Premium
Teachers Describe Epistemologies of Science Instruction Through Q Methodology
Author(s) -
Barnes Caitlin,
Angle Julie,
Montgomery Diane
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
school science and mathematics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.135
H-Index - 2
eISSN - 1949-8594
pISSN - 0036-6803
DOI - 10.1111/ssm.12111
Subject(s) - science education , scientific literacy , nature of science , mathematics education , teacher education , scientific misconceptions , sociology of scientific knowledge , subject (documents) , psychology , pedagogy , professional development , sociology , epistemology , computer science , social science , philosophy , library science
Creating scientifically literate students is a common goal among educational stakeholders. An understanding of nature of science is an important component of scientific literacy in K ‐12 science education. Q methodology was used to investigate the opinions of preservice and in‐service teachers on how they intend to teach or currently teach science. Q methodology is a measurement tool designed to capture personal beliefs. Participants included 40 preservice and in‐service elementary and secondary science teachers who sorted 40 self‐referential statements regarding science instruction. The results identified three epistemologies toward teaching science: A C hanging W orld, M y B eliefs, and T ried and T rue. Participants with the A C hanging W orld epistemology believe evidence is reliable, scientific knowledge is generated in multiple ways, and science changes in light of new evidence. The M y B eliefs epistemology reflects that scientific knowledge is subject to change due to embedded bias, science is affected by culture and religion, and evolution should not be taught in the classroom. The T ried and T rue epistemology views a scientific method as an exact method to prove science, believes experiments are crucial for scientific discoveries, absolute truth exists in scientific knowledge, and society and cultural factors can be eliminated from investigations. Implications for preservice teacher education programs and in‐service teacher professional development are addressed.