Fostering Teacher Development to a Tetrahedral Orientation in the Teaching of Chemistry

Abstract

This paper reports on the initial outcomes from the end of the fourth year of a 5 year research and professional development project to improve chemistry teaching among three cohorts of chemistry teachers in Manitoba, Canada. The project responds to a new curriculum introduction advocating a tetrahedral orientation (Mahaffy, Journal of Chemical Education 83(1), [49][50][51][52][53][54][55] 2006) to the teaching of chemistry. The project in its entirety is based upon several theoretical models in fostering chemistry teacher development (in particular Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological model). These models are described, as is the progress made by teachers based upon the use of a Chemistry Teacher Inventory and associated teacher responses. Overall, statistical analysis of perceptions of their own teaching and comments made by teachers suggests they are showing limited development towards a tetrahedral orientation, albeit in a manner consistent with the curriculum. Ongoing research-based activities in this project are also described.

“Did something happen to you over the summer?”: tensions in intentions for chemistry education

“…Although the teacher development focus, processes and outcomes for the three cohorts over the five years of the project are described and detailed in another study (Lewthwaite & Wiebe, 2011), we focus in this study upon the autobiography of three teachers who showed significant adjustments in their teaching inconsistent with the remaining teachers involved in this project. For these three teachers, similar to the overall statistical changes the teachers experienced, this progressive and developmental change over the five years was from, initially in year one, a two-dimensional (macroscopic and symbolic form) to a four-dimensional tetrahedral orientation in the teaching of Grade 11 chemistry.…”

“…The multiple sources of data, especially from the teacher, researchers and students provided for data triangulation. The development process of the CTI and CCI is detailed elsewhere (Lewthwaite & Wiebe, 2011), but it is important to recognize for this inquiry that the teacher (CTI) and student (CCI) forms of the instrument had been developed specifically for this project within the context of the Manitoba curriculum and its' tetrahedral orientation. In brief, both contain 33 items identified by students, teachers and the research literature as easily observable, lowinference (Murray, 1999) teaching practices that influence (either positive or negative) student learning of chemistry.…”

Thinking about practical work in chemistry: teachers' considerations of selected practices for the macroscopic experience

“…Its development and content is based upon what students primarily, and the literature and teachers involved in this project suggested influence student learning in chemistry. The development of the instrument is described elsewhere (Lewthwaite and Wiebe, 2011) but for this study Table 1 below presents five examples of the 33 items in total contained within the four dimensions of the tetrahedron pedagogical orientation as well as one further dimension pertaining to general pedagogy. The items on the CTI are referred to as low-inference behaviours (Murray, 1999) meaning that they are easily identified through observation, in this study's case by the teachers themselves, the observing researchers and the students that are experiencing them.…”

“…As well, telephone conversations were conducted with those not observed to elicit their perceptions of their progress in teaching. Finally, a student version of the CTI (Lewthwaite and Wiebe, 2011), also containing 33 items, was used in which students documented the frequency of use of the low-inference behaviours they were experiencing in their classroom. As an example, an item on the CTI is: ''i perform chemical demonstrations''.…”

Responding to Students’ Learning Preferences in Chemistry

“…It is believed by the Manitoba curriculum development team (of which the authors are members) that this tetrahedral orientation is not, as yet, explicitly underpinning any other chemistry curriculum internationally. For this reason, this research project reported here, under the umbrella of a much larger chemistry education professional development project (Lewthwaite & Wiebe, 2011), was seen to be an important contribution to the chemistry education community.…”