JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE EDUCATION, Vol. 9, No.2, Pp. 28-44, (1997),(0 1997, College of Education, The University of West Florida

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FORPRESERVICE AND CLASSROOM

TEACHERS TO EXPERIENCECONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING INSCIENCE: A COLLABORATIVE

PROJECT IN AUSTRALIA

by Brian Ferry

AbstractPreservice and practicing teachers in many countriesof the world were taught science by instructors whoemployed a transmission model of learning thatpresented science as set of verifiable facts totransmitted by the teacher to the learner (Anderson& Mitchener, 1994; DEEr, 1989), As a result theyhave little, if any, personal experience withconstructivist instructional methods. This studyreports on an innovation that allowed preservice andclassroom teachers to have personal experience witha constructivist approach to learning science. It wasanticipated that such an approach would help themto become more efficient learners and instructors ofscience (Fostnot, 1989; Novak, 1988).

28

Constructivist LearningA constructivist approach to learning is based upon the supposition

that as learners interact with the world, they construct their own experienceand knowledge (Lyddon & Mcl.aughlin, 1992; Novak, 1988). Therefore,learning is viewed as "the product of self-organization" (von Glasersfeld,1989, p.136). This learning process is supported by two broad principles:first, knowledge is not passively received, but actively constructed by thelearner, and second, learners generate understanding when they relateprior knowledge to present experiences (Wheatley, 1991). Often thisoccurs when the learner attempts to reconcile differences that exist betweenhis/her explanation and the explanations of others about the samephenomena (Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; Posner et al., 1982). Such aprocess often involves intensive and extensive interpersonal negotiation(Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; von Glasersfeld, 1989):

Tobin, Tippins, and Gallard (1994, p. 46) assert that "althoughconstructivism is not a new way of thinking, it has not been accepted asthe prevalent way to conceptualize knowledge by the community ofeducators". In the early 1980's, the wider education community showedlittle interest in constructivist learning, but by the 1990's, efforts were beingmade to understand constructivism across all areas of education (Cannon,1995). Science educators have been leaders in the field and havecontributed to research associated with constructivist learning for over adecade (Biddulph, 1982; Driver & Erikson, 1983; Driver, et al, 1994;Gilbert & Watts, 1983; Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; West & Pines, 1985;Fensham, 1992). Such educators are concerned with the way in whichlearners fabricate knowledge that is verifiable though interaction with othermembers of a social group (Cannon, 1995; Driver, et al, 1994; Tobin,Tippins & Gallard, 1994).

Extensive reviews of the research on learner's ideas and beliefs(Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; West & Pines, 1985; Driver, et aI, 1994)have produced consistent findings that show that when learners come toscience they frequently already hold idiosyncratic explanations ofphenomena, but it needs to be acknowledged that their teachers also holdsuch views (Gunstone, 1987; Murnane & Raizen, 1988). Therefore,

29

teachers need to resolve their own misconceptions before they begininstruction. Gunstone (1987) argues that the purpose of this process isnot to deride teachers' ideas, but to help them to realize that their ownlearning is constructivist in nature.

Such an approach to learning suggests that learners (or theirinstructors) should not be allowed to retain naive theories or incorrectknowledge; instead knowledgeable instructors are obliged to assist learnersto construct knowledge that is viable in the community in which they live.Thus the role of the instructor is that of a facilitator who ascertains whatlearners know and structures tasks so that they can build authenticknowledge structures (von Glasersfeld, 1989). This notion also appliesto preservice and classroom teachers, but typically they have limited accessto knowledgeable instructors and have to rely on mechanisms such asindividual research and peer collaboration in order to build viable andverifiable knowledge structures about scientific concepts.

Preservice teachers of elementary school science often face situationswhere they lack the immediate knowledge and understanding toeffectivelyinstruct learners in specific topics, and prior to instruction they have to beengaged in a process ofknowledge construction. Typically they conductthis knowledge construction process alone, and then come to lessons topresent their 'newly constructed' knowledge. However, they may holderroneous views of scientific phenomena and may fail to correct thesemisconceptions if they work in isolation (Gunstone, 1987). Therefore,they may better serve themselves and their students if they collaborate inorder to clearly articulate and demonstrate their own understanding ofscientific phenomena.

Making the process of knowledge constructionmore explicit

The tasks undertaken by the preservice teachers involved in thisstudy were based upon the supposition that they need to collaborate withpeers, teachers, and students in order to publicly articulate and demonstratetheir knowledge building processes. Instead ofabsorbing a certain amountof knowledge and then transmitting it to learners through traditionalclassroom instruction, preservice teachers should be encouraged to

30

approach learning from a perspective that organizes instruction in waysthat show learners how to construct knowledge. Thus, the preserviceteacher becomes a partner in the learning process and tends to formmaster-apprentice relationships as theygeneratecommonunderstandingsof scientific phenomena.

It wasanticipated that the impactof suchan approachwouldinclude:increased learnerindependence; greaterlearnerresponsibility andcontrol;increased emphasis upon shared knowledge and decision making; andthedevelopment ofacoaching andmentoring relationship amongpreserviceteachers, classteachers, and students(Goodrum, Dorsey& Schwen, 1993;von Glasersfeld, 1989). However, some concerns were also anticipatedas past researchers had mentioned that theprocessplacesa highcognitiveload upon the learner, and both instructors and learners may feel lesssecurewhentheybegintouse thisapproach (Goodrum, Dorsey& Schwen,1993). Collins (1990) contended that strategies exist than can supportlearnersand instructorswho adopt a constructivistapproach to learning.Thesestrategies include: a shiftfromwhole-elass tosmall-group instruction;a shiftfromlectureand recitationto facilitation andcoaching;a shiftfromworking with better students to working with all students, a shift towardmore engaged students, an assessment basedon products, progress, andeffort; a shiftfromacompetitive toa social structure; a shiftfromalileamerslearning thesamethingstodifferentstudents learning different things andashift from verbalthinkingto the integration of visualand verbal thinking.All of these strategies apply to the learning processes employed duringthis project.

The elementary school science project was used as a device toencouragepreservice teacherstocollaborate witheachother, toencourageclassroomteachers anda university lecturertodeveloptheirunderstandingof scienceconceptsand toorganize learners, learningtasks,materialsandresourcesinways that supported aconstructivistapproachto instruction.It wasanticipated thatsomeof thelearning strategies thattheyexperiencedwouldencourageandempower them tofashion moreproductive learningactivities for theirstudents.

:1 I

The ProjectIn 1991, a new science and technology syllabus (Board ofStudies,

1991) was introduced in New South Wales Primary (elementary) schools.The limited inservice support offered at the time introduced a constructivistapproach to learning to small number of teachersand created further interestin this approach to learning. A follow up study reported.by Ferry ( 1993)revealed that most teachers (89%) in eighty elementary schools in theWollongong district in New South Wales, Australia reported that theywere interested in this approach but needed assistance. Becauseofteachingand research obligations, the requests of help from classroom teacherscould not be immediately met. Therefore, a strategy was needed that metteaching and research obligations as well as requests for help from teachersand the primary school science project was developed to serve thesepurposes. The goals of the project were: to encourage preservice andclassroom teachers tocollaborate to develop their ability to plan, implementand evaluate science instruction that focused on learner knowledgeacquisition through experimentation and interpersonal negotiation; toencourage preservice and classroom teachers to share their personalknowledge building strategies with each other and with young children;and to encourage preservice and classroom teachers to reflect upon theirknowledge construction processes and that of their students.

This project was called the primary (elementary) school scienceproject and was advertised to schools in the Wollongong district as anopportunity for preservice and classroom teachers to collaborate toprepare, implement and evaluate a simple hands science teaching projectthat focused on learner acquisition of knowledge through activeexperimentation and interpersonal negotiation. The topic for eachinvestigation project was to be compatible with the classroom teacher'splans but the design of the instructional materials and procedure was to bea collaborative effort among preservice and classroom teachers, and theuniversity lecturer. Initially strategies that the preservice teachers couldemploy to develop their own understanding of topics were suggested bythe science educator. Also suggestions were made about appropriatelearning activities and suitable instructional and evaluation strategies.

32

Classroom teachers were invited to collaborate with preservice teachersand the university to improve, elaborate on or further refine thesesuggestions.

The instruction of the preservice teachers began with a six-weekseries of lectures and tutorials that introduced them to the notion that theirlearning was constructivist in nature. Initial tutorials explored the differentexplanations that they held about how current flows in a simple electriccircuit. Then various strategies were employed to investigate and test theviability oftheir prevailing ideas about this topic. Many ofthese strategieswere based upon the research findings from the Waikato Education Center(Biddulph, 1982; Cosgrove & Forret, 1989). The topic ofelectric circuitswas followed by a topic relating to energy, but this time more responsibilityfor generating and testing ofunderstandings was given to the preserviceteachers who worked in collaborative teams of three or four. During thesixth week of the teaching session teams of preservice teachers wererequired to prepared a summary of general principles associated withconstructivist learning and to list effective strategies. They were thenintroduced to model ofconstuctivist learning as proposed by Bybee (1992).This model was chosen because it clearly identified roles that the learnerand instructor could adopt. After these lectures and tutorials preserviceteachers began to collaborate with schools.

While the pre service teachers were introduced to constructivistlearning, participating classroom teachers were provided with a guide tothe science project. The guide consisted of a summary of the aims of theprogram, a list of responsibilities of the classroom teachers and thepreservice teachers as well as a summary of materials presented duringlectures and tutorials. Finally schools were contacted by phone to clarifyany outstanding issues.

The ParticipantsInitially sixty classroom teachers volunteered to participate in the

project, and since then, two hundred and twenty five have been involved.Most were experienced teachers and the majority had taught for overtwenty years. During their teaching,career few opportunities were availablefor them to update skills their skills in science education (Ferry, 1993) and

33

this may account for the high numbers of teachers who volunteer toparticipate. Another reason maybethattheintroduction ofthe newsyllabusin scienceand technologyrenewed teacher interestin science.

Each participating class teacher collaborated with two preserviceteachersand this group met for one hour on at least threeoccasionspriorto thecommencementof instruction. It was stipulated beforehand that thehands-onactivitiesdevisedhad to use materialsthat schoolscouldeasilyaccess. This allowed schools to continue to make use of good strategiesandactivities in futureyears. The Facultyof Education provided $650formaterials and,thismoney wasdivided amongthesixtyparticipating classes.Therefore, theexpenditureon materialswasapproximately $10perclass.Preservice teacherswerealsorequired to leaveacopy of theexperimentalmaterials plusa setof lesson plansat theschoolaftertheyfinished teaching.

Each preserviceteacherwas required to instructa minimumof fourhours with the materials they prepared. While one preservice teacherconducted a lesson, the other preservice teacher and the class teacherwere required to activelyparticipate as co-learners with theclass and toprovidedcriticalcommentsabout the lesson. Since 1993,453preserviceteachers have participated in the project.

The preservice teachers involved in the program were,all secondyear students enrolled in a three-yearBachelor of TeachingDegree andthe 4,105 pupils who have participated in the project were enrolled inboth state and private schools. Their ages ranged from five to twelveyearsold.

Data CollectionInitially a questionnaire wasusedtocollectpost-experience responses

fromparticipatingpreserviceteachers. Questionnaireswerealsoused tocollectpost-experienceresponsesfrom pupilsand teachers. Very youngchildren were asked to respond to their simple questionnaire through a"show of hands" and theclassroom teachers assisted in this procedure.The preservice and classroom teacher questionnaires were open-endedinordertoelicit longerresponses. Afterthedatawasgathered, thesciencecoordinator and one teacherfromeach participating schoolwascontactedbyphonetodiscusstheirimpressions aboutthereliability of theresponses.

34

Since 1995,thequestionnaires have been supplemented with interviewdata from a small number of volunteers that consisted of 10 pairs ofpreservice teachers, and the 10 teachers that they collaborated with. Fourchildren from each participating class have also been interviewed. Theinterviews with the classroom teachers and the children were conductedby the preservice teacher who were trained by the researcher. Interviewswith the preservice teachers were conducted by the researcher.

ResultsTable 1displays the responses from 3,653 and this represents 89%

of participants.

Table 1Pupil Surveys returned N = 3,653 (Females 1,861, Males 1,792)

Statement Responses as %1 The lessons were:

2 The work was:

3 The student teacher:

excitingdon't knowboring

too hardabout righttoo easy

76%18%06%

07%78%15%

let me do the work 89%don't know 09%did the work for me 02%

4 The things we used were:easy to use 76%allright 18%hard to use 06%

5 The things we used were:fun to use 79%allright 15%boring to use 06%

35

While the majorityof childrenenjoyed theproject,therewas a needtomake the activitiesmorechallenging, for some as 15%of students feltthat the work 'was"too easy" (see Table 1). The responses to question 3wereencouraging as 89% of preservice teachersallowed thestudents tofreely engagewith thehands-on materials, andonly2%of pupilresponsesindicated that the preservice teachers "did the work for me." Writtenresponses from classroom teachers and interview data support thisinterpretation.

Theresponses toquestions 4 and5 showthatthemajority ofchildrenthoughtthat the materialsthey usedwere "easy to use" (68%) and "fun touse" (79%). Analysisof the written responses and interview transcriptsof teachers and students alsosupportedthisview. Therefore, the materialsusedfor the investigationswere appropriate in mostcases.

The older studentsindicatedthatat first theyfound theexperimentsto be demanding and a little frustrating. However, this appeared to betemporaryas later they often repeated variationsof theirexperiments athome (eg. 68% of the older students mentioned trying out ideas orexperimentsat home). Belinda(age 10)wrote:

It was hard to make myexperiments work properlybut if it workedyoucould do the same thingsat home..The balloonexperiment wedid. I did it again at home and tried out some other ideas.Analysis of teacher interview transcripts showed that they rarely

conductedopened-endedexperiments with pupilsand this may accountforsomeof the initialfrustration expressedby thechildren.

Another difficulty expressed by the children related to the way inwhich they presented fmdings fromscience activities. Forexample, Belindawrote:

I didn't like theend ofthe lessonwhenwe hadtogo out thefrontandtalk to the class about it. Also I didn't like writingin a diary.Again,class teachers confmnedthat thechildren wereusedtofilling

inworksheets in sciencelessonsand theapproachusedby thepreserviceteachers placedgreatercognitivedemandson thechildren. The childreninterviewed also regardedthereporting taskas demanding. Thissupportstheinterpretation thatmanychildrenrarelyuse thesestrategies insciencelessons. The responses of John and Jamie are representative.

36

John (Age 10): We have to get up the front and talk about the newsand other stuff, but we don't talk to the class about scienceexperiments. I was nervous about showing about my experiment incase it didn't work properly.

Jamie (Age II): In science lessons Miss X gives us a sheet to writeon ...Miss X goes over the answers and looks at our work. The diaryis harder 'cause I don't know what you want me to write about.

Teacher commentsTeachers also commented positively on the success ofthe project

and some typical responses were:Comment 1:

A terrific experience for all! Children were excited and learned alot... It was interesting to observe the class at work. It showed student"who could plan, organize, work co-operatively. They were capableof testing their ideas and designing experiments. Also pooreracademic student" excelled in Science and Technology designing andmaking. Important to achieve success!My student teachers collaborated with me and we worked well as ateam. Would like to be involved again in the project!

Comment 2:The children have been most enthusiastic about each of the activitiesand involvement and participation has been excellent. The activitiesprovided were at the children's level and the children will benefitfrom these activities for the rest of their schooling. The substituteteacher only commented this week how successful the children in myclass were in investigating activities with him in other subject areas.This way of learning can be easily applied to other subjects. Whilethe collaboration took up some time, it was worthwhile and shouldbe continued.The comments by the teachers indicated that the children benefited

from a collaborative approach to learning and they were capable ofusingsimple experiments to test their ideas. Also, in some cases the skills theyacquired appeared to transfer to other contexts, but further investigation

37

of this aspect is needed. Seventy two percent of teachers mentioned thatthey benefited from working with children as a co-learner and manyreported that this was a valuable opportunity to work collaboratively with

children.Over seventy percent of teachers mentioned the benefits of

collaboration with the preservice teachers and furtherdiscussion with schoolscience coordinators suggests that even though the collaboration processwas time consuming, it was worthwhile. The fact that most teachers (83%)who started the kit project in 1993 are still involved, suggests that theyconsider it to be worth the time and effort on their part. The followinginterview transcript represents these views.

Rhyce (Age 50-Deputy Principal): I have been involved with thisproject from the start and have enjoyed sharing ideas and strategieswith student (preservice) teachers. As we are getting moreexperienced, I can see that the benefits are increasing. Our teachersteach more science than before and the children are more responsiveto science ...Our experiments have become more open-ended andtest children's ideas like the ones done by the students (preserviceteachers).

The preservice teachersPreservice teachers were asked to write an evaluation of the primary

science project. Inparticular they were asked to comment on the effectof the project upon the collaboration process, their confidence before andafter the project, and their lessons. Some representati ve comments follow.

Comment 1....the children in the class responded enthusiastically and lookedforward to our weekly visits and this gave me a great deal ofsatisfaction and made me feel more confident....the written feedbackin the children's diaries was lacking in the detail that I expected...thechildren were motivated by the activities, as they were eager toparticipate and to try out their own ideas ..J underestimated the timerequired for the first lesson, but as I got to know the class I was ableto overcome this problem... I can see the importance ofpreparation,learning about the topic and providing sufficient materials so as not tocurb the children's experiences ...

38

Comment 2I felt that we learnt [sic] a great deal from the experience and becamemore confident in our ability to teach science...we were made awarethat it is possible to "over prepare" - that is with the best of intentionsa teacher can do too much for her students and stifle creativity orindividuality, initiative and even their ability to work in groups ... onindividual activities the children performed well but when the taskbecame open-ended and required group work a whole set ofunanticipated variables came into play ... the children were not usedto dealing with novel situations and needed far more time than weoriginally allowed...it showed that you do not need expensive state­of-the art equipment for children toexplore and test scientific concepts... the concept ofdeveloping science kits is a valuable and inexpensiveteaching strategy and one that we will take full advantage of whenplanning future lessons.

Four hundred and fifty three preservice teachers have participated inthe project and analysis of the written evaluations showed that:

'most did not allow enough time for their initial activities because theydid not realize that the children would become so engaged (75% ofresponses). However, they overcame this problem in later lessonsby allowing more time (83% of these responses).

-mostmentioned that the processes of collaborating, teaching andevaluating were valuable learning experiences (89% of responses).

-rnost were surprised by the enthusiasm and interest shown by thechildren and they were also surprised at the number who repeatedexperiments at home (92% of responses).

-most stated that the experience helped them to develop confidencein their ability to teach science (86% of responses). In the past thishas been identified as an important factor in encouraging teachers toinstruct children in science (Perkes, 1975; Schoeneberger & Russell,1983; Yates & Goodrum, 1990; Symington & McKay, 1991).

39

Other preservice teachers commentedon thevalueofcollaborationandthefollowing quote from aninterview withLeanneillustrates thispoint.

Leanne (Age, 35): Every time I was in tutorialsor meetingwith mypartner, I felt this incidentneed to sort of talk to people while I wasdoing my planning. I felt this need to actually talk to other peoplewhile I wasdoing it andI talkedwith anybody(who) wasaround ....I thought that planning is not an anti-social activity. It is definitelysomething where you do interact with others and you're looking atwhat they're doing and they're looking at what you're doing andyou're asking themwhatthey think orcomparing...Theyhavedifferentideas in mind... So there was a lot of differences between the sortsof thingsthatpeoplewereactuallyconstructing.In the past, she viewed the task of preparation for instruction as

somethingthatwasdonein isolation, but now sherealizesthebenefitsofcollaboration. Anotherpreservice teacher(Val) mentioned thesamepointwhenshesaid:

Val(Age 32): I found it a little daunting...In the past, I would havepreferred to have done this at home in the privacyof my own scenewith my own known ways of doing things. However, I like thisconcept. Once I get in there and you know,find a good partner andcompatible teacher, it's easier than I thought.It appears thatVal initially hadreservations, butrealized thatshe had

gaineda greatdeal fromtheexperience. Later in thisinterviewshe madethefollowing commentabouttheexperience:

Ijust feel that thishasbeen a very stretchingsort of an exercise andthat's a good thing and if that, if you could do that in theclassroomwith children. I think there will be all sorts of benefits because itdoesn't only applyto scienceobviously.Therefore, in Val'scase she is aware that the learning process she

experiencedapplied to other subjects.

ConclusionThe instructional approach usedduringthisstudywasacompromise

but it achieved most of its goals. The most encouraging aspect of the

40

project related to be the sustained interest and enthusiasm generated. Itappears that the energy and enthusiasm the children were essentialingredients in encouraging preservice and classroom teachers to persistwith a constructivist approach to learning. It also appears to motivateteachers to continue their involvement with the project.

Clearly, the preservice teachers made mistakes during the initiallessons, but through a process of collaboration and reflection theyrecovered from their mistakes. The project provided opportunities forpreservice teachers and their class teacher to collaborate about mattersrelating to planning, implementing and evaluating constructivist-basedlearning activities. Also it provided an opportunity to share new ideas withclassroom teachers and to gain experience in developing a cost effectivehands-on teaching materials.

Participating schools felt that the project was of benefit becauseclassroom teachers were able to closely observe children in their classesand this helped some teachers to gain new insights into how children learnscience in constructivist learning environments. Furthermore, thecollaboration process enabled classroom teachers and preservice teachersto share a wide repertoire of instructional strategies; some of these wereconstructivist based and some were not. Also from a pragmatic perspectiveschools gained some additional resources at no expense.

The children benefited from the project because they used a hands­on approach to explore their own ideas about scientific concepts. Oftenthey worked with their classroom teacher who adopted the role of a co­learner. Thus, they had the benefit of additional human and physicalresources in their classroom and this may have helped them to cope withthe additional cognitive demands thatoccurred when they first experiencedconstructivist learning.

Researchers always have to treat self-reporting with some degree ofcaution as subjects may be telling researchers "what they want to hear."Nevertheless, the use of multiple data sources suggests that this projectwas beneficial to the parties involved and this has encouraged theresearcher to continue his commitment to the project. However, there areareas that require further development if the project is to fully realize itspotential in supporting a constructivist approach to learning. Few of the

41

supervising teachers and classroom teachers model the processes ofknowledge construction to children and they report that they do not feelcomfortable with this aspect of the project. It appears that more time isneeded if this goal is to be realized. Second, the preservice teachers needmore instruction in flexible time management before they commenceclassroom instruction as they tend to run out oftime during their firstlesson.Third, there is a need to include additional activities that challenge andfurther extend gifted and talented children as the questionnaire responsesindicated that this may have been a reason for fifteen percent ofchildrenstating that the material was too easy.

Future developments of the program also includes the production ofa database of model projects that will serve as resource for teachers. In1996, this database was trialled with 80 preservice teachers.

ReferencesAnderson, RD., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science

teacher education. In Gabel (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch onscience teaching and learning. (pp.3-44) Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association.

Biddulph, F. (1982). Primary science: The views ofteachers andpupils. Hamilton, N.Z.: University ofWaikato.

Bybee, R W. (Ed.). (1992). Science for life and living, Integratingscience, technology and health: energy and investigation(Teachers Edition). (pp.T 11-T44). Iowa: KendalllHunt PublishingUSA.

Cannon, J. R (1995). Further Validation of the Constructivist LearningEnvironment Survey: Its Use in the Elementary Science MethodsCourse. Journal ofElementary Science Teacher Education,7(1),47-62.

Collins, A. (1990). The Role ofComputer Technology in RestructuringSchools. In Sheingold, K. and Tucker, M. S. (Eds.) Restructuringfor Learning with Technology. (pp.29-48). New York: Centerfor Educational Technology.

Cosgrove, M., Osborne, R, & Forret, M. (1989). Electric current:Developing learners' views, Hamilton New Zealand: WaikatoEducation Center.

42

DEET. (1989). Discipline review ofteacher education in math­ematics and science. Canberra: Australian Government Publish­ing Service.

Driver, R, Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994).Making sense ofsecondary science: Research into children sideas. London: Routledge.

Driver, R, & Erikson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoreticaland empirical issues in the study ofstudents conceptual frame­works in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.

Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In Handbook ofresearch on curriculum. (pp. 789-827). New York: Macmillan.

Ferry, B. (1993). "Can we meet the challenge? Problems with imple­mentation and in-service in technology-related fields ofeducation.Australian Educational Computing, 8(1), 32-36.

Fostnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: Aconstructivist approach for teaching. New York: TeachersCollege Press

Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions andalternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science educa­tion. Studies in Science Education.S, 61-64.

Goodrum D. A., Dorsey L. T., & Schwen, T. M. C. (1993). Definingand building an enriched learning and information environment.Educational Technology, 3(11), 10-20.

Gunstone, R F. (1987). Learners in science education. In P.1.Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science educa­tion, (pp. 56-73). London: The Falmer Press.

Lyddon, W.1., & McLaughlin, 1. T. (1992). Constructivist psychology:a heuristic framework. Journal ofMind and Behaviour, 13( 1),

89-107.Murnane, R 1., & Raizen, S. A. (Eds.). (1988). Improving indicators

of the quality ofscience and mathematics education in gradesK-I2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Novak, 1. D. (1988). Learning science and the science oflearning.Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-101.

43

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning modeland its implications for science education. Studies in ScienceEducation, 12, 59-87.

Perkes, V. A. (1975). Relationship between a teacher's backgroundand sensed adequacy to teach elementary science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 12,85-88.

Posner, G. L., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A.(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward atheory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211­227.

Schoeneberger, M. M., & Russell, T.L. (1983). Add a little frill:Science in the elementary school. American Educational Re­search Association. Montreal, Canada.

Symington, D., & Mackay, L. (1991). Science discipline knowledgein primary teacher education: Responses to the Discipline ReviewofTeacher Education in Mathematics and Science. Research inScience Education. 21, 306-312.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research oninstructional strategies for teaching science. In Gabel (Ed.),Handbook ofresearch on science teaching and learning.(pp.45-93). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Asso­ciation.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction ofknowledge andteaching. Synthese. 80 : 121-140.

West, L. H., & Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structure and concep­tual change. Sydney: Academic Press.

Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science andmathematics learning. Science Education. 75(1),9-21.

Yates, S., & Goodrum, D. (1990). How confident are primary teach­ers in teaching science? Research in Science Education. 20,300-305.

Dr. Brian Ferry, Lecturer in Education, University ofWollongong,Faculty ofEducation, Northfields Ave., Wollongong NWS 2522Australia, bferry@uow.edu.au

44