document

1. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS II
TRAINING COLLEGE
KOTTARAKARA
ON LINE ASSIGNMENT
Topic: Role of science teacher in developing
scientific attitude in students
NAME: ARUN KUMAR S
OPTIONAL SUBJECT: NATURAL SCIENCE
CANDIDATE CODE: 13 35 0003

2. Introduction
What is the role of the science teacher educator? To put it simply, the science
teacher educator must be a catalyst for change. The changes required are
conceptual and cultural. The changes must empower individuals to transcend the
typically over-learned ways of thinking (or non-thinking) about the role of science
education, to transform mental models of the roles and goals of students and
teachers in the learning environment, and to translate new understandings about
inquiry and meaningful learning into actual habits of practice.
The change we speak of must be systemic -- occurring simultaneously across
several levels including individual, small community, and broader community.
These changes are absolutely necessary before the overarching goal of science
education -- scientific literacy for all Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) -- is
possible. For today, increasingly complex scientific and technological issues
challenge our global society. The present quality of life is, and in the future will
continue to be, affected by such issues both old and new. Yet the models of science
education that widely persist in schools across the grade levels (including the
college science classroom) are inadequate for developing the knowledge needed to
tackle those problems. Those models largely fail to truly engage most students in
the learning process; their consequences on student outcomes are disastrous.
Students not engaged in the learning process leave with little more than shallow
understandings, weak connections between big ideas, trivial knowledge,
unchallenged naive conceptions of how the natural world operates, and an inability
to apply knowledge in new settings. As a result, students do not develop the ability
or propensity to become self-regulating learners or inquirers.
Science teacher educators, therefore, must facilitate the cognitive departure by
their students (preservice and inservice teachers) from traditional models of
teaching and learning of science -- models that are no longer valid in a society
confronted with exponential advancements in information and technology. The
science teacher educator must also help his/her students to carefully consider what
they will value in the learning community they seek to establish as teachers.
Equally important, the science teacher educator must help the pre-professional and

3. professional teacher understand how a teacher's personal values affect the type of
community their students establish in the classroom. For many prospective and
practicing science teachers, radically new ways of viewing the teaching and
learning of science must be adopted to meet the new demands in science education
(e.g., Hurd, 1993; Yager, 1991). Unfortunately, this typically requires the rejection
and abandonment of models of pedagogy that are all too familiar and all too easy
to mimic.
The science teacher educator must understand that the process of challenging
deeply held, personal mental models -- and, perhaps, their subsequent rejection --
is extremely difficult. Indeed, a great deal of anxiety can result in a classroom
where personal ideas and values are questioned. Thus, it is imperative that the
science teacher educator establish a learning environment conducive to the safe
expression and exploration of ideas and thoughts by the individual and the group.
In such an environment, learners must engage in inquiry, value thinking, and
dedicate themselves to working together as they explore and test their thoughts,
ideas, and perspectives. Finally, the science teacher educator must help his/her
students realize that such values must extend beyond small communities of
learners (e.g., classrooms). That is, the learning environment we speak of needs to
be nested within a broader program -- one that also values inquiry and thinking,
one that presents a coherent and consistent experience for the learners, and one that
seeks to be self-improving through processes of reflection, feedback, and critical
inquiry. Consequently, science teacher educators must help their students
understand the role of teacher as leader and professional change agent within the
broader school community.
The role, therefore, of the science teacher educator is to perturb
comfortable, over-learned views about schools and schooling in hopes of
promoting conceptual changes within individuals, across small communities of
learners, and across the broader community of people contributing to a program of
education. In this paper, we explore what the science teacher educator can do to
actualize the change processes at each of these levels. We will begin with the
processes associated with individual learners, move on to the processes of
establishing an engaged learning community, and end with the processes
associated with establishing a coherent, purposeful educational program aligned
with the goal of Science for All.

4. CONTENT
Currently, there is a mandate that all students achieve scientific literacy (National
Research Council, 1996). The qualities and characteristics of scientifically literate
high school graduates (NSTA, 1990) are provided in Appendix A.
Scientifically literate ways of thinking and acting, however, require the
development of higher order cognitive skills. Such skills enable one to identify ill-defined
problems, to generate a variety of solutions to any particular problem, to
act upon informed decisions, and to evaluate actions and their consequences (Hurd,
1993; Resnick, 1992). Resnick argues that successful schools not only cultivate
these skills -- they cultivate the habit to use them. Such schools place value on
activities such as questioning, thinking, communicating, and judging -- all within
the boundaries of a safe learning environment.
Regrettably, too few students experience science education in classrooms and
schools that cultivate the habits of mind necessary for scientific literacy (Perkins,
1992). In Smart Schools, David Perkins (1992) explains that schools largely ignore
thinking skills because the system is steeped in a culture of trivia -- or, what
Schwab (1965) had called "a rhetoric of conclusions." Others (e.g., Kagan, 1992;
Weinstein, 1989; Book, Byers, & Freeman, 1983) argue that socialization
processes perpetuate such cultures. For example, a number of studies (see
Goodlad, 1990; Sarason, 1981; and Lortie, 1975) describe how views regarding the
roles of the teacher and the learners are forged by years of observation and
experience. As a result, many people construct implicit sets of beliefs about how
schools and classrooms should operate -- operations that are often antithetical to a
culture of thinking, inquiry, and scientific literacy. With teachers, such beliefs
manifest themselves in inferior classroom practice.
Evidence continues to emerge suggesting that a teacher's views of the world,
teaching and learning, as well as his/her beliefs about knowledge and intelligence
have direct impact on the way they teach (e.g., Kennedy, 1998; Kagan, 1992;

5. Hollen, Anderson, & Roth, 1991; Brickhouse, 1990; Prawat & Anderson, 1989).
Currently, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting certain beliefs about
learning, intelligence, and knowledge are more conducive to teaching in ways that
promote meaningful learning (Craven, 1997; Kuhn, 1992, 1991; Dweck & Legget,
1988; Ryan, 1984). Students, therefore, should take the time to explore, articulate,
and analyze their beliefs on such topics.
Thus, a fundamental role of science teacher educators is to get preservice and
inservice to think about their own explicit and tacit thoughts about schools, science
education, teaching, and learning. One way to accomplish this is to get students to
articulate and discuss their understandings, beliefs and prior science experiences
(Prawat & Floden, 1994; Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker & Toolin, 1992;
Wittrock, 1985; Novak, 1985). In this way, students learn to develop the habits of
mind to probe, challenge, and regulate their own conceptions of science education.
This, in essence, is what developing a reflective practitioner is all about (Showers
& Joyce, 1996; Doyle, 1990; Schon, 1987)
The discussion above yields clear guidelines for the practice of professional
development within our community. We suggest the following actions for the
students in the teacher education program:
1. Exploring their personal beliefs and ideas about teaching, education, the nature
of science, and the nature of knowledge. Students can do this, for example, by
keeping journals of their thoughts prior to and following classroom discussions on
these topics.
2. Writing a philosophy of education and/or researched-based rationale paper that
articulates their professional views on the goals of science education along with
roles of the student and teacher that best facilitate them. To promote critical
thinking and skill in evidence-based argument, the papers are to be research-supported.
3. Expressing and defending their views on science teaching and learning as they
interact with peers, teachers, supervisors, cooperating teachers, and the other
partners engaged in the professional development program.
4. Conducting action research projects that require them to articulate and test their
ideas on teaching and learning. Practicum classrooms, student teaching classrooms,
or informal science education centers serve as the setting for the research projects.

6. 5. Engaging in scientific inquiry to develop implicit and explicit understandings on
the nature of science as well as develop the cognitive skills essential for critical
thinking.
6. Evaluating their own work, assess their own learning, understanding, and
outcomes. The purpose of these assessments must unambiguously aim at
improving competencies, informing instruction and practice, and promoting
learning motivations and strategies that result in deep conceptual understandings.
7. Constructing long-term inquiry units for their own students that have context
and are relevant. In doing so, students experience ways in which scientific ideas
are introduced for conceptual understandings. Use of the Learning Cycle must be
routine. The long-term inquiry units should also address the broader definition of
science content including: a) unifying concepts, b) science as inquiry, c) science
and technology, d) science in personal and social perspectives, and e) history and
nature of science.
8. Joining professional societies within science education to understand and engage
in current debates surrounding issues of concern within the community.
The student's reluctance to abandon his or her perspectives, even at times when
they conflict with other developing ideas is one of the great challenges teacher
educators face. Therefore, as a facilitator of the conceptual change process, the
science teacher educator functions in a variety of specific roles. These roles require
the educator to 1) know how students learn; 2) use expertise to structure an
environment that promotes meaningful learning; 3) purposefully design tasks that
lead to conceptual understanding, promote professional attitudes, and foster
reflective practice; and 4) use assessments that inform instruction yet cultivate
meaningful strategies for learning by students. The question now remains, "What
does a 'facilitator' do?" We propose that facilitators probe, prod, model, and
mentor. The teacher educator must continuously and simultaneously play and teach
these roles as they challenge and improve the developing professional's
understandings, beliefs, and skills. We describe the roles below (Table 1).
Table 1. Roles of the Science Teacher Educator
1. Probe
The student's understandings and skills about science education are continually probed by the
science teacher educator (as well as the students themselves). Pre existing knowledge, beliefs, and
prior experiences have on a powerful influence teacher's approach to teaching science. Teacher

7. educators, therefore, must have students articulate, discuss, support, and defend their views about
the goals and roles in the science classroom. The science teacher educator uses their expertise as
they listen for "holes" and "gaps" in the students' conceptual frameworks regarding the teaching
and learning of science. The teacher educator must also use exemplary habits and strategies of
questioning for purposes of instruction, conceptual scaffolding, and evaluation.
2. Prod
The activities chosen for the methods course are designed to move the learner toward deeper
understandings about the teaching and learning of science. The investigations must be rich enough
to provide context for fruitful discussions of topics in science education including, in part, content
and principles, curriculum design, the nature of science, teaching and learning, classroom
management, questioning, naive and/or misconceptions, scientific literacy, and standards.
Investigations both inside and outside the classroom as well as in the K-12 setting are designed to
cause cognitive dissonance for students holding views and attitudes towards science education
that impede scientific literacy.
3. Model
The science teacher educator must continually model the habits and attitudes of a superior teacher.
Such habits include the use of exemplary questioning strategies, appropriate use of Wait Time (I
and II), active participation in professional organizations. Furthermore, the science teacher
educator must model active inquiry through on-going research endeavors, self-reflection and self-evaluation,
and flexibility in time and curriculum design. Additionally, the science teacher
educator must structure a classroom environment that values high expectations, fosters student-to-student
interactions, and promotes scientific literacy.
4. Mentor
The science teacher educator must recognize that the process of conceptual change can often be
difficult and deeply personal for the student. As a mentor, the science teacher educator moves the
student to develop professionally by engaging one-on-one with students as expertise is shared and
support is provided.
ENGAGING A COMMUNITY
Good and Brophy (1994) remind us that the most important factor affecting
opportunities to learn is the nature of the learning environment. While
constructivism suggests that meaning is constructed by the learner (e.g., Driver,
Ssoko, Leach, Mortimer, E., & Scott, 1994; Glaserfeld, 1989; Pope, 1982), it need
not be construed that learning occurs in isolation. Indeed, it has been clearly argued

8. that construction of meaning takes place in the social arena (Driver et al., 1994;
Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker, & Toolin, 1992; Vygostsky, 1962; West
& Pines, 1985). Consequently, most of what people come to know and understand
results from complex social dynamics. The influence and outcomes of these
processes on individual views and knowledge are well documented (e.g., Erickson,
1991; Sarason, 1981; Bandura, 1977; Lortie, 1975; Kuhn, 1970).
Yager (1991) writes that in the best constructivist classrooms, student ideas and
questions are encouraged, accepted, and used for curriculum planning. He also
states that high value and emphasis are placed on open-ended questions,
cooperative learning, reflection, and analyses in those classrooms. Constructivist
classrooms are purposefully designed to promote the transformation and
internalization of new information by the learner (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Taylor,
Dawson, & Fraser (1995) provide us with a detailed description of the
constructivist learning environment. That description includes one wherein:
1. Students are given the opportunity to communicate their understandings with
other students, to generate plausible explanations for phenomena, to test, evaluate
and defend their explanations among their peers, and actively engage in the social
construction of knowledge - all of which are reflections of the nature of science.
2. Students are provided frequent opportunity to identify their own learning goals,
to share control of the learning environment, and to develop and employ
assessment criteria within the learning environment.
3. The environment of the classroom is conducive to inquiry. That spirit of inquiry
includes the freedom for students to question the operations of their class.
4. Students must have the opportunity to experience the tentativeness of scientific
knowledge. That is, students must understand that scientific knowledge is theory-laden
and socially and culturally constructed.
Chinn and Waggoner (1992), in reporting their findings of an examination of
classroom discourse dynamics, state that meaningful learning and student
reflection on personal knowledge occur when students share individual
perspectives through discussions with one another. The learning environments
described above resonate with those required for the development of critical
thinking (e.g., Clarke & Biddle, 1993; Resnick, 1992; Swartz & Perkins, 1990).
The structure and nature of the learning environment do indeed have powerful
influences on the learning outcomes of students. For example, Johnson & Johnson
(1991) found that when students work individually, they often believe that their

9. achievement is unrelated to and/or isolated from the achievement of the other
students in the class. The researchers report that such beliefs have adverse effects
upon the students' socialization and on healthy social as well as cognitive
development. In contrast, they report that in classrooms where there is a high
degree of student-to-student interaction (such as those that emphasize cooperative
learning) several positive outcomes occur including increased 1) positive
interdependence, 2) face-to-face promotive interaction (encouragement and
support), 3) individual accountability, and 4) interpersonal and small group skills.
We do think it would be difficult to find a teacher who would say that they are
against engaging students in critical thinking and establishing a learning
community buzzing with intellectual activity and scholarly endeavours. One can
only wonder, therefore, why the learning communities described by rhetoricians
(e.g., Dewey, Schwab, Suchman, Shaver, and Yager) are absent from so many
schools today. The answer, perhaps, is that most science teachers are more
concerned about what students would not learn if denied direct instruction than
what students would learn if given the freedom and latitude required for a student-centered,
inquiry-oriented learning community. Unfortunately, it would not be
difficult for a teacher to bolster those concerns by pointing to the constraints forced
by state-mandated curricula and tests. Or, perhaps it is easier for teachers to
imagine what students are not capable of doing or learning if left to their own
devices than it is for them to imagine what it is students are capable of doing if
given the role and responsibility for self-regulated learning, self-assessment, and
collaborative inquiry. The science teacher educator, therefore, must help preservice
and inservice teachers learn how to create learning environments that are
intellectually fertile, conducive to inquiry, and centered around student-to-student
interactions. For, as Marton (1988) reminds us, what is learned and how it is
learned are two inseparable aspects of learning.
The findings of the studies discussed above provide clear guidelines for the science
teacher educator's role in establishing an inquiry-based learning community within
the teacher education program. That is, s/he must create and model:
1. A classroom environment that predisposes students to accommodate ambiguity
and flexibility. Students typically experience high anxiety when confronted with
the responsibility for articulating their own interests, defining ill-defined questions,
and generating their own solutions to issues and problems. Students are, after all,
very often unaccustomed to these roles. Therefore, students can engage in dialogue
about these concerns and reach consensus on ways to deal with such anxieties.
These discussions should link to discussions on constructivism and/or the nature of
science. Student questions, thoughts, and interests are valued and expected.

10. Student-generated solutions to issues and problems are viewed as tentative and
subject to continuous testing.
2. A learning environment that values collaboration over competition and
cooperation over opposition. In such environments, student-to-student interactions
frequently occur. Joint research projects, team teaching, collaborative writing
exercises, group presentations and whole-class decision-making are ways in which
students can interact with each other.
3. Authority structures within the classroom consistent with student-centered
approaches toward learning. In these classrooms, the class negotiates criteria for
assessment, classroom ethics, and paths of inquiry collectively. Teacher-determined
criteria and grades are de-emphasized. Peer observation and evaluation
as well as self-assessments are useful approaches toward changing the typical
authority structure of the classroom.
4. Attitudes of collegiality that are palpable within the classroom. This is fostered
by active participation with professional societies, student organizations, and
whole-class endeavours.
5. A classroom environment reflecting the importance placed on student roles,
responsibilities, and learning. Student work, therefore, is displayed and highly
visible throughout the classroom.
6. A classroom learning environment extending beyond the classroom walls. There
is evidence within student work that content and concepts of the curriculum have
direct links to, and context within, the outside world.
In our experience, preservice and inservice teachers can and do express their ideas,
test their developing theories and apply their understandings of practice in such
environments. When students and teachers can do these things, efforts to improve
and advance science education are strengthened, classrooms and teachers will be
transformed, and we may begin achieving the education reform and goals we all
seek.
ENGAGING A PROGRAM
Without doubt, there remains much controversy regarding the constitution of an
ideal teacher preparation program. Indeed, theoretical and philosophical
differences have created a wide variety of both orientations and curricula within
science education programs (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). Outside social and
political forces vying to influence program design and content only add to the

11. confusion. Anderson and Mitchener ultimately conclude that the foundation of a
viable program in science education is grounded on consistent perspectives and
clearly articulated goals. Recently, a national study, The Salish I Research Project,
examined the science teacher preparation programs of nine major institutions. The
collaborative, longitudinal, three-year study sought and evaluated links between
features of each preparation program, the abilities and skills of their graduates, and
the classroom outcomes of their graduates as new teachers. The final report
(Salish, 1997), in part, reveals the following:
1. Faculty outside the school of education (in particular, faculty within the
sciences) typically reported that they did not perceive a role in the preparation of
new teachers.
2. The philosophies of education articulated by faculty members (e.g., foundations
and educational psychology) involved in the teacher preparation program were not
consistent. Some reported that they did not have any particular philosophy of
education. Others stated that they would not wish to present any particular
philosophy to their students.
3. The variety and means of instruction and evaluation in many courses outside of
science education were seldom consistent with those endorsed by the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).
4. New teachers often saw little or no connection between what is advocated and
what is practiced in their content and teacher education courses.
5. Faculty in science, mathematics, and teacher education viewed teacher
preparation programs as lacking in coherence.
The implications of the Salish I Research Project and reports from other bodies of
research and commissions (see American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1990; Bell & Buccino, 1997; Goodlad, 1990; National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future, 1996; National Research Council, 1997; National
Science Foundation, 1996) are undeniably clear. The klaxons are sounding and
they are sending clear messages throughout the science education and teacher
preparation communities. Science teacher educators must tune to the national
issues and debates, prepare to take actions for change, and accept leadership
responsibilities in establishing exemplary programs using the lessons learned.
Therefore, for programmatic changes, the role of the science teacher educator is to
consider and act upon (not in any particular order) the following features:

12. 1. Collaboration
Facilitate a dialogue across the campus (all faculty and staff playing a role in the
education of the teacher should understand their roles. Instructional approaches
should be consistent with the goals of the educational program).
2. Goals
Coordinate an articulation of the goals and philosophy among key partners of the
educational program. The roles of all the partners within the program including
teachers and students should foster the achievement of the goal(s). Programmatic
changes and operations are goal-oriented.
3. Coherence
Connections between all course, field, practicum, and student teaching components
are to be articulated. For example, the science teacher educator ensures that field
supervising faculty and staff understand what approaches to teaching, learning, and
classroom environments should be expected and observed. Coordination with
outside faculty occurs to align curriculum frameworks, methods of instruction and
evaluation, and exit criteria. Create a program that reflects alignment with
standards of the professional societies.
4. Pedagogy and Assessment
Ensure that the methods of assessment and instruction are consistent with the goals
across the program. The science teacher educator should provide leadership and
vision towards establishing inquiry-based learning communities. Core courses
should provide a coherent program of study, value higher order thinking and
inquiry
5. Research Experiences
Ensure that graduates of the program are expected to experience authentic research
in science as well as teaching and learning.
6. Cognitive Considerations
Conceptual change processes are slow. Therefore the program is designed to
maximize the time students are provided to reflect on their experiences, thoughts,
and understandings. Students moving together through a program as cohorts can
improve retention in the program by providing peer support and sense of
community.

13. 7. Theory and Practice
The boundaries between the university campus and K-12 schools are made porous
by frequent exchanges between key partners including university faculty,
classroom teachers, administrators, and students. Frequent field components and
professional development opportunities are established for all partners associated
in education.
8. Feedback
Mechanisms are established that provide feedback on the outcomes of the program
(e.g., the abilities, knowledge, and habits of practice of the graduates). The
feedback is used to inform practice, modify the program, and improve education.
9. Inclusion
The broader community including business, informal science centers, and local
governmental agencies participate in appropriate ways to the preparation of science
teachers.
There are increasing pressures today from many corners to improve the preparation
of teachers by increasing the number of courses in liberal arts and sciences while
simultaneously reducing the amount of time spent in the schools of education. Yet
this is antithetical to all that the science education community has come to
acknowledge from a comprehensive research base regarding the professional
development of teachers (see Loucks-Horsley, 1997; Yager, 1996; Lederman,
Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994; Goodlad, 1990; Krajcik & Penick, 1989; Penick &
Yager, 1988; Lortie, 1975), learning and conceptual change (e.g., Driver &
Oldham, 1986: Strike & Posner, 1985: Osborne & Wittrock, 1983), and developing
reflective, professional practice (e.g., Schon, 1983, 1987). Aligning the program
along a consistent, internally consistent, goal-oriented approach to education is
absolutely crucial for science teacher education. In doing, we optimally leverage
the time students have to transition through the conceptual change process.
ASSESSING THE PROGRAM
Educational institutions are notorious for their ability to systematize.
Consequently, the institution that often calls on K-12 schools to change (such as
those preparing teachers) is itself frequently calcified. Yet to remain effective and
responsive, mechanisms for program feedback and improvement must exist and
they must be based on empirical methods. Therefore, a critical role exists for
science teacher educators in the assessment and evaluation of the science education

14. component and, importantly, of the institution's teacher preparation program as a
whole. Science teacher educators must be first among their teacher educator
colleagues to seek evidence that may either support or reject their choices in
program design. Unfortunately, far too many teacher preparation programs operate
ill-informed of their effectiveness and without the empirical evidence needed to
make informed judgements for change (see Anderson & Mitchener, 1994; Lanier
& Little, 1986). For example, in the initial phases of the Salish I Research Project,
it was found that many of institutions lacked basic information regarding the recent
graduates of the program including where they were teaching (Salish, 1997). In
response, we urge science teacher educators to consider the leverage they can ply
in demanding and ensuring that programmatic decisions are evidence-based.
Evidence collected informs the stakeholders on the outcomes of the program. We
recommend that mechanisms for collecting evidence be systematic and routine. Of
course, the data must be evaluated on an ongoing basis • the results of which are
used during discussions on program improvement and/or redesign. Suggestions for
the type of evidence collected include:
1. Trends in employment of the graduates of the program including location,
subjects, type of schools;
2. Feedback (specific and/or general) from school administrations and district
officials regarding the skills and understandings of recent graduates from the
program;
3. Feedback from all the partners involved in the preparation program;
4. Feedback from recent graduates including self-perceptions;
5. School-based performance indicators from new teachers and their students; and
6. Performances on portfolio evaluations, videotapes, and/or other measures
required for state certification.
CONCLUSION
This paper sought to define and establish the role of the science teacher educator.
Heeding a recommendation of Thomas Sergio vanni, we wished to do more than
illustrate what works, but rather to articulate the responsibilities and actions that
meet the standards of good practice. Many critics today advocate the reduction of
preparation programs to as short as a few weeks while others call for the

15. elimination of preparatory programs altogether. Thus, it is particularly appropriate
to explicitly describe the role and value of the science teacher educator across a
program -- particularly in such hostile times.
Well-prepared science teachers require specialized science teacher preparation
programs wherein teacher thinking, reflection, and beliefs lie at the core of
discourse (Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker, & Toolinet al, 1992;
Shymansky, 1992; Penick & Yager, 1988). All the roles of the science teacher
educator, therefore, target these areas. They target them at the individual level, the
learning community level, and the broader, programmatic level. The resulting
changes we expect include teachers with improved attitudes, habits of mind, and
understandings for teaching toward scientific literacy.
References
1.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The Liberal Art
of Science. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
2.Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994) Research on science teacher
education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning (pp. 3 - 44). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
3.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.Bell, J. A. & Buccino, A. (Eds.) (1997). Seizing opportunities: Collaborating for
excellence in teacher education. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
5.Book, C., Byers, J., & Freeman, D. (1983). Student expectations and teacher
education traditions with which we can and cannot live. Journal of Teacher
Education, 34(1), 9-13.
6.Brickhouse, N.W.(1990) Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their
relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
7.Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
8.Chinn, C. A. & Waggoner, M. A. (1992, April). Dynamics of classrom
discussion: An analysis of what causes segments of open discourse to begin,

16. continue, and end. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
9.Clarke, J. H., & Biddle, A. W. (1993). Teaching critical thinking: reports from
across the curriculum. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
10.Craven, J. A. (1997). Relationships between new science teachers'beliefs and
student perceptions of the learning environment. Unpublished dissertation.
University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Arunkumar88ezn@gmail.com