, explanations, and demonstrations used in presenting the subject matter
to the learner. Cochran (1997) characterized pedagogical content knowledge as the synthesis
and integration of what teachers know about what they teach and what they know about
effective teaching.
The sentiment of the Physics teachers who participated in the study resonate what a Nobel
laureate in Physics has to say about the goal of Physics teaching,
“The purpose of science education is no longer simply to train that tiny fraction
of the population who will become the next generation of scientists. We need a
more scientifically literate populace to address the global challenges that
humanity now faces and that only science can explain and possibly mitigate, such
as global warming, as well as to make wise decisions, informed by scientific
understanding, about issues such as genetic modification. Moreover, the modern
economy is largely based on science and technology, and for that economy to
thrive and for individuals within it to be successful, we need technically literate
citizens with complex problem-solving skills.”
– Weiman (2007, page 9)
CONCLUSION
Glaser (1998) provides us with the criteria that will facilitate the conclusion of this research
undertaking, “Does the theory work to explain relevant behavior in the substantive area of
research? Does it have relevance to the people in the substantive field? Does the theory fit
the substantive area? Is it readily modifiable as new data emerge?” (page 9)
This study adds to the existing literature in higher education research, in general, and to
Physics Education research, in particular, as it utilized both classroom observation data and
interviews with teachers as the basis for documenting teacher’s views about teaching and
learning and the actual practice of physics instruction at the tertiary level. The substantial
level theory that had been developed emerged from the codes, properties, and categories
rooted in the observation and interview data. As such, the theory fits the substantive area that
was researched upon.
It builds on the extant literature that recognizes the central role played by the teacher in the
teaching–learning process and the importance of a Physics teacher’s pedagogical content
knowledge in helping the students gain an understanding of the physical world. This is how
the research responds to the criteria of the theory’s workability.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Kane, Sandretto, and Heath (2002) note that “an important outcome of any research on
university teaching is its application in assisting novice or less experienced teachers in their
development”. This observation underscores the relevance of the present research.
Furthermore, even seasoned teachers could benefit from this research on the teaching–
learning process. The insights gleaned from the study can be used by both beginning and
established Physics teachers in their development and in examining their own teaching
practice.
As the research focused on how tertiary-level Physics teachers from a private higher
educational institution view the teaching of Introductory Physics, future studies could
examine the teaching of the Natural Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) from the
viewpoint of teachers coming from a sampling of higher educational institutions. It is also
recommended that, because the current research did not seek student input, future studies
could develop a substantive-level theory for learning in the Natural Sciences. This will verify
the modifiability of the theory.
REFERENCES
Akerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and Developing as a University Teacher – Variation in
Meaning, Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390.
Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E., and Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, But Fun,
Science Education, 88, 683–706.
Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., and Packer, J. (1997). Reflecting on University Teaching:
Academics’ Stories, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and Knowledge, in Berliner, D.C. and Calfee, R.C.
(eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York: Macmillan, pp. 709–725.
Clark, C. M. and Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ Thought Processes, in M. C. Wittrock
(ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York: MacMillan, pp. 255–296.
Cochran, K.F. (1997). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Teachers’ Integration of Subject
Matter, Pedagogy, Students, and Learning Environments, Research Matters–to the Science
Teacher, 2, 1–8.
Common, D.L. (1989). Master Teachers in Higher Education: A Matter of Settings, Review
of Higher Education, 12(4), 375–387.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Duit, R., Niedderer, H., and Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching Physics, in S.K. Abell & N.G.
Lederman (eds.) Handbook of Research in Science Education, Lawrence Erlbaum &
Associates: New Jersey, pages 599–629.
Dunkin, M. (1995). Concepts of Teaching and Teaching Excellence in Higher Education,
Higher Education Research and Development, 14(1), 21–33.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Dunkin, M. J. and Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning University Teachers’ Concepts of
Teaching, Higher Education, 24(4), 483–502.
Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., and Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic
Inquiry: A Guide to Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Franz, C. (2006). True to a Vision, Steadfast to a Dream, in Craig Franz FSC (ed.)
Reflections on Lasallian Higher Education, International Association of Lasallian
Universities, 29–45.
Friedrichsen, P.M. and Dana, T.M. (2005). Substantive-Level Theory of Highly Regarded
Secondary Biology Teachers’ Science Teaching Orientations, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 42(2), 218–244.
Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, California: Sociology
Press.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Gow, L. and Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of Teaching and their Relationship to Student
Learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20–33.
Hansen, E.J. (1998). Creating Teachable Moments . . . and Making Them Last, Innovative
Higher Education, 23( 1), 7–26.
Hativa, N., Barak, R., and Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary University Teachers: Knowledge and
Beliefs Regarding Effective Teaching Dimensions and Strategies, The Journal of Higher
Education, 72(6), 699–729.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., and Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of Teaching (Seventh Edition), Pearson.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., and Heath, C. (2002). Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of
Research on the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of University Academics, Review of
Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.
Kember, D. (1997). A Reconceptualisation of the Research into University Academics’
Conceptions of Teaching, Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.
Kruse, S., Nielsen, K., and Winsløw, C. (2009). Becoming a Teaching Scholar: Concepts of
“Good” Teaching Among Science Teachers Participating in Training Programmes, in O.
Skovsmose et al. (eds.), University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition, New
York: Springer Science & Business Media, pages 175–194.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., and Benjamin, J. (2000). What University
Teachers Teach and How They Teach It, Instructional Science, 28, 287–412.
Murray, K. and Macdonald, R. (1997). The Disjunction Between Lecturers’ Conceptions of
Teaching and their Claimed Educational Practice, Higher Education, 33, 331–349.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Norton, L., Richardson, J.T.E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S. and Mayes, J. (2005) Teachers’
Beliefs and Intentions Concerning Teaching in Higher Education, Higher Education, 50, 537–
571.
Parpala, A. and Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). University Teachers’ Conceptions of Good
Teaching in the Units of High Quality Education, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 355–
370.
Samuelowicz, K. and Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting Academics’ Beliefs about Teaching and
Learning, Higher Education, 41, 299–325.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 114–135.
Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused Teaching Paradigms of College Faculty, Research in Higher
Education, 37(6), 659–679.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative Differences in Approaches to
Teaching First Year University Science, Higher Education, 27, 75–84.
Tsai, C. C. (2006). Teachers’ Scientific and Epistemological Views: The Coherence with
Instruction and Students’ Views, Science Education, 91(2), 222–243.
Weiman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education?, Change, 5, 9–
15.
Woods, P. and Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable Moments, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Zubrowski, B. (2009). The Role of Metaphor, Models, and Analogies in Science Education in
B. Zubrwoski (ed.) Exploration and Meaning Making in the Learning of Science: Innovations
in Science Education and Technology, New York: Springer Science, 311–339.