Monitoring teachers' referents for classroom practice ...

International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Monitoring teachers’ referents for classroom practice using metaphors Brian Hand & David F. Treagust To cite this article: Brian Hand & David F. Treagust (1997) Monitoring teachers’ referents for classroom practice using metaphors, International Journal of Science Education, 19:2, 183-192, DOI: 10.1080/0950069970190204 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190204

Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 57

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20 Download by: [Curtin University Library]

Date: 19 October 2015, At: 21:34

INT. J. sci. EDUC., 1997, VOL. 19, NO. 2, 183-192

Downloaded by [Curtin University Library] at 21:34 19 October 2015

Monitoring teachers' referents for classroom practice using metaphors

Brian Hand, Faculty of Education, LaTrobe University College of Northern Victoria, Bendigo, Victoria, and David F. Treagust, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia In this research, teachers were asked to provide metaphors which they used to describe their teaching practices prior to, upon completion of, and four months after, participating in an extended inservice programme aimed at promoting constructivist teaching/learning approaches. Seven of the eight teachers on the science staff of a junior high school were able to generate metaphors to describe their teaching and six of these teachers put forward metaphors that were indicative of a facilitator role within the classroom. The findings of the research illustrate that metaphors can be a useful means of monitoring change in teaching approaches.

Introduction Throughout the past decade, much attention has been given to the need for changing teaching and learning practices within science classrooms. Constructivist teaching/learning approaches have been suggested as a means of promoting and engaging students more actively in the learning process. A number of studies have focussed on encouraging teachers to implement these strategies: Bell (1993), Bowden (1988), Simon and Shifter (1987), Shymansky et al. (1993). T o help teachers adapt to these strategies, particular attention has focused on changing teachers' roles by encouraging an examination and change of the metaphors they used to describe their practice (Ritchie 1994, Tobin and Espinet 1989, Tobin and Ulerick 1989). In these studies, teachers who had adopted managerial roles with an emphasis on didactic transmission of information were encouraged to re-conceptualise their practices with a greater focus on constructivist perspectives. Tobin (1993) has suggested that in order to succeed in this endeavour there is a need to encourage a change in the individual's referent, that is, the individual's personal set of beliefs. There is a need to change from an objectivist philosophy to a more constructivist one. In promoting changes in teachers' classroom practice to encompass a more constructivist orientation, Marshall (1990) suggested that the conception of teaching as a workplace needs to change: a workplace metaphor is one which includes an authority figure who has status and power. As learning is a social process involving negotiation (von Glasersfeld 1987), metaphors describing the teaching/learning process need to reflect the sharing process that occurs. There is a need for teachers 0950-0693/97 $12.00 © 1997 Taylor & Francis Ltd

184

B. HAND AND D. TREAGUST


to move away from a managerial focus within the classroom to one involving a sense of facilitation. This paper reports on the metaphors teachers used to describe their teaching as they participated in an extended inservice programme aimed at promoting constructivist teaching/learning approaches. The programme was initiated to address the implementation of constructivist teaching/learning approaches recommended in the Victoria State government P—10 science curriculum frameworks document (Ministry of Education 1987). The research reported in this paper differs from the earlier work of Tobin in that metaphors were not used as the vehicle of change but rather as one means of monitoring change. Teachers were encouraged to describe their practice in terms of metaphors prior to an after completion of implementing a constructivist teaching/learning approach.

Methodology Eight science teachers from a junior high school in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, participated in an 18-month inservice programme centred on modelling and promoting the use of constructivist teaching/learning approaches in science classrooms. Prior to the inservice programme, each of the teachers was observed in the classroom and later interviewed. Subsequently, the teachers' conceptions of good classroom practices became the focal point of the study. Teachers were encouraged to read a number of journal articles on constructivist approaches, discuss and trial new pedagogical skills, and to plan and implement a complete unit using approaches informed by a constructivist philosophy. As they participated in the inservice programme, teachers were asked to write descriptions of their roles in the classroom in terms of metaphors on three occasions: prior to the inservice, upon completion of the unit being implemented, and four months after the teaching. The researchers were interested in determining if the metaphors used by the teachers accurately reflected the classroom practices following exposure to new pedagogical approaches informed by constructivism. The research was centred around the teachers' examinination of their changing conceptions of the classroom as a consequence of trialing, implementing and reflecting on constructivist teaching/learning approaches. Did the teachers perceive a change in their roles in the classroom and were they able to describe these changing roles in terms of a metaphors?

Results Metaphors used prior to the inservice programme At the outset of the inservice programme, only one of the eight teachers was unable to describe their teaching in terms of a metaphor. As can be seen in the first column of table 1, a very strong managerial role was evident from the metaphors used by the other seven teachers. The authors have used the definition of 'manager' put forward by Marshall (1990) who suggested that such a metaphor was centred on product outcomes for the employer (e.g. syllabus coverage by the teacher), status (e.g. teacher as the person in control of all happenings within the classroom), and expert (e.g, teacher as the source of knowledge). Our observations

185

TEACHERS' METAPHORS FOR PRACTICE

Table 1. Teachers' changing metaphors prior to the inservice programme, on completion of the teaching unit, and four months later. Teacher

Prior to the inservice program

Upon completion of teaching unit

Four months after inservice program

Alan

Coach of a football team Lecturer Home builder Doctor Ringmaster Captain of the ship

Tour guide

Tour guide

Director of discussion House renovator Building contractor Sailor on a broad reach Pilot of a ship

-

-

-

-

Failed sergeant-major

Bill Cosby

An angel


Bev

Chris Donald Eric Frank Geoff Howard

House renovator Building contractor Beekeeper Jug full of knowledge

of the teachers prior to the inservice programme (Hand and Treagust 1994) were consistent with the metaphors that each of the teachers used to describe their work. Initially, we were surprised by the metaphor 'doctor' put forward by Donald, as our own conception of a doctor was a person who treats patients individually according to their illness. However, writing in his journal, Donald outlined his choice of doctor as a metaphor by stating that: • some, the healthy (very bright), get very little medicine at all. They don't need it. • some, the very sick (very slow), may also get very little medicine. They have so much wrong with them that it is hard to diagnose the appropriate medicine and too much too quickly may only make them worse. • essentially I would be tending to direct my teaching to the middle to above average group. • students get the material (medicine) I feel they need rather than what they might feel they want, although I will take up issues they raise within limits and within time constraints of the syllabus. Donald's elaboration of his doctor metaphor does not focus on individuals, is essentially centred on a managerial role, and appears to match a more traditional manager metaphor such as the ringmaster metaphor put forward by Eric. As a ringmaster, Eric stated that he is trying to 'control' many different groups and interest levels: • to bring each into the action, but to try and keep the star performers from dominating • to keep everybody happy and involved • to provide the equipment and other resources to enable maximum participation and performance • to control the whole 'show' so that everybody gets something out of it. The significance of the managerial role adopted by each of these teachers is noted by the importance they placed on themselves to have the correct understanding of the subject matter within the syllabus. The teachers adopted a mediating position


186


between the syllabus and the students, with a sense of proprietorial ownership of the former, thereby placing emphasis on the students receiving the correct version. Such was the acceptance of the correctness of the syllabus, there was no separation between the teachers' own knowledge and that addressed in the syllabus. An example of this sense of ownership of the syllabus is expressed by Howard who wrote in his journal that 'The syllabus demands of me that this [coverage of the syllabus] occurs. I do like to see a certain pace or progress being made through the curriculum'. A similar comment was expressed by Bev in her journal where she wrote 'By the end of the topic, hopefully the students have learnt the concepts that I want them to learn or the syllabus wants them to learn. "Test them. They all pass, they have learnt the concepts" '? The use of the word 'hope' in Bev's written explanation was reflected in the interviews of the participating teachers prior to the inservice: only two of the eight teachers interviewed did not use the word. Teachers used 'hope' in reference to the success of their teaching in terms of student learning. For example, when asked about the relationship between previous knowledge and new learning Frank commented: I think it is important that they [the students] are able to recall something about what they did last period, and I hope that the previous work that they are doing has got some relationship to the last period you did and the period before. That is the unit of work, and I guess that, I sort of hope that, it would be carried over into another unit too. These comments indicated that Frank, with his teaching metaphor as captain of the ship, is intent on ensuring that he has covered his section of work, and has not focused on the outcomes. He appeared to have no sense of exactly what the students have gained from his teaching or how the sequence of lessons fitted into a broad conceptual framework for the teaching unit. This lack of awareness of students' knowledge in relation to previous work, or as the outcome of planned activities, is indicative of a focus on self. As a result there was a defined image of the teacher having a role within the classroom which is separate from the students. For example, when asked about the teacher-student role Bev replied: I suppose I am in charge of the kids to make sure that they don't hurt themselves. We do a variety of topics and some kids are interested in some and not others. I mean, that doesn't worry me . . . with the very remedial [students] I have them up the front and while the rest of the class is doing work, I teach them. It is a bit hard. By then you would expect the kids to have a bit more responsibility. The concept of students in high school being responsible for their own learning also was a concern of Geoff s, who did not put forward a metaphor to describe his teaching, but did indicate that 'the way I teach is pretty well controlled', implying that he controlled the classroom environment. He related his expectation of student learning in describing a particular case of a girl who had received 20% for a recent science test. The comment is interesting in terms of the distinction he clearly makes between his role of manager and the student's need to be responsible for her own learning. As he said: Mind you I gave back a test today and one girl told me she had been studying and studying and studying and she gets 20%. There was one section we had done very briefly, so I put the question up on the board the day before [the test] and wrote all the answers alongside it and she got the whole lot wrong. She even wrote into the book the actual answers and everything. I just said I had not given them notes I had just talked


187

about it and this is on the test. When it comes to doing it [the test], it [the student's knowledge] is gone.

As manager, Geoff had fulfilled his role within the classroom by supplying all the answers that were needed for the test. The failure of this student was not seen to be a consequence of his teaching, but rather as a result of her lack of ability to grasp the knowledge he had provided her.


Defining teaching roles through the inservice programme

The participating teachers were involved in a series of inservice sessions in which they were encouraged to discuss the criteria they believed were necessary for good teaching in science, to read some articles on constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, and examine new pedagogical skills. The primary goal of the inservice sessions was to help the teachers define the new teaching roles which were required prior to implementing a teaching unit using constructivist approaches. A group discussion was used to seek responses to two questions: What phrases would you use to describe your teaching now? What do you believe you have to do when teaching constructivist approaches? The teachers' responses were recorded under euphemistic headings of current teaching roles and new teaching roles. The teachers were able to describe very easily their current roles within the classroom. However, as might be expected and is illustrated by the list generated at the end of the group session (table 2), the teachers were unable to be as descriptive with the new roles expected of them. The intent, at this stage of the inservice, was to explore individual teacher's constructions in terms of his or her understandings of the new approaches. The development of constructivism as a referent (Tobin 1993) for each teacher was by necessity dependent upon each individual's own pedagogical knowledge and experiences. The changing of referent to constructivism would be largely dependent upon the new experiences gained as a result of implementing constructivist teaching/learning approaches and the extent and quality of reflection made Table 2. Phrases used by the participating teachers to describe the actions of their current teaching roles and their new roles after initial sessions of the inservice programme. Current teaching roles

New teaching roles

Imparter of knowledge Tell the students what to do Preaching 'the good oil' Experts

Find out what students know Use activities which challenge student's ideas Use more questioning Refrain from telling students that they are either right or wrong

Don't follow up on test—very little remediation Control when discussions and practicals occur Ask questions, discuss answers—all the time 'Throwing feed to the chickens'

188


by each teacher. The expectation was that if the teachers were provided with the necessary opportunities to reflect on and trial constructivist approaches, their metaphors would reflect a more facilitative nature of teaching.


Metaphors used after implementing the teaching unit As indicated earlier, the focus of the research was on examining any changes in the metaphors used by the teachers as they began to implement constructivist approaches. Did the teachers perceive a need to change their roles within the classroom? Were they able to use metaphors to describe these changes? As indicated in the middle column of Table 1, there was a change in the metaphors used by the teachers, not only in terms of the description of the metaphor but also in the meaning with respect to activities in the classroom. Indeed, some teachers expressed significant changes in their metaphors. For example, Howard changed from being a 'failed sergeant-major' to being 'Bill Cosby' [a relaxed, 'cool' person] while Eric went from being a 'ringmaster' to being 'a sailor on a broad reach' [in a dinghy]. The teachers' metaphors that were identified as making changes to their pedagogical practices and reflecting a more constructivist orientation (Hand 1992), indicated a change from an authority figure whose major role was controlling the classroom. For example, Eric's description of a sailor on a broad reach was centred on obtaining maximum performance by utilising available elements, that is, using the elements (students and their knowledge) rather than competing against them. As he wrote: New metaphor - The skipper of a sailing dinghy sailing in a stiff breeze on a broad reach. The wind, sails, rigging are doing all the work; I, as skipper, am steering the craft, making necessary adjustments to rigging but, as we all know, on a broad reach the effort involved is small. So the skipper is getting maximum power and speed out of the boat with little effort. However, without the skipper, the whole thing turns into a mess of flapping sails and ropes and gets nowhere. (Before I may have been beating into a strong wind—battling the elements and working very hard). The failed sergeant major metaphor put forward by Howard turned into 'a real cool guy' like Bill Cosby on completion of his teaching unit. He indicated that he now approached class feeling 'quite relaxed' in that he 'didn't have to remember lots of content'. There was a much greater emphasis being placed on organising students into groups for discussion and promoting an interactive dialogue within those groups. The degree of change in the conceptualisation of Donald's role can be noted by comments in his journal in reference to his building contractor metaphor. He wrote that: Input of sub-contractors is important—they have the experience to bring to bear—in fact they really do most of the building—it is putting things together at the right time and right places which is essential—to do this they require some input from me—I need to supply some materials, clarify points of conflict. Chris' conception of a house renovator is very similar, in that he changed from having to build a structure from the foundations to only needing to make alterations to the existing structure. While Alan as the tour guide believed that he was 'in charge of what there is available to see, but I do not necessarily determine the individual's choice of what they want to see or in what order'.


1 89

Bev did not provide an explanation for choosing the metaphor of director of discussion, while Geoff was unable to provide a metaphor. The results of the classroom observations and interviews with the teachers and students indicated that both Bev and Geoff were still at a technical stage in implementing constructivist approaches (Hand and Treagust 1991, Hand 1992). These results also indicated that while Frank was using a less authoritarian figure as a metaphor, he was adopting a role within the classroom which was still focused on technical interests.


Metaphors used four months after the inservice and teaching unit The authors were interested in examining any changes the participating teachers may have made to the metaphors used to describe their teaching once the inservice programme had been completed. The process for collecting information on the metaphors occurred four months after completion of the inservice programme at which time the participating teachers were given a questionnaire centred on examining their perceptions of the inservice program. Examples of questions were: Were the readings for the inservice program appropriate? Did the inservice program model constructivist approaches? How could the program be improved? Were there any specific benefits that you could identify? Responses to a question which asked the teachers to describe their teaching in terms of a metaphor are shown in the last column of table 1. Six of the teachers put forward metaphors that were indicative of a facilitator role within the classroom. Geoff did not offer a metaphor to describe his teaching at any stage. Bev did not put forward a metaphor for her teaching at this point. Frank's new metaphor of a jug full of knowledge was an interesting change in that his previous two metaphors had been indicative of the workplace metaphor described by Marshall (1990), that is, one in which there is an authority figure. In describing his new metaphor, Frank wrote: I have a jug full of knowledge. Instead of me filling each of their glasses up I let them help themselves. My role is no longer to have students copy lots of notes into their books. Instead it is to make the work as interesting as possible and for them to make the decisions about what they will learn through discussion and investigation. These comments would appear to reflect a change in the way Frank perceived his role. Frank was the first of the teachers to trial the constructivist approach with a complete unit, and he continued to experiment, trial and evaluate various teaching and learning aspects for himself after his initial involvement. This process of review and reflection provided him with the time and opportunity to develop a better understanding of constructivist approaches and the role of the teacher in implementing these approaches. By comparison, Alan, Chris and Donald had not changed their metaphors from those that they put forward immediately upon completing the teaching unit. Donald's metaphor of a building contractor indicated he was aware of his ongoing changing role in that he was 'doing far more sub-contracting than [I] would have done in previous years. Although [I] still do too much of the building on my own—but at least [I] am conscious of it and thinking about ways of doing less'. In comparison, Eric and Howard both elaborated on their previous metaphors to describe their teaching. In describing the beekeeper, Eric wrote two lists side by

190


side where he linked the beekeeper to his actions within the classroom, for example, providing physical structures, checking of hives (students' knowledge), and allowing the bee to do their own thing (allowing students to be actively involved). In summarising his view of the metaphor, Eric wrote that 'the bad part of this metaphor is that unlike the beekeeper I will not be robbing them [students] of their understanding—the constructivist approach does such a good job it sticks even better than honey'. Howard's metaphor of an angel also indicated a much greater role in guiding students rather than giving them a clear set of instructions or procedures to follow. As he said, 'I do not give them [the students] specific or verbal instructions. I oversee their progress. I like it—I'm an angel'.


Metaphors to monitor change In discussing teacher change, Tobin (1993: 253) has pointed out that the process of changes will be 'tortuous for experienced teachers because of the need to deconstruct routine practices, deliberate on the components, effect necessary changes and build new routines to accord with a new set of emerging referents'. Prior to the inservice programme, each of the participating teachers had constructed pedagogical knowledge to operate successfully within the classroom. Each believed that he or she had developed strategies that addressed issues of syllabus coverage and management, and viewed himself or herself as an authority figure within the classroom. Each teacher had constructed his or her own referent for teaching which appeared to be centred on objectivism. Classroom management was one of the major areas of deconstruction required by the teachers in order to adopt and implement constructivist approaches. Each of the teachers who adopted a more facilitative metaphor on completion of the unit displayed a changed emphasis on management issues. Interview and observation data (Hand 1992) indicated that the teachers were prepared to trust students to work on their own, were changing in orientation from a content-based to a concept-based syllabus, and were exploring strategies to maximise student involvement within the learning process. Management was viewed as important in that it was necessary to ensure resources were available, to organize groups and information, and to address discipline problems. Management, however, was no longer considered to be a strategy for learning. This view is reflected in a comment from Chris in discussing teaching strategies used by other teachers within the school when he stated that '[other teachers] must use it [the teaching strategy] for a management thing—by keeping the students writing notes etc. they can control them'. The metaphors used by these teachers four months after the study would indicate that their changing referent, namely to one centred on constructivism, was being used to guide their actions. Although encouraging teachers to change conceptions of management is not the single criterion for promoting teaching/learning approaches that have a constructivist orientation, it is certainly an important aspect of change. Another major area for deconstruction is the nature of teacher-student interactions. The ability to actively involve students within the learning process requires teachers to rethink teacher—student relationships. This negotiation process, which is a central criterion of constructivist approaches, requires teachers to value students' knowledge and input and change from a 'giver' of information to a 'sharer' of knowledge. There is a need to develop new pedagogical knowledge, particularly in the areas of


191

questioning, holding interpretative discussions, and, as one teacher put it 'being able to think on your feet'. The construction of this pedagogical knowledge requires that teachers have opportunities to trial, evaluate and experience a range of different contexts in order to promote a more defined emerging referent. However, recognition must be given to the concept that the process of (re)learning associated with new skills is not easy and will require time to implement (Hand et al. 1991). As an example of the success of the change process, Donald's comments indicated the emerging nature of his changing referent when he wrote


The program has had a significant impact on the way in which I teach in the science area. Whilst I would not claim to employ the [constructivist] strategy all the time, it acts as a fixed reference point from which to judge/reflect on my teaching. The process of deconstructing routine practices was greatly helped by the collegial process which was developed by the group. The teachers indicated that the process of change was greatly helped by improved communication with colleagues. Teachers were not attempting to change to and implement new approaches in isolation. Rather ideas and experiences were shared amongst each other as there was a feeling that 'we are all in this together'. An example of the impact of having a greater sense of team involvement is discussed by Eric when he wrote on the questionnaire: Much greater communications with fellow staff about the real job—science teaching. This has continued—the sharing of ideas and experiences and general feeling of involvement is good for both us and the students. A real sense of belonging to a team exists now—it didn't before. The importance of group support was emphasised by Tobin (1993) who indicated that for those people attempting change, group support is a necessary component of the process.

Conclusion By examining the metaphors that teachers use to describe their practice, it is possible to monitor the changes they make to their perceived roles within the classroom. This paper has not endeavoured to change practice through the use of metaphors, but rather to examine how much of a change in teacher behaviour has occurred by examining the metaphors used by the teachers. The acceptance of, and change to, a constructivist referent as a consequence of an 18-month inservice programme enabled five of the eight participating teachers to change their metaphors. While teachers indicated that constructivist teaching/learning approaches were not the sole strategies they implemented, they claimed that they will use the approaches as the basis for application of their other teaching approaches. The acceptance of students and the active role they need to take within the classroom had become an essential component of their teaching referent.

References BELL,

B. (ed.) (1993) I Know About LISP But How Do I Put it Into Practice. Final report of the Learning in Science Project (Teacher Development) (University of Waikato Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research).

192


J. (1988) Achieving change in teaching practices. In P. Ramsden (ed.), Improving Learning: New Perspectives (London: Kogan Page). HAND, B. (1992) Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning in a secondary school science department. Unpublished PhD thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth. HAND, B., LOVEJOY, C. and BALAAM, G. (1991) Teachers' reaction to change to a constructivist teaching/learning strategy. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37(1), 20-24. HAND, B. and TREAGUST, D. F. (1991) From teacher-as-technician to teacher-as-facilitator. A study of a professional development initiative involving teaching for conceptual change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the special interest group, Subject Matter Knowledge and Conceptual Change, American Educational Research Association, Chicago. HAND, B. and TREAGUST, D. F. (1994) Teachers' thoughts about changing to constructivist teaching/learning approaches within junior secondary science classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 20(1), 97-12. MARSHALL, H. H. (1990) Beyond the workplace metaphor: the classroom as a learning setting. Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 94-101. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1987) The Science Framework: P-10: Science for Every Student (Melbourne: Materials Production, Ministry of Education). RITCHIE, S. (1994) Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal of Science Teaching, 16(3), 293-303. SIMON, M. A. and SCHIFTER, D. (1987) Teacher Education From a Constructivist Perspective: the Educational Leaders in Mathematics Project (Washington: National Science Foundation).


BOWDEN,

SHYMANSKY, J. A., WOODWORTH, G., NORMAN, O., DUNKHASE, J., MATTHEWS, C. and

Liu,

C. T. (1993) A study of changes in middle school teachers' understanding of selected ideas in science as a function of an in-service program focusing on student preconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 737-755. TOBIN, K. (1993) Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 241-254. TOBIN, K. and ESPINET, M. (1989) Impediments to change: applications of coaching in high school science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 105-120. TOBIN, K and ULERICK, S. J. (1989) An interpretation of high school science teaching based on metaphors and beliefs for specific roles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. VON GLASERSFELD, E. (1987) Learning as a constructivist activity. In E. von Glasersfeld (ed.) The Construction of Knowledge: Contributions to Conceptual Semantics (Salinas: Intersystems).