@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Education, Faculty of"@en, "Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Cardwell, Steven McDonald"@en ; dcterms:issued "2010-09-17T20:59:25Z"@en, "1988"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts - MA"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """It is believed that one of the overriding factors that has contributed to the resistance to curriculum change on the part of teachers is that some of the new curricula seem to require a major change in teaching methodology and style. This change amounts to a conflict between paradigms. If this belief is correct, then one can argue that there will have to be a shift in teachers' functional paradigms in order for these curriculum innovations to be implemented. The study focuses on the goals, problems, exemplars, and routines, which constitute the "functional paradigms" of teachers. The term "functional paradigm" is meant to convey the idea that the characteristics which unite a community of practitioners are likely to be centered on practical matters: Why do teachers function in particular ways? Do teachers attach "common meanings" to particular situations or entitles? The following specific research questions were examined: 1. What are some of the factors which influence the formulation of teachers' functional paradigms? 2. What is the nature of teachers' functional paradigms? 3. a) What are the perceptions of teachers with regard to curriculum change? b) What is the relationship between teachers' functional paradigms and their perceptions of curriculum change? c) To what extent do teachers' functional paradigms become idiosyncratic when they are faced with a curriculum change? The methodology involved interviews with teachers. A pilot study was conducted prior to the main study. The interviews in the main study were analyzed in terms of six main categories. The results seem to indicate: 1. There are common categories and sub-categories that contribute to the formation, development, and maintenance of teachers/ functional paradigms. They include: o past educational experiences. o background in general. o practicum experiences. o past and present teaching experiences. o curriculum materials. o constraints on teaching. o school, students, and other workers in the school. 2. There seems to be a "core" of common categories among teachers. The intersection of elements within these categories composes the functional paradigms of teachers in general. Although the paradigms are functional in an active sense, they are relatively stable within the "culture", and over the long term. This stability must be considered if innovators in education ever contemplate a change which would require a shift in teachers'" functional paradigms. This commonality of beliefs, routines, problems, and exemplars is probably greater among teachers within the same small segment of the organization than within the entire profession. 3. Evidently, teachers select, interpret, and utilize learning materials in different ways dependent on the nature of their personal functional paradigms. A number of differing elements in teachers'' functional paradigms have been identified. These elements determine how teachers teach in terms of their use of curriculum materials. Curriculum change agents must consider the functional paradigms of individuals and determine how common these paradigms are before attempting a major pedagogical change. This study has shown that if these factors are not considered, then the curriculum change that is contemplated will be reduced to a mere change in content. The teachers will utilize the curriculum materials according to their own functional paradigms. 4. The inertia against curriculum change is most difficult to overcome with more experienced teachers, and more easily overcome with beginning teachers. This suggests that the focus of curriculum implementation needs to be aimed at certain segments of the profession. Somehow the change agents must assist educators to change their functional paradigms to meet the desired ends of the new curriculum prior to implementation. The alternative is the disparity that seems to exist between the curriculum that is intended by the policy makers, the curriculum that is implemented by the teachers, and the curriculum that is ultimately attained by the students."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/28593?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS' FUNCTIONAL PARADIGMS USING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS by S T E V E N MCDONALD CARDWELL B.Sc, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA OCTOBER, 1988 © Steven McDonald Cardwell, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Steven McDonald Card w e l l Department of Science and Math Education The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October 12 t h , 1988 DE-6G/81) A B S T R A C T It i s believed that one of the overriding factors that has contributed to the resistance to curriculum change on the part of teachers i s that some of the new c u r r i c u l a seem to require a major change in teaching methodology and s t y l e . This change amounts to a c o n f l i c t between paradigms. If t h i s b e l i e f i s correct, then one can argue that there w i l l have to be a s h i f t in teachers' functional paradigms in order for these curriculum Innovations to be implemented. The study focusses on the goals, problems, exemplars, and routines, which constitute the \"functional paradigms\" of teachers. The term \"functional paradigm\" Is meant to convey the idea that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which unite a community of p r a c t i t i o n e r s are l i k e l y to be centered on pr a c t i c a l matters: Why do teachers function in p a r t i c u l a r ways? Do teachers attach \"common meanings\" to p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s or e n t i t l e s ? The following s p e c i f i c research questions were exami ned: 1. What are some of the factors which influence the formulation of teachers' functional paradigms? 2. What i s the nature of teachers' functional paradigms? 11 3. a> What are the perceptions of teachers with regard to curriculum change? b> What i s the relationship between teachers'1 functional paradigms and their perceptions of curriculum change? c) To what extent do teachers' functional paradigms become idiosyncratic when they are faced with a curriculum change? The methodology involved interviews with teachers. A p i l o t study was conducted pr i o r to the main study. The Interviews In the main study were analyzed In terms of six main categories. The r e s u l t s seem to indicate: 1. There are common categories and sub-categories that contribute to the formation, development, and maintenance of teachers / functional paradigms. They Include: o past educational experiences. o background in general. o practicum experiences. o past and present teaching experiences. o curriculum materials. o constraints on teaching. o school, students, and other workers in the school. 2. There seems to be a \"core\" of common categories among teachers. The intersection of elements within these categories composes the functional paradigms of teachers In general. Although the paradigms are functional in an active sense, they are r e l a t i v e l y stable within the \"culture\", and over the long term. This s t a b i l i t y must be considered i f Innovators ln education ever contemplate a change which 11 i would require a s h i f t in teachers'\" functional paradigms. This commonality of b e l i e f s , routines, problems, and exemplars i s probably greater among teachers within the same small segment of the organization than within the entire profession. 3 . Evidently, teachers se l e c t , Interpret, and u t i l i z e learning materials in di f f e r e n t ways dependent on the nature of their personal functional paradigms. A number of d i f f e r i n g elements In teachers'' functional paradigms have been i d e n t i f i e d . These elements determine how teachers teach in terms of their use of curriculum materials. Curriculum change agents must consider the functional paradigms of individuals and determine how common these paradigms are before attempting a major pedagogical change. This study has shown that i f these factors are not considered, then the curriculum change that i s contemplated w i l l be reduced to a mere change in content. The teachers w i l l u t i l i z e the curriculum materials according to their own functional paradigms. 4. The i n e r t i a against curriculum change i s most d i f f i c u l t to overcome with more experienced teachers, and more e a s i l y overcome with beginning teachers. This suggests that the focus of curriculum implementation needs to be aimed at certain segments of the profession. Somehow the change agents must a s s i s t educators to change their i v functional paradigms to meet the desired ends of the new curriculum p r i o r to implementation. The alternative i s the d i s p a r i t y that seems to exist between the curriculum that i s Intended by the policy makers, the curriculum that i s implemented by the teachers, and the curriculum that i s ultimately attained by the students. v T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract I i Table of Contents vi L i s t of Tables lx L i s t of Figures x L i s t of Appendices xl Acknowledgements x i i Chapter 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 1.1 Background to the Study 1 1.2 Teachers' Functional Paradigms ... 5 1.3 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem 7 1.3.1 General Statement of the Problem 7 1.3.2 Research Questions 8 1.4 Rationale for the Study 9 1.5 Philosophical Context 10 1.6 Theoretical Perspective 10 1.7 Situational Perspective 12 1.7.1 The Setting 13 1 . 8 Limitations of the Study 15 1.8.1 V a l i d i t y 15 1.8.2 R e l i a b i l i t y 16 1 .8.3 Generallzabi1ity 17 vi Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20 2.1 Theories of Action 20 2.2 Paradigms according to Kuhn 22 2.3 Teachers' Functional Paradigms 27 2.3.1 Conceptual Framework 27 2.3.1.1 A concept of \"Paradigms\" 27 2.3.1.2 A concept of \"Functional\" 30 2.3.2 Empirical Framework 33 2.3.3 Teachers' Backgrounds 39 2.3.3.1 Past experiences 39 2.3.3.2 Teaching careers 43 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 46 3.1 Methodology 46 3.2 Methods of Data Co l l e c t i o n 48 3.3 Methods of Analysis 53 3.4 Reporting Format 56 Chapter 4 R E S U L T S 58 4.1 Analysis of the P i l o t Study 58 4.2 Analysis of the Main Study 59 4.2.1 Teachers' Backgrounds and Experiences .. 60 4.2.2 Teachers' Perceptions of Teaching 89 4.2.2.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of teaching 108 4.2.3 Teachers' Perceptions of Subject Matter . 112 4.2.3.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of subject matter 134 v i i 4.2.4 Teachers' Perceptions of School Setting . 141 4.2.4.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of school s e t t i n g 145 4.2.5 Teachers' Perceptions of Students 149 4.2.5.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of students 149 4.2.6 Current Teaching Practices, Methods, and Styles 155 4.3 Summary of Analysis 169 Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 171 5.1 Introduction 171 5.2 Factors Which Influence the Formulation of Teachers' Functional Paradigms 173 5.2.1 Teachers' Backgrounds and Experiences .. 174 5.2.2 Current Teaching Practices 180 5.3 The Nature of Teachers' Functional Paradigms .. 185 5.3.1 Consistencies Across Categories 186 5.3.2 Teachers' Functional Paradigms and Career Position 199 5.4 Teachers' Functional Paradigms and Curriculum Change 204 5.5 Summary of Research Findings 209 5.6 Implications of the Study 218 5.7 Suggestions for Further Research 219 5.8 Concluding Remarks 221 REFERENCES 224 APPENDICES 233 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table I A Comparison of the previous B.C. Junior Secondary Science Curriculum (pre 1983) to the current B.C. Junior Secondary Science Curriculum (1983) 4 Table II Relevant experience categories 55 Table III Teaching experience of part i c i p a n t s (as of June 30th, 1988) 61 Table IV Junior Secondary Science Curriculum Goals .. 114 Table V Sub-categories of teachers' functional paradigms 210 l x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Averaged representation of how chemistry teachers Interpret curriculum materials ... 38 Figure 2 An i l l u s t r a t i o n showing the major factors which influence the formation, development, and maintenance of teachers' functional paradigms 212 Figure 3 An i l l u s t r a t i o n depicting the rel a t i o n s h i p between various influencing factors and teachers' functional paradigms 215 Figure 4 An i l l u s t r a t i o n showing the possible emergence of a commonality of teachers' functional paradigms within the hierarchy of groupings within the profession 217 x L I S T Q F A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A Sample schedule of Interview questions used In the main study 233 APPENDIX B Sample transcript of Interviews from the p i l o t study — Interview #1 241 APPENDIX C Sample transcript of Interviews from the main study — Interview #7: Pete 261 APPENDIX D Sample l e t t e r of consent: Principal 280 APPENDIX E Sample l e t t e r of consent: Teacher participant 282 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would li k e to extend gratitude to the many individuals who have supported him both professionally and morally throughout t h i s study. In p a r t i c u l a r , special acknowledgement goes to Dr. Jim Gaskell, and Dr. Gaalen Erickson for their guidance and assistance. Without their advice and encouragement, t h i s project would not have reached f r u i t i o n . The author would also l i k e to extend gratitude to the individuals who gave up the i r valuable time in order to par t i c i p a t e In the study. F i n a l l y , the author would li k e to thank h i s family, Maryann and Stephanie, for their patience and understanding when he couldn't be with them. xi I CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study It i s becoming increasingly evident that the large scale curriculum projects, such as those undertaken by the National Science Foundation in North America and the N u f f i e l d Foundation in the UK, have not had the impact at the classroom level that was intended. Massive amounts of time, energy and money was spent putting together extensive curriculum packages, providing preservice, inservice and resource materials...and yet, Implementation of these projects has largely been a f a i l u r e ( E l l i s , 1984; Crocker, 1984a; Plimmer, 1981; Welch, 1979). These projects contemplated major changes in both content and methodology. Textbooks became much more generalized in their approach to science. The \"everyday\" p r a c t i c a l i t y of science gave way to a much broader concept. However, the idea of \"discovery learning\" as a form of pedagogy was not accepted as had been Intended. Chakagondua C1981) claims that the gap that e x i s t s between intended c u r r i c u l a and what i s actually going on in science classrooms i s due to the inapproprlateness of the s c i e n t i f i c methods of research in science education on a theoretical l e v e l , and on a 1 2 p r a c t i c a l l e v e l , due to the top-down approach i m p l i c i t in large scale curriculum developments. Common (1981) suggests that teachers have been able to r e s i s t the changes that administrators, researchers, curriculum developers and other change agents have been tr y i n g to implement. According to Common, classrooms look more or less the same as they did twenty years ago because: ...teachers had the power to shut the classroom doors and their minds to any cold winds blowing c e n t r a l l y advocated change (p.80). Olson (1980) argues that a l l i s not l o s t . Even though the classroom teacher has been bombarded with curriculum innovations, we are s t i l l l e f t with the \"status quo\". The very s t a b i l i t y of the system provides an avenue for research Into why there i s such a strong teacher-inertia against curriculum Innovation, especially as i t applies to intended changes in teaching methodology. Olson believes that these attempts at curriculum change challenge established practices and even If the status quo does remain, we should have a better understanding of what these practices are and how they are formulated. Science education in Canada i s not excluded from t h i s discussion. C r i t i c i s m s and concerns about the state of science education in schools led to a major study of science education ln Canadian schools between 1980 and 1983 (Orpwood and Souque,1984). Recently, a second p a r a l l e l 3 study of science education In Canada stated as one of Its primary assumptions that teachers \"markedly influence the translation of curriculum policy intentions\". The authors f e l t that t h i s was partly due to teachers' perceptions of curriculum p o l i c i e s , processes and practices (Connelly, Crocker and Kass, 1985, p.273). Science teachers in B r i t i s h Columbia have experienced a number of curriculum changes over the last few years. Although, In my mind, none of the changes are p a r t i c u l a r l y \"innovative\", some of the changes have been more \"traumatic\" than others. These include a major change in the Junior Science Curriculum (see for example Table I ) , changes in the Senior Biology and Chemistry courses (including a l i s t of options for the nontraditional topics) and, due to changed graduation requirements, the imposition of a new course c a l l e d Science and Technology 11. In addition, elementary teachers in B.C. anticipate a change in the Elementary Science Curriculum. Some of the policy changes seem to have been readily accepted, whereas others have s t i l l not or have only p a r t i a l l y reached the classroom acceptance stage. In reference to the Junior Science Curriculum, Langdale (1984) provides evidence to show that there are c o n f l i c t s between the assumptions and intents of the curriculum and the b e l i e f systems of the teachers who must implement t h i s new curriculum. 4 TABLE I A Comparison of the previous B r i t i s h Columbia Junior Secondary Science Curriculum (ore 1983) to the current B r i t i s h Columbia Junior Secondary Science Curriculum (1983). B.C. JUNIOR SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM: 1968-1979 o lab centered. o discovery approach based on inquiry and observation. o emphasis on s k i l l s , processes, and knowledge. o experimental in nature. o lab oriented a c t i v i t i e s . o content in discrete d i s c i p l i n e s . o grades 8, 9, and 10. CURRENT B.C. JUNIOR SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM: 1983 o student centered. o personal and p r a c t i c a l approach. o emphasis on s k i l l s , processes, knowledge, and thinking abi1i t ies. o investigative and experiential in nature. o wide variety of a c t i v i t i e s s t r e s s i n g application of solution and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of science related societal issues. o integrated (thematic) content, o grades 8, 9, and 10. Source: Ministry of Education, Curriculum Development Branch, (1970, 1977, 1979, 1983). Junior Secondary Science Curriculum Guide. V i c t o r i a : Ministry of Education, Province of B.C. 5 Olson <1982a) Indicates that in order to effect a curriculum change, there must be some compatibility between teachers'' b e l i e f systems and the curriculum innovation. Since the choices that teachers make in the classroom are a function of their b e l i e f systems, we must focus our research on the nature of these b e l i e f s . This concurs with the view of Crocker and Banfield (1986) who suggest that the incompatibility arises out of a lack of understanding of teachers'' thoughts, Judgements, and decisions r e l a t i v e to science curriculum. This study focusses attention on teachers' b e l i e f s , values and practices In the context of curriculum Innovations...in t h i s case, the recently revised B.C. Junior Science Curriculum. 1.2 Teachers' Functional FaradHgms Crocker (1983) formulated the concept that teachers belong to a community of p r a c t i t i o n e r s who share common b e l i e f s , goals, problems, exemplars and routines — these and other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s constitute the p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' functional paradigms. Crocker argues that one can apply the concepts of a paradigm as described by Thomas Kuhn in h i s much quoted book, The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions, to teaching. He builds on the work of Alan Imershein <1977), whose analysis in a social arena is that members of an 6 organization can be considered to operate under a shared paradigm in a manner analogous to that of a community of scholars. Crocker's fundamental assumption i s that: ...individuals act on sit u a t i o n s on the basis of the meanings they derive from these s i t u a t i o n s . The development of meaning i s an interactive and dynamic process which evolves as individuals encounter objects, events, and symbols in the social s e t t i n g . The extension of t h i s i s that meanings may s t a b i l i z e on sustained encounters with a si t u a t i o n and that s i m i l a r encounters on the part of di f f e r e n t individuals are l i k e l y to be given common Interpretations and hence y i e l d common meanings. Such common meanings evolve into what i s c a l l e d a functional paradigm (1984d, p.5). A study was recently conducted to determine the extent to which teachers' functional paradigms, as they apply to tra n s l a t i n g new curriculum materials into practice, are idiosyn c r a t i c and to what extent they are common to a l l teachers CLantz and Kass, 1987). The authors generated a model of teachers' Interpretations of curriculum materials based on previous work done by Roberts (1980) and Connelly, Crocker and Kass (1984). The model outlined the relationship between the teachers' functional paradigms, backgrounds and teaching s i t u a t i o n s . Among other things, the study i d e n t i f i e d aspects of the teachers' backgrounds as having a strong influence in shaping their current functional paradigms. It i s worthwhile c l a r i f y i n g the notion of a functional paradigm at t h i s point. The term \"functional\" i s used in an active rather than passive sense. That i s , the 7 ideas, b e l i e f s , goals, problems, exemplars and routines that describe teachers' paradigms are the solutions for every s i t u a t i o n in which the individual faces an Impasse due to competing factors. Even though paradigms can change, they become entrenched over time, and become problematic i f change i s contemplated , t h i s matrix i s developed through a process of observation, study, and practice of 25 established exemplars (v i a textbooks, lessons and other means of schooling). Geeraerts (1985) points out three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to paradigms. F i r s t l y , paradigms are not so l e l y conceptual e n t i t i e s ; they are incorporated into a larger set of cognitive a b i l i t i e s through a combination of both academic and pr a c t i c a l experience. Secondly, concrete examples provide a unifying function in the relati o n s h i p between theory and practice. Thirdly, the exemplars provide a way of \"seeing\" r e a l i t y (p.247). One other aspect of Kuhn's thesis worth considering i s h i s notion of \"incommensurability\" since t h i s also has i t s application in curriculum change. \"Two men who perceive the same si t u a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y but nevertheless employ the same vocabulary in i t s discussion must be using words different1y...they speak from Incommensurable viewpoints\" (p.200). Kuhn states that since the two men have a great deal in common, perhaps their only difference i s in their use of language. Each needs to be able to translate the other's language and, hence, gain an understanding of the other's point of view (p.203). Geeraerts finds that differences ln value systems and world views may also contribute to incommensurability (1985, p.238). Other researchers have found that there are \"barriers to dialogue\" (Southgate and Randall, 1981). They propose that there are four d i f f e r e n t approaches to solving problems — 26 somewhat akin to Pepper's \"World Hypotheses\". These d i f f e r i n g ideas, values and approaches to problems can influence constructive dialogue (p.61). Equating these ideas to curriculum problems suggests that there i s a communication b a r r i e r between the curriculum theo r i s t s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s and somehow the differences between them must be a r t i c u l a t e d . Roberts (1980) proposes the concept of a \"Developer-Teacher Interface\" that links the theoretical world and the pr a c t i c a l world of the teacher. At t h i s l e v e l , the teacher has to \"unpack\" the curriculum in order to determine i t s meaning. The teacher then either r e j e c t s or \"modulates\" the new curriculum depending on their perceptions of the intended change. It i s becoming clear that one must come to understand teachers' perceptions of a curriculum in terms of their own \"practical-language\". 27 2.3 Teachers' Functional Paradigms 2.3.1 Conceptual Framework 2.3.1.1 A Concent of \"Paradigms\". Crocker (1983) reformulates the concept of \"paradigm\" away from the idea of a set of exemplary procedures and practices for conducting s c i e n t i f i c research towards what he c a l l s the \"functional paradigms of teachers\". Crocker assumes that: ...teachers are, indeed, si m i l a r to other communities of scholars or p r a c t i t i o n e r s in that they share common goals, problems, exemplars, routines, etc. which constitute a \"functional paradigm\"...(this) term i s meant to convey the idea that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which unite a community of p r a c t i t i o n e r s are l i k e l y to be centered on p r a c t i c a l matters (p.354). E s s e n t i a l l y , Crocker i s concerned with r e d i r e c t i n g our focus on teaching from the question of how teachers and classrooms function to a question of why they function in p a r t i c u l a r ways (Crocker, 1984c, p.119). In considering the c i r c u i t o u s nature of Kuhn's concept of a paradigm as i t might apply to teachers, one can understand that the paradigm characterizes a set of exemplars ln teaching which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of teachers. Of Importance to t h i s study i s the nature of some of these exemplars. 28 In proposing the concept of functional paradigms for teachers, Crocker r e l i e s on the work of Imershein (1977). His central thesis i s that members of a social organization (health care delivery services, labour unions, teachers...) can be considered to operate under a shared paradigm si m i l a r to Kuhn's \"community of s c i e n t i s t s \" . This paradigm delineates the realm of thinking, the range of acceptable behaviours and determines the rules that are considered appropriate for members of that organization. Problems are resolved by r e f e r r i n g to exemplars that are common to fam i l i a r s i t u a t i o n s and applying them to the new sit u a t i o n s . Imershein finds that, in the health care f i e l d , l i t t l e has been done to define the explanatory framework or exemplars that are used to account for problems of change or to predict the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for change. Crocker (1983) believes that a s i m i l a r condition e x i s t s in the f i e l d of education. Imershein contends that e x i s t i n g paradigms can be retained i f the change to be implemented requires only minor adjustments, and any problems that occur can be resolved using prevalent exemplars. Recalcitrant problems (Kuhn r e f e r s to these as \"anomalies\") can be resolved by extending and modifying the e x i s t i n g body of knowledge. If the present repertoire of exemplars cannot be used to solve the problem, then a major s h i f t in paradigms must occur i f the innovation i s to be successful (p.38). However, Candy (in Olson, 1982b, p.74) warns educators to be cautious in 29 that \"major interventions in people's construct systems raise the real problem of how a person immersed in one set of personal constructs can construe and, ultimately, come to use another \"mind set\" or personal paradigm.\" The writer adds that there are ethical considerations to be considered when an individual i s asked to reconstruct h i s or her own world view. Since a functional paradigm implies a commonality, the research must focus on shared exemplars rather than the more t r a d i t i o n a l focus on differences between teachers. These exemplars are not as d i s t i n c t as they might be in the natural sciences. This i s in agreement with Olson (1980), who proposes that the challenges faced by teachers when experiencing a curriculum change present ambiguities. In order to \"survive\", teachers have to deal successfully with these ambiguities. He suggests that we should focus on these ambiguities as they w i l l shed light on what i t i s teachers generally deal with successfully. \"(This)...suggests that there i s more at issue than their behaviour when confronted with innovative suggestions, because i t emphasizes understanding e x i s t i n g constructs that are l i k e l y to be well adapted to the purpose of keeping ambiguity under control\" (p.10). C l e a r l y , i t i s Important to examine the exemplars common to teachers facing a curriculum change. 30 West (1986) has recently proposed a p a r a l l e l paradigm for teacher education based mostly on the work of John Dewey. Others also use the concept of \"paradigm\" to denote a model, pattern, or scheme (Gage, 1963, p.95); or to represent a broad conceptual framework (Schubert,1986, p. 10). 2.3.1.2 A Concept of \"Functional\". The notion of a \"functional paradigm\" must be extended beyond the r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c model proposed by Crocker and others. The problem with a \" f u n c t i o n a l i s t \" perspective for an organization such as teaching i s that i t does not take into account the myriad of i d e n t i t i e s that develop over time. Bucher and Strauss (1976) use the term \"segment\" of a profession to describe groups having common i d e n t i t i e s , values, and interests. They describe a profession as a loose \"amalgamation of segments pursuing d i f f e r e n t objectives in di f f e r e n t manners and more or less d e l i c a t e l y held together under a common name at a p a r t i c u l a r period in history\" (p.24). 31 Coalitions develop between and among segments. They (segments) are continually undergoing change. They take form and develop, they are modified, and they disappear. Movement i s forced upon them by changes in their conceptual and technical apparatus, in the i n s t i t u t i o n a l conditions of work, and in their relationship to other segments and occupations. Each generation engages in s p e l l i n g out, again, what i t i s about and where i t i s going. In t h i s process, boundaries become dif f u s e as generations overlap, and d i f f e r e n t l o c i of professional a c t i v i t y a r t i c u l a t e somewhat di f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of the work s i t u a t i o n . Out of t h i s f l u i d i t y new groupings emerge (p.24). One can surmise from t h i s account that science teachers constitute a p a r t i c u l a r segment of the profession. There are overlaps between segments. For Instance, secondary and elementary groupings; Junior and senior secondary teachers; biology, physics, and chemistry teachers. Olson (1988) makes a p a r a l l e l argument. He suggests that teachers belong to a society. The way in which t h i s society communicates and acts i s i t s culture. He goes on to say that there are s o c i e t i e s within the culture. \"These s o c i e t i e s have d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t cultures and those who j o i n them as neophytes are encultured in quite d i f f e r e n t ways\" (p.168). Olson uses the term \" r i t u a l \" to describe t h i s process. Perhaps one can equate these \"subcultures\" to the \"segments\" discussed e a r l i e r . If these segments develop and evolve over time, then i t follows that i f teachers'\" paradigms are indeed common to the organization, then they too must evolve over time. This 32 Is why the concept of \"functional paradigms\" must be thought of in an active rather than passive sense. Ball (1982) supports the notion of fl u c t u a t i n g paradigms. He finds that the time required for a major curriculum change to take effect does not allow normal analysis of paradigmatic changes. Curriculum change Is seen to be a long term and interpersonal process, based upon the establishment of subject paradigms vi a networks of communication and apprenticeship. With many of the teachers who are not exposed d i r e c t l y to experience of these paradigms being influenced marginally or not at a l l , by them (p.25). In a later work, Ball and Goodson (1985) suggest that there are both pragmatic and paradigmatic orientations. The former allows for \"p a r t i a l redefinement and si t u a t i o n a l adjustment\", the l a t t e r \"allows for no compromise\" Post-apprentice teachers: 4 to 10 years of teaching experience c> Experienced teachers: 11 years and more of teaching experience. These p a r t i c u l a r groupings were used to separate the teachers simply because there are approximately ten incremental steps that are required to reach f u l l pay in the B.C. education system. The boundaries between the groups must be f l e x i b l e , e specially considering the size of the population studied. These groupings more than anything, simply f a c i l i t a t e analysis. There are, of course, more groupings possible. Another study could Investigate a pre-apprenticeship group, a pre-retirement group, and a r e t i r e d group of teachers. This study did not involve teachers who were close to retirement or who had r e t i r e d ; nor did i t Involve those enrolled in teacher t r a i n i n g inst i tutes. 56 3.4 Reporting Format The r e s u l t s were categorized, compiled, and reported in a descriptive \"case study\" s t y l e . Each section i s summarized with respect to the i n i t i a l questions. An overarching summary i s provided at the end to rel a t e each section to the general problem to be studied. The subgroups were compared using the \"key decision rule that a common Ntheme' has to include either the s p e c i f i c term or a denotat1ve analogue...\" (Huberman, 1988, p.122). There also had to be simi l a r features describing the theme. Among others, the following researchers refer to the use of case studies and other methods of ethnographic techniques in educational research (Wiersma, 1986; Olson and Russell, 1984; Kenny and Grotelueschen, 1984; Smith, 1978; Wilson, 1977). Kenny and Grote1ueschen characterize case studies by the following: \"data are q u a l i t a t i v e ; data are not manipulated; studies focus on single cases; ambiguity in observation and report i s tolerated; multiple perspectives are s o l i c i t e d ; holism i s advocated; humanism i s encouraged; and common and/or nontechnical language i s used\" (p.38). S i m i l a r l y , in their work, Ball and Goodson (1985) f i n d that such methods \"serve to identify aspects of common experience and to isol a t e some of those factors which separate and d i f f e r e n t i a t e teachers; factors l i k e age, 5? subject, level of sp e c i a l i z a t I o n . . . these methods tap into the li v e d experiences of teachers in schools, their successes and f a i l u r e s , their r elationships with the h i e r a r c h y ' , their conditions of work, their responses to change\" Leona; Leona obtained a Bachelor of Science degree ln Marine Biology from St. John's Memorial University in Newfoundland. Prior to taking teacher t r a i n i n g at Simon Fraser University, Leona worked as a substitute teacher in town, and worked part time at the local Catholic school. Following her t r a i n i n g year, she worked for 6 months as a permanent substitute teacher in Vernon, B.C. The following September, she began a year of substitute teaching at Mountainview Secondary. Leona began f u l l time teaching at Mountainview in September 1981. She i s currently teaching Science 8, Science 10, and Biology 11. Leona spent a lot of her formative years ln t h i s community; her parents s t i l l l i v e here. She i s about 34 years old and s i n g l e . Leona would not be considered,an early or late entrant to teaching. Leona did not have any s p e c i f i c career goals ln mind. She r e c o l l e c t s that two teachers In town were factors in her decision to enter teaching. However, i t becomes apparent that her parents, especially her mother were major Influences in her career path. 75 Leona: My mother... 1 ikes to reminisce about me s i t t i n g on the doorstep with a l l the neighbourhood children, reading them a story and then having a test a f t e r . And then I started teaching swimming and was the swimming instructor and lifeguard before I went into teaching as a career. So she thinks, even though I wasn't in a school s e t t i n g , that was always where I was headed. SC: And what do you think? Leona: Looking back, mostly I agree. At the time, Leona doesn't recal1 wanting to be a teacher. She had o f f e r s of a Department of the Environment job in Ottawa, which she turned down. Leona: ...I didn't know what I wanted to do so...I sort of wandered around. But when I was working at the swimming pool, we had a school swimming program organized, Cli v e Penman (a p r i n c i p a l ) . B i l l Irvine (a teacher), and myself. Clive Penman c a l l e d me in to sub for B i l l Irvine and that's how i t started...he's (Clive) the one who brought up the papers to the swimming pool one day and said, here, f i l l t h i s i n . It was November and I said, \"Well, what i s t h i s ? \" , and he said, \"I think you should be a teacher\". Made me f i l l in the papers and I was accepted two weeks later and had to quit my job and drive down to Vancouver. That's you know, li k e I never did i t for myself. Apparently, teaching was an acceptable career for both Leona and her family. She enjoyed the \"people\" aspect of teaching, and had had some b r i e f p o s i t i v e experiences as an unqualified substitute teacher. Leona does not have a strong commitment to teaching. She does not view i t as necessarily a l i f e l o n g career. Leona indicates that she would lik e to get into p o l i t i c s , business, or some form of consulting. Her f r u s t r a t i o n , the 76 need to change, and to change things i s evident in the following comment. Leona: I got into teaching, I guess, because I thought, you know, you're sort of in charge of your own classroom and what you want as an environment, you can have. A l l the outside issues are s t a r t i n g to r e a l l y play on me and I feel almost li k e a puppet where I would li k e to be in some sort of more control of what I'm teaching and how I teach. Leona was asked about her past educational experiences. Leona: Well, I went to a convent for grade 11 and grade 12. They were very curriculum oriented and the teachers that stood out were the ones, not for their teaching a b i l i t y , more for their personality. There was one nun there who had come over and b u i l t the very f i r s t convent in Canada...she taught social studies. So i t wasn't learning from her, i t was l i s t e n i n g to her. Again, Leona's parents played a strong role in her upbringing, choosing to send her to a convent. The nun, who Leona speaks of, obviously had more to offe r than her colleagues... and that i s why she stands out in Leona's mind. S i m i l a r l y , Leona remembers a grade 4 teacher in a po s i t i v e light...\"She f i r s t taught me about prejudice\". Other teachers have made an impact on Leona's personal growth...she c i t e s \" d i f f e r e n t methods...teaching styles...and personality\" as the reason for their i nf1uence. At u n iversity, there were two teachers who stood but from the r e s t . One was a mammologlst, the other was \"into organic gardening and communicating with whales by f l u t e . 77 So d i f f e r e n t ends of the spectrum\". Leona was asked to describe what was d i f f e r e n t about them. Leona: Dr. Thrafull came in and lectured. Big booming voice, lots of examples, and humour, sort of...and the other professor was you know, came in with work boots, manure up to h i s elbows and sort of sat around in big c i r c u l a r tables and discussed ecology. Although appearance and s t y l e were d i f f e r e n t , both university professors were personable, and people with whom Leona could r e l a t e . Leona does not feel that her previous teachers at any level have influenced her teaching. She Indicates that she does not remember how they taught, she just enjoyed them or didn't. Summary Leona has taught for about 8 years. She did not intend to be a teacher, but i t seems that opportunities, and family (mother) pressures pushed her towards t h i s career. Her family i s very supportive of her decision to teach. Her experience as a swimming coach, and the influence of two teachers were also influencing factors. Leona i s not d i s s a t i s f i e d with her career choice, but she would l i k e to be able to have more control over things. She says that she i s not firmly committed to the profession. Although Leona does not feel that any of her past teachers influenced her teaching s t y l e , she does mention 78 some pos i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s of those teachers who s t i l l stand out In her mind...personality; used d i f f e r e n t methods; someone you could l i s t e n to; humorous; used lots of examples; could relate to them; more to o f f e r ; personable; taught about prejudice (positive values); d i f f e r e n t teaching s t y l e s ; enjoyable... (4) Pete: Pete graduated from the University of V i c t o r i a with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics. He went on to the University of Waterloo where he obtained a Master of Science degree in Geophysics and Astronomy. He completed h i s teacher t r a i n i n g at U.Vic. Pete has taught for 10 years at Mountainview Secondary. Pete i s currently teaching one Physics 12, three Physics 11, one Earth Science 11, one Science and Technology 11, and one Science 9 c l a s s . Pete i s single, and about 36 years old. He does not have r e l a t i v e s in town; however, he does have r e l a t i v e s in nearby towns. His family i s from Prince George, B.C. where h i s father was a lab technician. Pete attended a private Catholic school for most of h i s formative school years. 79 Pete chose to go into high school teaching following hi s graduate degree as a secondary career choice. However, teaching had always been in h i s mind. Pete: ...the s i t u a t i o n at the time, sort of demanded that I change what I had planned to do. I had planned to go into university teaching. Get my Ph.D. and get into a university and do research. However, NASA was shutting down about that time, their f i r s t b i g shutdown. They were laying off a lot of physics types and the job market was r e a l l y crowded. So, I s t i l l intended to teach so I went into high school teaching instead. Pete has an aunt who i s a teacher. His family were ambivalent as far as h i s career choice, although they were supportive. Pete i s firmly committed to teaching as a career. Teaching i s a major component of h i s l i f e . Pete: I consider my l i f e as a whole, so what you do in one af f e c t s the other. Pete r e c a l l s one teacher, a p r i e s t at the Catholic school, who, he says, probably Influenced h i s own teaching s t y l e . I asked him why he r e c a l l e d t h i s person. Pete: He was an intere s t i n g guy. He did a lot with experimentation, so we did a lot of experiments in his c l a s s and you learned that way. The classes were small, single-graded, and lab experiments were conducted without a lab book. Pete does not r e c o l l e c t any outstanding features of h i s university days. Classes were quite t r a d i t i o n a l involving mostly lectures. Pete does not lecture, and so he says that these courses had l i t t l e bearing on h i s own teaching methodology. 80 He had l i t t l e regard for h i s teacher t r a i n i n g year, finding that the practicums were r e a l l y the only p o s i t i v e aspect. Pete p a r t i c u l a r l y remembers one in-service a c t i v i t y that d e f i n i t e l y l e f t an impression. Pete: The only thing that r e a l l y influenced me a lot in my teaching was going on a summer course in geology. It was sponsored by Shell Canada. It was a very hands-on thing. We got to deal a lot with, Just looking at materials and going places and things lik e that. So once again, i t was sort of a hands-on. SC: ...did you f i n d that you were able to use some of that experience in the classroom when you got back? Pete: You can to some degree. Like I try to keep a lot of rocks around. I try to get people interested in doing projects with rocks. Pete i s Interested in more creative and p r a c t i c a l aspects of teaching. From personal experience, I would characterize him as a progressive teacher. He Is w i l l i n g to try new ideas. For Instance, he s t i l l teaches science using an Integrated approach. I would characterize Leona the same way, but less so. Summary Pete had always wanted to be some sort of teacher. I n i t i a l l y he had wanted to be a post-secondary teacher. However, the job market at the time closed that avenue for him. Pete has taught for about 10 years, and i s firmly committed to h i s career. He has a r e l a t i v e who Is a 81 teacher. His family i s ambivalent as to h i s career choice. They were generally supportive of whatever he chose to do. Pete describes a teacher whom he r e c a l l s as...interesting; lots of experimentation without lab books... He says that a short-course that he took was an influence on h i s teaching. It was hands-on, going places, observing things...He says that the foregoing i s how he l i k e s to teach. He does not lecture. Experienced teachers; (5) Ron: Ron has a Bachelor of Science degree in Kinesthesiology and a teaching diploma from Simon Fraser University (having t r a v e l l e d through Europe in between the two). Ron i s neither an early, nor late entrant to teaching. He has taught for 13 years at Mountainview Secondary. This year, he i s teaching Science 8, Science 9, and Biology 11. This i s Ron's f i r s t time teaching f u l l - t i m e science. He has taught mostly physical education during h i s career, although he did teach a couple of Junior science courses a number of years ago. He chose to teach science t h i s year as a way of making himself more marketable, as he would l i k e to move next year. 82 Ron i s about 39. He i s married with two young children. His wife i s also a teacher at the secondary school. Ron was asked why he chose teaching as a career. Coaching and teacher influence were c i t e d as the predominant reasons. Although there may have been other extenuating circumstances. Apparently, Ron's family was not p a r t i c u l a r l y supportive. Ron: I'm the only member of my family who even went to university, out of six kids...my family was very noncommi t a l . I detected a s l i g h t note of bitterness in Ron's tone. Ron's career goals were set high. He was at one point accepted to medical school in Newfoundland, but chose teaching anyway. Perhaps there i s a sense of disappointment here — both ln Ron's mind, and h i s parents. Ron: I wanted to be an athlete. I wanted to be a doctor. I wanted to be a teacher...I had to choose between the two and i t just came down to which took too 1 ong. In the end, time may not have been as much a factor as f i n a n c i a l considerations, and distance away from home — although, I did not pursue t h i s . Ron had sa i d that a couple of teachers had also influenced h i s career choice. He was asked to expand on t h i s comment. 83 Ron: I had a former English sergeant-major who taught social studies and i t was r e a l l y e x c i t i n g . Not only did he know a lot but he (had) l i v e d a l o t , quite a bi t of it...He had fought in India and a l l over the place...he was an old-timer. He was s t r i c t l y a lecturer and you work and you be quiet and work. But i t was a dramatic, e x c i t i n g lecture... I can't say that I've had a science teacher who excited me. I had some English teachers who were r e a l l y e x c i t i n g , who r e a l l y got us going and we did r e a l l y e x c i t i n g things. I always like d P.E. too. Actually, I like d P.E. and I thought there were ways that i t could be done better. Clearly, Ron's description of h i s former teachers indicate that they had a marked impact on him. These memories stay with him because the teachers were able to add to the t r a d i t i o n a l lessons and capture Ron's attention. I would argue that Ron's espoused teaching methodology closely resembles the previous description. This becomes evident later on when Ron discusses h i s own teaching. University courses did not hold much att r a c t i o n for Ron, p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s teacher t r a i n i n g year. Ron: I must admit that the education courses were the most boring I've ever experienced in my l i f e . I took one course in physical education teaching that was exc i t i n g , when the guy was actually teaching us things that were useful. The science people were try i n g to t e l l us about how you could do directed studies and a l l t h i s kind of stu f f and then i f you went and researched i t a b i t you found that they worked well as long as you had a \"wasp\" upper-class classroom, and i f you had anything else they didn't work. Again, there i s a certain amount of f r u s t r a t i o n expressed here. It seems to be a r i s i n g from Ron's personal background. There i s a need to consider how these feelings have contributed to Ron's personal knowledge of teaching. 64 Summary Ron has taught most of h i s 13 years in the P.E department. He chose to switch to science t h i s year in order to improve h i s job prospects elsewhere. Ron's family do not seem to be very supportive of h i s career decision. Coaching and teacher influence were the reasons for him choosing teaching. Ron i s committed to teaching. His wife i s a teacher, and there are teachers in her family. Ron had the dilemma of choosing between teaching and medicine. He indicates that time was a factor in h i s f i n a l choice, although other reasons may also have swayed him. He i s perhaps wondering what i t might have been l i k e i f he had chosen the other career path. Ron uses the following terminology to describe the sergeant-major/teacher whom he r e c a l l s v i v i d l y . . . e x c i t i n g ; dramatic; knew a lot ; had li v e d a l o t ; s t r i c t l y a lecturer; work...be quiet...work; did e x c i t i n g things... Ron also remembers some negative aspects of schooling, mostly at universlty...boring, out of touch; didn't apply to the real worId... <6> Dave t Dave has a Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry and a teacher t r a i n i n g diploma, both from Simon Fraser 85 University. He was an early entrant to teaching (age about 22-23) and has taught for 16 years, a l l at Mountainview Secondary. Currently, Dave i s teaching Chemistry 11 and 12, Science 8, Science 9, and Modified Science 9. Dave i s about 39. He i s married with two young children. His wife i s also a teacher, but has not taught for a few years. Dave does not have any other r e l a t i v e s in town. Dave commented on why he chose teaching. He did not r e a l l y have a clear career path in mind u n t i l late in h i s f i n a l year. He stated three reasons for h i s decision. Dave: One, I l i k e d working with young people. Two, I'd helped other people and found that I was successful at it...and three, I wasn't p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in the other options available to me. Dave was asked to elaborate on h i s reasons for choosing teaching. Dave: I had...well, at that time I was young as well, but I had helped classmates in school, that sort of thing. I helped my brother with some things. It seems that being \"young\" was a factor. Perhaps Dave considered himself young enough to try teaching...and i f things didn't work out, then he could s t i l l try something else. Dave i s pragmatic enough to consider these options. This logic i s evidential in the previous few paragraphs. Family support in a general way was also present. Dave's brother was already accepting him as a 86 tutor. Dave also has four or f i v e r e l a t i v e s who are in teaching. One i s a superintendent in Saskatchewan. Dave was asked i f h i s family accepted h i s career choice. Dave: Oh I don't r e a l l y have a problem with i t . I enjoy teaching. I don't think that i t was a p a r t i c u l a r l y i l l u s t r i o u s position or p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t a s t e f u l or anything. During h i s early years, Dave had always favoured the \"science-technical\" side. He had at times wanted to be a chemist and others, an ar c h i t e c t . He did not mention teaching. He did expect to be working in some form of science. Interestingly, i t seems that the post-sputnik era generally had an impact. Dave: Yes. General law in the s60's, you were going to get a job in science. When asked about whether any of h i s school teachers had made an impression on him, Dave described a math teacher in p a r t i c u l a r . Dave: . . . i t was about halfway through the course before I re a l i z e d we'd taken up anything new. It was just so smooth, e f f o r t l e s s . A Chemistry teacher, he was very good. Had a very wry sense of humour. Same thing with junior high English teacher... and a Socials teacher. Sense of humour stands out, and e f f i c i e n c y . Dave commented that the teachers were quite t r a d i t i o n a l in their sty 1e...1ectures, labs...I asked him i f he incorporates anything from those days in h i s classes. Dave: I enjoyed people with a sense of humour, so I try to include that in my thing. But that's not because of a teacher, i t ' s Just the way I am. 87 We then turned to Dave's university years. He r e c a l l s that the only useful aspects of h i s teacher t r a i n i n g year were the p r a c t l c a . His undergrad. experience, i f anything, tended to reinforce Dave's own feelings for science. Dave: Well, c e r t a i n l y love of science because I found many good topics r e a l l y fascinating. I c e r t a i n l y value higher education and promoting students going on in education, i f at a l l possible. More of a generalist approach to science questions in that they're not s p e c i f i c a l l y a question, they were much broader than a p r a c t i c a l question, whether i t ' s how they relate to society or whatever. Dave espouses a p r a c t i c a l philosophy about science, science should have meaning...and yet, Dave i s very t r a d i t i o n a l i s t in h i s approach to science pedagogy. This i s r e f l e c t e d further in h i s comments about one p a r t i c u l a r Chemistry teacher who springs to mind from time to time. Dave: A certain happiness about...the one I'm thinking of right now i s chemistry, Pete; Pete did not accept the argument that \"people are born with the a b i l i t y to teach\", yet he did feel that there are some basic prerequirements necessary to becoming an e f f e c t i v e teacher. Pete: ...some people feel better with children than other people do. I think that in order to run a classroom properly you have to be able to keep control and some people aren't able to do that or get their ideas across very well. I mean, you have to have some s k i l l s , anyway, to be a teacher...most of those people, f i r s t of a l l , want to teach. Pete was asked why he teaches in the way that he does. He f e l t that by using \"hands-on\" a c t i v i t i e s , he would be able to c i r c u l a t e more and respond to more of the student's needs. I asked Pete i f he saw a commonality amongst teachers in terms of their b e l i e f s , routines, and pr a c t i c e s . He finds that the basic methods are s i m i l a r . I probed a l i t t l e deeper, and asked him to compare two 99 completely d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s : a grade 12 class and a grade 1 c 1 ass. Pete: There's s i m i l a r i t y of course. I mean, a course with younger children you can't keep them doing one thing for very long so you have to switch an awful lot of the time. But you know, you give them hands-on things to do, you talk to them, you get them to do things, you do things. Pete seems to think that there i s a good deal of overlap between segments of the organization. He sees many of the routines as being s i m i l a r . There are s i m i l a r ways of doing things and handling certain problems, whether you are a primary school teacher or a senior secondary teacher. I would surmise that even within a segment as small as a school department there i s a degree of commonality. Pete's responses tend to support t h i s notion. When questioned further, Pete explained that h i s basic repertoire of classroom management stemmed from h i s practlcum experiences. Pete: . . . l i t t l e things l i k e c lass control, how to talk to the c l a s s , what to do, learn the order to do i t in, st u f f 1 ike that. It i s precisely these \" l i t t l e things\" or \" s t u f f \" that Pete ref e r s to that I believe are the essential elements of the core profession. If there i s commonality in functional paradigms, i t l i e s in these \"tricks-of-the-trade\", ways of dealing with the day to day necessities of teaching, the routines needed to get the message across. 100 Pete had a practice teacher Dave: Dave does not believe that Just anyone can teach. He thinks that above a l l , you must lik e children — no matter what level you are teaching. A second requirement, according to Dave, i s that you have to be \"reasonably clever\". Dave was asked how he knew how to teach in the beginning. Dave: Well, I probably didn't...I just had the information. You have the information, you have the students, and then you have to match. You follow the stock plan, but then you always...1 ike the f i r s t year of teaching was taking t h i s plan and adapting i t in your own words. 107 Dave fe e l s that there i s some sort of standard way of teaching. We use i t to survive with during the f i r s t while in the classroom, and then revise i t to suit our individual ways. I probed a l i t t l e deeper, and asked Dave how common or idiosyncratic he thought the b e l i e f s , goals, routines, or problems faced by teachers were. Dave: ...I don't think that there i s that much ln common, besides the problems with the di f f e r e n t courses you are teaching. You know, the difference between teaching P.E., teaching French, or something l i k e that. There are basic things that you have to, that have to be there, respect and getting down to work, that sort of thing. But as far as the method of teaching or the actual approach you take, there's such a wide v a r i a t i o n . SC: Would you say that same variation e x i s t s in the Science Department or any department in t h i s school? Dave: Well, the closer an area you get the more overlap you get, I suppose. But s t i l l then, you're going to have a wide variation of teaching s t y l e s , teaching approaches. Dave's response i s sim i l a r to Pete's. Dave sees that there are certain aspects of teaching that must be common. However, even at the department l e v e l , there are basic differences in teaching s t y l e s , approaches and so for t h . Dave described what he considers to be some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a good teacher. Dave: Well, patience. There are a lot of f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . There's a lot of work. Hard-working. Clever. A real warm love of students, whatever the students may be. Observant, dynamic, honest. A model. 108 Summary Dave believes that there i s something inherent in teachers that makes them what they are. He says that a real love for children i s a common feature. Teaching i s an evolutionary process according to Dave...You have a stock plan (common to teachers) that i s adapted as the s i t u a t i o n requires. Dave sees a wide variation in methodology, but a commonality in terms of problems, need for respect, structure...getting down to work. He f e e l s that the more narrowly defined the group, the more overlap there i s in teaching. In describing h i s conceptions of a \"good\" teacher, Dave used words l i k e : patience; hard work; clever; love of students; observant; dynamic; honest; a role model. 4.2.2.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of t e a c h i n g There are three elements within t h i s category that emerge from the teacher interviews: 1. E f f e c t i v e teachers are perceived as being student-centered; they have a good personality; they are w i l l i n g to go beyond the regular curriculum; and they re l a t e topics to everyday l i v i n g . Such teachers generate interest; they are hard-working and enthusiastic about 109 teaching; and are knowledgeable about their subject. They are structured and we 11-organ 1 zed in their teaching. The q u a l i t i e s that constitute e f f e c t i v e teaching as described by the respondents are remarkably s i m i l a r . Aspects of the preceding description were captured in each of the par t i c i p a n t ' s perceptions of a \"good\" teacher. For example, Betty states that \"the teacher has to be understanding. That's the personality end, they have to understand...and they have to u t i l i z e d i f f e r e n t methods of getting something across to students especially when they are having d i f f i c u l t i e s . . . s o they have to vary their teaching methods for the students\". Pete believes that one must have \"an interest in kids\". He goes on to say that \"you usually get involved f a i r l y well with the students. If you looked at what they c a l l \"master teachers\", some of those have quite a f l a i r to them. They have a very interesting personality which makes them above average\". Ron f e e l s that \"the foremost quality of a good teacher i s that they li k e children\". He adds that they must also be outgoing, and hardworking. 2. Teaching problems and routines A l l the par t i c i p a n t s believe that there i s a certain degree of commonality amongst teachers. However, the s i m i l a r i t i e s are generally r e s t r i c t e d to the kinds of problems that teachers face, and 110 the routines that they follow. One problem, for example, i s in t r y i n g to make courses relevant. Betty, for instance, indicated: I have to get across to the students that what they're learning i s important to them, and I have to t i e that in somehow and get them to understand that because that's a common question, vWhy do I need t h i s ? ' I do r e a l l y believe that being physically active, l i k e after you get past school i s r e a l l y important. So that's Physical Education...and then I do believe that the Sciences t i e s into everyday 1 i f e . S i m i l a r l y , Pete described the problems of classroom management: . . . l i t t l e things li k e c lass control, how to talk to the cl a s s , what to do, learn the order to do i t in, stuff l i k e that...a teacher i s always looking for some sort of structure, at least at the very beginning, unless the students have been doing something in the last lesson that c a r r i e s over, which you don't need very much then. But you always have to have some sort of structure at the st a r t of a lesson. So i f you're designing something, i t always has to have something, I'm not saying there has to be a set, but there has to be something that gets everybody going. 3. Teaching methodology and st v l e Beyond the common problems in teaching, the partic i p a n t s had d i f f e r i n g views. For instance, Dave believes that there i s a \"wide variation of teaching s t y l e s , teaching approaches...method(s) of teaching\". Whereas, Betty sees a commonality in method, but not in teaching s t y l e : \"Nowadays, a lot of people use the lecture method, I mean, that's the most used, so that's going to be a common area. How they get i t across to I l l students i s their own way, whether they're a l i v e or monotone or whatever\". Pete and Leona make sim i l a r comments. Pete believes that \" a l l teachers use the same sorts of the d i f f e r e n t methods. They just use them in dif f e r e n t amounts, and possibly in several d i f f e r e n t ways\". Betty, Sam, Pete, and to a certain extent, Leona also indicated that having a good \"personality\" i s a commonality amongst e f f e c t i v e teachers. Pete c a l l s t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a \" f l a i r \" . 4. In terms of teacher development, a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s believe that teachers have some sort of \" b u i l t - i n \" a b i l i t y in order to be able to teach successfully. The comments here mirrored those describing the essence of a \"good\" teacher. They a l l f e l t that there are certain ski 11s that are prerequisites to becoming a successful teacher. Sam referred to t h i s as a \" t r a i t \" . He thinks that there are people that have t h i s t r a i t to get the point across a l i t t l e b i t d i f f e r e n t l y or more than understandable for somebody that i s maybe having d i f f i c u l t y learning or just s t a r t i n g to learn. Whether i t ' s an a b i l i t y , I'm not sure. I think with the environment that you're brought up in you could develop t h i s t r a i t . I think you have to, I'm not sure i f you have to be out-going or not, but I think that i f you can have t h i s a b i l i t y to communicate and whether i t be at the teaching profession or something else, i t depends on what the person's interested i n . 112 Ron made a similar comment with regard to the development of t h i s a b i l i t y . He believes that teaching techniques can be taught. Pete stated that \" i n order to run a classroom properly you have to be able to keep control and some people aren't able to do that or get their ideas across very well. I mean, you have to have some s k i l l s , anyway, to be a teacher...most of those people, f i r s t of al1, want to teach\". 4.2.3 Teachers' Perceptions of Subject Matter This category i s concerned with teachers' perceptions of high school science, in p a r t i c u l a r , junior science. The teachers were asked to explain their understanding of the various curriculum materials that they use. They were also asked to comment on their opinions about the development of science c u r r i c u l a . Apprentice teachers; (1) Bettv: Betty was asked how useful she found the curriculum guide. She indicates that she t r i e s to follow the curr i cu1um gu i de... 113 Betty: I pulled i t out for, just for the basic outline of the course, and maybe some test items. In retrospect, i t appears that Betty equates \"curriculum guide\" with \"teachers' guide\" -- both were provided at the star t of the year. Perhaps in t h i s sense then, the curriculum guide per se i s not useful at a l l for Betty. I asked Betty whether she saw any p a r t i c u l a r focus in terms of the junior science courses. Betty: I think i t ' s okay, l i k e they're t r y i n g to focus on the basics and I think that's okay, in those units...I don't think there's good s o l i d information i n s i d e . . . i t touches on things and leaves you hanging. Like i t just stops. Betty sees the Junior Science Curriculum focussing on the \"basics\" — meaning, chemical elements, body systems, forces, sedimentary rocks... The reference to \"information\" confirms that Betty views the textbook as the curriculum. There are four goals in the B.C. Junior Science Curriculum Sam* Sam f e l t that the major constraint on him as a f i r s t year teacher was the paperwork. Coupled with t h i s , was the need for more time to do the Job e f f e c t i v e l y . He also stated that although he wasn't in the job for money, higher pay would be an incentive. Sam found the paperwork to be the biggest problem for him during h i s f i r s t year. He f e l t that time to accomplish things would have a l l e v i a t e d t h i s constraint. The salary level of a beginning teacher in today's market i s also inappropriate, and Sam commented on that fa c t . 143 Post-apprentice teachers; <3) Leona: I asked Leona If I could change 'X' to make her teaching s i t u a t i o n better, what would i t be? Leona: What I would li k e to do, r e a l l y would l i k e to do, i s to have people come in and work with me in my classroom, li k e for three months or six months and put me on a p i l o t project of some sort because you can read and you can read u n t i l your heart's content but to be able to implement something i s r e a l l y d i f f i c u l t i f you haven't seen i t . I would l i k e to do that or have that done with my classes next year. I would li k e to...and what else? What would make my l i f e easier? I often thought i t would be a professional marker, you know, so you didn't have to mark the s t u f f . But when I mark, I prepare the next days lesson from what I can see from the marking. Do I have to do a review or i s there mastery in the work that they've submitted and I can pace myself. So that's not even a good idea anymore because that's part of the overall evaluation of the kids. If I don't do i t , then I'm sort of the b l i n d leading the b l i n d . Leona i s echoing an e a r l i e r statement. Her view of curriculum implementation i s a process of peer assistance. Colleagues come into the classroom and work alongside the regular classroom teacher. This requires a team teaching approach whereby a group shares the t r i a l s and t r i b u l a t i o n s of an innovation. They can share their common knowledge, and also contribute that personal knowledge that has been acquired through their own teaching experiences. 144 Leona's second comment with regard to a professional marker i s one that I am sure many teachers have desired! The real problem that was not stated, but inferred i s the work load. Leona either desires smaller classes, or more time to do the job...or both! These sentiments seem to be in keeping with Sam, and others in the study. Leona would lik e more interaction with the f i e l d . She would favour some form of peer teaching approach. At the moment she f e e l s l i k e she i s teaching in a vacuum. Leona would also li k e to manage her time more e f f e c t i v e l y , she finds marking to be a time-consuming element of her day. She finds her workload to be a constraint. <4> Pete; Pete finds the pressure of government exams to be h i s biggest constraint. He experiences the pressure even at the grade 10 1 eve 1. Pete; ...there's pressures within the school on how you teach, what you teach... there i s a l i t t l e b i t of pressure once you get to, say grade 10. Because in physics, i f you want to cover the material in grade 12 quickly, then what they should have done i s had a very good background in e l e c t r i c i t y . That l e t s you cover a section very, very quickly in grade 12 and so you can spend more time on the others. The pressure of government exams...even at grade 10, and the p o l i t i c a l climate In teaching are Pete's biggest 145 constraints. He also finds the workload (marking and prep.) to be time-consuming aspects of h i s day. Experienced teacherst <5) Ron: Ron did not respond d i r e c t l y to t h i s question. However, throughout the interview, he commented on the need for more time in order to properly come to grips with new innovations. (6) Dave; Dave finds curriculum changes to be a hassle. To paraphrase, you are handed a curriculum with no in-service, and no back-up in terms of supplies and equipment. He f e e l s that curriculum changes simplify down to \"content\" changes anyway. The physical job of reorganizing yourself for the new curriculum i s the biggest problem in Dave's view. 4.2.4.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of school sett ing There are two i d e n t i f i a b l e constraints on teaching for the p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h i s study: internal influences; 146 and external influences. There i s some overlap between the two groupings. 1. Internal influences There i s a range of factors at play within t h i s element. Although working conditions tend to be Influenced both externally and i n t e r n a l l y , t h i s aspect was considered to be an internal factor. This was a concern expressed in varying degrees by a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Betty has a concern about science safety. She f e e l s that the physical size and layout of her classroom, and c l a s s - s i z e are impediments to successful teaching. The following statement exemplifies her f r u s t r a t i o n s : \"I did not like using the bunsen burners with my grade 8's, not when I had twenty-eight students in there... they're looking outside and what's happening with their faces? So I r e a l l y kept away from that...a few of my students got to use i t and some of them didn't...and that would be because of my concerns with safety\". Sam was constrained by work load. He indicated that the amount of \"paper work to be incredible...a lot of reading, s t u f f you have to follow through\". He f e l t that beginning teachers should have at least three spares (preparation periods)! Time constraints (work load) are not just r e s t r i c t e d to new teachers. Leona, Pete,, and Ron also commented that they needed more time. 147 2. External influences Both Pete and Leona f i n d that P r o v i n c i a l l y mandated exams constrain their teaching. Evidently, school and community pressures to perform well on the government exams influence their teaching. Although, to a certain extent, there i s again a time pressure here to get the course completed. The following comment by Pete i s indicative of t h i s concern: ...there's pressures within the school on how you teach, (and) what you teach... there i s . . . a pressure once you get to, say grade 10, because in physics, i f you want to cover the material in grade 12 quickly, then what they should have done i s had a very good background in e l e c t r i c i t y . That l e t s you cover a section very, very quickly in grade 12 and so you can spend more time on the others. At the junior science l e v e l , Pete i s not as f a i t h f u l to the curriculum as he i s forced to be in the senior, p r o v i n c i a l l y examinable grades. This c l e a r l y supports h i s value for academic freedom as stated above. Ron considers that there i s an expectation for him to ensure that a l l h i s students meet the intended learning outcomes for a course. Dave, Leona, and Ron also f e l t that curriculum change i s an important consideration in terms of th e i r Job. However, both Leona and Ron indicate at various points during their interviews that time i s the biggest constraint in tr y i n g to properly implement a new course. Dave f e e l s that there i s never enough funding support for new equipment and supplies. Pete also indicated that there are \"equipment constraints\" — these constraints tend to 148 Impinge on the i r a b i l i t y to do lab work. Perhaps curriculum change i s not a factor with Betty and Sam simply because they have not yet experienced such a change! Pete has found the p o l i t i c a l turmoil over the last few years to have been demanding on h i s teaching. Although t h i s i s an externally created pressure, he finds that i t has affected the school environment. He commented on the d i f f i c u l t i e s in promoting posi t i v e attitudes among ch i1dren: I think i t s the whole si t u a t i o n that has to come into account when you're try i n g to change attitudes...such as the attitudes in the school, the attitude in the Province, everyone's attit u d e . I think the main attitude towards school at the present time has been down. You know, \"squash the schools\" in a lot of cases. So I don't think you can. i t ' s harder to foster a po s i t i v e attitude when you get into that s i t u a t i o n . . . i t ' s very hard for the teacher to go into the school with a po s i t i v e attitude when he or she i s being stepped upon! S i m i l a r l y , Leona stated that the \"outside Issues are s t a r t i n g to play on me, and I almost feel l i k e a puppet where I would lik e to be in some sort of control of what I'm teaching and how I teach\". Sam indicated that h i s pay should be more. This i s indicative of a general f e e l i n g that the s a l a r i e s , especially of beginning teachers are too low in B.C. 149 4.2.5 Teachers' Perceptions of Students Schwab (1973, p.502) refe r s to t h i s category as the \"learners\". He believes that in order to consider a curriculum change, one must know the c l i e n t s . Besides a general knowledge about the children, Schwab states that one must also take into account a knowledge of childrens' attitudes, competences, and propensities. Lantz (1984, p.7) s i m i l a r l y describes t h i s category as an \"individual teacher's views of the needs, a b i l i t i e s , and interests of students\". The foregoing d e f i n i t i o n for t h i s category i s also applicable to the current study. 4.2.5.1 Summary of teachers' perceptions of students There are three i d e n t i f i a b l e elements in t h i s category. Concerns for the needs, a b i l i t i e s , and interests of the students. The elements within t h i s category emerged as the most prominent themes throughout the interviews. A l l the part i c i p a n t s have student-centered philosophies, but in d i f f e r i n g degrees. This becomes clear in the f i r s t section below, when the continuum of needs ranges from student perceived needs to teacher perceived needs. The three concerns for students were not as independent as the Lantz and Kass (1987) study portrayed. In fact there seems to be a great deal of overlap among the p a r t i c i p a n t s . 150 1. Concern for students' needs A concern for the students' needs, and a consideration of students' a b i l i t i e s are closely related themes. In an e a r l i e r section, Dave stated that he \"values higher education and promoting students going on in education\". This seems to agree with Betty who indicates that \"learning i s important to them (students), and I have to t i e that in somehow and get them to understand that...Being able to understand where the students are coming from. You have to analyze them and try to determine what types of things they need to learn\". In the l a t t e r part of t h i s statement, Betty i s c l e a r l y i n dicating that she values the needs of students. Perhaps she i s also concerned with what she perceives the needs of students to be, rather than what the students perceive their needs to be. Leona fe e l s that teaching methods and s t y l e s are \"what you can do to the kids to make them understand better\" — again, t h i s seems to be almost a forced approach. It i s more of a concern for what teachers perceive students need, rather than the reverse. Ron also implies that a teacher's view of students' needs i s important. When commenting on the recently revised senior Biology course, he describes the following: \"There i s a l i s t of learning outcomes...and those are the things the kids have to know...kids must know these things. I r e a l l y l i k e i t that way, and I think kids r e a l l y l i k e i t that way\". Ron's comments c l e a r l y support a teacher's concern 151 for the needs of students — as perceived by that teacher! One can see then that there i s an array of perceptions about students' needs. 2. Concern for students' a b i l i t i e s Betty also has a concern for students' a b i l i t i e s . She l i k e s \"working with people, even those people that are having d i f f i c u l t i e s \" . Ron has a sim i l a r perspective. He described a s i t u a t i o n that he had observed in another school as follows: I went and saw a course c a l l e d \"Terminal Science 10\" in White Rock, where the guy had set-up, i t wasn't individualized, but the guy had written h i s own course and he had everything al1 set-up for the whole year. The day we walked in there, every student in there was a student that you would expect to be...or you know, some other kind of problem...they were working r e a l l y industriously. He had the course set up so that there was a sheet of paper for every day and i t would say what they were doing, why they were doing i t , what they were tryi n g to learn and then i t would have, i t would almost li k e program learning. There would be a sentence with a blank and they would go through i t , whether i t was labs or whatever they were doing i t . The day I was there they were doing labs with acids and metals and i t would say take t h i s metal and put i t with t h i s acid and what happens, that kind of thing. But i t was on a level that kids were r e a l l y having a good time, they were r e a l l y learning something. If that could be indi v i d u a l i z e d so that you had that lab set up in a bin and one day, you might only have one kid doing that lab one day i f he's ahead. Then I can see that the student who gets into a modified c l a s s because they're not i n t e l l i g e n t enough to do academic but who s t i l l wants to work, could r e a l l y push through. The student who i s in a modified class because they just won't work, well they're going to go on slowly and I think what they're going to see i s that they see other students moving faster and they're way behind they're going to want to keep up. 152 The foregoing i s a good example of a teacher's concern for teaching according to student a b i l i t i e s . Leona f e e l s that one must be f l e x i b l e in teaching. She perceives that \"you treat students d i f f e r e n t l y and act different1y...just from the composition of the c l a s s \" . The overlap between elements i s evident with Dave. He has already Indicated that he values consideration of student needs. He also favors taking Into account students' a b i l i t i e s . For instance, he comments on the implementation of a new \"r a d i c a l \" curriculum...\"I think the f i r s t time you go through i t you're going to have (problems)... turn out to be some expectations that you have no right having. It was s i l l y to expect t h i s out of the students. I think you're also going to have some things where you underestimated the students...\" Dave i s saying that one must be quite clear on what the a b i l i t i e s of the students are before one can embark on a curriculum change. He adds that a new curriculum \"could be a lot of fun, could be a pain ln the neck. Depends on what kind of students (you have, they) would make i t (or break i t ) \" . 3. Concern for students' interests A l l the par t i c i p a n t s at some point or another expressed a concern for students' int e r e s t s . Ron complains that \"we're tryi n g to excite kids about science, and you give them labs where nothing happens\". He argues that \"our job isn't necessarily 153 'to teach kids that E = mc2, or something l i k e that. I mean who r e a l l y cares? Our Job i s to get people interested, and to get them to think...and you can't do t h a t . . . i f kids have to know t h i s massive amount of material\". Ron describes the c r o s s - d i s c i p l i n a r y nature of t h i s concern in r e l a t i n g students' interests about how and why their bodies work, and h i s a b i l i t y to b u i l d on the information in P.E. and Science. Betty made a similar comment with regard to her concern that students need to be physically active and mentally active in their everyday l i v e s , and the roles that P.E. and Science play in achieving these needs. Sam believes that i f the \"kids can be entertained in some way, they don't f i n d the class as boring or as...I think they w i l l also learn...something\". Elsewhere, Sam states that \" i f they (teachers) are enjoying their job, and l e t t i n g the students see that they're enjoying the job, I think the students ( w i l l ) probably enjoy the class better\". In both these statements, Sam i s alluding to the maintenance of student interest, but not necessarily s e l e c t i n g curriculum materials and teaching according to what students are interested i n . I would argue that the two points of view are on either ends of a continuum. This i s somewhat akin to the e a r l i e r concerns for students' needs as perceived by the student, and as perceived by the teacher. Leona fe e l s that t h i s element cannot be taken to the extreme that perhaps Sam i s suggesting. She warns that 154 \"you can't reach a l l the kids with your personality. Some people w i l l l i k e you or not li k e you\". In a s i m i l a r respect, Dave believes that focussing a course s t r i c t l y on the basis of student interests i s not that easy, and i t can possibly be detrimental to the whole program. He states that Students forming l o y a l t i e s to their own teachers and they don't necessarily Judge them. Certainly i f there are experiences they w i l l form Judgements. If there are good experiences or bad experiences. I've c e r t a i n l y noticed i t . I think there's a certain loyalty to their teacher as being good. I guess i t ' s probably the benefit of the doubt. If there are stand-out aspects of a teacher the student wi11 c e r t a i n l y notice that. If a teacher has gone out of the way for the student, you know, or i f the teacher has r e a l l y helped the student,...Students are aware of that. But, of course, the reverse i s also true and negative images can develop — possibly for those who choose not to teach topics that students enjoy, but rather teach topics according to the perceived needs of students. Dave f e e l s that the new senior Chemistry textbook does not provide topics that might be more interesting. He states that \"they could have spent more students' time covering topics of interest that would make the people more rounded in chemical education\". 155 4.2.6 Current Teaching Practices. Methods, and Stvle There i s a perception that one of the factors which influences the development of teachers' functional paradigms i s current classroom practice. In t h i s study, the view i s modified, for i t i s assumed that there i s a dynamic interplay between what occurs in the classroom, and the evolution of teacher's functional paradigms. It i s of interest to discover the b i d i r e c t i o n a l relationship between the two factors. It i s appropriate then at t h i s stage to examine the espoused practices of the p a r t i c i p a n t s taking part in the study. The relationship between classroom practices and teachers' functional paradigms w i l l be examined further in the following chapter. Apprentice teachers: (1) Bettv: Betty claims that her teaching i s e c l e c t i c , in that she \"thinks\" that she incorporates a l l sorts of methods. She explained that when she lectures, or does lab a c t i v i t i e s , she uses the overhead projector — partly because of her height, and partly out of general preference. When asked about the use of computers and other media, her answer indicates that perhaps she i s not yet 156 comfortable in using the computer, especially as a learning tool . Betty: I've used the computer, but I li k e f i l m s t r i p s and I try to t i e i t in with anything I can f i n d in the 1esson. Betty l i k e s to emphasize lab technique in her teaching. She views her role as preparing students for the next course...especially for the t r a n s i t i o n from grade 10 to the senior courses. Betty sees a hierarchy here both in knowledge, and in teaching I t s e l f . Betty: For example, ln the grade 8's one of the things that I emphasize i s lab technique. In grade 10, I try to teach them something about lab equipment. I think that's important because once we get everything solved in that area then we'll be okay for senior courses and doing proper lab technique...what science i s a l l about, observing, and things li k e that. Summary Betty thinks that she uses a variety of teaching methods. She uses the following sort of terms to describe her teaching: lecture; labs; overhead projector; f i l m s t r i p s ; preparing students for their next course; emphasis on lab technique; observing; lab safety; supplements with worksheets, and notes... 157 (2) Sam; Sam \"thinks\" that he i s a progressive teacher. Sam; .. . t r a d i t i o n a l ( i s ) just the sit-down type, do the work, and go over the problems and that. I've t r i e d to use dif f e r e n t strategies to get them motivated because I think that in t h i s day and age i t ' s hard to get the kids interested in certain things especially l i k e for example, women in science. You have to do something d i f f e r e n t to get them interested in that. Progressive I guess, in a sense that I do dif f e r e n t things outside of t r a d i t i o n a l things, i f i t means dressing up stupid one day or walking on your hands! Both Sam and Betty were tentative in their descriptions of their teaching. They perhaps do not have the self-confidence yet to be able to describe themselves. There i s also probably a b i t of modesty, or even reluctance here in describing their teaching, especially to the department head. Sam's reference to \"women in science\" indicates a f e e l i n g for some of .the current issues in science education. Sam went on to describe a typical lesson for him. He described a structured approach, typical of the \"recipe\" s t y l e s outlined in teacher t r a i n i n g years...the kind that Ron was tal k i n g about e a r l i e r . He was then asked to comment on the resources, props, media that he incorporates into h i s teaching. Sam: I prefer the overhead for just straight notes...I usually have them prepared...I put them on the overhead...walk around the classroom to make sure 158 that people are on-task, and then i t also gives me time to take a quick attendance in that f i r s t few minutes or sometime during the clas s , i t frees up a few minutes and then I can explain i t once I see everyone's done. The blackboard, I l i k e to use when we're going over problems, l i k e follow them along, write i t big so that everyone can see because I knew that there were kids that had problems with eyesight in my c l a s s . So step-by-step problem solving I use the blackboard, sometimes overhead because my arm gets sore I go to the overhead. On a number of occasions I use s l i d e presentations because I have a s l i d e set that I use for Earth Science and Astronomy. Films and videos, t h i s d i s t r i c t I found very limited in the material for chemistry, but for Science 10 there was lots of stu f f and the same for Science 8. I used a lot of them! Computers, for me, i t didn't seem l i k e the software t o t a l l y s a t i s f i e d the course. We Just got i t i n , I haven't had a chance to test i t out too much for chemistry and plus the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the computers wasn't that good for my clas s , l i k e G-H (classes) for chemistry i t was occupied by the Business Ed. (cl a s s e s ) . Sam describes a typical approach to science teaching. The routines described in the f i r s t section above are routines that I would argue are common to most teachers, in most segments of our \"society\". Not a l l people use a l l of the resources that he uses, but there i s some overlap. He seems to be comfortable with the idea of using computers for instructional purposes, even though he hasn't had time to try out the software av a i l a b l e . Summary Sam thinks that he i s a progressive type of teacher. He describes a t r a d i t i o n a l i s t as a sit-down...do your work...do some problems type of person. The following terms paraphrase Sam's description of h i s own teaching: d i f f e r e n t 159 strategies; t h i s day and age; get kids interested; women in science; do something d i f f e r e n t ; outside of the traditional/normal Ron: I did not go into much detail concerning Ron's teaching s t y l e . Ron: I'm very lab oriented, and I do a lot of r e l a t i n g with things to how human beings work. I f i n d that kids are more interested that way. Ron chose to dissect rats in h i s Biology 11 class t h i s year. It was something that has not been done at that grade level for a number of years. He managed to attract quite a following of non-registered students who simply were interested in what was going on, and what the students in h i s class were doing. Summary Ron says that he i s very lab oriented. He claims to be anthropocentrlc, and child-centered in h i s teaching To what extent do teachers' functional paradigms become idiosyn c r a t i c when they are faced with a curriculum change? This study focusses on shared goals, problems, exemplars, and routines, which constitute \"functional paradigms\", rather than the more tr a d i t i o n a l focus on differences between teachers. The term \"functional paradigm\" i s meant to convey the idea that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which unite a community of p r a c t i t i o n e r s are l i k e l y to be centered on p r a c t i c a l matters: Why do teachers function in p a r t i c u l a r ways? Do teachers attach \"common meanings\" to p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s or e n t i t i e s ? 173 In the previous chapter, the six interviews were analyzed in terms of the following categories: 1. Teachers' backgrounds and experiences. 2. Perceptions of teaching. 3. Perceptions of subject matter. 4. Perceptions of school s e t t i n g . 5. Perceptions of students. 6. Current teaching practices, methods, and s t y l e . In the f i r s t part of Chapter 5, the r e s u l t s w i l l be discussed with respect to the research questions. The second part of the chapter w i l l summarize the findings. F i n a l l y , the implications of t h i s study, and suggestions for further research w i l l be outlined. 5.2 Factors which Influence the Formulation of Teachers' Functional Paradigms This section addresses the f i r s t research question. The following outlines some of the factors which influence the formulation of teachers' functional paradigms. One could perhaps argue that i f a functional paradigm implies a commonality, then the paradigms must have been arrived at s i m i l a r l y . The data indicate that t h i s Is c l e a r l y not the case. There seem to be some common factors which together help formulate teachers' functional paradigms. Woods (1984, p.260) refe r s to t h i s as the \"conjunction of a number of coordinates\". 174 Lantz and Kass (1987) postulate that there are three sets of factors which influence teachers' translation of curriculum materials into classroom p r a c t i c e . These are: elements of teachers' functional paradigms; teachers' background; and teaching s i t u a t i o n . This study takes the interpretation one step further to suggest that there i s a dynamic interplay between teachers' functional paradigms, teaching s i t u a t i o n , classroom practices, and to a certain extent, the curriculum materials. Teachers' functional paradigms both Influence and are influenced themselves by each of the other factors. The d i a l e c t i c that emerges i s something that needs to be studied In greater d e t a i l . Teachers' functional paradigms are also a function of the teachers' backgrounds. This h i s t o r i c a l r elationship l o g i c a l l y can only be in one d i r e c t i o n . However, i t i s also true that teachers' current funtional paradigms lead to decisions which become the backgrounds for the future. The Lantz and Kass model depicted ln Figure 1 can be extended to incorporate these findings. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 2 later in t h i s chapter. 5.2.1 Teachers' Backgrounds and Experiences Within t h i s category, there appears to be a number of elements which predominate in each teacher's background and experience. 175 1. There were several reasons expressed for why the p a r t i c i p a n t s chose teaching as a career: o work with young people (either teaching d i r e c t l y , or coaching). o one of several career options, o had always wanted to be a teacher, o s a t i s f y family pressures (socio-economic), o influence of others (teachers...) o provide a service to others. No one expressed the often heard view that they couldn't do anything else. There was a lot of overlap, in that Betty, Sam, and Ron f e l t that the opportunity to be involved in sports influenced their decision, and Betty, Sam, Dave, and possibly Leona f e l t that the chance to work with young people drew them to teaching. Sam, Leona, Ron, and Dave also chose teaching because i t was one of several options open to them (the reasons for their f i n a l decisions, however, varied). Betty and Pete had always wanted to be teachers. Family pressures of various kinds were s i g n i f i c a n t with Leona, Ron, and possibly Dave and Sam. The influence of other teachers had an impact on Betty, Leona, and possibly Sam. Sam believes that he i s providing some sort of service for others. 2. A l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s have university degrees. A l l except Betty have degrees in t h e i r prime subject area plus a year of teacher t r a i n i n g . Betty has a Bachelors degree in Education. Pete has an M.Sc. in h i s prime subject area. In 176 general, type of university degree does not seem to be of any consequence. Sam and Dave are early entrants to teaching. Ron and Leona are neither early nor late entrants to the profession. Betty and Pete can be considered to be late entrants to teaching. This does not seem to be a factor in t h i s study. 3. A l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s were Influenced to a greater or lesser degree by their previous teachers. Some r e c a l l high school teachers, and others r e c a l l university teachers. There i s a great deal of commonality In the terminology used to describe why these teachers had an impact. The descriptions of these teachers f e l l into two groups: t r a d i t i o n a l ; and progressive (as outlined previously). Both Ron and Dave, and to a certain extent, Betty described the teachers who stand out in their minds as being t r a d i t i o n a l ( \" s t r i c t l y a .lecturer; work...be quiet...work; t r a d i t i o n a l ln s t y l e ; lecture-lab approach; notes...\"). Based on the descriptions used by the other pa r t i c i p a n t s , one can c l a s s i f y the teachers who they r e c o l l e c t as being progressive (\"not just notes; use of d i f f e r e n t methods; used a combination of theoretical and p r a c t i c a l approaches; hands-on, going places, observing things...\") 177 However, there are certain over-riding q u a l i t i e s which were not r e s t r i c t e d to the t r a d i t i o n a l or progressive teacher concept. The par t i c i p a n t s used s u r p r i s i n g l y s i m i l a r descriptors of the teachers who stood out in a p o s i t i v e l i g h t . The following summarizes these q u a l i t i e s . In some cases, they are paraphrased: Betty ...they were fun; enjoyable; interesting; good; the labs were enjoyable; structured; demanding; expected a l o t . Sam...personable; humorous; involved in school a c t i v i t i e s ; very enthusiastic; discussed things with you; c i r c u l a t e d around the cl a s s ; e f f e c t i v e communicators; good at question and answer; entertaining. Leona...personal 1ty; someone you could l i s t e n to; humorous; used lots of examples; could relate to them; more to o f f e r ; personable; taught about prejudice (positive values); enjoyable. Pete...1nterestIng; lots of experimentation without lab books. Ron...exclting; dramatic; knew a l o t ; had l i v e d a l o t ; did e x c i t i n g things. Dave... smooth; e f f o r t l e s s ; very good; humorous; e f f i c i e n t ; happiness; happiness about what he i s doing; 178 t a l k s about i t ; explains i t ; enjoying i t ; enthusiasm; straight forward; anticipatory; prepared; we 11-organized. Participants also used si m i l a r phrases to describe those negative q u a l i t i e s of certain teachers whom they recol 1ect: ...monotone voice; poor communicators; could not answer questions c l e a r l y ; were \"above\" the students...boring, out of touch; didn't apply to the real worId... 4. In terms of teaching as a lifetime career, Pete, Ron, and Dave are firmly committed to the profession. They do not seem to have ambitions beyond being a classroom teacher. Both Sam and Leona indicated that they would not l i k e to teach ln the high school forever. Leona would consider a completely d i f f e r e n t career i f the opportunity arose. Sam would consider teaching at a college or un i v e r s i t y . Betty i s committed to teaching. However, family pressures may result in her taking leave, perhaps for an Indefinite period. Career position seems to have a mitigating influence on teachers' Interpretations of curriculum. Teachers who are at an early stage ln their career, seem to have a more open mind to new c u r r i c u l a . It i s perceived that beginning teachers interpret curriculum in a more f l e x i b l e manner. In the same sense, i t i s 179 perceived that the functional paradigms of \"apprentice\" teachers are more f l u i d as compared to those of well-established, experienced teachers. This category w i l l be considered in more det a i l in a subsequent section. In summary. past experiences can be considered to be a major determinant of a personal paradigm. But each individual's experiences are d i f f e r e n t , and these l i v e d experiences contribute to the emerging paradigms in dif f e r e n t manners. Within the \"past experience\" strand, there seems to be a myriad of lesser elements. Family history, f i n a n c i a l considerations, social status, age, gender, marital status, p o l i t i c a l background...to name a few. Each contributes in some way to the formulation, development, and maintenance of the functional paradigms. Similar personal factors were Identified in Sikes, Measor and Woods (1985). The influence of schooling, both high school and at university are s i g n i f i c a n t components of paradigm development. Certain teachers from each individual's past have also played a r o l e . The teacher t r a i n i n g year i t s e l f did not appear to be I n f l u e n t i a l . However, the practicum experiences played a large part In the establishment of teacher's I n i t i a l models for teaching. 180 A subsidiary purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between teachers' past educational experiences and their current teaching practices. It was perhaps the most inter e s t i n g aspect of the study. It appears that previous teachers had a marked ef f e c t on the formation of teachers' functional paradigms. The descriptions of teachers who come to mind occasionally (presumably because they Impressed the Individual in some way) bear a s t r i k i n g resemblance to the descriptions of the teachers own teaching practices. These findings seem to support the work of Lantz and Kass (1987), Ball (1982), Spector (1984a), Klein (1980, p.5), and Lortle (1975). Another relationship that seems to emerge Is that the par t i c i p a n t s ' concept of what constitutes a \"good\" teacher also has Its basis In their espoused theories of action. 5.2.2 Current Teaching Practices It i s appropriate at t h i s point to examine the espoused practices of the partic i p a n t s taking part in the study. The relationship between classroom practices and teachers' functional paradigms w i l l be examined further. Once teachers' functional paradigms have been established, they do not remain s t a t i c . Instead, they are molded, shaped, refined, and perfected by everyday 181 experiences. Therefore, current teaching practices are helping to further develop the e x i s t i n g paradigms of the teachers. This seems to support the work of Roehler et a l . (1988). For the most part, i t appears from the data, that once established, these paradigms are r e l a t i v e l y stable. The four more experienced teachers considered ln the study had each formulated their own teaching routines. They a l l have ways of dealing with the standard day to day problems that crop up during their teaching. These patterns, tricks-of-the-trade, exemplars, and models are developed in i s o l a t i o n — personally, but i t i s evident that much of the paradigm evolution i s analogous. That i s the paradigms, while developing Independently, emerge with many common elements. The nature of these elements w i l l be discussed ln the following section. 1. The p a r t i c i p a n t s held common views on their perceptions of what constitutes a \" t r a d i t i o n a l \" teacher (see part 4.2.1). Sam describes a t r a d i t i o n a l i s t as follows: \"Just the sit-down type, do the work, and go over the problems and that\". S i m i l a r l y , Leona f e e l s that a t r a d i t i o n a l teacher i s one who has \"structure, sets guidelines with f l e x i b i l i t y ( i n each) case by case s i t u a t i o n . So that when you walk ln you know what the expectations are\". Her description of a progressive teacher, i s one who u t i l i z e s \"group learning s i t u a t i o n s 182 instead of, you know, c l a s s . More with the peer tutoring, group learning...teaching science in a problem-solving fashion more than just labs supplementing the written\". 2. In describing their own teaching, the p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l l into two groups: t r a d i t i o n a l ( i n the sense outlined in an e a r l i e r section), and progressive. This, of course, i s not intended to imply that one way i s better or worse than any other way of teaching. In fact, Ron aptly pointed out the effectiveness of d i f f e r i n g s t y l e s when commenting on the use of the Madeline Hunter teaching strategies. He said, \"I don't think you can say that t h i s Is the only good way. Somebody might do everything seemingly wrong and yet their kids may be learning a lot because their personality (style) i s such that that works for them\". Tradltional Betty i s a t r a d i t i o n a l teacher. The following statement seems to support such a view: In the grade 8's one of the things that I emphasize i s lab technique. In grade 10, I try to teach them something about lab equipment. I think that's important because once we get everything solved in that area then we'll be okay, for senior courses and doing proper lab techn1 que...what science Is a l l about, observing, and things l i k e that. Sam would l i k e to be more progressive in h i s teaching. However, based on h i s description of h i s own 183 teaching, one would generally c l a s s i f y Sam as a t r a d i t i o n a l teacher. The following t y p i f i e s Sam's teaching s t y l e : I prefer the overhead for just straight notes...I usually have them prepared...I put them on the overhead...walk around the classroom to make sure that people are on-task, and then i t also gives me time to take a quick attendance in that f i r s t few minutes or sometime during the c l a s s , i t frees up a few minutes and then I can explain i t once I see everyone's done. The blackboard, I l i k e to use when we're going over problems, l i k e follow them along, write i t b i g so that everyone can see because I knew that there were kids that had problems with eyesight in my c l a s s . So step-by-step problem solving I use the blackboard, sometimes overhead because my arm gets sore I go to the overhead. On a number of occasions I use s l i d e presentations because I have a s l i d e set that I use for Earth Science and Astronomy. Films and videos...this d i s t r i c t I found very limited in the material for chemistry, but for Science 10 there was lots of s t u f f and the same for Science 8. I used a lot of them! Sam also l i k e s to inject a l i t t l e humour Into h i s classes, h i s comments Implied that humour, enthusiasm, and personality are aspects of a \"progressive\" teacher. Ron i s also a very t r a d i t i o n a l teacher, he supplements h i s lectures with l o t s of labs. \"I'm very lab oriented\". Ron t r i e s to stimulate interest by doing more intere s t i n g labs. The following description t y p i f i e s Dave's approach to teaching. Again, i t i s a t r a d i t i o n a l method which Dave has found to be successful for him over the years: Okay, st a r t i f o f f . Get them s e t t l e d . Attendance and a l l that, any special announcements, and then I s t a r t the lesson. Let's suppose that i t ' s going to be a demo. So then...you review the ideas that you're going to be t a l k i n g about. You run the demo with continuous conversation about what they should 184 be looking for, what do they see, what does t h i s mean, that sort of thing. And then at the end, we'd have to wrap i t up so that everybody knew what they saw so that we're a l l t a l k i n g about It from the same point of view. Iron out any problems that ar i s e in the demonstration. And then go through and relate t h i s to the idea that you're t r y i n g to get across, where t h i s demonstration t i e s i n . And then I would give them some kind of assignment. Proaresslve Leona uses a variety of teaching approaches. Her teaching can be c l a s s i f i e d as nontraditional. Although Leona i s concerned with common tasks such as note writing and classroom behaviour, she also describes a number of alternate strategies: ...supplemental reading resources. I teach them how to do notes. Right, so I give them three or four d i f f e r e n t chapters and we go through the thing and do vhow to take notes', we do labs, we do the use of equipment, we do q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative essays, then descriptions about things, worksheets, group work, posters, model building. A l l those kind of things. Leona described one p a r t i c u l a r project using video cameras — c e r t a i n l y not a t r a d i t i o n a l teaching method: When we were allowed to tape them o f f . . . (the a i r ) I found them (videos) a lot more informative than the stuff we can get now...and i t ' s r e a l l y hard to get NFB films to arr i v e on the scheduled day and then the equipment to be in here. Kids are not interested ln videos as much as they were because they get to see t.v. a l o t . So they do a comparison, i f you're not entertaining then I'm (the kids are) not going to l i s t e n . . . I would rather them make a video on their own than watch one. My Biology 11 kids do that with l i f e cycles. They made up videos t h i s year. Pete can perhaps be c l a s s i f i e d as a nontraditional teacher. He describes such a c t i v i t i e s as word-games, 185 debates, and various forms of group work. Pete says that h i s teaching does not involve the treaditional lecture method. The following describes one of h i s typical lessons: I try to do more one-on-one with the students, i f I can...I usually tend to introduce a subject with Just a small talk about what It's about and then we do a few notes. Then I bring up problems in the way of labs as a way of determining what Is going on. Using question and answer type things aft e r that, and look at the lab a l i t t l e b i t more. Pete does a lot of labs, especially with the senior classes. Both Betty and Ron also l i k e to do a lot of labs. Other factors that currently impact on teachers' functional paradigms, but which were not studied in great de t a i l in t h i s study Include the school-based Influence of students, administration and other teachers, the influence of family, and external influences such as community held b e l i e f s , p o l i t i c s , and r e l i g i o n . 5.3 The Nature of Teachers' Functional Paradigms This section outines some of the findings with regard to the second research question. There are two dimensions that are examined in t r y i n g to explicate the nature of teachers' functional paradigms. The f i r s t describes the r e l a t i o n s h i p s across the categories. The second focusses on 186 the nature of teachers'' functional paradigms In r e l a t i o n to the i r career positions. With regard to the data, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r research question i s r e a l l y asking: Is there a commonality of goals, b e l i e f s , problems, exemplars, and routines which constitute \"functional paradigms\" among the science teachers, who constitute a small segment of the s t a f f at Mountainview Secondary? 5.3.1 Consistencies Across Categories The purpose of t h i s section i s to show consistencies or inconsistencies in the perceptions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s across the categories used to define the teachers' functional paradigms. The elements of each teacher's functional paradigms should emerge from such an analysis. The intent i s to explain how teachers interpret and use curriculum materials in terms of their own perceptions. The following points summarize each teacher with respect to their perceptions of teaching; subject matter; school s e t t i n g ; and students Sam: Sam believes that teaching can be e f f e c t i v e when students are motivated. He suggests two ways in which t h i s can be done: by bringing in things of Interest that may go beyond the curriculum; and by being involved in a c t i v i t i e s that extend beyond the required curriculum. Sam sees motivation as a common d i f f i c u l t y for teachers. His solution to t h i s problem i s to have a sense of humour and an enthusiasm for the topic at hand. Sam indicates that teaching involves using a variety of teaching strategies. 189 He views teaching using a d i f f e r e n t s t y l e as important. Sam f e e l s that in order to become a teacher, one must f i r s t be a good communicator. Sam believes that the junior science course does not have enough s c i e n t i f i c reading material. He includes other issues in science which may not be in the prescribed curriculum — for example, a unit on \"Women in Science\". He considers the course to be lab-oriented, and he chooses the labs which he f e e l s belong in h i s course. In keeping with t h i s f l e x i b l e interpretation of the course materials, Sam views the curriculum i t s e l f as a guideline which does not have to be followed r e l i g i o u s l y . This also agrees with h i s opinion of curriculum policy r e v i s i o n . Sam indicates that revis i o n should be on-going, with periodic major changes according to the \"grass-roots\" wishes of the teachers in the f i e l d . Sam's perceptions of the school s e t t i n g were largely i n t e r n a l l y focussed. A l l beginning teachers are evaluated in t h e i r f i r s t year at Mountainview Secondary. Sam was also under a lot of pressure from the administration to perform well according to their wishes. Sam focusses h i s teaching primarily on students' interests — even to the point of entertaining students. This i s consistent with the e a r l i e r comment regarding Sam's perception of successful teaching. 190 Post-apprentice teachers; <3) Leona; In her teaching, Leona stresses both e f f i c i e n c y and to a certain extent, academic r i g o r . For example, she describes marking students' work, and using that as a basis for next day's lesson. In addition, Leona mentions the need to be 110% prepared, and she supplements most of her courses with additional learning material — in fact she does not use the prescribed textbook. However, Leona also f e e l s that motivation i s an essential ingredient to good teaching. She mentions teachers who are good at motivating students, and she also uses a variety of teaching strategies which generate enthusiasm. Leona sees classroom management as a common problem among teachers. Leona contends that the content of the recently revised Junior science curriculum has not changed a great deal, although perhaps teaching s t y l e s have. She believes that the curriculum i s \"Just\" a guideline, a l b e i t an i n f l e x i b l e guide. Curriculum policy should be less p r e s c r i p i v e . It should be revised following more direct input at the classroom l e v e l . She supports the notion of a core curriculum plus options which she can choose. The new course emphasizes labs and their i s i n s u f f i c i e n t reading material to s u i t her perception of the subject matter. The 191 new course lacks organization and continuity, which i s in keeping with the e f f i c i e n c y which Leona values. Community and school expectations are Important considerations for Leona. She finds that the necessity of preparing students for future p r o v i n c i a l l y examinable courses i s a pressure on her teaching. The disruptive p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i s an external influence, and time pressures seem to be an internal influence on Leona's teaching. This i s supportive of her need for e f f i c i e n c y in her Job. In considering the students, Leona focusses her attention on their needs and a b i l i t i e s . She sees the need to be f l e x i b l e in teaching and s e l e c t i n g materials for students according to the composition of the c l a s s . Leona has a perception that students must be made to understand, and t h i s can be accompllshed by varying teaching methods and s t y l e s . <4> Pete; Pete subscribes to the philosophy that e f f e c t i v e teaching Involves motivating students. He does t h i s by using a variety of teaching strategies beyond a t r a d i t i o n a l lecture-lab approach. He also emphasizes labs, and problem-solving a c t i v i t i e s . Pete f e e l s that there are si m i l a r problems faced by al1 teachers, including himself, 192 In terms of cla s s control, communication, and organization of a lesson. He also indicates that teachers use the same kinds of teaching methods. They Just vary the way that they present the material. Pete believes that there must be evidence of some basic s k i l l s such as group management, and communication in order to become a teacher. Pete does not think the Junior science course should focus on theory as much as i t does. He f e e l s that besides providing some basic knowledge, science should also be presented as a part of l i f e — he perceives a d e f i n i t e link between science and society. Pete finds that the new course focusses on knowledge (too much so), whereas he says the old course emphasized discovery learning. He does not see much difference in subject matter, but f e e l s that the new course has a new focus on \"attitudes\". He thinks that the present course materials are poorly organized, but they provide s u f f i c i e n t back-up. His comments here are consistent with the foregoing perceptions of teaching. He encourages students to bring things in that are t o p i c a l . Pete values science as a part of the World — and so prefers to treat the science curriculum with some f l e x i b i l i t y . In commenting on when c u r r i c u l a should be revised, Pete indicates that i t should only be changed to r e f l e c t necessary changes. For example, when the subject matter i s no longer appropriate. Again, t h i s i s in keeping 193 with Pete's e a r l i e r feelings with regard to h i s perceptions of teaching. Pete considers community and school administration expectations in terms of performance on government exams influence h i s teaching. He indicates that he must adjust h i s teaching for senior classes because of these pressures. Another external force which he perceives to have an adverse effected on h i s teaching i s the current p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . Pete f e e l s that both these external influences r e s t r i c t h i s a b i l i t i e s to be e f f e c t i v e according to h i s perceptions. Pete focusses h i s teaching on students' interests in that he tends to select materials which he perceives w i l l be of interest to the students. Pete also considers students' a b i l i t i e s . For example, he groups the students according to a b i l i t i e s . Both these factors seem to be motivational teaching approaches, and they coincide with Pete's perceptions of high school science. Experienced teachers; (5) Ron: Ron perceives student Inspiration as the essential component in teaching. Ron believes that e f f e c t i v e teaching involves hard work, an outgoing personality, and the 194 teacher must l i k e children. He f e e l s that t h i s can be accomplished by doing e x c i t i n g labs. Ron states that he i s very lab oriented. He follows a lecture-lab teaching method. He l i k e s labs that motivate students, and he mentioned two labs using preserved f i s h , and a demo lab using the Van de Graaf e l e c t r o s t a t i c generator. However, most of the labs that he described in the Interview are t y p i c a l l y rote. Ron assumes that people must have an outgoing personality In order to teach; although, he Is also of the opinion that most teaching techniques can be taught (and learned). Ron does not see much difference between the old and new junior science curriculum in terms of content. He perceives the curriculum i t s e l f as a document to be followed c l o s e l y . In h i s mind, classroom Instruction must follow the curriculum inexorably. Although i t was not stated d i r e c t l y , Ron sees the new course in terms of an emphasis on content. He would prefer a lab emphasis, and fe e l s that the current labs in the course are mostly boring! Ron states that the curriculum should be revised on a continual basis, with constant input from classroom teachers. Periodic major rewrites should occur as the material from the f i e l d accumulates. Curriculum r e v i s i o n seems to be textbook driven in Ron's mind. He finds that the course i s well organized in terms of a hier a r c h i c a l knowledge of science. In both h i s perceptions of teaching 195 and subject matter, there seems to be an underlying value for basic s c i e n t i f i c concepts — an i n c l i n a t i o n towards pure science. Ron perceives that there i s an expectation in terms of what he teaches the students in h i s care. He f e e l s that he has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and obligation to ensure that h i s students know a l l the learning objectives for the courses that he teaches. To t h i s end, he sel e c t s materials and resources which w i l l enable h i s students to achieve t h i s goal . Ron values students' Interests, a b i l i t i e s , and needs. He t r i e s to relate h i s science and P.E instruction to the human, because that i s what students are interested i n . He thinks i t would be a good Idea to provide i n d i v i d u a l i z e d instruction and self-paced instructional packages for students who have learning d i f f i c u l t i e s — although he has not followed through with t h i s , i t shows a concern for students' a b i l i t i e s . He also addresses the perceived needs of students by s t r i v i n g to provide them with the necessary science knowledge as determined by the curriculum. <6> Dave; Aside from having a \"love of children\", Dave perceives successful teaching in terms of timing and organization. He believes that good teachers must be 196 patient, hardworking, and clever. Dave finds that there are some common problems for teachers, such as generating respect, and motivating students — making them get down to work. However, he f e e l s that there i s a wide variation in teaching methods and approach. Dave follows a set teaching pattern that has been refined over the years. He teaches using what he c a l l s an empirical method, where he continually adjusts the course material u n t i l he finds an approach that works best for him. Dave considers timing to be important. He also l i k e s to stress the fundamentals. As a prerequisite for teaching, individuals must f i r s t l i k e working with other people, and they must be clever (capable, resourceful, and responsible). Dave finds that although the content of the new junior science course has not changed that much, he believes the course emphasis has changed to one st r e s s i n g lab a c t i v i t i e s . He does not feel that the theory i s explained as well as before. He believes that the course i s broken up into too many modules which are unorganized. He also finds that the topics are Incomplete. Dave subscribes to a f a i r l y rigorous interpretation of the curriculum guide. He believes h i s primary focus should be on science theory. However, he also values applied science. For example, Dave contends that curriculum policy should be revised not just to r e f l e c t popularized science issues; but also to r e f l e c t changes in s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. 197 Dave considers external influences such as curriculum change to be a constraint on h i s teaching. This i s mostly because i t i s disruptive to a well-established teaching routine. The lack of equipment support also has a negative impact on h i s teaching, in that Dave may not be able to carry out certain labs i f he does not have the necessary supplies and equipment. In h i s perception of students, Dave does not seem to focus on any one element. He values higher education, and so he provides the educational opportunities which w i l l enable students to achieve t h i s goal. He i s , in t h i s case, focussing on students' needs. Elsewhere during the interview, Dave describes how students' a b i l i t i e s influence the nature of the curriculum materials that he chooses. He Indicates that the students are the ones who make the course fun or Just a \"pain ln the neck\". Although Dave believes that students' Interests are important, t h i s element does not seem to be valued as highly as students' needs and a b i l i t i e s . Dave f e e l s that the new senior Chemistry textbook does not include topics of interest that would provide a more rounded chemical education. However, he chooses not to supplement the course with extra materials that might provide t h i s added int e r e s t . The interviews showed that there i s a variety of constraints on teachers. However, the over-riding factor 198 was the need for more time. Whether teachers were t a l k i n g about curriculum implementation, preparation, marking, provincial exams, paperwork, or classroom administrivia, s u f f i c i e n t time to get the Job done was a common theme. It seems that these factors have a tremendous influence on how a teacher functions. Therefore, constraints on teaching must also be considered as major influences on paradigm development. This seems to be in keeping with Shymansky and Kyle (1988). In their analysis, they found that inadequate funds, supplies, f a c i l i t i e s , and time were the reasons for teachers teaching in certain ways. The high school curriculum, es p e c i a l l y the subject-area curriculum appears to Impact on teachers' functional paradigms. Again, each innovation a f f e c t s each teacher d i f f e r e n t l y . The par t i c i p a n t s had a common perception of curriculum, although some said that r e v i s i o n should be on-going, whilst others sa i d i t should only occur as needed. In describing t h e i r own teaching s t y l e , and thei r ideas of what constitutes a \"good\" teacher, the par t i c i p a n t s again used s i m i l a r phrases. The terminology used clo s e l y resembles the descriptors used to form a p r o f i l e of an \"outstanding science teacher\" in a study conducted by Searles and Kudekl (1987). 199 The evidence from the data seems to support the contention that many of the elements making up an individual's functional paradigms are shared by other teachers within the segment of the population. However, the overlap between individual's functional paradigms i s not c l e a r l y defined. There are c e r t a i n l y s i m i l a r i t i e s among the p a r t i c i p a n t s , in terms of t h e i r stated b e l i e f s about teaching, problems in teaching, exemplars or ways of doing things, and d a i l y routines or patterns of behaviour. Yet, the c o n s t e l l a t i o n of elements making up one person's functional paradigms does not exactly mirror other teachers functional paradigms. It i s as i f one i s viewing the night sky from two d i f f e r e n t locations on Earth. The myriads of stars may be the same. However, the ultimate patterns that they form in the night sky may appear d i f f e r e n t l y . This concept i s summarized in Figure 3 later on in the chapter. 5.3.2 Teachers' Functional Paradigms and Career Posj tlon The purpose of t h i s section i s to determine i f there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between teachers' functional paradigms, and their career positions. 200 Apprentice teachers Betty believes that teaching Involves presenting a comprehensive knowledge of science. She sees variations of the lecture method as the most e f f e c t i v e approach. Betty adheres to the topics prescribed by the curriculum guide. Betty stresses lab work. In s e l e c t i n g curriculum materials for her courses, she looks for resources which can add to the textbook in terms of more detailed Information. Betty focusses her attention on her perceived needs of the students. She adjusts her lessons to s u i t the a b i l i t i e s of the students. Sam, on the other hand, values motivation. He does not see a need to follow the curriculum guide in t o t a l i t y . Rather, he supplements h i s courses with materials which he sees as being of interest to the students. He believes that a variety of teaching strategies must be used in order to be an e f f e c t i v e teacher. The differences observed here can perhaps be att r i b u t e d to the fact that Betty has been Involved In teaching as a substitute for a number of years. Whereas Sam i s fresh out of u n i v e r s i t y . 201 Post apprentice teachers Leona values organizational e f f i c i e n c y . She supplements her courses with materials designed to f a c i l i t a t e 1 earning...and to a l l e v i a t e her marking load. Leona also believes that teaching involves presenting a comprehensive knowledge of science. The course materials that she s e l e c t s are generally limited to the curriculum guide, although Leona would prefer more f l e x i b i l i t y . Leona sel e c t s her course materials to r e f l e c t students' needs and a b i 1 i t i e s . Pete values motivation. He teaches using a variety of teaching approaches. Pete i s f l e x i b l e in h i s interpretation of the curriculum. He s e l e c t s learning materials which emphasize the link between science and society. Pete focusses h i s use of currlculun materials ln terms of students' interests and a b i l i t i e s . In t h i s experience category, the teachers seem to be quite d i f f e r e n t . Evidence presented ln an e a r l i e r section indicates that both are r e l a t i v e l y progressive teachers. However, the two post-apprentice teachers do not seem to have a great deal ln common with respect to their interpretation of curriculum. This d i s p a r i t y i l l u s t r a t e s the Important difference between the categories and sub-categories that describe teachers' functional 202 paradigms, and the elements of those categories. Clearly, the two post-apprentice teachers share some common categories; however, the ways in which they interpret curriculum through their teaching, and even the r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of the i r ideas about teaching d i f f e r . Experienced teachers Ron values pure science and motivational teaching. He stimulates students by doing interesting labs. He adheres s t r i c t l y to the curriculum, and so he sel e c t s learning materials which r e f l e c t t h i s p o s i t i o n . Ron also believes that he has an obligation to provide a c t i v i t i e s which w i l l ensure that students have a complete knowledge of the Intended curriculum. Even though he has t h i s seemingly r e s t r i c t i v e philosophy, Ron considers the needs, a b i l i t i e s , and interests of students when s e l e c t i n g resources. Dave values organizational e f f i c i e n c y in h i s teaching. He considers timing to be important. He has a f a i r l y s t r i c t interpretation of the curriculum, and so sel e c t s materials for the students accordingly. Dave's teaching focusses f i r s t l y on science theory. Dave does not do many labs. He chooses a c t i v i t i e s which enable him to get across what i t i s students need to know. Students' needs 203 and a b i l i t i e s seem to be of primary concern when se l e c t i n g a c t i v i t i e s or resources. Although the findings are tentative, i t seems that teachers do become less f l e x i b l e as their career progresses. Beginning teachers have not yet had a chance to f u l l y develop their teaching routines, and exemplars. Their functional paradigms are s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y f l u i d . These teachers are more e a s i l y influenced by their peers, administration, curriculum changes, students, and the school s e t t i n g . These \"apprentice\" teachers are also influenced by their own teaching practices. Their patterns of teaching evolve as they try d i f f e r e n t methods, and as they experience d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . Experienced teachers seem to be much more \"set ln th e i r ways\". They have established routines that have been molded over the years. These ways of teaching have been refined through experience. One aspect of the teacher's career which was not a focus of t h i s study, but which should be followed up, i s the notion of \" c r i t i c a l Incidents\" ln the l i f e history of teachers. Measor states that \"there are c r i t i c a l incidents which are the key events in the individual's l i f e , and around which pivotal decisions revolve. These events provoke the individual into s e l e c t i n g p a r t i c u l a r kinds of actions, they in turn lead them in p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n s , 204 and they end up having Implications for identity\" ( i n Ball and Goodson, 1985, p.61). Perhaps career position plays a much more s i g n i f i c a n t role in the development and maintenance of teachers' functional paradigms than was previously surmised. If t h i s i s the case, then many aspects of the individual's personal l i f e come to bear. Diamond (1988, p.133) refer s to the stages of teacher development through a career as preconjectural, dogmatic, decision-making, inventive, and emancipatory. Teachers do not necessarily progress through these stages at the same rate. For t h i s reason, i t i s possible to locate teachers at di f f e r e n t stages irrespective of their age or teaching experience. This i s perhaps the reason why there are some inconsistencies between teachers at each experience l e v e l . Again, t h i s i s an area that needs to be looked at in more detai1. 5.4 Teachers' F u n c t i o n a l Paradigms and C u r r i c u l u m Change This section considers the relationship between teachers' functional paradigms and curriculum change. The following questions were considered in t h i s study: a) What are the perceptions of teachers with regard to curriculum change? b) What i s the relationship between teachers' functional paradigms and their perceptions of curriculum change? 205 c) To what extent do teachers' functional paradigms become idiosyn c r a t i c when they are faced with a curriculum change? The f i n a l three research questions are considered together. The par t i c i p a n t ' s notions of curriculum ranged from the textbook as curriculum, to an outline or set of guidelines. There were c o n f l i c t i n g opinions on when curriculum should be revised. Some thought that courses should be revised only as needed, whereas others f e l t that revis i o n should be on-going. S i m i l a r l y , the reasons for a curriculum change evoked a number of di f f e r e n t responses. For example, some believed change i s necessary when textbooks become outdated due to advances in science. One believed that the foregoing would be the least l i k e l y reason for change. Others thought that the curriculum should be revised only when s u f f i c i e n t material or comments had been received by a central curriculum committee. These curriculum committees should be regionally representative, broadly based, and composed of \"reputable\" teachers. Most par t i c i p a n t s consider curriculum to be p r o v i n c i a l l y mandated, but there should be more f l e x i b i l i t y at the local level i e . less core, more options? reduced emphasis on content. A common thread within the group of teachers who had taught for more than one year was that curriculum changes have r e a l l y amounted to nothing anyway, with very l i t t l e change in content. The parti c i p a n t s had si m i l a r descriptions of the new Junior science course i . e . lacking 206 InformatIon...1abs are uninteresting, without substance, disorganized, or misplaced... Evidently, there are common meanings regarding the curriculum and i t s concomitant textbooks. Most did not distinguish c l e a r l y between the two. Curriculum i s viewed d i f f e r e n t l y by each of the pa r t i c i p a n t s depending on their own functional paradigms. In terms of their perceptions of the subject matter, some perceive science as a d i s t i n c t body of knowledge that must be inculcated. Their teaching focusses on topics which are r e s t r i c t e d to the curriculum guide. They tend to add materials where they feel the prescribed textbook i s weak in s c i e n t i f i c information. Others view science in terms of i t s connections with everyday problems in society. These teachers include extra materials which emphasize the p r a c t i c a l i t y of science, and i t s relationship with technology and society. With regard to the teachers'* perceptions of teaching, some individuals ln t h i s study value motivation. They design their teaching so that i t includes materials, demos, and labs which excite the students about science. These teachers also tend to base their teaching on students' in t e r e s t s . However, there i s some overlap in t h i s sub-category. Other teachers believe In a more academic pursuit of knowledge. Their teaching r e f l e c t s t h i s , in that 207 they u t i l i z e additional materials which enhance s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. There i s a great deal of consistency between individual's perceptions of the subject matter, and their perceptions of teaching. This consistency i s less marked with respect to the other two categories within teachers' functional paradigms. Teachers' perceptions of students influenced t h e i r decisions with regard to their teaching approach. Some selected materials in order to r e f l e c t the perceived needs of the students. Others adjusted their teaching according to the a b i l i t i e s or interests of the students. There were both external and Internal environmental factors which influenced the teachers' perceptions of the s e t t i n g in t h i s study. The teachers altered their teaching to match these perceptions. For example, labs were c u r t a i l e d due to the safety element Involved with large c l a s s s i z e s . Some labs were not done because they were boring, misplaced in the curriculum, or lack of equipment. The nature of the timetable (semestered) coupled with expectations for a good showing on provincial exams may also have r e s t r i c t e d lab work. In t h i s regard, there was i n s u f f i c i e n t time to do labs and cover the course material. The extent to which teachers' functional paradigms become Idiosyncratic when faced with a curriculum change was d i f f i c u l t to address in the study. There i s some 208 indication from the more experienced teachers that they would f i r s t try their own t r i e d and true methods to implement the change p r i o r to any change in their established routines. Concern was expressed over the lack of accountability in terms of f i d e l i t y to the curriculum. A comparable finding was reported by Crocker (1979). S i m i l a r l y , feelings were expressed that curriculum tends to be generated top-down, and implemented without the benefits of time, money, or consultation with teachers. The more experienced teachers also intimated that most curriculum changes were e s s e n t i a l l y cosmetic, and the change amounted to nothing more than a reorganization of the subject matter. One of the emerging problems in t h i s study was that only three of the teachers experienced the change-over from the old to the new junior science curriculum. Furthermore, i t became apparent that for most part i c i p a n t s , the contemplated change amounted to l i t t l e more than a restructuring of the subject matter. Ron did b r i e f l y mention the e f f e c t i v e schools movement which might be considered as requiring a more radical s h i f t In methodology. If teachers do resort to their own routines, exemplars, and methods as a way of solving problems when faced with a new curriculum, one must r e a l i z e that those i n t e r n a l i z e d patterns of operation are not wholly peculiar 209 to each teacher. It has been shown in t h i s study, and elsewhere that there i s a certain degree of commonality among teachers' functional paradigms both in terms of common categories and sub-categories, and in terms of the elements within each category. However, t h i s seems to be very limited. It appears that there are d i f f e r e n t emphases for each category with each i n d i v i d u a l . Not a l l teachers even within the same segment share a l l of the same elements, and even i f there i s some commonality, they do not seem to share the same elements to the same degree. This concept i s summarized in Figure 3 In the next section. 5.5 Summary of Research Findings This study used recent changes in science c u r r i c u l a In B r i t i s h Columbia as a backdrop in which to consider the nature of teachers' functional paradigms. Six science teachers in a r e l a t i v e l y closed s e t t i n g were interviewed. The interviews were conducted using a predefined schedule of questions. In the analysis of the data, categories s i m i l a r to those used by Lantz and Kass (1987) were described. A number of sub-categories were also i d e n t i f i e d . Table V that follows l i s t s these sub-categories. 210 TABLE V Sub-categories of Teachers' Functional Paradigms 1. Teachers' perceptions of teaching: o perceptions of e f f e c t i v e teaching, o perceptions of teaching problems and routines, o perceptions of teaching methodology and s t y l e , o perceptions of teacher development. 2. Teachers' perceptions of the subject matter: o percepions of curriculum materials. o perceptions of curriculum p o l i c y . o perceptions of curriculum policy r e v i s i o n . 3. Teachers' perceptions of the school s e t t i n g : o perceptions of the internal school environment, o perceptions of the external school environment. 4. Teachers' perceptions of the students: o perceptions of students' needs. o perceptions of students' a b i l i t i e s . o perceptions of students' interests. Within each of the sub-categories, elements in the functional paradigms of the science teachers emerged. These elements varied between teachers. There were some shared elements. However, the teachers in t h i s study did not a l l share the same elements. They interpret and use curriculum materials in di f f e r e n t ways. Some believe the curriculum to be merely a set of suggested guidelines. They supplement the i r courses with other topics that stress applied 211 science, inquiry science, and technological science. Other teachers in the study maintain a strong link between the prescribed curriculum and their own teaching practices. In th e i r teaching, some teachers value motivation. They do a lot of labs, they try to incorporate c r i t i c a l thinking, problem solving, and other varied approaches into their teaching. They focus their teaching on students' interests. Others prefer e f f i c i e n c y and organization. They are concerned with how the course i s organized. They adjust th e i r teaching according to students' a b i l i t i e s , and they are more conscious of the expectations of others. However, the previous descriptions do not separate the teachers in the study into i d e n t i f i a b l e groups. In fact, i t appears that certain elements of one category may be s i m i l a r with two teachers. But, the elements within another category may not be the same for those same two teachers. As was discussed in section 5.2, the findings suggest that the model i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 1 proposed by Lantz and Kass (1987) needs to be broadened to account for the two-way relationship that seems to exist between the various categories and teachers' functional paradigms. This concept i s more eas i l y explained in a diagram. Figure 2, which follows, i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s notion of the d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between the categories, and teachers' functional paradigms. 212 FIGURE 2 An i l l u s t r a t i o n showing the ma.lor factors which Influence the formation, development. and maintenance of teachers' functional paradigms I I I CURRICULUM POLICY I I I I CURRICULUM MATERIALS I 1 * 1 TEACHERS' BACKGROUND I AND EXPERIENCE! TEACHERS' FUNCTIONAL I PARADIGMS CURRENT TEACHING SITUATION CURRENT CLASSROOM PRACTICE 213 It i s apparent from the findings described in section 5.2, that there are a number of factors which influence teachers' functional paradigms. It seems that current classroom practices, which involve the selection of topics, learning materials, teaching methods and approaches, are largely influenced by teachers' perceptions of high school science, teaching, students, and the school s e t t i n g . However, i t also appears that conversely, current classroom practices have an impact on teachers' functional paradigms. S i m i l a r l y , there i s probably a dynamic relationship between other categories, such as curriculum materials, current teaching s i t u a t i o n , and teachers' functional paradigms. For example, teachers' b e l i e f s about teaching and the subject matter w i l l influence t h e i r interpretation of curriculum materials. The study i d e n t i f i e d both t r a d i t i o n a l i s t teachers and progressive teachers. These two orientations develop because of d i f f e r i n g c o n s t ellations of b e l i e f s , values, routines and exemplars. They view curriculum d i f f e r e n t l y , and they treat curriculum materials d i f f e r e n t l y . Another factor, that i s influenced by, and Influences teachers' functional paradigms i s the current teaching s i t u a t i o n . For example, the data indicate that the nature of the teaching assignment, the type of courses to be taught (mainstream science or science with technological and societal connections; junior or senior science...), the work load (class s i z e ; marking and preparation; modified science...), and other factors such as 2 1 4 provincial exams, timetable (semester or nonsemester), prep, time, and a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources, a l l d i r e c t l y Influence the teacher's selection of curriculum materials, topics, and teaching approach. It has been shown in t h i s study that there are many differences that exist among the p a r t i c i p a n t s . There are apparent differences in university t r a i n i n g , family backgrounds, gender, age, teaching experience, age of entry into the profession, reasons for entering the profession, career ambitions, commitment to teaching, and teaching methodology (t r a d i t i o n a l / p r o g r e s s i v e ) . These differences have been described throughout the study. The various factors described influence teachers' functional paradigms to greater or lesser extents. Therefore, i t seems that even though common categories can be Identified within the functional paradigms of a segment of teachers, the degree of Influence of each category, and sub-category varies between teachers. Figure 3, which follows, i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s concept. In the schematic, the d i f f e r e n t strands represent the various categories which as a group, represent the c o n s t e l l a t i o n of b e l i e f s , values, problems, and exemplars which compose an individual's functional paradigms. The length of each strand s i g n i f i e s the notion that the various factors have d i f f e r i n g Impacts on the teacher. 215 FIGURE 3 An I l l u s t r a t i o n depicting the relationship between various influencing factors and teachers' f u n c t i o n a l paradigms o-o-\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 0 0 / 0 I I I / / / / TEACHERS' L FUNCTIONAL L_ PARADIGMS L I /* f f * ^ -0 \\ / \\ / I I 0 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 0 NOTEt Each strand represents the elements within a di f f e r e n t category. The degree of influence i s depicted by the length of the strand. 216 Many of the foregoing categories described In t h i s study are consistent with the findings of Lortie (1975). However, there are s i m i l a r i t i e s even within these groups. Each category i s not necessarily universal to the entire group. One cannot typify each Individual, but as a group, one can identify common categories. This seems to support the work of Lantz and Kass (1987). For example, there i s a commonality of language and terms used to describe past teachers who have influenced the pa r t i c i p a n t s . S i m i l a r l y , when the par t i c i p a n t s were asked to describe what they thought were commonalities within the organization, they used many of the same words. Bucher and Strauss (1976) say that \"segments of an organization have a core of professional a c t i v i t y \" . It i s t h i s concept that seems to be defined by the data at hand. There i s a core of common categories within t h i s p a r t i c u l a r segment (the teachers in the science department at Mountainvlew Secondary Schoool). Accepting that there are teachers' functional paradigms at the personal l e v e l , then one can v i s u a l i z e certain degrees of commonality at the various segmental levels (Olson's sub-culture l e v e l s ) , and perhaps some commonality at the organizational level (Olson's culture level) of the profession. Figure 4, which follows, i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s concept. 217 F I G U R E 4 An I l l u s t r a t i o n showing the possible emergence of a commonality of teachers' functional paradigms within the hierarchy of groupings within the profession 'C r e f e r s to the commonality among teachers' functional paradigms at the segmental and organizational l e v e l s . 218 The degree of commonality at each stratum i s determined by the intersection of teachers' functional paradigms. This i s also depicted in Figure 4. The model outlined in the previous figure, uses the Lantz and Kass' model as a basis upon which to extend the idea. It i s Important to understand that t h i s commonality includes the categories and sub-categories outlined in t h i s study. This can also be extended to include the elements of these categories within teachers' functional paradigms. In other words, the way that individuals teach, s e l e c t , interpret, u t i l i z e curriculum materials, and respond to teaching constraints. However, the extension of these elements to the organizational level should be considered to be tenuous. 5.6 Implications of the Study This research has possibly shed some light on the gap between the mandated and translated curriculum by ex p l i c a t i n g the nature of teachers' functional paradigms. The findings of t h i s study may provide p r a c t i c a l knowledge for those interested in some form of organizational change whose impact i s at the classroom l e v e l . One possible outcome may be to suggest to curriculum developers some alternate approaches to designing new c u r r i c u l a for the worker in the classroom. 219 The study may also provide an insight into why teachers and classrooms function as they do. For example, i s a teacher most l i k e l y to teach using an e c l e c t i c model of teaching which has i t s roots predominantly in the teacher's own experiences as a student? Another possible outcome may be to propose s i g n i f i c a n t changes to the teacher t r a i n i n g programs that currently exist in B r i t i s h Co1umb i a. The study suggests that there Is a relationship between teachers' functional paradigms and career p o s i t i o n . This i s of value to curriculum developers. They must consider the career stage of teachers when contemplating an innovative change in curriculum. 5.7 Suggestions for Further Research A s i m i l a r study should be conducted to determine the nature of the functional paradigms of those involved in major curriculum development a c t i v i t i e s . From my own experiences on curriculum committees and other Ministry of Education i n i t i a t e d projects, i t becomes apparent that the individual teachers who apply for and are selected for these a c t i v i t i e s also share a common set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The degree to which t h i s group of teachers' shared functional paradigms coincide with those of p r a c t i c i n g classroom teachers (who are not involved in 220 curriculum development) may account for some of the recent d i f f i c u l t i e s that have been experienced in curriculum implementation. The nature of the functional paradigms of teachers at teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t e s should also be investigated. S i m i l a r l y , the Influence of school, students, and colleagues on teachers' functional paradigms needs investigation. This study has focussed on the espoused theories of science teachers. Another study should be c a r r i e d out to determine the teacher's theories-in-use. In their summary of research ln science education, Shymansky and Kyle (1988) warn that without such p a r a l l e l studies of what i s taking place in classrooms, \"serious misconceptions about the state of science teaching\"...may result (p.259). A study could be conducted to compare the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between teachers' descriptions of their previous teachers, and the i r own teaching. Another study could be conducted to f i n d the relationship between teachers' understanding of what constitutes a \"good\" teacher, and their own teaching. This study did not examine pre-apprentice teachers ( s t i l l in teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t e s ) , nor did i t investigate the pre-retirement or r e t i r e d sub-groups. Such a study should be conducted. Comparative studies should 221 also be conducted in other schools, and in other d i s c i p l l n e s . There i s a need for further work to determine the relationship between teachers' functional paradigms, career p o s i t i o n , and c r i t i c a l incidents within teachers' l i f e h i s t o r i e s . 5.8 Concluding Remarks This study has focussed on the nature of teachers' functional paradigms. The r e s u l t s seem to Indicate f i r s t l y that there are common categories and sub-categories that can be used to describe teachers. These common categories have enabled the researcher to analyze the data to determine what factors Influence the development of teachers' functional paradigms. There appears to be a number of main categories contributing to the formation, development, and maintenance of teachers' functional paradigms. Within each category, there are a number of lesser elements. These factors seem to coincide with those of Lantz and Kass (1987). They include: 1. past educational experiences (previous teachers..). 2. background in general (family history,...) 3. practicum experiences. 4. past and present teaching experiences. 5. curriculum materials. 6. constraints on teaching. 7. school, students, and other workers in the school. 222 There seems to be a \"core\" of common categories among teachers. The intersection of the elements within these factors composes the functional paradigms of teachers in general. Although the paradigms are functional in an active sense, they are r e l a t i v e l y stable within the \"culture\", and over the long term. It i s t h i s s t a b i l i t y that must be considered i f innovators in education ever contemplate a change which would require a s h i f t in teachers'' functional paradigms. This commonality of b e l i e f s , routines, problems, and exemplars i s probably greater among teachers within the same small segment of the organization than within the entire profession (Figure 4). Evidently, teachers s e l e c t , interpret, and u t i l i z e learning materials in di f f e r e n t ways dependent on the nature of their personal functional paradigms. A number of d i f f e r i n g elements in teachers' functional paradigms have been i d e n t i f i e d . These elements determine how teachers teach In terms of their use of curriculum materials. Curriculum change agents must consider the functional paradigms of individuals and determine how common these paradigms are before attempting a major pedagogical change. This study has shown that i f these factors are not considered, then the curriculum change that i s contemplated w i l l be reduced to a mere change in content. The teachers w i l l u t i l i z e the curriculum materials according to their 223 own functional paradigms. The i n e r t i a against curriculum change i s most d i f f i c u l t to overcome with more experienced teachers, and more e a s i l y overcome with beginning teachers. This suggests that the focus of curriculum implementation needs to be aimed at certain segments of the profession. Somehow the change agents must a s s i s t educators to change their functional paradigms to meet the desired ends of the new curriculum p r i o r to implementation. The alt e r n a t i v e i s the d i s p a r i t y that seems to exist between the curriculum that i s intended by the policy makers, the curriculum that i s Implemented by the teachers, and the curriculum that i s ultimately attained by the students. REFERENCES Aikenhead, G. S. (1984). Teacher decision making: The case of P r a i r i e High. Journal of Research In Science Teaching. 21<2), 167-186. Argyrls, C , and Schon, D. A. (1974), Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers. B a l l , S. J., and Goodson, I. F. (1985). Understanding teachers: Concepts and contexts. In S. J. Ball and I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers' Lives and Careers. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. B a l l , S. J. (1982). Competition and c o n f l i c t in the teaching of English: A s o c l o - h i s t o r l e a l analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 14(1), 1-28. Becker, H. S. (1976). The career of the Chicago public schoolteacher. In M. Hammersley, and P. Woods (Eds.), The Process of Schooling. London: The Open University Press. Beecher, C. (1978). Curriculum practices: Their e f f e c t and/or relationship to selected biographical and professional variables. Journal of Experimental Education. (Winter), 46(2), 31-41. Benson, G. D. (1984). Teachers' and students' understandings of biology. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Alberta. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interact I on 1sm; Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Blumer, H. (1976), The methodological position of symbolic Interationism. In M. Hammersley and P. Woods (Eds.), The Process of Schooling. London: The Open University Press. Bucher, R. and Strauss, A. (1976). Professions in Process. In M. Hammersley and P. Woods (Eds.), The Process of Schoollng. London: The Open University Press. Chakagondua, J. G. (1981). Defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a new elementary science curriculum: variance among developers, teachers and practices In classrooms. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 224 225 Clandinin, D. J., and Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers'\" personal knowledge: what counts as 'personal' in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 19(6), 487-500. Cole, M. (1985). The tender trap? commitment and consciousness in entrants to teaching. In S. J. Ball and I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers' Lives and Careers. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Common, D. L. (1981). Who has the power to change schools? The Clearing House. 55(0ct.), 80-83. Connelly, F. M., and Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 12(2), 95-107. Connelly, F. M., Crocker, R. K., and Kass, H. (1985). Science Education in Canada Vol.1, P o l i c i e s , practices and perceptions. Informal Series 60, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. Crocker, R. K. (1979). From curriculum to classroom: An Interview study of teacher perspectives on curriculum change in primary science. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education. Crocker, R. K. (1983). The functional paradigms of teachers. Canadian Journal of Education. 8(4), 350-361. Crocker, R, K. (1984a). Determinants of Implementation of an elementary science program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21(2), 211-220. Crocker, R. K. (1984b). Teaching strategies project. In L. McLean, R. Crocker, and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Research on Teaching in Canada. Informal Series 58, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. Crocker, R. K. (1984c). Postscript. In L. McLean, R. Crocker, and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Research on Teaching in Canada. Informal Series 58, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. 226 Crocker, R. K. (1984d). Mandated and translated curriculum: The views of teachers. Working Paper. Institute for Educational Research and Development, University of Newfoundland. Crocker, R. K., and Banfield, H. (1986). Factors influencing teacher decisions on school, classroom, and curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 3(9), 805-816. Diamond, P. C. T. (1988). Construing a career: A developmental view of teacher education and the teacher educator. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 20(2), 133-140. Doyle, W., and Ponder, G. A. (1977). The p r a c t i c a l i t y ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange. 8(3), 1-12. E l l i o t , J. (1976). Developing hypotheses about classrooms from teachers' p r a c t i c a l constructs: An account of the Ford Teaching Project. Interchange. 7(2), 2-22. E l l i o t , J. (1983). Paradigms of educational research and theories of schooling. Paper presented at the Sociology of Education Conference, Birmingham: ERIC ED232896 E l l i s , J. D. (1984). A comparison of methods for measuring the degree of implementation of an innovative science program. In L. J. Bethel (Ed.), Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education (4). Austin: The University of Texas Erickson, G. L. (1987). Constructivist epistemology and the professional development of teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Washington, D.C. Fullan, M., and Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research. 47(1), 335-397. Gage, N. L. (1963). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Geeraerts, D. (1985). Paradigm and Paradox. Belgium: Leuven University Press. Gutting, G. (1980). Paradigms and Revolutions. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Hammersley, M., and Woods, P. (Eds.) (1976). The Process of Schooling. London: The Open University Press. 227 Huberman, M. (1988). Teacher careers and school Improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 20(2), 119-132. Imersheln, A. (1977). Organizational change as a paradigm s h i f t . The Sociological Quarterly. 18(Winter), 33-43. Jones, S. (1985a). Depth interviewing. In R. Walker (Ed.), Applied Qualitative Research. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing. Jones, S. (1985b). The analysis of depth interviews. In R. Walker (Ed.), Applied Qualitative Research. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing. Kenny, W. R., and Grote1ueschen, A. D. (1984). Making the case for case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 16(1), 37-51. Kilbourn, B. (1980a). World views and science teaching. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, and T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing Curriculum in a New Light. Symposium Series 12, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. Kilbourn, B. (1980b). Ethnographic research and the improvement of teaching. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, and T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing Curriculum in a New Light. Symposium Series 12, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. Klein, M. F. (1980). .Teacher perceived sources of influences on what i s taught in subject areas. A Study of Schooling - J. Goodlad. Technical Report Series Number 15. ERIC ED 214885. Kuhn, T. S. (1970)., The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions (2d ed.). Vol.11:2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lampert, M. (1986). Teaching about thinking and thinking about teaching. In P. H. Taylor (Ed.), Recent Developments in Curriculum Studies. Berkshire,UK: NFER-Ne1 son Publishing. Langdale, M. R. (1984). The 1983 junior secondary science curriculum and teacher c o n f l i c t s . Unpublished M.Ed Paper, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Lantz, 0., and Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers' functional paradigms. Science Education. 71(1), 117-134. 228 Lantz, 0. (1984). The r o l e of chemistry t e a c h e r s ' f u n c t i o n a l paradigms In t r a n s l a t i n g c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s i n t o classroom p r a c t i c e . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . L i n c o l n , Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1986). E t h i c s : the f a i l u r e of p o s l t l v l s t s c i e n c e . Paper presented f o r the American Educat i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, DC, ( A p r i l , 1987). L o r t i e , D. C. (1975). S c h o o l t e a c h e r : A S o c i o l o g i c a l Study. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Mardle, G., and Walker, M. (1978), Some as p e c t s of teacher s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Paper given at the SSRC conference, Oxford, September, 1978. Quoted In B a l l , S. J . (1982). Competition and c o n f l i c t in the t e a c h i n g of E n g l i s h : A s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . Journal of C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s . 14(1), 1-28. Massarlk, F. (1981). The i n t e r v i e w i n g process re-examined. In P. Reason and R. Rowan ( E d s . ) , Human I n q u i r y : A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York: John Wi1ey and Sons. McFadden, C. P. (1980). B a r r i e r s to s c i e n c e education Improvement In Canada: a case In p o i n t . In C. P. McFadden (Ed . ) , World Trends in Science E d u c a t i o n . H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a : A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n . Measor, L., and Woods, P. (1984). Changing Schools. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Merton, R. K. (1957). Theory and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , ( p u b l . unknown). M i n i s t r y of Education, C u r r i c u l u m Development Branch, (1970). J u n i o r Secondary Science C u r r i c u l u m Guide: Science 10. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of Education, P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. M i n i s t r y of Education, C u r r i c u l u m Development Branch, (1977). J u n i o r Secondary Science C u r r i c u l u m Guide: Science 8. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of Education, P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. M i n i s t r y of Education, C u r r i c u l u m Development Branch, (1979). J u n i o r Secondary Science C u r r i c u l u m Guide: Science 9. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of Education, P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. 229 Ministry of Education, Curriculum Development Branch, (1983). Junior Secondary Science Curriculum Guide; 1983. V i c t o r i a : Ministry of Education, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of b e l i e f s in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 19(4), 317-328. Oakley, W. F., and Crocker, R. K. (1980). An exploratory study of teacher Interventions in elementary science laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17<5>, 407-418. Olson, J. (1980). Teacher constructs and curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 12<1), 1-11. Olson, J. (1982a). Dilemmas of inquiry teaching: How teachers cope. In J. Olson (Ed.), Innovation in the Science Curriculum. London: Croom Helm. Olson, J. (1982b). Constructivism and education: a productive a l l i a n c e . Interchange. 13C4), 70-75. Olson, J . , and Russell, T. (Eds.) (1984). Science Education in Canadian Schools. Vol,II I, Case Studies in Science Teaching, Background Analysis 52. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Olson, J. (1988). Making sense of teaching: cognition vs. culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 20(2), 167-169. Orpwood, G. W. F., and Souque, J-P. (Eds.) (1984a). Science Education ln Canadian Schools. Vol.1, Introduction and Curriculum Analysis, Background Study 52. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Orpwood, G. W. F., and Souque, J-P. (Eds.) (1984b). Science Education in Canadian Schools. Summary of Background Study 52. Ottawa; Science Council of Canada. Orpwood, G. W. F., and Alam I. (Eds.) (1984c). Science Education in Canadian Schools. Vol.11, S t a t i s t i c a l Database for Canadian Science Education, Background Study 52. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Plnar, W. F. (1981). 'Whole, bright, deep with understanding': Issues ln q u a l i t a t i v e research and autobiographical method. Journal of Curriculum S t u d i e s , 13(3), 173-188. 230 Pllmmer, D. (1981). Science ln the primary schools:what went wrong? School Science Review. 62(221), 641-647. Power, C. N. (1976). Competing paradigms in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 13(6), 579-587. Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (1981). Human Inquiry; A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York! John Wiley and Sons. Reason, P, (1981). Issues of v a l i d i t y in new paradigm research. In P, Reason and R. Rowan (Eds.) Human Inquiry; A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York; John Wiley and Sons. Roberts, D. A. (1980). Theory, curriculum development, and the unique events of practice. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, and T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing Curriculum in a New L1ght. Symposium Series 12, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: OISE Press. Roberts, D. A. (1982a). Developing the concept of \"curriculum emphases\" In science education. Science Education. 66(2), 243-260. Roberts, D. A. (1982b). The place of q u a l i t a t i v e research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 19(4). 277-292. Roehler, L. R., et a l . (1988). Knowledge structures as evidence of the 'personal'': bridging the gap from thought to practi c e . Journal of Curriculum Studies. 20(2), 159-165. Scharnberg, M. (1984). The Mvth of Paradlqm-sh1ft or How to Lie with Methodology. Stockholm: Almqvlst and Wlksell International. Schon, D. A. (1984). The c r i s i s of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an eplstemology of practice. Paper presented to the Harvard Business School, 75th Anniversary Colloquium. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective. Paradigm, and P o s s l b l 1 i t y . New York: MacMillan Publishing. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The p r a c t i c a l 3: translation into curriculum. School Review. Aug., 501-522. 231 Searles, W. E. , and Kudeki, N. (1987). A comparison of teacher and princ i p a l perception of an outstanding science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 24(1), 1-13. Shavelson, R. J . , and Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, Judgements, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research. 51(4), 455-498. Shymansky, J. A., and Kyle, W. C. (1988). A summary of research in science education - 1986. Science Education. 72(3), 249-253. Sikes, P. J., Measor L., and Woods P. (1985). Teacher Careers: Crises and Continuities. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography, and other case studies. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Vol.6, American Educational Research Association. Smith, L. M., et a l . (1985). Educational innovators: a decade and a half l a t e r . In S. J. Ball and I. F. Goodson (Eds.), T e a c h e r s ' L i v e s and C a r e e r s . Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Southgate, J., and Randall, R. (1981). The troubled f i s h : Barriers to dialogue. In P. Reason and R. Rowan (Eds.), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Spector, B. S. (1984a). Case study of an innovation requiring teachers to change r o l e s . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21(2), 563-574. Spector, B. S. (1984b). Qualitative research: Data analysis framework generating grounded theory applicable to the c r i s i s in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21(5), 459-467. Taylor, P. H., and Richards, C. M. (1985). An Introduction to Curriculum Studies (2d ed,). Berkshire, UK: NFER-Ne1 son Pub11sh1ng. Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Vol.7, American Educational Research Association. 232 West, R. C. (1986). Is a new paradigm in teacher education possible? The Education Forum. 50(4), 455-464. Wlersma, W. (1986). Research Methods In Education; An Introduction (4th ed.). Toronto; Allyn and Bacon. Wilson, D. C. (1979). Curriculum evaluation; a si t u a t i o n a l perspective. Working paper. University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Wilson, D. M. F. (1984). Factors that shape student teachers' 1 s t y l e s , techniques and strategies. In L, McLean, R. Crocker, and P. H. Wlnne (Ed.), Research on Teaching In Canada. Informal Series 58, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto; OISE Press. Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques In educational research. Review of Educat i o n a l Research, 47(1), 245-265. Winne, P. H., and Marx, R. W. (1977). ReconceptualIzing research on teaching. Journal of Educational Psvcho1oav. 69(6), 668-678. Woods, P. (1979). The Divided School. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul Inc. Woods, P. (1984). Teacher, s e l f and curriculum. In I. F. Goodson, and S. J. Ball (Eds.), Defining the Curriculum: Hi s t o r i e s and Ethnographies. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools^ Ethnography i n E d u c a t i o n a l Research, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul Inc. Woods, P. (1987). L i f e h i s t o r i e s and teacher Knowledge. In J. Smith (Ed.), Educating Teachers: Changing the Nature of Pedagogical Knowledge, New York; Falmer Press. Z e u l l , J. S., and Buchmann, M. (1988), Implementation of teacher-thinking research as curriculum del i b e r a t i o n . Journal of Curriculum Studies. 20(2), 141-154. A P P E N D I X A SAMPLE SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS USED IN MAIN STUDY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Preamble Science teachers in B r i t i s h Columbia have experienced a number of curriculum changes over the last few years. These include revisions to the Senior Biology and Chemistry courses, Junior Science and the addition of a new course c a l l e d Science and Technology 11. Some researchers suggest that in order to eff e c t a curriculum change, there must be some compatibilty between teachers' b e l i e f systems and the nature of the curriculum innovation. One aspect of t h i s study w i l l be to investigate how teachers deal with new c u r r i c u l a , and in p a r t i c u l a r , why teachers deal with new c u r r i c u l a in certain ways — What are the influences which may have shaped an individual's b e l i e f systems such that they govern how a curriculum change i s implemented? Of p a r t i c u l a r Interest, i s the degree of commonality that may exist among teachers in terms of the i r b e l i e f systems, routines, patterns and problems in the context of a curriculum innovation. In 233 234 other words, what interpretations and meanings do individual teachers attach to a new si t u a t i o n — in t h i s case, a curriculum change? And to what extent are these thoughts, Judgements and decisions common to a group of teachers? The purpose of t h i s study i s to determine the nature of teachers' functional paradigms in terms of how they interpret curriculum change. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the following questions shall be examined: 1. What are some of the factors which influence the formulation of teachers' functional paradigms? 2. What i s the nature of teachers' functional paradigms? 3. a) What are the perceptions of teachers with regard to curriculum change? b) What i s the relat i o n s h i p between teachers' functional paradigms and their perceptions of curriculum change? c) To what extent do teachers' functional paradigms become idiosyn c r a t i c when they are faced with a curriculum change? A subsidiary purpose i s to examine teachers' backgrounds and determine what aspects of the i r backgrounds might influence the formation of their functional paradigms. In p a r t i c u l a r , I am interested in investigating the nature of teachers' past experiences in terms of how they might shape th e i r functional paradigms in the context of a curriculum innovation. 235 QUESTIONS TO BE USED AS A GUIDELINE FOR THE INTERVIEWER. TEACHER CODE: DATE: PART A BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE 1. What were the influences on you that made you become a teacher? Why did you become a teacher? 2. a) How long have you taught ( i n general, science)? b) Have you taught other subjects beside science? Exp l a i n . 3. a) Describe your academic background. b) Have you taken any courses in Science Education? When? Comment. c) Do you have any other t r a i n i n g or experience that has helped prepare you to teach science? Explain. d) How would you describe your science related background? (\"Practical\" or \"Theoretical\"?) Explain. e) How would you describe the science courses that you r e c a l l taking in university? (\"Traditional\" or \"NontradltIonal\" science-type courses?) Explain. f) What influence, i f any, did your academic university t r a i n i n g have on your teaching practices? Explain. g) What influence, i f any, did your Science Education/Education t r a i n i n g have on your teaching practices? Explain. 4. a) Please describe the university professor(s) that you thought was the best (most admired?). b) Why was he/she so great? c) Did you enjoy his/her classes? Why? d) How would you describe his/her teaching approach? e) Can you describe the classroom s e t t i n g in t h i s case? 5. Which year at university do you think about the most? Why? 6. a) Describe the general kinds of in-service that you have p a r t i c i p a t e d in with respect to science teaching. b) How has the in-service influenced your teaching? Comment. 7. What were your favourite courses during your high school years? Why? 8 . a) When you think of a l l the teachers that you had during your early school years (elem./sec.) who do you think of? Why? b) Why was he/she so great? c) Did you enjoy his/her classes? Why? d) How would you describe his/her teaching approach? e) How would you describe the classroom s e t t i n g in th i s case? ( t r a d i t i o n a l , open, shared, groupings, lab oriented, . . . ) . P A R T B TEACHER VIEWS AND OPINIONS 1. How did you know \"how\" to teach? 2. Why do you teach science the way that you do? 237 3. In your opinion, to what extent do you think the b e l i e f s , goals, problems, teaching practices and routines of teachers are common to a l l teachers? Cor are they idiosyncratic?) 4. What was the major Influence on your teaching style? 5. What should curriculum developers consider when they are developing new c u r r i c u l a ? 6. What factors influence your teaching s t y l e in terms of the school environment, students, and s t a f f ? 7. How do you view your teaching as a career in the context of your outside school l i f e ? 8. What did you want to be when you grew up? 9. Some people have said that teaching i s a \" c a l l i n g \" . Others have said that you have to be born with the a b i l i t y to teach. Please comment on these notions. FART,C CURRICULUM PERCEPTIONS. EMPHASES AND MEANINGS 1. Under what circumstances should a curriculum be revised? Comment. 2. Has the new curriculum influenced your teaching in any way? 3. Can you comment on the t r a n s i t i o n between the Junior science and senior science program? 4. How useful i s a curriculum guide to your teaching? 5. Who should decide curriculum policy? ( p r o v i n c i a l , d i s t r i c t , school, department, individual) 238 a) Do you feel any pressure to \"cover\" the course? Exp l a i n . b) Do you feel any pressure to spend more time on any one topic? Explain. c) Which topics do you prefer to teach? Why? What influence, i f any, have the provincial exams had on your classroom teaching? Explain. PART D TEACHING PRACTICES. METHODS. AND STYLE What aspects of Junior Science (at each grade level) do you emphasize the most during your teaching. Why? How would you characterize the kind of classroom s i t u a t i o n in which you teach? Comment. Could you describe a typical science lesson, or the type of lesson that you use most often (grouping, materials, teaching approach, questioning techniques...) a) To what extent do you have students manipulate lab apparatus? b) Do you perform teacher demonstrations of labs? c) Do you have any preference for one form of teaching strategy over another? d) What problems, If any, do you have ln organising your classroom for a lab? a) Do your students enjoy doing labs? Do you? b) Do you prefer to lecture, give notes on the board, give notes on the overhead projector, hand out notes, or do you use a combination of the preceding? Comment. 239 c) Do your students enjoy doing projects, debates, oral reports...? d) Do you ever have students role-play, do simulations, play games, do case studies, b u i l d models, make posters or mobiles...? e) Do your students ever go on f i e l d t r i p s ? f) Do you ever have guest speakers or resource people come into your classroom? g) Do you have any plants/animals in your classroom? 6. How would you characterise your teaching st y l e ? ( t r a d i t i o n a l / nontraditional) 7. Have your teaching methods/style changed since the new Junior science course was implemented? [not for beginning teachers] 8. If you were given a l l the resources, space, f a c i l i t i e s , equipment and time necessary to Implement a new Junior science course, how would you teach the course? (types of a c t i v i t i e s , classroom organization...) 9. Do you prefer students to work i n d i v i d u a l l y , or In groups? Why? 10. Do you use computers with your science students? Do you use a computer for your personal/school work? 240 PART E PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING 1. In general, do you believe that students are interested in science or disinterested? Why? 2. Should a l l students take science, or do you think that science should r e a l l y be for those students who are capable of learning science? 3. How do you adjust your teaching of science for slow learners? Comment. 4. a) Do you see any s i m i l a r i t i e s or differences between the new Junior/Senior (Chemistry, Biology) Science curriculum and the previous curriculum? Explain. b) Is there any p a r t i c u l a r emphasis with the new curriculum that you perceive to be the same or dif f e r e n t from the previous curriculum? Explain. 5. If X had been d i f f e r e n t , what would your feelings be towards the new curriculum/teaching in general? 6. In your opinion, what are the q u a l i t i e s of a good teacher? 7. Do you f i n d that there are certain school-based influences on how you teach? Explain. Thank you. Closing comments. APPENDIX B SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF PILOT STUDY INTERVIEWS INTERVIEW #1 INTERVIEW #1 ~ SUBJECT IS SCIENCE DEPARTMENT HEAD AT A GRADE 8 TO 10 JUNIOR SECONDARY IN A SMALL NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA CITY (pop. 12000). (unedited for grammar or s t y l e ) SC: Some of the f i r s t questions I am going to look at are