Teaching and learning in science

The quality teaching literature discussed so far focuses on generic ideas of what works in quality teaching without referencing particular disciplines. Yet, there is considerable support for the idea that disciplines like those in the sciences have their own

approaches to quality teaching. This is shaped by the specific knowledge underpinning disciplines. The growing literature around threshold concepts also supports the notion that discipline content impacts on how quality teaching is practised. Threshold

concepts are ‘akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something’ (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 1). Threshold concepts belong in a discipline, focus on disciplinary understandings and have the ability to transform learners’ views of the content. Quality teaching brings learners through a liminal space to the threshold of new understanding in the discipline.

However, a range of views debate the extent disciplines influence quality teaching. Some researchers emphasise generic principles of quality teaching (Chickering & Gamson, 1987); others recognize differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ disciplines (Kember & Leung, 2011; Krause, 2012); others again see disciplines central to

understanding quality (Meyer & Land, 2003), or understand sub-disciplinary influences and even individual professor-student relationships as critical factors (Becher &

Trowler, 2001; Gross et al., 2015). One way forward in this debate is that quality

teaching in the sciences draws on both generic pedagogical and specific subject related ideas (or discipline knowledge translated for student understanding—known as

pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987)). Wittgenstein’s metaphor of family resemblances across the science disciplines seems useful here for considering the natural sciences collectively (Trowler, 2014).

There is a large body of research on science education in the schools sector but less in the post-secondary sector. Across all sectors there are some science relevant teaching strategies that have been well researched including the use of demonstrations,

explanations, questioning, scientific reasoning and representational learning (Treagust & Tsui, 2014). Such strategies are widely used in the university sector but the

effectiveness with which they are used varies. For example, questioning has been found to be most effective when it involves peer discussion (Smith et al., 2009). Representational learning—analogies and metaphors, visualisations, and model-based learning—is widespread but again its effectiveness depends on how well the teacher can translate discipline knowledge for student understanding (pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987)). Interestingly, a recent Australian study explored the

notion of pedagogical content knowledge among science lecturers in higher education and found they thought it a potentially useful concept for understanding and

enhancing their understanding of quality teaching (Fraser, 2015).

Much of the research in schools is transferable to higher education, for example, Bayerl (2007) embedded literacy skills in coursework and introduced an interactive science notebook originally from a secondary school to early college in the USA as preparation for college. As discipline focus increases in higher education, so does the importance of learning discipline related attitudes, values and beliefs (Coppola & Krajcik, 2013; Entwistle, 2005). In their analysis of contemporary teaching approaches, Slavich and Zimbardo (2012) proposed a transformational teaching model describing the theoretical underpinnings and strategies involved for developing these learning related attitudes, values and beliefs. As discipline practitioners, university staff possess these skills but little is known about if, or how, these skills are taught in universities or in specific disciplines.

Advocates for reform of undergraduate science education often refer to ‘scientific teaching’ or evidence-based teaching in an attempt to encourage university staff to change from traditional teacher-centred to more effective student-centred active learning strategies (Handelsman et al., 2004). For example, a large and comprehensive meta-analysis of 225 studies compared lecturing and active learning approaches in undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses (Freeman et al., 2014; Wieman, 2014). This showed that active learning increased student achievement in all STEM disciplines. Similarly, undergraduate programmes including laboratory- based research projects have been shown to enhance student learning gains compared with laboratory courses without a research component (Brownell & Kloser, 2015; Lopatto et al., 2008). Despite this evidence, adoption of such practices in many universities has been slow (Handelsman et al., 2004).

In light of the slow uptake of student-centred and active learning in undergraduate science education, it is important to explore the conceptions of quality teaching in undergraduate science held by science lecturers as these influence their teaching practice. A relationship between teachers’ beliefs about their discipline and their

beliefs about teaching and learning has also been identified (Åkerlind, 2008; Van Driel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2007). There are few science discipline-specific studies of university lecturers’ conceptions of teaching. A recent questionnaire-based study of 47 university teachers in the biosciences in Finland showed teachers’ views of teaching were largely based on becoming an expert in the biosciences discipline (Virtanen & Lindblom- Ylänne, 2010) with most regarding their role as guiding students to think and practice in the ways of that discipline. These university teachers viewed learning as changing one’s view of a phenomenon.

There are calls for reforms in undergraduate science teaching but few signs of moving to student-centred teaching. Research on science lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning is very sparse and suggests science lecturers’ views are based on the students they teach becoming discipline experts. Further research on lecturers’ views on teaching and learning and the lack of change is warranted to fill this gap.