Brian
Lewthwaite
*a,
Tanya
Doyle
a and
Thomas
Owen
b
aJames Cook University, Australia. E-mail: Lewthwaite@xtra.co.nz
bAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand
First published on 20th December 2013
This paper examines teachers' experiences in responding to a new Chemistry curriculum in the province of Manitoba in Canada informed by a ‘tetrahedral’ orientation (Mahaffy, 2005) as a pedagogical framework for the teaching of Chemistry. This tetrahedral orientation endorses macroscopic, microscopic, symbolic and human element teaching and learning experiences and, considering that most Chemistry teaching typically focuses on the symbolic level (Johnstone, 1991), affords a much more diversified Chemistry teacher pedagogy and student-centred learning experience. The teachers self-selected for this study were a part of a larger group of 74 participants in a five-year professional development initiative focusing on fostering the enactment of the intended Chemistry curriculum with its tetrahedral orientation. These teachers were those whose orientations to teaching were statistically significantly different from other participants, as evidenced in the ‘narrowing’ of their teaching practice to, predominantly, a symbolic representation for their Grade 12 classes in contrast to their more diversified practice in Grade 11. Using Aoki's reference to ‘tensionality’ (1986), the study focuses on elucidating the tensions the teachers experienced in working in the space between Chemistry ‘curriculum-as-planned and curriculum-as-lived’. Implications of this study in relation to Chemistry education curriculum policy and practice are discussed.
The reference to this ‘zone between two worlds’ or ‘tensionality’ between or among opposing forces is not uncommon in the education literature. Schön (1995) refers to this position as ‘an indeterminate swampy zone’ of practice. Clandinin et al. (2006) refer to this position being occupied by ‘conflicting stories’. Berry (2007) refers to tensions as a useful way of describing the complex and conflicting pedagogical demands teachers of science experience. For these reasons, it is not surprising that Pinar refers to curriculum as ‘autobiographical’ referring to the thought process and reconstruction teachers engage in, in this tensioned position. Pinar (2004) asserts that this autobiographical stance of reconstruction is more than simply action based on reflection. It is the “action of teachers who are able to act for themselves”, affirming that teachers “make a wise and prudent practical judgement about how to act in this situation” (Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p. 190) taking into consideration the importance of the contextual features of their situation.
The intent of this study is to explore the nature of the tensionality teachers experience in the delivery of a new Chemistry curriculum that explicitly calls for a widened and student-centred Chemistry education experience for students and, consequently, a diversification of pedagogic practice for teachers. The context of the study is similar to what many chemistry teachers experience today – new curriculum initiatives calling for a change in practice. This places teachers in a situation, as Carr and Kemmis refer to as ‘the space between curriculum as expected and curriculum as expressed’. It is inferred that within this tensioned position there are choices and alternatives. Teachers will decide on how to act in this space of alternatives. Although this reference to the ‘indeterminate swampy zone’ is not uncommon in the education literature, capturing this deliberation and the outcomes of this deliberation in a teacher's practice in the space associated with a new curriculum in Chemistry education, especially with its tetrahedral orientation, is undocumented. This study seeks to understand the thinking and acting teachers experience between a Chemistry curriculum-as-plan and Chemistry curriculum-as-lived experiences for both teacher and students. It seeks to capture the autobiography of this space and Chemistry teachers' experience in decision-making in this reconstruction. In this study we focus on three teachers who over five years of professional development provided a ‘widened’ learning experience consistent with the intentions of an intended curriculum for students in Grade 11 and then ‘revert’ to or, in fact, retain a narrowed experience for students in Grade 12, the final year of Chemistry provided at the school level. The study seeks to answer the questions: What informs teachers' Chemistry teaching practice during an implementation phase of a new Chemistry curriculum? Does a teacher's thinking demonstrate the ‘deliberating about alternatives’ between ‘curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived’ (Aoki, 1987)? How and why do teachers respond as they do when faced with these alternatives?
Further to the debate around the shifting purposes of STEM education, is the idea that subjects, such as Chemistry, now form part of a curriculum marketplace (Marginson, 1997; Teese, 2000; Teese and Polesel, 2003; Teese, 2007). As such, each subject is imbued with a range of strategic purposes – for students, for schools, for universities and for the broader political landscape. For example, to students, the successful completion of a subject such as Chemistry in the “enabling sciences” (Tytler, 2007, p. 7) establishes pathways for entry into the higher education setting. With regards to the political landscape, the enabling sciences play a strategic role in leveraging the transition to a post-industrial, innovation-driven, economy (Marginson et al., 2013). STEM, as a set of key disciplinary knowledges, is positioned as central to the development of the human capital needed to drive such an economic transition – these imperatives are evident in much of the contemporary Innovation policy of developed countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom (see for example Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; United Kingdom Council for Science and Technology, 2012). In much of this policy, teachers are positioned to play a pivotal role in the development of STEM-capable graduates. The ability of a teacher to enact these policy imperatives is tied, through a policy discourse of “quality” to the disciplinary expertise of teachers and the pedagogical decisions enacted in the classroom (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012).
Although this binary on the sub-identity of teacher task orientation has its limitations, especially since all characteristics for one ideology may not be symptomatic of a teacher's orientation (Tsai, 2002, 2006), teacher identity is a valuable construct underpinning the focus of this study and the experiences of the teachers involved in this study. The inquiry outlined in this paper investigates the nature of teacher belief about Chemistry and their role as Chemistry educators and the competing stories both informing and influencing their pedagogical decisions when teaching Chemistry and how these decisions manifest in their observable practices. In this study, we explore this interface and expose the tensionality experienced by Chemistry educators in the implementation of a new Chemistry curriculum.
The tetrahedral orientation is evidenced consistently throughout the Grade 11 and 12 chemistry curriculum. As an example, in the example of strong and weak acids at the Grade 12 level, students are expected to examine the differences between strong and weak acids at the experimental level (macroscopic) and seek to understand these differences in properties through their molecular dissociation differences (microscopic) and how this difference is represented through chemical equations and quantitative data (symbolically) and influences biochemical processes such as blood pH, equilibrium and stomach digestion in the human body (human element) (MECY, 2007). It is important to note for this study that although quantitative chemistry is not located only in the ‘symbolic’ dimension, for this study we include it within this dimension.
The variety of experiences provided by the tetrahedral approach as evidenced in the strong acid-weak acid example provide evidence of a curriculum advocating for a variety and, potentially, a binary of purposes. It advocates for an inclusive and personal relevance approach that emphasizes the primacy of personal engagement, participation and meaning (Eisner, 1979). Further it advocates for the development of the intellectual cognitive faculties each student possesses (Eisner, 1979). As well, it encourages the development of a scientifically literate citizenry that is informed by and able to address societal needs. Finally, the goals indicate the purpose of the curriculum in developing students' intellectual growth in chemistry with a range of strategic purposes, one being the establishment of a pathway for entry into the higher education setting (Eisner, 1979). In summation, the new Manitoba chemistry curriculum provide evidence of, as characteristic of the STEM education aspirational discourse earlier described, an inclusive approach for the development of scientifically literate citizenry alongside of and possibility in opposition to an approach that is concerned with mastery of disciplinary knowledge.
During the five year study, data to ascertain teacher development and reasons for changed practice were collected by a variety of methods. These included: (1) interviews with teachers prior to and, subsequently, annually during the professional development; (2) at least one annual observation of teacher's teaching and a post-teaching conversation about teacher's teaching; (3) statistical data collected from teacher completion of an instrument used to gauge teacher development in this project – the Chemistry Teacher Inventory (CTI) (Appendix) and (4) student completion of a student version of the Chemistry Classroom Inventory (CCI – not included with this submission). The focus of the interviews, observations, conversations and instrument completion and statistical analysis associated with the CTI was to determine how teachers were teaching and why they were teaching the way they were. 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 and 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, low-inference (Murray, 1999) teaching practices that influence (either positive or negative) student learning of chemistry.
The data collected from all three sources over the course of the project data indicated that teachers, overall, made a statistically significant movement towards a tetrahedral orientation and that teachers of Grade 12 were showing a more substantial movement towards a tetrahedral orientation despite placing considerably more emphasis on quantitative Chemistry, a characteristic of the Grade 12 curriculum. What was noticeable from the statistical and interpretive comments and the classroom observations of some Grade 12 teachers, in contrast to the other teachers, was their retention of a more ‘restrictive’ chemistry education experience evidenced by little human element, microscopic and macroscopic experiences with retained emphasis on only the symbolic aspects of the Grade 12 subject. That is although teachers, overall, were providing students with an increased emphasis on the symbolic and quantitative in Grade 12, these teachers were doing this with a significant reduction in attention to any reference to the macroscopic, human element and microscopic dimensions. It was these teachers that became the focus of our puzzlement and the focus of this research. Despite the focus of the curriculum on a tetrahedral orientation, why were these teachers maintaining a narrowed very content-oriented experience with heavy reliance on the symbolic level in their teaching of Grade 12? What was informing teachers' Chemistry teaching practice during the implementation phase of this new Chemistry curriculum? Does teacher's thinking demonstrate the ‘deliberating about alternatives’ between ‘curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived’ (Aoki, 1987)? How and why do these teachers respond as they do when faced with these alternatives?
Because we sought to understand the nature of their position in the space between curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-enacted, a variety of data were collected to provide validity to the relationship between practice and beliefs. These included document analysis, classroom observations and teacher self- and student-reporting on each teacher's practice. The first researcher sighted and engaged with each teacher in discussion around the outline for both their Grade 11 and 12 Chemistry subjects with special emphasis on the assessment focus for each year level. Of interest to us as researchers was determining which of the dimensions of the tetrahedral orientation was most emphasized in assessment. Based upon the prior analysis of the CTI, we assumed, and correctly, that for these three teachers, the Grade 12 assessment, in contrast to Grade11, would predominantly focus on the most abstract dimension of the tetrahedron, the symbolic and that this would be increasingly evidenced in Grade 12 in summative assessments such as unit tests and exams. Further classroom observations and post-observation discussions would focus on the pedagogical practice of classrooms. This amounted to three observations each of both Grade 11 and 12 classes over a three week period in the final month of the Chemistry subject at a time that was convenient for both the teachers and the researchers. In the observations, the authors used the CTI was to monitor the breadth and frequency of teacher actions. Further, a week prior to each classroom observation, teachers completed the CTI. As well, before the second observation students completed the CCI. In the third interview, teachers were asked to comment on students' response to their teaching as evidenced in their CCI completion (Table 1). Although the collated data only from students' completion of the CCI is included here, we do provide one example of one teacher's (Lyle) CTI for his Grade 11 class in the Appendix. After each lesson observation the first author conducted follow-up interviews with each teacher that focused upon their practice and the reasons for their practice. The interviews were, on average, one hour long and were conducted from a phenomenological methodological stance where we sought for teachers to describe their teaching free from our hypotheses or preconceptions (Husserl, 1970). The teachers were asked, with little intervention, to consider the lesson observed and, most importantly, their reasoning behind the emphasis and action in the lesson, especially in relation to the tetrahedral orientation of the curriculum. The interview questions asked were: (1) in this lesson, giving consideration to the (intended) curriculum's emphasis, what has informed your decision about was enacted? (2) Do you experience tensions in enacting this curriculum and, if so, what tensions? and (3) How do you work to resolve any tensions that might arise as a result of a difference between curriculum as it is intended and how it is enacted? All interviews were transcribed and verified as accurate by the participants. As suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (2007), the transcribed data were then coded around the schemes of (1) identified actions, (2) reasons for actions and (3) tensions associated with such actions.
Teacher | Grade number of students | Item 12 students perform calculations | Item 14 students are required to know what a formula means before calculation | Item 17 on tests students perform calculations | Item 19 students complete problems from texts or other textual material | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student suggested change | Student suggested change | Student suggested change | Student suggested change | ||||||||||
+ | 0 | − | + | 0 | − | + | 0 | − | + | 0 | − | ||
John | G 11 (n = 21) | 9 | 9 | 3 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 4 |
G 12 (n = 19) | 6 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 15 | 1 | |
Lyle | G 11 (n = 16) | 2 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 2 |
G 12 (n = 12) | 1 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
Helen | G 11 (n = 23) | 9 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
G 12 (n = 25) | 5 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 7 |
In the section that follows, because of space constraints, we provide a description of the focus of one of the three Grade 12 lessons observed and an abbreviated account of the interviews that followed for both the three Grade 11 and 12 observations, especially with reference to the comparison between the information provided by the CCI and CTI completion. In the vignettes we purposely try to focus on each teacher's (1) actions, (2) reasons for actions and (3) tensions associated with such actions.
Our post-teaching conversations with John focused on seeking to understand what had informed his decision about was enacted and to identify any tensions experienced in enacting this curriculum. In this conversation we, in addition, discussed students' responses to his teaching as documented through the CCI. In the table below those items of the CCI that pertain to, primarily, the symbolic teaching emphases are listed. These include (1) students perform calculations; (2) students are required to know what a formula means before calculating; (3) on tests students perform calculations; and (4) students complete problems from texts or other textual material. For each item, the number of students of each of the three teachers preferring an increase (+), no change (o) or decrease (−) in this teaching behavior is recorded.
In John's Grade 11 class (Table 1), the majority of students did not seek reduction in his emphasis on those behaviors primarily associated with the symbolic. In fact, most students preferred for him to retain his current emphasis on this or increase its emphasis. In contrast, the majority of students in Grade 12 sought no change to his current emphasis. John's comments repeatedly made mention of “expectations”.
Our students are all geared towards university and many of them are off to top universities in North America under full scholarship. The expectations for them are high, primarily from their families and the school as a whole. But they place just as high expectations on themselves. I don't think I set a tone that is different than what they want. The expectations are high and we work towards that. It doesn't surprise me [that they so not seek change as indicated in Table 1]. I am surprised by the Grade 11s though. It says something when they want more emphasis [on the symbolic]. What is the message there [he asks rhetorically]. They have it figured out – haven't they [referring to the emphasis on the symbolic]!
In the conversations around priorities, John described his emphasis in Grade 11 in respect to the intended curriculum and its tetrahedral orientation.
The Grade 11 course focuses on developing a deep understanding of the nature of matter, especially from a practical [macroscopic] emphasis. The [Grade 11] subject requires students to think conceptually about matter [at the microscopic level] and how this relates to what we see macroscopically. There is a strong emphasis on formal practical work to ensure they can perform procedures [manipulative laboratory skills] but, overall, it is highly conceptual focusing on links [amongst the dimensions of the tetrahedron]. I don't do as much at the applications [human element] level. It all builds a foundation for their future, not just Grade 12 but university and future careers as well.
In explaining the difference between Grade 11 and 12 [as indicated in his Table 1 data], John, again, repeatedly mentioned how he adjusted the curriculum's tetrahedral intent to privilege the symbolic, especially the quantitative, components of the Grade 12 curriculum.
I realize the change the students have experienced [moving from Grade 11 to 12], but I do forewarn them. Year 12 was going to be different and even though the [intended] curriculum was saying otherwise [with its tetrahedral orientation], I knew my [implemented] curriculum had to prepare them for [university and careers] chemistry. They have to be well-equipped to work mathematically, and that's where the emphasis has to be. I know what will help them long term and it has to come from a deep understanding of not just the molecular occurrences but more importantly how this is represented at that symbolic level. They have to think and understand the meaning of equations and formulae and what they represent. If they just do it blindly they are sunk. I know they have confidence in me to help them negotiate what is ahead. In fact, they don't want it to be easy.
John described tensions associated with the new curriculum and how he negotiated the interface between curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived.
I think the [intended] curriculum [over the two years] gives a good message. Students need to be exposed to all dimensions, but, more importantly, see how they interconnect. I get that. But, I have to think about my students and their futures and Chemistry overall. The de-emphasis on the symbolic, and especially the quantitative, in Grade 12, I think, is not appropriate for my students. I want them to do exceptionally well whatever science-related career they choose and they need to have a real deep understanding of why we do what we do [especially in working with the symbolic in Chemistry]. They get why I put the emphasis where I do. They know they are prepared.
Our post-teaching conversations with Lyle focused on seeking to understand what had informed his decision about was enacted and to identify any tensions experienced in enacting this curriculum. In particular, with Lyle we focused on the opposition students were indicating towards his teaching (as evidenced in the CCI item responses in contrast to Lyle's own comments), again primarily associated with expectations.
Our [rural] school enrolments are low in the sciences and we can't lose subjects like chemistry and physics and we are encouraged to allow students into Chemistry that might not really belong. In this community everyone wants their kids to do well and have every opportunity – and that's alright. So I'm expected to make that allowance and I do make that allowance. The new curriculum is really supportive of that. A lot of the students aren't that good with mathematics so the curriculum is really palatable. You can see it by their response [to Grade 11]. We discuss that the majority of students seek no change in his emphasis on the symbolic in Grade 11 and, in contrast, the request for reduced emphasis in Grade 12.
In the conversations around priorities, Lyle described his emphasis in Grade 11 in respect to the intended curriculum and its tetrahedral orientation.
They really enjoy the year. It mainly shows up in my assessment. I am not so test-driven, even though that is what really counts. I have to make sure though the marks don't get inflated because it really changes in Grade 12. Next year will be different. I know we are trying to be inclusive and all, but that's not really what is about. The curriculum has changed and the PD has really encouraged me to adjust and I have, but next year will stay pretty much the same. Students need to be prepared for university [and STEM-related studies] and the curriculum focus is a bit soft. I would put [more] emphasis on some of the things it emphasizes. It's been quite a shift in approach. I am not sure about the quality of the teaching, but students have been more engaged. Not sure if they are learning the right things though.
In explaining the difference between Grade 11 and 12, Lyle, again, repeatedly mentioned how he adjusted the curriculum's tetrahedral intent to privilege the symbolic, especially the quantitative, components of the Grade 12 curriculum.
There are some [infers two or three] students who are now heading off to [STEM-related studies] at university. Every year I hear from parents that their children are finding Chemistry [in first year] a challenge and it always has to do with the quantitative-symbolic stuff. I just can't let the Grade 12 year not emphasize that. We do some labs and stuff but it pretty well focuses on their ability to do the mathematical parts. Just the Ka section today could take three periods…which equation to use…how to write equations based upon the word problems. Having that as a focus is imperative.
Lyle described tensions associated with the new curriculum and how he negotiated the interface between curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived.
[Student] asked, “Did something happen to you over the summer?”. “What do you mean?”, I said. He went on about how last year was different and now he just felt he didn't belong in chemistry [in Year 12]. Well, he didn't really belong in Year 11 either. It's a real problem both for me and them. You want to give them every possibility and make allowances but they aren't really cut out for Chemistry. And the school wants us to make the allowance and parents believe they are geniuses. Then you're on the chopping block if the top ones struggle when they get to first year. I guess what ends up happening, overall, is my attempt to balance the demands as best I can. I can see [from the results] the dissatisfaction. I know that. I understand that.
Our post-teaching conversations with Helen focused on seeking to understand what had informed her decision about what was enacted and to identify any tensions experienced in enacting this curriculum. Similar to Lyle we focused on the opposition students were indicating towards her teaching (as evidenced in the Table 1 CCI item responses in contrast to Helen's own comments), again primarily associated with expectations.
Helen's comments also made mention of “expectations”.
It has been a shift in emphasis and really [over the years] I haven't thought about adjusting my practice. I just thought it all had to be quantitative all the way through as that is what really counts. But the PD and everything has just made me realize this is a much better learning experience. I can't disregard what ultimately counts, but I can adjust it. [It has been] just a broader range of experiences over, especially, Grade 11 with more focus on the symbolic in [Grade] 12. [in response to the CCI data], I think we do well in Grade 11. It's a good balance but in 12 it becomes more of an issue. We talk a lot about the increased emphasis on [the symbolic] and I think I help them to navigate this. I'm not being a barrier. I'm working with them towards what is ahead and they respond ok to that.
In the conversations around priorities, Helen described her emphasis in Grade 11 in respect to the intended curriculum and its tetrahedral orientation.
It was a bit of a stretch for me to adjust the Grade 11 course, but this year I do what I know is best for them. I can see this approach just helps them engage more and assist in their learning. The teachers I work with are pretty open to the change as long as we don't change Grade 12 too much. There's a lot more interest in the subject and I know students are understanding it better. I'm teaching it better. There is much more preparatory work but it's a much better experience for students.
In explaining the difference between Grade 11 and 12, Helen, again, repeatedly mentioned how she adjusted the curriculum's tetrahedral intent to privilege the symbolic, especially the quantitative, components of the Grade 12 curriculum.
The focus still needs to be on the symbolic. I know I reduce the focus on the other levels [macroscopic, human element, microscopic] in Grade 12, but they still are there. The students know that Grade 12 is the real “sifter”. They want to get a good pass in Chemistry just to keep their options open and as long as they don't get overwhelmed, they stay with it. I think they all get a very realistic exposure to what might be ahead and some of them decide the sciences may not be for them, at least areas that require Chemistry. Not all of them, but there are 3 or 4 going to university [into STEM areas] and that is what matters. I sometimes wonder if we should have another chemistry subject, but then that wouldn't be Chemistry.
Helen described tensions associated with the new curriculum and how she negotiated the interface between curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived.
I am really comfortable with what the focus of the curriculum. I actually feel better about my teaching [because of it and aligning my teaching with it]; it's truer or at least I am truer to myself. I know the students are less engaged [in Grade 12] and what we are doing is more technical, but I know the learning focus will serve them well for the future. Is it harder, yes! Was I softer last year? Yes! They understand that this is what is required next year. My [two teaching of Chemistry colleagues] who were not involved in the PD have taken on board a more open approach to Grade 11 but we are still pretty restrictive in Grade 12. They understand what I'm doing [in diversifying my practice] and there are tensions around common assessments, but I'm ok with not pushing my wheel-barrow [for increased emphasis on molecular, human element and macroscopic]. The assessment hasn't really changed [for Grade 12 with continued reliance on symbolic–quantitative aspects]. In the end, it just isn't as important.
Overall, the interview data revealed that as teachers of Chemistry, John, Lyle and Helen all perceive developing preparedness for university study in their students to be a large part of their role, consistent with Denessen's ‘content-centered approach’ (1999), with its focus on future goals. Their pedagogical decisions are influenced by this imperative, which shapes the enacted curriculum in their classroom. In turn, and in light of the ‘preparedness’ imperative, the resultant enacted curriculum is used by the teachers to evaluate the ‘strength’ of the intended curriculum with its advocacy for a tetrahedral learning experience. Furthermore, the interview excerpts show that teachers perceive mastery over the symbolic and/or quantitative elements of the Chemistry curriculum to be a key feature of preparedness. For example, Helen clearly states that despite the tetrahedral orientation of the intended curriculum, the need for students to attain mastery over the symbolic dimension is central to her pedagogical decisions as a teacher of Chemistry; she states “I can't disregard what ultimately counts, but I can adjust it.” Helen goes on to emphasise the change in her approach from Year 11 to Year 12, with the need to expand the orientation to the symbolic as students move into Year 12 as she “know[s] what is best for them”. In this instance, Helen is drawing out a key feature of the macrosystem which impacts on the enacted Chemistry curriculum – the need to develop preparedness for university study. At this point, it is useful to recall Fensham's (2009) note that for too long science educators have been naïve to the interplay between policy and the range of stakeholders that influence what is ‘taught’ in science classrooms. In her statement “she knows what is best”, Helen gestures to a set of curriculum messages that reach beyond the expectations explicated in the curriculum. It is argued here that, while not explicitly articulated, the curriculum is imbued with a range of socio-political imperatives for teaching Chemistry – a range of strategic reasons for students to have the ‘opportunity’ to study Chemistry, and then to actually participate in the study of Chemistry, in the socio-political context of a curriculum marketplace. These socio-political imperatives work strongly to influence the enacted curriculum and, in doing so, differences between the enacted curriculum and the intended curriculum arise.
‘University preparedness’ as Fensham (2009) asserts is a socio-political imperative that also shaped the enacted curriculum in John's classroom. In the interview data, John articulated a heightened awareness of the socio-political imperative of developing preparedness for university study in his Chemistry students; he states “I have to think about my students and their futures and Chemistry overall. The de-emphasis on the symbolic, and especially the quantitative, in Grade 12, I think, is not appropriate for my students”. In making this statement, John alludes to his understanding of what his students ‘need’ and that, once again, these needs reach outside those of the intended curriculum. Moreover, the development of university–preparedness, as a meta-cognitive awareness in his students, is also valued; John states “they get why I put the emphasis where I do, [the students] know they are prepared”. Such a statement indicates that despite the students not having completed university level studies in Chemistry themselves, they bring with them an understanding of the demands of university level Chemistry – in other words, John's students bring a store of academic and cultural capital to their studies of Chemistry. These capitals shape the expectations held by teachers and parents and underpin the imperative for the development of university preparedness.
In contrast to the imperative for developing university preparedness described by both Helen and John, Lyle's interview data described different socio-political imperatives for students studying Chemistry in his school setting. Largely, these imperatives were underpinned by community aspirations for “their kids to do well and have every opportunity”. Here, Lyle alludes to a broad awareness in the community about the options that the successful completion of secondary school Chemistry opens up for students. The awareness of Chemistry's strategic value does not escape Helen who, when describing her students reasons for studying Chemistry, states “they want to get a good pass in Chemistry just to keep their options open”. In the excerpts from both Lyle and Helen, the imperatives to facilitate both ‘aspiration’ and ‘opportunity’ in their students shape the enacted curriculum in their classrooms. Moreover, the socio-political imperative of ‘opportunity’ extends to ensuring that the enabling sciences, such as Chemistry and Physics, continue to be offered in his school setting, despite dwindling enrolments. In order to provide this opportunity, Lyle states “we are encouraged to allow students into Chemistry that might not really belong”. As a consequence of providing this ‘opportunity’, Lyle states that he “makes allowances” and adjusts his approach to teaching Chemistry accordingly. Lyle reports that the tetrahedral orientation of the curriculum supports the students for whom he is making allowances – those who might be regarded as non-traditional students of Chemistry. However, Lyle also makes a statement that speaks to the heart of the issue for Chemistry teachers operating in a socio-political context under tension: “I know we are trying to be inclusive and all, but that's not really what it is about … Students need to be prepared for university [and STEM-related studies] and the curriculum focus is a bit soft”. Lyle's position is echoed by Helen who states that “Grade 12 is the real sifter”. In these statements, both Helen and Lyle epitomize the tensions involved in the teaching of Chemistry – they both indicate that it is possible to facilitate the development of ‘aspirations’ and ‘opportunities’, but only to a point. Tensions arise as these imperatives for inclusion through a student-centred approach (Denessen, 1999) are held by the teachers to conflict with the imperative for ‘university preparedness’ with its focus on content acquisition (Marginson et al., 2013). Here, the conflicting purpose for a Chemistry education comes to the fore. An inclusive approach (facilitated by student-centred pedagogy) is regarded as synonymous with an academically deficient approach which does not facilitate the development of discipline mastery (often facilitated by a content-centred approach). Instead, the perceived purpose of an inclusive approach is to develop student engagement over and above the development of discipline mastery. Once again, the teacher statements in this study indicate that the imperatives of ‘preparedness’ and ‘opportunity’ are held in a discursive binary, implying that they perceive it is not possible to develop both mastery and engagement within the one curriculum framework.
What is clear is that Chemistry, as a subject in a secondary school curriculum marketplace, is more than a domain of complex scientific knowledge (Marginson, 1997; Teese, 2000; Teese and Polesel, 2003; Teese, 2007). Chemistry, too, is imbued with a range of sophisticated socio-political functions – on one hand, Chemistry serves as a strategic pre-requisite or “sifter” to university entrance, while on the other hand, the opportunity to engage with the study of Chemistry enables all students with access to the Innovation agenda, which underpins the economic transformations underway in developed countries across the globe. Both the teachers, and the resultant enacted Chemistry curriculum, are squeezed by these socio-political tensions. The intended curriculum, with its tetrahedral orientation, was developed with a view to encouraging and supporting all students, including non-traditional students, in the study of Chemistry. Encouraging more students to participate in the enabling sciences is an imperative evident in the Innovation policy agendas of countries such as Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom and Australia (for example, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; United Kingdom Council for Science and Technology, 2012). However, the teachers in this study have positioned the goal of inclusion such that it sits at odds with the role Chemistry plays as a strategic pre-requisite and a “sifter”. The Chemistry teachers, then, attempt to reconcile these perceived tensionalities through differential pedagogical decisions enacted in their classrooms as students move from Year 11 to Year 12.
The challenges teachers face in attempting to reconcile these perceived tensions resulting from the macrosystem imperatives of ‘preparedness’ and ‘opportunity’ is exemplified in a statement made by Lyle. One of his students felt that something had changed between Year 11 and Year 12, and that “he didn't belong in Chemistry [in Year 12]” and that “something had happened to him over the summer [holidays between Grade 11 and 12]. In response, Lyle stated “well, he [the student] didn't really belong in Year 11 either. It's a real problem both for me and them. You want to give them every possibility and make allowances but they aren't really cut out for Chemistry. And the school wants us to make the allowance and parents believe they are geniuses. Then you're on the chopping block if the top ones struggle when they get to first year. I guess what ends up happening, overall, is my attempt to balance the demands as best I can.” Here, Lyle is implying that the pedagogical choices he makes will work to disadvantage either the traditional students (who are positioned to benefit from a content-centred approach in order to achieve discipline mastery) or the non-traditional students (who are positioned to benefit from a student-centred approach in order to achieve engagement with the discipline) of Chemistry in his class. In other words, Lyle is attempting to balance the imperative for ‘opportunity’ with the imperative for ‘university preparedness’ – a task which he finds problematic. Lyle's position is echoed by Helen who states “I sometimes wonder if we should have another Chemistry subject, but then that wouldn't be Chemistry”.
Although there is much more to drawn from the qualitative and quantitative data presented here, of considerable interest to us is that the actions of the teachers involved in this study and the explanation for these actions demonstrates the influence beliefs have on teacher behaviors in the classroom (Pajares, 1992). Also apparent in the data is the influence that epistemological beliefs about the nature of Chemistry have on teacher's teaching of chemistry. The beliefs that individuals hold about the nature of knowledge are referred to as epistemological beliefs (Tsai, 2002, 2007). In the narratives, we see evidence that teachers' pedagogic decision is potentially influenced, not just by the socio-political imperatives, but also by their own epistemological beliefs about the nature of Chemistry. Lyle and Helen provide some indication that that the symbolic-quantitative dimension of the tetrahedron, for them, is chemistry. Helen asserts, “I sometimes wonder if we should have another chemistry subject, but then that wouldn't be Chemistry”. Her statement suggests that chemistry, by nature, is about, and potentially limited to or at least defined by, the symbolic. Similarly, Lyle asserts, “Not sure if they are learning the right things though”. The priorities of their classroom, especially in terms of what vertices of the tetrahedron are privileged, become represented in their teaching and assessment practices, and appear to be grounded in their beliefs regarding the very nature of Chemistry. We see John's view of Chemistry different from that of Lyle and Helen. His comment, “students need to be exposed to all dimensions, but, more importantly, see how they interconnect. I get that. But, I have to think about my students and their futures and Chemistry overall”, indicates to us, an understanding of Chemistry that is more consistent epistemologically with the nature of Chemistry. His emphasis on the symbolic is not based upon a belief that it is Chemistry but, moreso, what needs to be emphasized in terms of preparedness. John's assertions correspond with Taber's claim that dealing with the ‘complexity’ of chemistry requires teachers to ‘slow the pace’ to provide sufficient opportunities through a range of contexts that include macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representation and [contextual] application (2013). Despite this recognition of the ‘complex’ nature of chemistry, for all teachers their emphasis clearly indicates a reasoned privileging of the symbolic, especially as a perceived means of preparation for and success in tertiary study.
When we started this study, we used Aoki's reference to tensionality (1986) to elucidate the tensions teachers experienced in working in the space between curriculum-as-required and curriculum-as-lived. Aoki reminds us that a teacher's pedagogic position is a living in tensionality – a tension that emerges, in part, from the indwelling in a zone between two curriculum worlds: the worlds of curriculum-as-plan and curriculum-as-lived experience (p. 159). Within this binary, one does not seek to extinguish the tensions but to dwell aright in them. It is the difference that really matters and one's attunement to these differences does not require one to eliminate the tensions but, instead, allow for the complexity of such binaries to exist and not be contradictions or polarized points of view. Our participants give evidence that they do dwell aright in them, making what they believe are wise and prudent judgments. They ‘deliberate about alternatives’ giving evidence to the complex and conflicting pedagogical demands Chemistry teacher's experience in the space between curriculum-as-intended and curriculum-as-lived, especially in responding to one that calls for a pedagogy requiring a diversified teaching and learning experience – a learning experience that some teachers would question is ‘worthwhile’ for their students, especially as they pursue university study and STEM-related careers.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 |