teachers’ and students’ conceptions of good science teaching

28
This article was downloaded by: [Wilfrid Laurier University] On: 13 September 2013, At: 19:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Science Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20 Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions of Good Science Teaching Benny Hin Wai Yung a , Yan Zhu a , Siu Ling Wong a , Man Wai Cheng a & Fei Yin Lo a a Faculty of Education , The University of Hong Kong , Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong , SAR, People's Republic of China Published online: 27 Oct 2011. To cite this article: Benny Hin Wai Yung , Yan Zhu , Siu Ling Wong , Man Wai Cheng & Fei Yin Lo (2013) Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions of Good Science Teaching, International Journal of Science Education, 35:14, 2435-2461, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.629375 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629375 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: fei-yin

Post on 16-Dec-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by: [Wilfrid Laurier University]On: 13 September 2013, At: 19:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions ofGood Science TeachingBenny Hin Wai Yung a , Yan Zhu a , Siu Ling Wong a , Man WaiCheng a & Fei Yin Lo aa Faculty of Education , The University of Hong Kong , PokfulamRoad, Hong Kong , SAR, People's Republic of ChinaPublished online: 27 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Benny Hin Wai Yung , Yan Zhu , Siu Ling Wong , Man Wai Cheng & Fei Yin Lo(2013) Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions of Good Science Teaching, International Journal ofScience Education, 35:14, 2435-2461, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.629375

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629375

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions

of Good Science Teaching

Benny Hin Wai Yung∗, Yan Zhu, Siu Ling Wong,Man Wai Cheng and Fei Yin LoFaculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong,

SAR, People’s Republic of China

Capitalizing on the comments made by teachers on videos of exemplary science teaching, a video-

based survey instrument on the topic of ‘Density’ was developed and used to investigate the

conceptions of good science teaching held by 110 teachers and 4,024 year 7 students in

Hong Kong. Six dimensions of good science teaching are identified from the 55-item

questionnaire, namely, ‘focussing on science learning’, ‘facilitating students’ understanding’,

‘encouraging students’ involvement’, ‘creating conducive environment’, ‘encouraging active

experimentation’ and ‘preparing students for exam (PSE)’. Significant gaps between teachers’

and students’ conceptions on certain dimensions have been revealed. The inconsistency on the

dimension ‘PSE’ is particularly evident and possible reasons for the phenomenon are suggested.

This study raises the important questions of how the gap can be addressed, and who is to change

in order to close the gaps. Answers to these questions have huge implications for teacher

education and teacher professional development.

Keywords: Good Science Teaching; Teacher Conception; Student Conception

Introduction

Over the last few decades, many studies have described the disappointing state of

science teaching at all school levels across many countries (e.g. Brown, 1974;

Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Harlen, 1998; Tobin & Fraser, 1988; Yager,

Hidayat, & Penick, 1988). It is suggested that one way to improve such situations is

through identifying and describing the behavior of exemplary science teachers

(e.g. Tobin & Fraser, 1988; Treagust, 1991; Tyler, 2003; Waldrip, Fisher, &

International Journal of Science Education, 2013

Vol. 35, No. 14, 2435–2461, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629375

∗Corresponding author: Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road,

Hong Kong, SAR, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Dorman, 2009). The descriptions of what such teachers do could provide guidance

for the design of teacher education programs at both pre-service and in-service

levels and will, eventually, lead to enhanced learning of science in school.

With the rise of cognitive psychology in the early 1980s, teacher educators began to

focus more on the ways in which teachers think rather than the ways they behave

(Calderhead, 1996). Research over the last few decades has suggested that teaching

is a process that involves teachers’ cognition instead of teachers’ behaviors alone. In

their influential review of research on teacher thinking, Clark and Peterson (1986,

p. 255) suggested that teachers’ thought processes, theories and beliefs ‘substantially

influenced and even determined’ their classroom practices. Indeed, this realization

has led to increasing interest in studying teacher cognition, in particular, the beliefs

and conceptions underlying their classroom practices (e.g. Mellado, 1998; Yerrick,

Parke, & Nugent, 1997; Yung, 2006).

Early studies in the domain of conceptions of teaching were concerned about teach-

ing in general (Kember, 1997). More recently, on the premise that there are critical

features specific to the teaching of particular disciplines, there have been more

studies of teaching conceptions pertaining to specific disciplines. For instance, in

science education, it is found that the type and amount of inquiry instruction per-

formed by teachers in their classrooms are guided by their core conceptions including:

conceptions of science, their students, effective teaching practices and the purpose of

education (e.g. Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson, 2003;

Wallace & Kang, 2004).

However, these and most other studies of conceptions of teaching at school levels

have been conducted in Western cultural contexts (e.g. Boulton-Lewis, Smith,

McCrindle, Burnett, & Campbell, 2001; Porlan & del Pozo, 2004) and very few in

Chinese cultural contexts (see for exception, Gao & Watkins, 2002). Yet, it has

been shown that there are tangible differences both in the practices of teaching

(e.g. Stiger & Hiebert, 1999) and in the notions of ‘good’ teachers and students

(Jin & Cortazzi, 1998). Our study thus attempts to shed light on these issues by

exploring teaching conceptions among Hong Kong teachers, where teachers are

exposed to Western educational philosophies in their professional training while

being required to teach in sociocultural contexts that are overwhelmingly Chinese

in origin. Indeed, Watkins and Biggs (2001) characterize the system as one that is

driven by ‘vernacular Confucianism’, with students (and teachers) under constant

pressure of relentless norm-referenced assessment. These pressures, together with

other deep-rooted cultural beliefs in relation to social status, student ability and

effort, will intuitively have a bearing on Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions of what

exactly is ‘good’ teaching in science.

Previous research in teachers’ conceptions of teaching has focussed on university

lecturers or teachers teaching higher forms (Kember, 1997). This present study,

however, looks at science teachers at the junior secondary level for two reasons.

First, it will provide evidence to support or refute the view that some aspects of teach-

ing conceptions may vary according to subject area or level of schooling (Prosser &

Trigwell, 1998). Second, at this level of schooling, Hong Kong students experience

2436 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

their first formal science curriculum, with the provision of practical work in the

science laboratory. By all accounts, this is a critical stage during which students’ inter-

est in science can be turned on or diminished depending on how science is taught

(Darby, 2005; Logan & Skamp, 2008; Speering & Rennie, 1996); and that, in turn,

may be related to the teaching conceptions possessed by the teachers concerned.

Hence, this study can provide valuable information on how teacher preparation

courses should be structured to take into account these influences on classroom

practices.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Conceptions of Teaching

Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of teachers’ thinking and

their beliefs, confusion exists among researchers about the definitions of beliefs

(Pajares, 1992). On one hand, some researchers, like Ponte (1994), argue that both

beliefs and conceptions are part of knowledge, but they are of different nature: the

former being ‘prepositional’ and the latter ‘metaphorical’ (p. 169). On the other

hand, some researchers consider beliefs as a subclass of conceptions, hence the two

inevitably have an overlapping nature. For example, Lloyd and Wilson (1998)

define conceptions as ‘a person’s general mental structures that encompass knowl-

edge, beliefs, understandings, preferences and views’ (p. 249). In sum, the term

‘beliefs’ is ill defined; and the distinction between beliefs, knowledge and conceptions

remains controversial.

After due consideration, it is decided that the term ‘beliefs’ will not be strictly dis-

tinguished from the term ‘conceptions’ in this study. The two terms will be used inter-

changeably. In particular, the word ‘conceptions’ is preferred, as there is already an

existing body of literature on conceptions of teaching, albeit mostly undertaken in

the context of higher education (e.g. Biggs, 1989; Christensen, Massey, Issac, &

Synott, 1995; Kember & Gow, 1994; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994). This is in

line with Enwistle, Skinner, Enwistle, and Orr (2000) thinking that, in so doing, it

can bring the empirical findings deriving from staff in higher education and those

from school teachers together, and hence paving the way for a more complete

picture of what may underlie the notion of ‘good teaching’.

Broadly speaking, conceptions of teaching can be viewed as the categories of ideas

underlying different people’s descriptions of how they experience the teaching process

(Pratt, 1992). From a detailed analysis of 13 studies, Kember (1997) identified

5 dimensions on which teachers constructed their conceptions of teaching: the essen-

tial features of teaching and learning; the roles of student and teacher; the aims and

expected outcomes of teaching; the content of teaching and the preferred styles and

approaches to teaching. In other words, no matter what kind of teaching conception

a teacher possesses, be it teacher-centered or student-centered, elements correspond-

ing to the five dimensions mentioned above could still be identified. Based on a

holistic assessment of the essential ideas articulated in the five dimensions,

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Kember classified the different kinds of teaching conceptions into five categories

which he referred to as first-order conceptions, viz, imparting information, transmit-

ting structured knowledge, student teacher interaction/apprenticeship, facilitating

understanding and conceptual change/intellectual development.

Different opinions exist on whether there is a hierarchical relationship between

different categories of teaching conceptions, with the less sophisticated conceptions

subsuming under the most sophisticated conceptions (e.g. Biggs, 1989; Martin &

Balla, 1990). Yet majority in the field prefer arranging the conceptions in a linear

sequence while some have argued that teachers’ views fall into contrasting subsets:

teacher-centered vs. student-centered. This led Kember (1997) to propose two

higher order orientations to complete his model: teacher-centered/content-oriented

and student-centered/learning-oriented. The former focusses on clear presentation

of knowledge by the teacher for transfer to students in an ‘easily digestible’ form.

This is in contrast with the latter orientation where students are expected to

process information actively with the teacher acting as a facilitator of their learning.

In sum, like most researchers, Kember depicts teaching conceptions as lying on a con-

tinuum with two extremes: the most teacher-centered vs. the most student-centered.

Instead of probing participants’ conceptions of teaching, the present study investi-

gates their conceptions of ‘good’ teaching. It builds on an earlier study

(Wong, Yung, Cheng, & Hodson, 2006; Yung, Wong, Cheng, Hui, & Hodson,

2007) in which two videos of exemplary science teaching at the junior secondary

level had proven to be effective in eliciting and tracking student teachers’ conception

of ‘good’ science teaching. It is believed that characteristics of ‘good’ teaching are indi-

cators of the ideal toward which teachers aim and students prefer, albeit implicitly.

Hence it is easier for teachers and students to respond to survey questions pertaining

to ‘good’ teaching rather than teaching in general. In fact, there is no need for total

agreement on whether these recorded lessons demonstrate good teaching or not.

The viewers can identify with the good practices shown in the video or not. In offering

their opinions of whether they think certain teaching practices are good or not, they

are implying in their answers the corresponding conceptions of ‘good’ teaching. In

short, these video excerpts serve as a dynamic stimulus to elicit respondents’ con-

ceptions of ‘good’ teaching, a normally abstract phenomenon (Gao & Watkins, 2002).

In a previous study (Yung et al., 2007), we provided pre-service teachers with a set

of videos of reform-based exemplary science teaching and asked them to review and

reflect on the same set of videos on different occasions during a teacher education

program. The videos were found to serve as an effective probe to elicit student tea-

chers’ conceptions of good science teaching (CoGST). In particular, the instructional

arrangement of asking student teachers to watch the same videos on three separate

occasions at different times of the course was recognized by them as a crucial

element in facilitating their reflection on their changing CoGST. The present study

capitalizes on the potency and strength of these videos in eliciting respondents’ con-

ceptions of ‘good’ teaching to develop a quantitative survey instrument for studies

involving a large population of respondents. This differs from our earlier work

which was a qualitative study involving only a small number of pre-service teachers.

2438 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

In addition, it is argued that, compared with a purely text-based questionnaire, a

video-based survey questionnaire is more likely to elicit more valid responses from

students with respect to their conceptions of ‘good’ teaching.

Hewson and Hewson (1989, p. 194) were among the forerunners who referred to a

conception of teaching science as including ‘the set of ideas, understandings, and

interpretations of experience concerning the teacher and teaching, the nature and

content of science, and the learners and learning that the teacher uses in making

decisions about teaching, both in planning and execution’. Obviously, the national

science education standards of a country/region (e.g. Curriculum Development

Council [CDC], 1998; DfES/QCA, 2004; National Research Council, 1996)

should constitute a common baseline for conceptualizing and defining what good

science teaching should be for science education of that particular place. In line

with international trends, science education in Hong Kong has undergone consider-

able changes in the last decade with increasing emphasis on scientific inquiry, having it

both as part of the curriculum content as well as an approach for teaching and learning

science (Anderson, 2007). It emphasizes giving attention to inquiry as a learning

activity and advocates scientific inquiry as a desired means to learning of scientific

knowledge and training of inquiry and generic skills such as collaboration and

communication skills (CDC, 1998). Though it is probably fair to say that a belief

in the value of inquiry teaching probably carries with it a belief in inquiry learning

(Anderson, 2007), a question remains: How much do teachers subscribe to these

ideas in their CoGST? This line of inquiry is a response to the call for more studies

on science teachers’ beliefs, a better understanding of which may contribute to the

success of curriculum reforms, as argued by Luft and Roehrig (2007) and van

Driel, Bulte, and Verloop (2005).

Students’ Conceptions of Good Teaching

The significance of student involvement in decisions about aspects of school life has

been highly recognized recently. Correspondingly, there have been a number of

broad ranging inquires into students’ views of school (e.g. Rudduck & Flutter,

2004), although studies with a detailed focus on issues about teaching and learning

are relatively rare (e.g. Darby, 2005; Logan & Skamp, 2008; Morgan & Morris,

1999; Whitehead & Clough, 2004). These studies have signaled a greater understand-

ing about students’ perspectives of being learners, which can, in turn, be used to inform

strategies to enhance students’ efforts and attainment as well as to influence classroom

and school cultures (e.g. McIntyre, Pedder, & Rudduck, 2005). Even so, some would

still question whether views gathered from students should be acted upon, particularly

if they are critical of schools and/or teachers and challenge current ways of working.

Underpinning this position are considerations of power and authority.

Our premise is that students’ voices have fore-grounded their rights but are

balanced by recognition of responsibilities. Therefore, the data should not be

treated as a direct mandate for action but rather as a means to inform understanding

and dialogue between teachers and students about future practice. In other words,

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

students’ ideas should not be viewed as the final and conclusive word on how class-

room teaching and learning activities need to change. Alternatively, teachers should

be willing to negotiate with students in response to their expressed views. This is in

line with the call from Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003, p. 1067) for more research

on ‘what makes for effective teaching of science in the eyes of the pupil’. This also

aligns with the assumption underpinning much of the learning environment research.

That is, ‘defining the classroom or school environment in terms of the shared percep-

tion of the pupils and the teachers has the dual advantage of characterizing the setting

through the eyes of participants themselves and of capturing data, which an external

observer could miss or consider unimportant’ (Fraser, 1998, p. 528). The term learn-

ing environment relates to the psychology, sociology and pedagogy of the contexts in

which learning takes place. The present study focusses more on the pedagogic side as

seen from both the teacher and student perspective.

In sum, we believe that the way teachers think about teaching influences the way

they teach, then the way their students learn, and ultimately students’ learning out-

comes. We also believe that student learning of science could be enhanced if there

is a closer match between teachers’ conceptions about ‘good’ science teaching and

those of their students. Thus, a comparison of teachers’ conceptions with those on

the receiving end of science instruction is an essential starting point. To this end,

we asked the following research questions:

(1) What are the CoGST held by junior secondary science teachers in Hong Kong?

(2) What are the CoGST held by junior secondary science students in Hong Kong?

(3) How do the students’ conceptions compare and contrast with those of their

teachers?

Research Methods

Participants

An invitation to participate in the study was sent to all secondary schools in Hong

Kong. As an incentive, each participating teacher was promised an individual

report, including a detailed comparison of their conceptions about ‘good’ science

teaching with those of their students. Effort was made to include in the final

sample as much variation as possible in terms of student (e.g. gender, academic abil-

ities and school types) and teacher variables (e.g. gender, teaching experience and

academic background). As a result, a total of 110 teachers and 4,024 year 7 students

from 54 schools1 were included in the main study. Table 1 provides the profile of the

participating students and their teachers. It can be seen that students and teachers

were nearly equally distributed on demographic characteristics.

Instruments

One lesson-video-based questionnaire was designed to find out students’ and tea-

chers’ conceptions of ‘good’ science teaching. An exemplary teaching video on the

2440 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

topic of ‘density’ was selected for the purpose. As described earlier, the video was

chosen for its potency of serving as a dynamic stimulus for eliciting responses from

the viewers in terms of their CoGST. In particular, it was able to elicit a wide spectrum

of diverse views on teaching shown in the video. In order to produce the video with

sufficient details and representative variety, the video was edited by making reference

to the five domains suggested by Kember’s (1997) theoretical framework: (a) the

essence of learning and teaching, (b) the roles of the student and teacher, (c) the

aims and expected outcome of learning, (d) the content of teaching and (e) the pre-

ferred styles and approaches to teaching. Though it was necessary to limit the total

duration of the video clip to within 20 min so as to ensure a reasonable total

viewing time, strenuous efforts were made to maintain the integrity, flow and

general essence of the lessons.

Two independent science educators2 were asked to validate the content of the video

against Kember’s framework to ensure a range of video snippets covering all the five

domains. In particular, the independent reviewers were reminded to make reference

to the corresponding video episodes in assessing the validity of individual items.

This is because simply reading the item statements without referring to the video

may not provide the respondents with adequate information on what the statements

are about. Such examples include: Item 13—the teacher uses two soluble materials in

the experiment (i.e. sugar and salt), and Item 27—the teacher runs the experiment in

the form of a competition. In the first case (i.e. Item 13), knowing more about the

context of the experiment from watching the video, respondents would be in a

better position to judge whether such an arrangement is an important feature for

good science teaching or not. Similarly, in the second case (i.e. Item 27), simply

Table 1. A profile of participating students and their teachers

Students Teachers

Gendera

Female 2,114 58

Male 1,907 52

School Type

Coed School 2,678 74

Girls School 606 16

Boys School 740 20

School Bandb

Band 1 1,943 49

Band 2 1,116 31

Band 3 965 30

Total no. of participants 4,024 110

aThree students did not provide their gender information in the questionnaire.

bIn Hong Kong, when students are promoted to secondary schools they are allocated to three bands

of schools according to their academic abilities. Band 1 schools admit students with highest abilities

and Band 3 the lowest.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

reading the item may convey a negative view to the respondents that running the

experiment in the form of a competition is no good for good science teaching.

However, finding out how students in the video are motivated and enjoying the

lesson, respondents may find this a good feature of good science teaching instead.

In sum, it is essential that the video-based instrument be validated in conjunction

with the video which provides contextual information for interpretation of the state-

ments of the questionnaire items. As argued previously, this can reduce the chances

of misinterpreting the items as would be the case in many text-based questionnaire

surveys.

In the validation process, the independent reviewers pointed out that there was very

few video episodes that could be related to domain (c), i.e. the aims and expected

outcome of learning. To fill this gap, some items (which did not feature in the

video) were added to the questionnaire by making reference to the aims and objectives

stated in the official curriculum handbook (e.g. Item 51: the teacher encourages stu-

dents to recognize the relevant social, technological and economical issues). Items 49

and 54 also belong to this category (see Appendix). For a similar reason, four more

items (50, 52, 53 and 55) were added to the questionnaire to represent a set of practice

commonly observed in the local schools but not shown in the video. This includes

situations where the teacher: teaches students how to revise and prepare for tests

and examinations (50), puts the correct answers on the board for students to copy

onto their notebooks/workbooks (52), provides students with notes for their revision

(53) and tells students which is/are the important part(s) of the textbook to underline

for revision (55). Obviously, these are neither exemplary practices cited in the litera-

ture nor what we would want to advocate when we were contacting teachers for

recording their exemplary practices (and these practices were actually absent in our

raw footages). These practices, according to the independent reviewers, are related

to the domain of aims and expected outcome of learning in general and performance

on the tests and examinations in particular.

On the one hand, addition of features not shown in the video could enhance the

representativeness of conceptions elicited by the instrument. On the other hand,

this might be construed as deliberate bias of the researchers on what good science

teaching is about. Readers need to interpret our findings with the inherent limitation

of the instrument. Our view is that students can still rate these ‘added/not shown’ fea-

tures as unimportant in their conception of good science teaching. The important

thing is that they understand what the items mean and how do they match with

their own classroom experiences.

In summary, the conceptualization, design and construction of the video-based

questionnaire was informed by the comments made by (a) the two independent

reviewers, (b) over 100 in-service teachers and 4 teacher educators who participated

in face-to-face lesson studies and/or web-based discussions on the lesson concerned

(Yung, 2003) and (c) over 80 pre-service teachers who had to keep track of and

reflect on their changing perceptions through monitoring their own comments on

the teaching shown in the video at different times during their education course

(Wong et al., 2006; Yung et al., 2007). Due attention was paid to video episodes

2442 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

which had attracted distinctively varied or even opposing views from the respondents.

With reference to the video episodes selected and the associated comments, a ques-

tionnaire entitled Conceptions of Good Science Teaching (CoGST) was devised with a

5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4; where ‘0’ stands for ‘not important at

all’, and ‘2’ is the mid-point of the scale and stands for ‘important’, ‘4’ is at the

other end of the scale and stands for ‘very important’.

The instrument was first pilot tested with three classes of students (each with

over 30 students) and their teachers. During the pilot, the video was shown and

stopped at preset intervals of about 5 min. To facilitate viewing, the video was

usually stopped at natural breaks or transition points of the lesson such that

respondents had no difficulty continuing with their viewing of the video and under-

standing the flow of the lesson after completion of the questionnaire. At points

where the video playback was stopped, the respondents were asked to rate the

extent to which they regard each of the features listed in the relevant part of the

questionnaire as an essential feature of ‘good’ science teaching. At the end of

the pilot questionnaire, an open-ended question invited the respondents to

provide any additional feature(s) of good science teaching that is/are not listed in

the questionnaire proper. This information coupled with those collected during

post-survey group interviews were added to the final pool of data from which

the research group drew in finalizing the questionnaire. As a result, 55 items

were included in the final questionnaire with some revisions made to improve

the clarity of items. The Chinese version of the questionnaire was used for both

teachers and students to minimize any possible errors resulting from poor compre-

hension of English. The English version of the finalized questionnaire3 is attached

as an Appendix.

Data Collection

In order to maintain students’ attention on the video replay during data collection, the

survey was conducted before they were taught the topic of density in their normal cur-

riculum. Two researchers brought the video as well as the questionnaires to the

schools and conducted the survey. It took about 40 min to watch the lesson video

and complete the survey. In administering the survey, the video was stopped at

preset intervals, during which the respondents were asked to rate the extent to

which they think each of the features listed in the questionnaire is an essential

feature of ‘good’ science teaching. To avoid unnecessary bias in their views, the

respondents were told that the video was representative of ‘ordinary’ science teaching

currently occurring in mainstream schools. Both students and teachers were assured

that their responses to the questionnaire would be kept confidential and not be used

for other purposes. Moreover, the students were encouraged to ask questions if the

meaning of the items was unclear. They were also asked not to discuss with each

other during survey so as to avoid peer influences. The collection of survey data

achieved a 100% response rate mainly due to the fact that the researchers admini-

strated the survey in person.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Data Processing and Analysis

The data from the survey were first randomly split into two subsamples, each of which

comprises nearly 50% of teacher data and 50% of student data. One subsample was

subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using principal component analysis

(PCA), to identify the underlying dimensions of CoGST. Prior to it, the Kaiser–

Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett test of spheri-

city (BTS) were used to determine the appropriateness of factor analysis. To deter-

mine the number of dimensions to be extracted, the investigation used both

eigenvalues-greater-than-1 rule (Kaiser, 1960) and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965)

by simulating O’Connor’s (2000) parallel analysis program (i.e. SPSS macro).

After determining the number of factors to be retained, an oblique factor rotation

(Promax) was performed to allow for inter-factor correlations.

Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus 4.1 program was under-

taken on the other subsample to validate the structure resulted from the EFA. To

evaluate the fit of the measurement models, three goodness-of-fit indices are used:

comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values indicative of acceptable

fit were a CFI . 0.90 and RMSEA/SRMR values at or below 0.08. Moreover, the

internal consistency of each dimension in the measures was evaluated via Cronbach’s

alpha statistics.

Subsequently, descriptive statistics was applied in order to get initial insights. For the

teacher and student samples, separate analyses were performed. A one-way repeated

measures of ANOVA were conducted with Bonferroni’s post hoc tests to compare the

relative importance of various dimensions in the respondents’ CoGST. To investigate

whether teachers and students perceive the importance of each CoGST dimension dif-

ferently, a two-way mixed ANOVA was run followed by Bonferroni corrected post hoc

tests, when appropriate. Furthermore, the associations among the various dimensions

of CoGST were examined via correlation analysis for both teachers and students.

Lastly, the effects of gender, school type and school band4 on respondents’ opinions

were also evaluated via two-way mixed ANOVAs. For all the analyses, when significant

differences were detected, their effect sizes were calculated and reported.

Findings of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to investigate both teachers’ and students’

CoGST. The factor structure of the self-developed questionnaire was first identified

based on the EFA and CFA results. For each identified dimension, descriptive stat-

istics were reported followed by the rating comparisons between teachers and stu-

dents. After that, the relative importance of various aspects of CoGST was then

compared for both teachers and students, respectively. Next, the relationships

among the CoGST dimensions were presented. Lastly, the influence of selected

socio-demographic variables of gender, school type and school band on the respon-

dents’ conceptions was reported.

2444 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Factor Structure of the CoGST Questionnaire

Out of 4,022 valid cases, 2,014 were randomly selected for the EFA. The sample was

first assessed for its suitability for factor analysis. The KMO analysis produced an

index of 0.96 and BTS was significant [x2 (1,485) ¼ 28142.54, p , 0.001] indicating

that the data satisfied the psychometric criteria for factor analysis. An initial PCA

revealed 10 eigenvalues exceeding 1, explained 49.1% of the total variance.

However, a follow-up parallel analysis, using an SPSS macro (O’Connor, 2000),

suggested a six-component solution best represented the data when eigenvalues

from the target data set were compared with eigenvalues from randomly generated

data: (a) Component 1: 12.24 vs. 1.34, (b) Component 2: 2.22 vs. 1.31, (c) Com-

ponent 3: 2.08 vs. 1.29, (d) Component 4: 1.66 vs. 1.27, (e) Component 5: 1.32

vs. 1.25 and (f) Component 6: 1.26 vs. 1.23. A second EFA was then conducted

and six factors were retained. The obtained solution accounted for 41.2% of the

total variance and item communalities ranged from 0.24 to 0.60 with a mean of 0.41.

Based on the EFA result, cross-validation on the other remaining half of the partici-

pants retained from the same overall sample was performed via CFA. Due to the low

loading of one item (Item 11: 0.168), it was decided to delete the particular item from

the original measure. As a result, the CFA indicated that a six-factor model provided

(see Table 2), with minor modifications, an overall acceptable fit to the data (CFI ¼

0.89, RMSEA ¼ 0.33, SRMR ¼ 0.04).

Additional analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was utilized to measure reliability in

terms of internal consistency. The reliability of the six dimensions of CoGST is as

follows: focussing on science learning (FSL) (17 items) ¼ 0.89, encouraging active

experimentation (EAE) (6 items) ¼ 0.67, encouraging students’ involvement (ESI)

(13 items) ¼ 0.83, creating conducive learning environment (9 items) ¼ 0.80, facil-

itating students’ understanding (FSU) (5 items) ¼ 0.65, and preparing students for

exam (PSE) (4 items) ¼ 0.71.

Below is a brief description of each of the dimensions illustrated with sample items:

. FSL: The teacher emphasizes aspects related to learning science—for example,

explains to students the importance of science; teaches students the scientific

method, the different steps and techniques involved as well as the way of thinking;

provides students the correct scientific knowledge; stimulates students’ interest in

learning science. In brief, items in this dimension pertain to curriculum goals

laid down in curriculum documents, which span across the knowledge, skills and

affective domains. As such, it is akin to Kember’s dimension of ‘aims and expected

outcome of learning’.

. EAE: The teacher encourages students to play an active role in carrying out exper-

imental work—for example, allows students to change the experimental steps; splits

the class into two groups to do the same experiment by using different materials;

includes some additional substances for students to do the experiment. By and

large, items in this dimension are concerned with involving students as active lear-

ners in carrying out inquiries in the laboratory, not merely following cook-book

style practical work, by provision of more flexibilities and alternatives. As such,

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. Completely standardized factor loadings from the CFA

Items

Factor 1

Focus

Factor 2

Experimentation

Factor 3

Involvement

Factor 4

Environment

Factor 5

Understanding

Factor 6

Examination

28 0.50

33 0.46

34 0.56

38 0.56

36 0.57

44 0.51

46 0.56

47 0.61

40 0.57

54 0.51

51 0.51

49 0.56

45 0.57

39 0.55

29 0.52

30 0.56

31 0.48

13 0.52

18 0.43

15 0.44

16 0.46

14 0.51

19 0.45

22 0.46

07 0.42

24 0.52

12 0.45

06 0.34

09 0.39

05 0.45

10 0.47

26 0.56

25 0.57

17 0.48

23 0.51

21 0.51

48 0.59

37 0.60

43 0.54

42 0.56

41 0.53

27 0.50

35 0.51

32 0.51

20 0.48

(Continued)

2446 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

this is related to Kember’s dimensions of ‘roles of the student and teacher’ as well as

‘the content of teaching’. The latter is involved as one needs to know about the

content to be taught in order to judge if it is appropriate to allow students with

the flexibilities to alter their experimental design or to provide them with additional

materials to experiment with. For the case in point, in addition to salt, the teacher

also provides students with sugar to test out their ideas so that they will come to

understand that density of water will be increased by dissolving any solutes in it,

be it salt or sugar.

. ESI: The teacher invites students to participate actively in the lesson—for example,

requires students first to work on their own and discuss their result in groups before

having the whole class discussion; instead of responding to students’ question

directly, the teacher sometimes re-directs the question to other students for

answers; encourages students to challenge what he says; brings out the aim of the

experiment through discussion with students; discusses the experimental results

with students. In short, the main focus here is to get as many students involved

in the lesson as possible through various pedagogical means. As such, this dimen-

sion is related to ‘roles of the teacher and student’ and ‘preferred styles and

approaches to teaching’ in Kember’s framework.

. Creating conducive environment (CCE): The teacher creates a motivating learning

environment—for example, the teacher is humorous; praises students for their

good performance; expresses high expectations of his students; runs the experiment

in form of a competition; arranges interesting activities for the lesson. In brief, the

intention is to motivate student learning by various means. A case in point is where

the teacher-in-video turns an investigation of factors affecting buoyancy of a ship

into a competition game—design a ship which can carry the heaviest load. As a

result, as evident from the video, students are highly motivated and engaged in

the activity. As such, this dimension pertains to ‘the preferred styles and approaches

to teaching’ dimension of Kember’s framework.

. FSU: The teacher uses instructional strategies that facilitate students’ understand-

ing—for example, the teacher uses different examples to explain the scientific

Table 2. Continued

Items

Factor 1

Focus

Factor 2

Experimentation

Factor 3

Involvement

Factor 4

Environment

Factor 5

Understanding

Factor 6

Examination

03 0.50

04 0.60

02 0.53

08 0.43

01 0.51

53 0.60

52 0.51

55 0.67

50 0.67

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

concepts; uses everyday terms that students know to explain science concepts;

involves students in revising on what was learnt in previous lessons. In brief, this

dimension pertains to Kember’s dimensions of ‘the content of teaching’ and ‘pre-

ferred styles and approaches to teaching’.

. PSE: The teacher focusses on helping students prepare for the examination—for

example, puts the correct answers on the board for students to copy onto their note-

books; tells students which is/are the important part(s) of the textbook to underline

for revision; provides students with notes for their revision; teaches students how to

revise and prepare for tests and examinations. In sum, this dimension cuts across

Kember’s notions of ‘roles of the student and teacher’, ‘the preferred styles and

approaches to teaching’ and ‘aims and expected outcomes of learning’. First, the

practices described are very teacher-centered, hence its association with the first

two notions. Second, the practices are very performance oriented, and hence are

related to ‘aims and expected outcomes of learning’.

To sum up, though the video-based instrument had been constructed based on

Kember’s framework, statistical analysis of the data collected yielded a six-dimension

model of conception of good science teaching, instead. Relationships between

Kember’s model and the empirically derived model are compared and discussed

above.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST

Table 3 shows the rankings of the six CoGST dimensions by teachers and students,

respectively. All the six dimensions of CoGST received a mean rating higher than 2

from both the teacher- and student-respondents. With ‘2’ as the mid-point of the

Likert-scale and coded as ‘important’, this means that all the six dimensions of

CoGST were considered ‘important’ in the respondents’ CoGST. Among the six

CoGST dimensions, teachers gave the highest rating to ‘FSU’ (M ¼ 3.35, SD ¼

Table 3. Mean ratings of the six CoGST dimensions by teachers and students

Teachers Students

M (SD) Rank M (SD) Rank

FSU 3.35 (0.48) 1∗ 3.11 (0.59) 2∗

FSL 3.32 (0.42) 2∗ 3.13 (0.54) 1∗

ESI 3.16 (0.44) 3 2.85 (0.58) 5

CCE 3.00 (0.49) 4 2.91 (0.68) 4

EAE 2.69 (0.53) 5 2.65 (0.67) 6

PSE 2.29 (0.69) 6 3.10 (0.74) 3∗

Note: For both teachers and students, they gave significantly different ratings to the six CoGST

dimensions except those marked with an asterisk (∗), for which there are no significant differences in

mean ratings (M).

2448 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

0.48) followed by ‘FSL’ (M ¼ 3.32, SD ¼ 0.42) with ‘EAE’ (M ¼ 2.69, SD ¼ 0.53)

and ‘PSE’ (PSE: M ¼ 2.29, SD ¼ 0.69) being rated lowest. A one-way repeated

measures ANOVA found that teachers had statistically significantly different ratings

on the six dimensions, F (3, 280) ¼ 130.02, p , 0.001, hp2 ¼ 0.54. The Bonferroni

multiple comparison post hoc analysis further revealed that the rating differences were

statistically significant among all pairs of comparisons except that between FSL and

FSU.

Similar to their teachers, the students also gave the highest rating to both ‘FSL’ (M

¼ 3.13, SD ¼ 0.54) and ‘FSU’ (M ¼ 3.11, SD ¼ 0.59). However, from students’

perspectives, ‘PSE’ is the third important dimension (M ¼ 3.10, SD ¼ 0.74). Never-

theless, students’ ratings did not show significant differences among the first three

dimensions in Bonferroni tests, while an overall difference on the six dimensions

reached statistical significance at the 0.001 level (F [5, 19,485] ¼ 695.43,

p , ;0.001, h2p = 0.15). The means of the other three dimensions were all below

3.00 with the lowest rating on ‘EAE’ (M ¼ 2.65, SD ¼ 0.67). Furthermore, the

ratings on the three aspects were significantly lower than those on the other three

and they were also significantly different between each other at the 0.001 level.

To investigate whether teachers and students perceive the importance of each

CoGST dimension differently, we used a two-way mixed ANOVA. Correspond-

ingly, the analysis examined the main effects (i.e. CoGST dimensions and role of

participants) and one interaction effect (i.e. GoGST dimension × role of partici-

pants). First, results showed that there was a significant difference among the six

CoGST dimensions, F (5, 20,030) ¼ 124.061, p , 0.001, h2p = 0.03. This indi-

cates that no matter whether the respondents are teachers or students, they gave sig-

nificantly different ratings to the six CoGST dimensions. The follow-up pair-wise

comparisons corrected using a Bonferroni adjustment further show that significant

differences existed among all pairs of dimensions but not among FSL, FSU and

PSE.

Second, no significant main effect of the role of participants (i.e. teachers vs. stu-

dents) was detected on the ratings across the six dimensions, F (1, 4,006) ¼ 0.018,

p ¼ 0.895. It indicates that teachers’ ratings (averaging over the six CoGST dimen-

sions) were basically the same as those of the students. This suggests that both the tea-

chers and their students in general held similar views about good science teaching

when not specifying a particular dimension (i.e. when the lesson is rated as a whole

by averaging the scores of the different dimensions).

Lastly, regarding the interaction effect between the dimensions of CoGST and the

role of the participants, a significant result was obtained, F (5, 20,030) ¼ 90.406,

p , 0.001, hp2 ¼ 0.02. This suggests that the profile of ratings across the CoGST

dimensions (as opposed to the average/overall ratings discussed above) was different

for teachers and students. Figure 1 shows the average teacher ratings of each dimen-

sion (squares) and the students’ ratings are shown as circles. The figure clearly illus-

trates that teacher and student ratings are very similar on five out of the six dimensions

with slightly higher ratings from teachers. However, students rated ‘PSE’ significantly

more highly (M ¼ 3.1) than teachers (M ¼ 2.29).

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 4 lists the correlations among the various dimensions of CoGST for teacher

and student samples, respectively. It is clear that the dimension of ‘PSE’ had the

lowest correlation with all the other dimensions, which is true for both teachers and

students though the relationship is stronger for students. It seems to suggest that in

both teachers’ and students’ views, the importance of ‘PSE’ is somehow an indepen-

dent aspect of science teaching. ‘EAE’ is another dimension which has a relatively

weak association with other dimensions. Compared with students’ rating, the associ-

ations reflected in teachers’ data are in general stronger except on the dimension of

‘PSE’.

Figure 1. Interaction effect between teachers’ and students’ ranking of the CoGST dimensions.

Teachers’ ratings are shown as squares and the students’ as circles

Table 4. Correlations between six dimensions of CoGST by teachers and students

FSL FSU PSE CCE ESI EAE

Teachers

FSL 1 0.72∗∗∗ 0.29∗∗ 0.70∗∗∗ 0.82∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗∗

FSU 1 0.15 0.57∗∗∗ 0.72∗∗∗ 0.47∗∗∗

PSE 1 0.27∗∗ 0.17 0.28∗∗

CCE 1 0.73∗∗∗ 0.69∗∗∗

ESI 1 0.66∗∗∗

EAE 1

Students

FSL 1 0.58∗∗∗ 0.43∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 0.72∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗∗

FSU 1 0.34∗∗∗ 0.39∗∗∗ 0.57∗∗∗ 0.41∗∗∗

PSE 1 0.34∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.25∗∗∗

CCE 1 0.49∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗∗

ESI 1 0.60∗∗∗

EAE 1

∗∗p , 0.01, ∗∗∗p , 0.001.

2450 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Influence of Selected Socio-Demographic Variables on Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST

Though the main focus of this study is to examine teacher–student differences in their

CoGST, differences between participants with different socio-demographic charac-

teristics are also investigated. However, no or trivial significant differences were

found related to socio-demographics, including gender, school type and school

band for both teachers and students. The results indicated that the respondents’

socio-demographics played a minor role in forming their perspectives of what good

science teaching is about.

Discussions of the Findings

To investigate teachers’ and students’ CoGST, this study developed a video-based-

questionnaire. A lesson video on the topic ‘Density’ was selected for the instrument

construction. More than 4,000 Hong Kong Grade 7 students and their science tea-

chers participated in the survey study. The analysis reveals that there are six dimen-

sions constituting the participants’ CoGST: namely, ‘CCE’, ‘FSU’, ‘PSE’, ‘ESI’,

‘FSL’ and ‘EAE’. Of the dimensions identified, some are obviously related to

science teaching per se (e.g. EAE). This supports the claim for the importance of

extending studies of conceptions of teaching in general to the teaching of particular

subjects—in our case, science.

Among the six dimensions of good science teaching, two are concerned with tea-

chers’ ability to produce a classroom environment that is conducive to learning for stu-

dents and meanwhile students’ active involvement is encouraged. These findings are

consistent with other studies showing that favorable interaction with students is a

characteristic feature of exemplary teachers. For instance, Waldrip and Fisher’s

(2003) study found that exemplary teachers are those who are seen by Australian stu-

dents (Grades 5–9) as very helpful and friendly; who try to interest students in the

learning process; listen to students and do not become angry quickly; and view students

as being capable learners. Based on these, Waldrip and Fisher suggested that it would be

worthwhile and productive to identify exemplary teachers through the use of students’

perceptions of the teachers’ interpersonal behavior with their students (Waldrip et al.,

2009). This concurs with Wong’s (1993, 1996) findings that Hong Kong Grade 9 stu-

dents identified teachers as the most crucial element in a positive classroom learning

environment for learning mathematics. According to the students in Wong’s study, tea-

chers have to be able to keep order and discipline while creating an atmosphere that is

not boring or solemn. They also need to interact with students in ways that are seen as

friendly and showing concern for students. In summary, the affective-related dimen-

sions form an important component of teachers’ and students’ CoGST.

By and large, the findings in this study corroborate with those of Tobin and Fraser

(1988, 1990) as well as those of Yung and Tao (2004), who examined the classroom

practices of exemplary science teachers via in-depth case studies. Based on their class-

room observations, they asserted that exemplary science teachers use management

strategies that facilitate sustained student engagement, use strategies designed to

enhance student understanding of science, utilize strategies to encourage students’

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

participation in learning activities and maintain good interactions with their students

through provision of a favorable classroom environment. However, it should be noted

that Tobin and Fraser (1988, 1990) as well as Yung and Tao (2004) put forward their

assertions from the viewpoint of a science educator and researcher, using an interpre-

tive methodology. In other words, their findings represent a ‘top-down’ view of

experts or ‘knowledgeable others’. In contrast, the present study adopts practitioners’

(classroom teachers) and consumers’ (students) points of view, and so represents

‘grass-roots’ opinions from the key players inside classrooms. The convergence of

the views of such different stakeholders in the field is fascinating and encouraging,

and speaks to the educational importance of our findings.

It is also important to note that Tobin and Fraser carried out their studies in

Western Australia, while we conducted ours in Hong Kong. Convergence of data

points to the universality of at least some dimensions of good teaching across different

cultures, albeit differences in the relative importance that different stakeholders may

attach to the different dimensions of good teaching.

‘Focus on Science Learning’ received the highest and second highest rating from the

students (M ¼ 3.13) and teachers (M ¼ 3.32), respectively. This is understandable as

science education does have its own unique set of curriculum goals that are to be

achieved. For instance, the following are items on this dimension extracted from the

CoGST questionnaire—‘teaches students the scientific method, the different steps

and techniques involved as well as the way of thinking’ (Item 47), ‘encourages students

to recognize the relevant social, technological and economical issues’ (Item 51) and

‘stimulates students’ interest in learning science’ (Item 46). Such statements are not

only found in the local science curriculum documents, but also in national science cur-

riculum documents in many other countries (e.g. American Association for the Advance-

ment of Science, 1993; Millar & Osborne, 1998). Thus, one may conclude that teachers’

CoGSTarevery much influenced by the goals of national science curricula. Interestingly,

these curriculum goalswere also subscribed by students in the present study as important

features for good science teaching. This should be good news to the teachers as these

curriculum goals are met with enthusiastic support from students. Such alignment in

teachers’ and students’ views’ would make the goals more attainable.

Empirical work is one of the defining features of science. In common with many

other education systems (e.g. Nott & Wellington, 1997), Hong Kong has devoted sub-

stantial resources to giving science students the opportunity to engage in practical

work (Yip & Yung, 1998). Hence it is understandable that ‘EAE’ constitutes one of

the dimensions in the CoGST from both teachers’ and students’ points of view.

However, it is somehow surprising that this dimension was ranked the lowest (M ¼

2.65) and the second lowest (M ¼ 2.69) by the students and teachers, respectively.

One possibility may be to do with the kind of practical work that is seen in the

video, which is based on textbook experiment, and is not authentic enough though

the teacher is trying his best to create opportunities for them to take up a more

active role in the process of experimentation. Clearly, this is far from satisfactory com-

pared with what the National Science Education Standards advocates, ‘Inquiry into

authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for

2452 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

teaching science’ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 31). Another possible reason

for the low ratings could be that practical work is usually not an assessed component

in the schools. Moreover, the examinations in most cases are mostly about facts and

ideas from the textbook. All these, taken together with the importance attached by

students to the dimension of ‘PSE’ (see below), help to paint a clearer picture of

the situation.

Hong Kong’s educational system is often described as an examination-led system.

In the course of his/her school career, a child could go through as many as eight sets of

selection examinations—from interviews for gaining admission to prestigious kinder-

gartens to the Advanced Level Examination at the end of Secondary 7 (Grade 13) for

gaining a place at a tertiary institution (Yung, 2006). Biggs (1996, p. 5) stated that at

all stages, ‘the curriculum, teaching methods, and student study methods, are focused

on the next major assessment hurdles’. The obsession with testing and examination is

vividly illustrated by many of the dreadful and stressing sentiments expressed in the

experiential accounts of Hong Kong teachers and students concerning their examin-

ation experiences (Pong & Chow, 2002). Hence it is not surprising to find that Hong

Kong students attached great importance to the dimension of ‘PSE’ in their CoGST.

Its rating (M ¼ 3.10) was not significantly different from the first two dimensions

(M ¼ 3.13 and 3.11, respectively). This is in big contrast to their teachers who

ranked the PSE dimension the least important (M ¼ 2.29) among all the six dimen-

sions in CoGST. There are three possible reasons for this disparity in view between

the teachers and the students.

First, we would argue that a teacher’s conception of ‘good’ science teaching may

take the level of schooling into consideration. For instance, what is ideal for lower

form students might not be beneficial to senior form students (Lam & Kember,

2006). Although teachers are aware of the examination-led culture and the impor-

tance of preparing students for the major assessment hurdles in Grades 11 and 13,

they may believe that ‘PSE’ should not be their first priority when teaching Grade 7

students. Rather, it is more important for them to lay a good foundation for students

at this level of schooling via FSL, FSU and CCE. If this interpretation is correct, it

supports our claim of the importance of extending studies of conception of teaching

to specific levels of schooling.

Another possible reason for the mismatch between teachers’ and students’ view on

‘PSE’ may be that some teachers did not express their genuine belief on the issue.

Knowing that this research is carried out by an educational researcher, the teachers

might feel obligated to tell the researcher what they think the researcher wants to

hear. As a matter of fact, the difficulties of teasing out the respondents’ espoused

belief and their belief-in-use has been a persistent problem in studies on teacher

belief (Pajares, 1992). This might have been a particular problem for the present

study which was conducted at a point in time when Hong Kong was launching a

major education reform: trying to de-emphasize testing and examinations and advo-

cating helping students ‘learn to learn’ (CDC, 2001). Under such circumstance, some

teachers could have expressed views that were conforming more to the prevailing sen-

timents rather than their genuine belief.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The third reason might be related to the influence of Western educational theories

on Hong Kong teacher education. With progressive ideas such as constructivism,

meta-cognition and self-regulated learners received from teacher education courses,

teachers genuinely believe that compared with other dimensions of good science

teaching, PSE becomes less important. After talking to some of these teachers, we

found that they have come to realize that the goals of helping students ‘learn to

learn’ and prepare for examination are essentially not exclusive of each other. In par-

ticular, helping students ‘learn to learn’ (e.g. through ‘EAE’) and develop cognitively

(e.g. through ‘FSU’ and ‘FSL’) should contribute to the goal of ‘PSE’. Following the

same line of argument, engaging students affectively in their studies (e.g. through

‘CCE’ and ‘ESI’) is also a means of ‘PSE’. As a matter of fact, this is the logic we

use to convince and encourage our student teachers to try more progressive teaching

and learning strategies in their own classrooms. Actually, seeing these strategies

implemented effectively by the teacher in the video have further motivated our

student teachers to try them out via their own practices (Wong et al., 2006;

Yung et al., 2007).

To some extent, all the three reasons may be true though we tend to believe that our

teacher education has been exerting a positive influence in this respect and that tea-

chers were telling us their genuine beliefs. Anyway, the discussion above reveals

that teachers’ and students’ CoGST are context-dependent and culture-dependent.

These conceptions may also change with time, in response to changes in the social

and educational environment. A case in point is the increasing use of testing to

track student performance for accountability purposes in Western societies such as

the USA (DeBoer, 2011). This paper can inform the debate on its impact on students’

expectations of their teachers (as suggested in the discussion above) and how this gap

will be broaden or converge if teachers focus on learning vs. teaching to the test. To

help close the gap implies huge investment in teacher professional development

(TPD), as discussed below.

Implications for TPD

Readers may recall that, as an incentive, each participating teacher was promised an

individual report, including a detailed comparison of their conception of good science

teaching with those of their students. This study suggests that teachers can use the

video-based CoGST questionnaire as a tool to collect feedback from students for

reflection. Through it, teachers can understand what their students expect from

them and develop their pedagogical techniques based on the reflection, which will

in turn enhance the complex process of teaching and learning. However, it should

not be implied that it must be the teacher who has to change in the process in

order to close the gaps. Changes may also be desirable on the part of the student

albeit with help and explanation from the teacher. In other words, teachers may not

know how to utilize the knowledge and skills necessary to respond to the identified

gaps between their CoGST and those of their students. Providing teachers with the

skills and knowledge requires substantial professional development.

2454 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The discrepancy between the conceptions held by the two parties can cause the stu-

dents to resist the teaching methods and approaches used by their teachers and, in

turn, can lead to ineffectiveness in their learning. For instance, the teachers who prior-

itize students learning how to learn over spoon-feeding students with subject content

may be poorly regarded by students who believe in the importance of having ‘the

teacher tells students which is/are the important part(s) of the textbook to underline

for revision’ (D55). Thus, the students’ ill-founded conceptions about good science

teaching should be addressed through discussions of current educational goals, the-

ories and teaching methods. However, it could be worrying that some teachers are

neither aware of the difficulties students encounter in preparation for examinations

nor cognizant of the reasons behind students’ inabilities to do so (Pressley, Yokoi,

van Mater, van Etten, & Freebern, 1997). Even if they know where the disparity in

opinions lies, teachers may not know how to close the gap. This raises the important

questions of how the identified gaps between teachers’ and students’ CoGST can be

addressed. Who is to change, the teacher, the students or both, and how? What are the

underlying rationales? In response to these challenges, a follow-up study is underway

to help some of the participating teachers tackle these problems, which adopts a three-

stage school-based TPD model:

(1) Sensitizing teachers to differences between students’ and their own views of good

science teaching, thus motivating them to subject their practices to constant and

more rigorous scrutiny. Through these comparisons, teachers can identify the

professional development goals that will guide them through the subsequent

stages of the TPD model.

(2) Conducting video workshops (using videos of exemplary science teaching from

an established archive) to equip teachers with the necessary knowledge/skills

and dispositions for conducting effective lesson study.

(3) Undertaking interactive cycles of video-based lesson study of their own teaching

(Lewis, 2002).

A review of the principles that guide effective professional development practices

(e.g. van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry,

& Hewson, 2003) provide insight into the extent of effort such professional develop-

ment opportunities will require. In sum, the goal of helping teachers to identify and

close the gaps between their CoGST and those of their students entails much effort

and enormous investment. There is simply no easy way to bring about good science

teaching. But certainly, listening to students what they think about good science

teaching is one of the starting points.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research

Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project

No. HKU 7283/04H). The authors are grateful to the students and teachers who

kindly agreed to take part in the study.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Notes

1. When the study was conducted, there were a total of 503 secondary schools in Hong Kong.

2. They were not co-authors of the paper. They were adjudicators for national awards of exemplary

science teaching and had more than 20 years of teacher training experiences.

3. Interested readers may consult the first author for access of the video-based instrument.

4. In Hong Kong, when students are promoted to secondary schools they are allocated to three

bands of schools according to their academic abilities. Band 1 schools admit students with

highest abilities and Band 3 the lowest.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R.D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S.K. Abell & N.G.

Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 807–830). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Biggs, J.B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research

and Development, 8, 7–26.

Biggs, J.B. (1996). The assessment scene in Hong Kong. In J.B. Biggs (Ed.), Testing: To educate or to

select? Education in Hong Kong at the crossroad (pp. 3–12). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational

Publishing.

Boulton-Lewis, G.M., Smith, D.J. H., McCrindle, A.R., Burnett, P.C., & Campbell, K.J. (2001).

Secondary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and Instructions, 11, 35–51.

Brown, S.A. (1974). Scottish science teachers’ perceptions of effective science teaching. The British

Journal of Educational of Educational Psychology, 44(1), 57–64.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers’ beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

Christensen, C.A., Massey, D.R., Issac, P.J., & Synott, J. (1995). Beginning teacher education stu-

dents’ conceptions of teaching and approaches to learning. Australia Journal of Teacher Edu-

cation, 20(1), 19–29.

Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wiltrock (Ed.), Hand-

book of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.

Curriculum Development Council. (1998). Science syllabus for secondary 1–3. Hong Kong: Curricu-

lum Development Council.

Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: Life-long learning and whole-person

development. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education,

35, 425–445.

DeBoer, G.E. (2011). How state and federal policy affects what is taught in science classes. In G.E.

DeBoer (Ed.), The role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp. 275–304). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing.

DfES/QCA. (2004). Science: The national curriculum for England. London: DfES/QCA.

van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science

education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

38(2), 137–158.

van Driel, J.H., Bulte, A.M. W., & Verloop, N. (2005). The conceptions of chemistry teachers about

teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation. International Journal of Science

Education, 27(3), 303–322.

2456 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Enwistle, N., Skinner, D., Enwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about ‘good’

teaching: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research & Develop-

ment, 19(1), 5–26.

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinates. In B.J.

Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dor-

drecht: Kluwer.

Gao, L.B., & Watkins, D. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in

P. R. China: Identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science

Education, 24(1), 61–79.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, H., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of

science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Harlen, W. (1998). Teaching for understanding in pre-service science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin

(Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 183–198). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G. A’B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions

of teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.

Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika,

30, 179–185.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal

of Educational Research, 29, 739–761.

Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of

teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student

learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 57–74.

Lam, B.-H., & Kember, D. (2006). The relationship between conceptions of teaching and

approaches to teaching. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 12(8), 693–713.

Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research

for Better Schools, Inc.

Lloyd, G.M., & Wilson, S.M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions

of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 29(3), 248–274.

Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging in science across the primary secondary interface: Lis-

tening to the students’ voice. Research in Science Education, 38, 501–527.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., & Bonner, J.J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on

teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,

1318–1347.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S.E., & Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing pro-

fessional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luft, J.A., & Roehrig, G.H. (2007). Caputring science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The devel-

opment of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2). Retrieved

from July 15, 2011, http://ejse.southewestern.edu.

Luft, J.A., Roehrig, G.H., & Patterson, N.C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the

impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices,

beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77–97.

Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1990). Conceptions of teaching and implications for learning. Research and

Development in Higher Education, 13, 298–304.

McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable

learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 149–168.

Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching

and learning science. Science Education, 82, 197–214.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s

College.

Morgan, C., & Morris, G. (1999). Good teaching and learning: Pupils and teachers speak. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1997). Producing the evidence: Science teachers’ initiations into prac-

tical work. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 395–405.

O’Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using

parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers,

32(3), 396–402.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature

and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1080.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Pong, W.Y., & Chow, J.C. S. (2002). On the pedagogy of examinations in Hong Kong. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 18, 139–149.

Ponte, J.P. (1994). Knowledge, beliefs, and conceptions in mathematics teaching and learning. In L.

Bazzini (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on systematic cooperation between

theory and practice in mathematics education (pp. 169–177). Grado, Italia: University of Pavia.

Porlan, R., & del Pozo, M.R. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospective primary school

teachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1),

39–62.

Pratt, D.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 203–220.

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., van Mater, P., van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons

why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology

Review, 9(1), 1–38.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher edu-

cation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ con-

ceptions of science teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–231.

Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. London:

Continuum.

Speering, W., & Rennie, L. (1996). Students’ perceptions about science: The impact of transition

from primary to secondary school. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 283–198.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B.J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in high school science and

mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 32(1), 75–94.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B.J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary teacher? Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3–25.

Treagust, D.F. (1991). A case study of two exemplary biology teachers. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 28, 329–342.

Tyler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science

teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 273–298.

Waldrip, B.G., & Fisher, D.L. (2003). Identifying exemplary science teachers through their class-

room interactions with students. Learning Environments Research, 6, 157–174.

Waldrip, B.G., Fisher, D.L., & Dorman, J. (2009). Identifying exemplary science teachers

through students’ perceptions of their learning environment. Learning Environments Research,

12, 1–13.

Wallace, C.S., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’

beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 41, 936–960.

2458 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Watkins, D.A., & Biggs, J.B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In D.A.

Watkins & J.B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspec-

tives (pp. 3–26). Hong Kong: CERC and HKU.

Whitehead, J., & Clough, N. (2004). Pupils, the forgotten partners in education action zones.

Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 215–227.

Wong, N.Y. (1993). Psychosocial environments in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom. Journal

of Mathematical Behaviour, 12, 303–309.

Wong, N.Y. (1996). Students’ perceptions of the mathematics classroom in Hong Kong. Hiroshima

Journal of Mathematics Education, 4, 89–107.

Wong, S.L., Yung, B.H.W., Cheng, M.W., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing

pre-service teachers’ conceptions of good science teaching: The role of classroom videos. Inter-

national Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 1–24.

Yager, R.E., Hidayat, E.M., & Penick, J.E. (1988). Features which separate least effective from most

effective science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 165–177.

Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The

‘filtering effect’ of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching

science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

Yip, D.Y., & Yung, B.H.W. (1998). Providing meaningful contexts for scientific investigations.

Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 44(1), 35–42.

Yung, B.H.W. (2003). Are we looking for perfect? Should we or could we? What is the attitude?

Teacher professional development through web-based videos of exemplary teaching.

Hong Kong Science Teachers’ Journal, 21(1), 20–31.

Yung, B.H.W. (2006). Assessment reform in science: Fairness and fear. Dordrecht: Springer.

Yung, B.H.W., & Tao, P.K. (2004). Advancing pupils within the motivational zone of proximal

development: A case study in science teaching. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 403–426.

Yung, B.H.W., Wong, S.L., Cheng, M. W., Hui, C.S., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking pre-service

teachers’ changing conceptions of good science teaching: The role of progressive reflection with

the same video. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 239–259.

Appendix

List of Survey Items in ‘Density’ Lesson Questionnaire

The following 55 questions were on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4; where

‘0’ stands for ‘Not important at all’, and ‘2’ is in the mid-point of the scale and stands

for ‘Important’, ‘4’ is at the other end of the scale and stands for ‘Very important’.

(A) At the beginning of the lesson

1. The teacher involves students in revising on what was learnt in previous lessons.

2. The teacher tells students the aim of the present lesson.

3. The teacher uses everyday terms that students know to explain science concepts.

4. In order to help students understand, the teacher uses different examples to

explain the scientific concepts.

5. The teacher encourages students to challenge what he says.

(B) Introducing the floating egg experiment

6. The teacher asks students to read the experimental procedure by themselves.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2459

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

7. The teacher allows students to raise questions before the experiment to clarify

uncertainties instead of telling them the procedure directly.

8. The teacher gives clear instruction on the arrangement of the experiment

(e.g. materials, apparatus and time schedule of the experiment).

9. The teacher encourages students to carry out simple experiment at home.

10. The teacher brings out the aim of the experiment through discussion with

students.

11. The teacher tells students the expected result before they start the experiment.

12. The teacher relates the experiment to students’ daily life experiences.

(C) Does sugar work too?

13. The teacher uses two soluble materials in the experiment (i.e. sugar and salt).

14. The teacher asks the class to put up their hands to show if they agree with a

certain opinion.

15 The teacher includes some insoluble substances (e.g. sand) for students to do

the experiment.

16. The teacher splits the class into two groups to do the same experiment by using

different materials (i.e. some on sugar and some on salt).

17. The teacher asks students to carry out the experiment in a quantitative manner

(e.g. measure the changes in height of the floating egg with the number of

spoons of salt/sugar added).

(D) The floating egg experiment in progress and the post-lab discussion

18. The teacher allows students to change the experimental steps (e.g. using 300 ml

of water instead of 400 ml).

19. The teacher reports the progress of each group to the whole class.

20. The teacher allows students to do another experiment as a bonus.

21. The teacher walks around to see how students are carrying out the experiment.

22. The teacher asks students to answer the questions in complete sentences.

23. The teacher discusses the experimental results with the students.

24. In discussing the results, the teacher requires students first to work on their own

and discuss their results in groups before having the whole class discussion.

25. The teacher emphasizes it is important to ask questions of ‘why’ in learning

science.

26 The teacher collects opinions from all students before drawing a conclusion.

(E) The boat building activity and balloon show

27. The teacher runs the experiment in form of a competition.

28. The teacher gives students some time to have group discussion on how to apply

the concept of density to building a boat.

29. The teacher introduces the concept of a fair test when setting rules for the

competition.

2460 B. H. W. Yung et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13

30. The teacher emphasizes that cooperation among group members is important

in learning science.

31. The teacher asks students to think about the possible reasons for the floating/

sinking of the balloons instead of telling them the theory directly.

32. The teacher invites students to participate in teacher demonstrations (e.g. the

balloon show).

33. The teacher explains how the ‘balloon show’ is related to the rest of the lesson.

34. When the competition is over, the teacher explains how the concept of density

can help in the boat design.

35. The teacher invites students to organize inter-class competitions (e.g. a boat

building competition).

(F) Looking at the lesson as a whole

36. The teacher asks different types of questions (e.g. What? How? and Why?).

37. The teacher praises students for their good performance.

38. Instead of responding to students’ question directly, the teacher sometimes

re-directs the question to other students for answers.

39. The teacher has good time management.

40. The teacher relates today’s lesson to what students have learnt before.

41. The teacher expresses high expectations of his students.

42. The teacher awards bonus marks to students who perform well.

43. The teacher arranges interesting activities for the lesson.

44. The teacher provides students the correct scientific knowledge.

45. The teacher has good control of class discipline.

46. The teacher stimulates students’ interest in learning science.

47. The teacher teaches students the scientific method, the different steps and tech-

niques involved as well as the way of thinking.

48. The teacher is humorous.

(G) Other features not shown in the video

49. The teacher helps students to develop life-long learning abilities/skills (e.g. criti-

cal thinking, creativity, problem-solving ability and communication skills).

50. The teacher teaches students how to revise and prepare for tests and

examinations.

51. The teacher encourages students to recognize the relevant social, technological

and economical issues.

52. The teacher put the correct answers on the board for students to copy onto their

notebooks/workbooks.

53. The teacher provides students with notes for their revision.

54. The teacher explains to students the importance of science.

55. The teacher tells students which is/are the important part(s) of the textbook to

underline for revision.

Teachers’ and Students’ CoGST 2461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:59

13

Sept

embe

r 20

13