Res Sci Educ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9743-6

Practical Work in Science Education: Study of Different Contexts of Pedagogic Practice Sílvia Ferreira 1

& Ana M. Morais

1

# Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract The study investigates differentiated teaching practices of practical work in distinct social contexts and with different experienced teachers, at the level of the Portuguese high school science education. Four teaching practices were analysed in terms of the level of complexity of both scientific knowledge and cognitive skills and in terms of their structural and interactional characteristics, i.e. the nature of the sociological relations between subjects and discourses. The study is epistemologically, psychologically and sociologically grounded, particularly on Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse. Four teachers and their 10th grade Biology and Geology classes of four distinct public schools were selected. The results showed that the social context of the school together with teachers’ academic qualification and professional development seems to influence science teachers’ practices in practical work contexts. Schools placed in the lower levels of national external assessment and also whose students came from social sectors with fewer resources showed to have teachers’ practices characterised by lower levels of complexity of both scientific knowledge and cognitive skills, a valuing of the horizontal discourse and implicit evaluation criteria. The conceptualization and procedures of the study followed a rigorous approach that may be transferred to other studies. Keywords Practical work . Science education . Social context . Pedagogic practices

Introduction Practical work in science education is a unique resource to the learning of scientific knowledge and processes, to the development of important tools and cognitive skills and to enhance students’ motivation (Hofstein 2017; Hofstein and Lunetta 2004; Lunetta et al. 2007; Osborne

* Sílvia Ferreira [email protected] Ana M. Morais [email protected]

1

UIDEF, Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-013 Lisbon, Portugal

Res Sci Educ

2015). Following several authors, practical work is considered as a relatively broad concept, going beyond laboratory work, and includes activities in which the students are actively involved and interact with materials or with secondary sources of data (Hodson 1993; Lunetta et al. 2007). Used properly, practical work should be an integral part of science syllabuses, pedagogic practices and assessment. Especially since the 1960s, this science education area has been the object of study of a great diversity of investigations, although many results of such investigations have been under criticism. Some studies presented several methodological weaknesses in terms of science education research, as for example in the selection and control of variables, in the size of the sample and in the instruments selected for the research (Hofstein and Lunetta 1982). Other studies showed that the mere doing of practical work is not sufficient for enabling students to understand the complexity of the knowledge accepted by the contemporary scientific community. In order to overcome these problems and speaking specifically of laboratory activities, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) state that Bwell-designed science laboratory activities focused on inquiry can provide learning opportunities that help students develop concepts and frameworks of concepts^ and that those activities Balso provide important opportunities to help students learn to investigate, to construct scientific assertions, and to justify those assertions.^ In order to achieving such goals, Bthe education system must provide time and opportunity for teachers to interact with their students and also time for students to perform and reflect on complex, investigative tasks^ (p. 47). The study is focused on the Portuguese educational system and within it on the high school discipline of Biology and Geology1 (ages 16−–17+) for 10th and 11th grades’ students. The curriculum of this discipline considers practical work as a broad concept that comprises various kinds of activities, ranging from paper and pencil activities to activities that require lab use or field trips. Furthermore, that curriculum highlights the importance of practical work to a point that, in the academic year of 2007/2008, it was determined that formal moments of practical work assessment should take place with a weight of 30% of the evaluation of students’ achievement. In order that curricular changes are transferred into the classroom, they need to be incorporated into teachers’ practices. Notwithstanding the intervention of other educational agents (parents and other members of the community), the teacher has a central role in the implementation of any project of change. Having this in mind, the present study was focused on the practical work implemented in the discipline of Biology and Geology and intended to investigate the practices of four teachers teaching in distinct social contexts. The study is part of a broader investigation that also analysed practical work in the curriculum and in external assessment of that discipline, in particular its level of complexity (conceptual demand). The results of that investigation showed that practical work is poorly represented in both texts and that recontextualising processes have occurred within the curriculum and between the curriculum and external assessment, in the direction of lowering the level of conceptual demand of practical work (Ferreira and Morais 2013, 2014). The study also followed former research developed by the ESSA Group.2 Although the study has incorporated research perspectives

1

Biology and Geology, although epistemologically distinct, have traditionally been part of the same discipline in Portugal (often but not always called Natural Sciences). Teachers’ training is also directed to both subjects as a discipline. 2 The ESSA Group – Sociological Studies on the Classroom – is a research group of the Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, which emphasizes the sociological perspective in science education research, .

Res Sci Educ

from the fields of epistemology and psychology, Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (1990) has provided the main theoretical framework. The main sociological characteristics of the modality of pedagogic practice that the ESSA Group research (e.g. Morais and Neves 2011, 2016) have shown to be fundamental for students’ scientific literacy are related to the complexity of scientific knowledge and cognitive skills, at the level of the what is taught, and also to the nature of the sociological relations between subjects, discourses and spaces in classroom contexts (structural and interactional characteristics), at the level of the how it is taught. For this reason, some of these characteristics were selected to study practical work contexts in high school science classrooms. The study addresses the following research problem: what is the influence of the social context of the school on science teachers’ practices, in terms of the structural and interactional characteristics of the practices and of the level of complexity of knowledge and skills they promote, specifically in the case of practical work contexts. This problem originated the following specific objectives: (a) characterise schools’ social context and teachers’ academic qualification and professional experience, (b) determine the specific and various structural and interactional characteristics of practices and (c) determine the level of complexity of knowledge and skills of practical work. The study addresses a further important objective related to the methodological dimension which is evidenced on analyses of aspects of multiple faceted pedagogic practices.

Theoretical Framework The study intended to interrelate concepts from the areas of sociology, psychology and science teaching to obtain models of analysis that blurred the boundaries between fields of educational knowledge that have traditionally been strongly classified. The theoretical framework of this study followed therefore a multidisciplinary perspective. As Osborne and Dillon (2010) state, education is a multi-disciplinary profession, drawing as it does on the more fundamental disciplines of psychology – to inform us about the nature of individuals and the learning process; on philosophy – to inform us about the nature of the science we teach and the aims and values we espouse; on history – as a treasure trove of case studies of how people have dealt with, and responded to similar issues in the past; and last, but not least, on sociology – which informs us about the dynamics of the society in which we are situated and the values and concerns of the interested participants. In short, education is a complex act, informed by many domains of knowledge, imbued with values and an act to which there is more than can be learnt in a lifetime. (p. 2)

Practical Work Practical work performs an important role in the science teaching and learning processes (e.g. Hodson 1993; Hofstein 2017; Hofstein and Lunetta 2004; Lunetta et al. 2007) and ‘when undertaken appropriately, it offers students opportunity to experience the activity of enquiry’ (Osborne 2015, p. 16). The term practical work has been used in multiple ways in the science education literature. For example, Hodson (1993) considers practical work as a broad concept, which includes any activity that requires students to be active. Millar et al. (1999) present a more limited definition and consider practical work as Ball those kinds of learning activities in

Res Sci Educ

science which involve students at some point handling or observing real objects or materials (or direct representations of these, in a simulation or video-recording)^ (p. 36). Likewise, Lunetta et al. (2007) give the following definition of practical work: Blearning experiences in which students interact with materials or with secondary sources of data to observe and understand the natural world^ (p. 394), for example, the observation of aerial photographs to examine lunar and earth geographic features. The meaning of practical work in the present study is closer to Lunetta et al. (2007) and is more precise than Hodson’s (1993), since that work must mobilise science processes skills. Practical work is defined as follows: all teaching and learning activities in the sciences in which the student is actively involved and that allow the mobilisation of science processes skills and scientific knowledge and that may be materialised by paper and pencil activities or observing and/or manipulating materials. The science process skills are considered to be ways of thinking more directly involved in scientific research, such as observing, formulating problems and hypotheses, controlling variables and, predicting (Chiappetta 1997; Duschl et al. 2007; Harlen 1999). As Chiappetta (1997, p. 24) states, science process skills Bfocus on thinking patterns that scientists use to construct knowledge, represent ideas, and communicate information.^ The conception of practical work followed in this study includes the inquiry-based activities where science process skills are mobilised. In inquiry-based activities, students follow methods that intend to simulate those of scientists in order to construct knowledge (Anderson 2007; Minner et al. 2010; Pedaste et al. 2015). As it is the case of practical activities, inquiry-based activities can range from teacher directed (structured and guided inquiry) to student directed (open inquiry), depending on the amount of information provided to the student (Bell et al. 2005; Zion et al. 2007). Chin and Malhotra (2002) present six fundamental cognitive processes that scientists engage in when they conduct authentic scientific research: (1) generating research questions; (2) designing a study to address the research question which involves several subprocesses as selecting variables, planning procedures, controlling variables and planning measures; (3) making observations; (4) explaining results which includes several important aspects as transforming observations, finding flaws, indirect reasoning, and generalisations; (5) developing theories; and (6) studying others’ research reports. These authors analysed inquiry tasks in nine textbooks written for upper-elementary and middle schools and they concluded that the inquiry activities in most textbooks developed few of the cognitive process of authentic science, that is, Bthe research that scientists actually carry out^ (p. 177). Those results are consistent with the results of Germann et al. (1996) study: the analysis of high school biology activities of nine textbooks showed that they rarely allow students to generate a question to be investigated, formulate a hypothesis to be tested, predict experimental results and plan a research. Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) in their research review noticed that several studies report that very often teachers involve students in low level and routine practical activities. Abrahams and Millar (2008) explored the effectiveness of practical work by analysing a sample of 25 science lessons involving specific practical tasks in eight English secondary schools. They concluded that the teachers’ focus in these practical lessons was predominantly on the teaching of substantive scientific knowledge rather than on the procedures of scientific inquiry. Although practical work has an important role in helping students to develop links between observations and ideas (Abrahams 2017), teachers did not relate observations and experiences to conceptual ideas nor did they develop students’ understanding of science processes. In addition, Hofstein

Res Sci Educ

(2017) claims that exist Ba mismatch between the goals articulated for the school science laboratory [and other practical activities] and what students regularly do in those experiences^ (p. 366). Students are not only expected to mobilise science process skills but also to learn scientific knowledge, both as high-order learning processes, whenever they are doing investigative practical activities. As Osborne (2015) defends, Bthere has to be a ‘minds-on’ component^ (p. 21). However, the usual practical activity in the classroom keeps being a hands-on but not a minds-on activity—it is essential to change the practice of Bmanipulating equipment and not ideas^ (Hofstein 2017, p. 366). For that reason, the nature and role of practical work in the science classroom call for further and perhaps different research. The authors believe that Bernstein’s theory provides a new gaze on the structural and interactional dimensions of the practical science classroom.

Pedagogic Practice—Bernstein’s Perspective Bernstein (1990, 2000) developed a model about the production and reproduction of pedagogic discourse in contemporaneous societies. The pedagogic practice that occurs in specific pedagogical social contexts, namely the classroom, is defined by specific power relations between subjects, discourses and spaces and by specific control relations between subjects. Any context of pedagogical interaction represents a given context of transmission and acquisition between a transmitter and an acquirer, with given power and control relations. The structural dimension of the classroom context is given by power relations between subjects, discourses and spaces. These relations may be characterised by distinct values of classification which refers to the strength of the boundaries and to the existence of hierarchies within each category. The classification will be stronger when the higher categories (e.g. the teacher) have more power over the lower categories (e.g. the students). At the level of the interactional dimension, the framing between subjects refers to the control they have on discursive and hierarchical rules—control relations. The discursive rules are related to the control that transmitters and acquirers may have in the process of transmission/acquisition and refer to selection, sequence, pacing and evaluation criteria. The hierarchical rules regulate the form of communication between subjects with distinct hierarchical positions as it is the case of teacher and students, namely the control that the subjects in interaction may have on the norms of social conduct. These relations may be characterised by distinct values of framing, which refers to the social relations between subjects, that is, the communication between them. The framing will be stronger when the higher categories (e.g. the teacher) have more control over the lower categories (e.g. the students). The pedagogic practice may correspond, at one end of the teaching/learning process, to a traditional model with strong classifications and framings, or at another extreme of the process, to a progressive model with weak classifications and framings; or, as Bernstein (1990) points out, to visible and invisible pedagogies, respectively. Between these two extremes, different modalities of pedagogic practice can be found according to different relations of power and control. The research developed by the ESSA Group (e.g. Morais and Neves 2011) has suggested a mixed pedagogic practice as favourable to the scientific learning of all students. The main sociological characteristics of that modality of pedagogic practice are the following: (1) student-limited control over selection and sequencing of knowledge, skills and classroom activities, namely at macro level (strong framing); (2) student control over the time of

Res Sci Educ

acquisition (weak framing); (3) clear explication of the knowledge and skills to be acquired in the context of the classroom (strong framing at the level of the evaluation criteria); (4) strong inter-relation between the various kinds of scientific knowledge (weak classification); (5) relation between students’ knowledge and experiences and the knowledge to be acquired, with higher status for the latter (weak framing at the level of the school-community relation); (6) personal relationships of communication between the teacher and the students (weak framing at the level of the hierarchical rules); and (7) blurring of the boundaries between the teacher-student and student-student spaces (weak classification). However, the specific characteristics of a pedagogic practice may change depending on some factors, such as the students’ age level, the level of education, the social constitution of the class and the stage of the teaching/learning process. Focused on the learning to read of Indigenous Australian students, Rose (2004) also identified some of these characteristics as favouring the weakening of the negative relation between social class and learning, namely the weak framing of pacing and the strong framing at the level of the evaluation criteria. The author also emphasises the importance of open communication relationships between the Australian indigenous communities and the school, which have led to significant improvements in the reduction of retention of these students and in their positive attitudes towards the school. In a more recent development of his theory, Bernstein (1999) analysed the discourses subject to pedagogic transformation: horizontal discourse and vertical discourse. The horizontal discourse corresponds to a form of knowledge which is segmentally organised and differentiated. This knowledge is related to the common sense knowledge. The vertical discourse, referred as school or official knowledge, presents the form of a coherent, explicit and hierarchically organised structure (hierarchical structures of knowledge), as in the case of natural sciences, or the form of a series of specialised languages (horizontal structures of knowledge), as in the case of social sciences. In the context of formal education, the distinction between the horizontal and vertical discourses corresponds to the distinction that is usually made between non-academic and academic knowledge. As part of the movement to make specialised knowledge more accessible to students, Bernstein (1999) calls the attention for segments of horizontal discourse that are being recontextualised and inserted in the content knowledge of school disciplines. In that case, the horizontal discourse may have a higher status than vertical discourse. The horizontal discourse may be seen as a crucial resource to fight the elitism and alleged authoritarism of the vertical discourse, being offered to the students an official context where it is spoken what is thought that students are. Thus, the most disadvantaged students tend to remain disadvantaged, as they continue to lack access to the legitimate text valued by society. As Young (2009) also refers, Bon the grounds of popular relevance or pupil interest, the opportunities that students have for acquiring systematic theoretical knowledge [in opposition to everyday knowledge] that cannot be acquired elsewhere [other than in the school] are restricted^ (p. 201). Bernstein’s theorising (1999) of structures of knowledge within the vertical discourse has been used to understand and to discuss the sociological meaning of conceptual demand of science education, i.e. the level of complexity of scientific education. Relating concepts of psychological and sociological areas, conceptual demand is defined ‘as the level of complexity of science education as given by the complexity of scientific knowledge and of the strength of intradisciplinary relations between distinct knowledges and also by the complexity of cognitive skills’ (Morais and Neves 2016, p. 177). According to Bernstein’s model of pedagogic discourse (Bernstein 1990, 2000), conceptual demand of science education includes aspects

Res Sci Educ

related to the what (skills and knowledge) and to the how (intradisciplinarity) of the pedagogic discourse. Following his theorization of structures of knowledge (Bernstein 1999), conceptual demand of science should not be lowered if it is intended that all students have access to the hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge. Several studies have suggested that the teacher tends to change the level of conceptual demand of his/her practices according to the social context of his/her school and have shown that the pedagogic practice may have a determinant effect on students’ scientific learning, even surpassing the effect of social class (e.g. Blanchard et al. 2010; Domingos 1989; Morais et al. 2004). In fact, the poor instructional quality contributes to the maintenance of social stratification (Smith et al. 2001). In sociological terms, Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (Bernstein 1990, 2000) and also Bernstein’s conceptualization (Bernstein 1999) about structures of knowledge have provided the main theoretical framework for the present study. The selection of this theory was due to its powers of description, explanation, diagnosis, prediction and transferability, providing a strong language of description of the empirical. Bernstein’s theory provides tools for the analysis and description of educational processes at different levels: interactions in the classroom; the construction of knowledge and its transformation into knowledge to be used in school; the analysis of the different fields, agencies and agents of the educational system; and, in his more recent work, the analysis of the fields of knowledge production. The studies focused on the pedagogic practices should also consider teachers’ knowledge and professional development (Park and Oliver 2008). The construction of teachers’ knowledge is an unfinished process, constantly changing throughout professional development. Effective professional development, according to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), is as structured professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvements in student learning outcomes.

Methodology The present study followed a research methodology that allowed the combination of aspects of both quantitative and qualitative approaches by using a mixed methodology (Creswell and Clark 2011; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). In this study, the two approaches are intrinsically interconnected at the distinct stages of the research.

Participants Four science teachers and their 10th grade Biology and Geology classes of four distinct public schools participated in the research, in the academic year of 2011/2012 (Table 1). Darwin and Mendel schools were located in the great metropolis (Lisbon) and Pasteur and Fleming schools were located in two distinct towns of the west coast of the country.3 The selection was mostly determined by the diversity of students’ sociological composition within and between the two regions4 and the school’s position in the national rankings, between 2009 and 2011.5 For each 3

All teacher and school names have been replaced with pseudonyms. The two regions correspond to two distinct NUTS 3 (Lisbon and West). ‘The NUTS classification (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) is a hierarchical system for dividing up the economic territory of the EU’ (Eurostat nd). 5 In Portugal high schools are ordered in an annual national ranking, according to students’ results in an external assessment. 4

Res Sci Educ Table 1 Brief characterisation of the schools and participant teachers Region

School

Academic degrees Students Teacher Years of National external teaching assessment position on free or experience reduced (2009 to 2011) lunch (%)

West Coast Darwin

Higher levels

19

Rute

38

Mendel

Lower levels

41

Sara

26

Pasteur

Higher levels

7

Vera

21

47

Marta

36

Lisbon

Fleming Lower levels

Undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching Undergraduate degree in Geology and in-service Science Education Undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching and master’s degree in Science Education Undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching

region, one of the schools was among the best positioned in the national external assessment results and the other was among the worst, either in the disciplines general ranking or in the Biology and Geology discipline ranking. Using a convenience sampling (Cohen et al. 2007), the four Biology and Geology teachers were selected within those that were available and accessible at the time of the study and that were teaching 10th grade classes.

Rute Rute was an experienced science teacher with 38 years of teaching experience, most of them in Darwin high school. She received an undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching and she was actively part of an environmental association. She attended some in-service sessions but had never felt the need to enrol in further graduate courses. Darwin school ranked at the highest levels of the national rankings, with results always above the national average. In 2011/2012, the school enrolled 1035 students, with 19% of the students on free or reduced lunch. Twenty-three students were enrolled in Rute’s Biology and Geology course (17 females and 6 males), with an average age of 15,5 years. Sara Sara was an experienced teacher with 26 years of teaching experience, most of them in Mendel high school. She received an undergraduate degree in Geology and started to teach Natural Sciences in middle school. She initiated a master degree in Environmental Geology but did not conclude it. She did in-service Science Education. At the time of the study, Sara was teaching Biology and Geology to 10th and 11th classes and she was coordinator of a health education project. Mendel school ranked at the lower levels of the national rankings. The school enrolled 783 students, with 41% on free or reduced lunch program. Twenty-three students were enrolled in Sara’s Biology and Geology course (14 females and 9 males), with an average age of 15.8 years. Vera Vera, with 21 years of teaching experience, taught Biology and Geology at Pasteur high school. She received an undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching and a master’s degree in Science Education. During 10 years, Vera was a higher education teacher and she was involved in teachers’ training and also in research projects. Following this, and for 5 years, Vera worked in the central services of the Ministry of Education. As a Pasteur school teacher, she

Res Sci Educ

collaborated in the recent years with higher education institutions and she was also at the time of the study a doctoral student of Science Education. Pasteur school was placed in the higher levels of the national external assessment rankings. In the academic year of the study, the school enrolled 1203 students, with only 7% on a free or reduced lunch program. The Vera’s class consisted of 16 males and 12 females, with an average age of 15.3 years.

Marta Marta was an experienced science teacher with 36 years of teaching experience, most of them in Fleming high school. She received an undergraduate degree in Biology Teaching and she collaborated with the university for several years by supervising students in her school within initial teacher training programmes. Fleming school was placed in the lower levels of the national external assessment rankings. In the academic year of the study, the school enrolled 1006 students, with 42% on a free or reduced lunch program. The Marta’s class consisted of 11 males and 11 females, with an average age of 15.3 years. Students The family context of each class was sociologically characterised through a questionnaire applied to students. The questions were focused on their father’s and mother’s, or representatives’, academic qualification and socio-professional indicators. At the level of academic qualification, Table 2 synthetises the results for each school class. Parents’ middle and high school levels prevailed in the classes of Darwin, Mendel and Fleming schools, whereas most parents received a university degree in Pasteur school’s class. The socio-professional indicator is a derived variable which was constructed on the basis of the profession and professional situation variables (Costa 1999). The groups of the Portuguese Classification of Professions (INE 2011) were used to determine the variable profession. For the variable professional situation, the following situations were considered: employers with employees, self-employed workers without employees and employees. Based on these two variables, a matrix with seven socio-professional indicators was defined (Costa 1999; Machado et al. 2003): (1) entrepreneurs and liberal professionals (EL), as

Table 2 Parents’ academic qualification of participating students Academic qualification

Parents of participating students (%) West Coast

No academic qualification Primary school degree (6+–10− years) Higher primary school degree (10+–12− years) Middle school degree (12+–15− years) High school degree (15+–18− years) University degree (Bachelor) Higher university degree (Master or PhD)

Lisbon

Darwin School

Mendel School

Pasteur School

Fleming School

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

0.0 17.4

0.0 13.0

0.0 22.7

0.0 13.0

0.0 3.8

0.0 0.0

0.0 25.0

9.5 9.5

13.0

13.0

36.4

13.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

19.0

47.8

30.4

22.7

30.4

11.5

7.1

20.0

38.1

13.0

30.4

9.1

30.4

15.4

25.0

35.0

19.0

4.3 4.3

8.7 4.3

9.1 0.0

13.0 0.0

61.5 7.7

57.1 10.7

10.0 0.0

4.8 9.5

Res Sci Educ

directors and executive managers; (2) technical professionals (TP), as experts in scientific and intellectual activities, working as employees; (3) self-employed workers (SW), as administrative workers and security and safety service workers, working as self-employed workers; (4) independent farmers (IF), working as self-employed workers; (5) executive employees (EE), as administrative workers and security and safety service workers, working as employees; (6) industrial workers (IW), as unqualified workers in the construction, manufacturing and transport industries, working as employees; (7) farmworkers (FW), working as employees. The EL and TP classes are the social classes with the greatest economic and/or cultural resources and the greatest social prestige whereas the FW class is the social class with the fewest resources and the less social prestige. The seven socio-professional indicators represent a hierarchy of the individual’s social status. Table 3 presents the parents’ socio-professional indicator for each school class of the study. In Darwin’s class, most of the students came from families with fathers in EL class and mothers performing employees. In Mendel’s class, the majority of the students’ parents were industrial workers and performing employees, both from social sectors with fewer resources. Pasteur’s class was the class with more students belonging to class sectors of higher economic, cultural, educational and/or social resources. Finally, the students of Fleming’s class came mainly from families of lower social classes.

Data Analysis In order to characterise the practices of the four participating teachers, several dimensions of analysis were considered related to the what and the how is taught. Some of these dimensions had also been analysed at the level of the curriculum and of external assessment (Ferreira and Morais 2013, 2014). Figure 1 shows the dimensions which are focused in the present article. In the case of the instructional context (related to the acquisition of knowledge and skills), the analysis was centred on the complexity of scientific knowledge and cognitive skills, on the control relations between the teacher and the students at the level of the discursive rules Table 3 Parents’ socio-professional indicator of participating students Socio-professional indicator

Parents of participating students (%) West Coast

EL TP SW IF EE IW FW

Lisbon

Darwin School

Mendel School

Pasteur School

Fleming School

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

Father

Mother

43.5 8.7 4.3 0.0 13.0 30.4 0.0

15.0 20.0 5.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 0.0

18.2 0.0 27.3 0.0 13.6 40.9 0.0

4.8 14.3 9.5 0.0 66.7 4.8 0.0

16.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 12.0 0.0

25.9 55.6 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0

31.6 21.1 10.5 0.0 26.3 10.5 0.0

4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 76.2 4.8 0.0

EL entrepreneurs and liberal professionals, TP technical professionals, SW self-employed workers, IF independent farmers, EE executive employees, IW industrial workers, FW farmworkers

Res Sci Educ

The What Instructional Context Cognitive skills

Scientific knowledge

The How Instructional Context Relation teacher-student

Relation between discourses

Discursive rules Pacing

Relation between vertical and horizontal discourses

Evaluation criteria

C

CF

The How Regulative Context Relation teacher-student Hierarchical rules CF

Fig. 1 Dimensions of analysis of teachers’ practices (C-classification; F-framing)

‘pacing’, and ‘evaluation criteria’ and on the power relations between discourses (vertical and horizontal discourses). In the regulative context (related to the acquisition of principles and norms of social conduct), the analysis was centred on control relations between teacher and students at the level of the hierarchical rules. Classification was used to analyse the structural dimension, i.e. the power relations between discourses. The teacher-student classification was considered as being always strong, given the high status of the teacher in the pedagogic relation. Framing was used to analyse the interactional dimension, i.e. the control relations between subjects (discursive and hierarchical rules). This methodological option derived from the research carried out by the ESSA Group which has shown the importance of those characteristics on students’ learning (e.g. Morais and Neves 2011; Morais et al. 2004). In the academic year of 2011/12, 20 to 36 lessons (of either 90 or 135 min) of each 10th grade class were observed and audiotaped, and the researcher acted as a nonparticipant observer. In Darwin and Mendel schools, the lessons were focused on the thematic unit ‘Obtaining matter’ and in Pasteur and Fleming schools on the thematic unit ‘Transformation and utilization of energy by living beings’, both part of the Portuguese Biology and Geology syllabus. Rute and Sara’s students showed to have different academic performance in the paper and pencil assessment made by each teacher and related to the thematic unit BObtaining Mater^. Rute’s class attained an average result of 13.9 values (0–20 assessment scale) and Sara’s class an average result of 11.7 values. It should be noted that the written test of teacher Rute involved scientific knowledge and cognitive skills of higher level of complexity than Sara’s test. In the case of Vera and Marta’s students, they also showed to have different academic performance in the paper and pencil assessment made by each teacher and related to the thematic unit BTransformation and utilization of energy by living beings.^ Vera’s class attained

Res Sci Educ

an average result of 10.6 values and Marta’s class an average result of 9.0 values. Similarly, the written test of teacher Vera involved scientific knowledge and cognitive skills of higher complexity than Marta’s test. All the observed classroom lessons were transcribed in full and the text was segmented into units of analysis and classified according to the dimensions under study. A unit of analysis was considered as an excerpt of the lesson transcription, regardless of its length, containing a situation with a specific semantic meaning (Gall et al. 2007). Students’ assessment materials, as it was the case of paper and pencil tests and practical work reports, were also analysed. Researcher field notes were also used, especially in the case of aspects of classroom activity that were not captured by the audiotape. All the units of analysis were separately classified by the researcher, according to each one of the several dimensions of analysis. In order to estimate the reliability and validity of the analysis and the methods used, 10 to 27% of a random sample of units of analysis of the several lessons of the four participating teachers was analysed independently by two other researchers who were familiarised with the theoretical framework. A preliminary discrepancy of 1.3 to 4.4% in relation to the initial analysis was found. The three researchers discussed discrepancies in classification and the whole analysis was revised.

Instruments of Analysis In order to characterise the message underlying each one of the units of analysis, several instruments were constructed, piloted and applied, one for each dimension considered. The instruments were based on Bernstein’s concepts concerned with the pedagogic discourse and also on concepts from the areas of epistemology, psychology and science teaching, following a multidisciplinary approach. The instruments used for this characterisation contained various indicators and, for each indicator, they contained empirical descriptors that correspond to given degree scales and to specific aspects that could be observed in the classroom. The indicators correspond to given classroom situations directly related to the dimension under analysis. After constructing the first version of each one of the instruments, the researcher carried out two preliminary studies in order to validate those instruments and to introduce changes where necessary, therefore following a procedure recommended by several authors (e.g. Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). In the academic year of 2010/11, 8 to 11 lessons (of either 90 or 135 min) of two 10th grade classes were observed and audiotaped. All modifications introduced in the instruments were the result of discussion with two other researchers. The text that follows presents and discusses the construction of those instruments and also gives some examples of their application, considering both the instructional and regulative contexts of pedagogic practice (Fig. 1).

Instructional Context The instrument for the analysis of the what with regard to the complexity of scientific knowledge considered the distinction between facts, simple concepts, complex concepts6 and unifying themes/theories. This instrument was similar to the instrument constructed for 6

The simple concepts correspond to concrete concepts proposed by Cantu and Herron (1978) and are those that have a low level of abstraction, defining attributes and examples that are observable. The complex concepts correspond to abstract concepts and Bare those that do not have perceptible instances or have relevant or defining attributes that are not perceptible^ Cantu and Herron (1978, p. 135).

Res Sci Educ

the analyses of the Biology and Geology curriculum and of external assessment, both part of the broader investigation of which this study is part (Ferreira and Morais 2013, 2014). A four degree scale indicated an increasing degree of complexity. Table 4 presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the indicator ‘practical work exploration/discussion’,7 and examples of practices that illustrate different degrees of complexity. In example [1], the teacher Marta focused their explanation on the simple concept of indirect diffusion (gas exchange occurs in specialised organs). In example [2], the students mobilised complex concepts in the exploration of the graph when they had to relate the concentration of sucrose with photosynthesis and with stomatal opening. It should be noted that, whenever a unit of analysis focused scientific knowledge of different degrees of complexity, the highest level was the only one considered to classify that unit. The instrument to analyse the complexity of cognitive skills was based on the taxonomy created by Marzano and Kendall (2007), with four levels for the cognitive system: retrieval, comprehension, analysis and knowledge utilisation. This scale indicates an increasing degree of complexity. An excerpt of this instrument and examples is presented in Table 5. In example [3], the cognitive skills were focused on the interpretation of simple data, related to the comprehension of the movement of water across cell membranes of geranium petals (water moves by osmosis from a hypotonic to a hypertonic solution). Example [4] illustrates a situation in which there is a mobilisation of science process skills related to the identification and control of variables and to the planning of an investigative lab activity, the latter allowing the evaluation in degree 4. Similarly to the procedure followed in the analysis of the complexity of scientific knowledge, the classification of each unit considered only the cognitive skills of highest complexity involved in the unit. The analysis of the relation between horizontal (academic) and vertical (everyday) discourses was characterised through Bernstein’s concept of classification in a two degree scale only: a strong classification (C+) corresponds to a situation where academic knowledge has a high status within the classroom context and a weak classification (C−) corresponds to a situation where academic knowledge is suspended, therefore having a low status within the classroom context. In the particular case of these specific classroom contexts, the empirical evidence of the situations analysed did not allow for a deeper discrimination—this highlights the dialectics between the theoretical and the empirical that was present throughout the study. The indicators of this instrument were the following: Bdiscourse valued by teacher^, Blanguage used by teacher^ and Bcontext of vertical discourse.^ Table 6 presents an excerpt of the instrument and an example of its application. Example [5] shows a horizontal discourse which is totally inadequate in a science lesson. Teacher Sara used an informal language, which was not appropriate to the context of science teaching. A distinct situation would be a situation where the teacher makes a relation between every day and academic knowledge in order to allow a better understanding of the latter. At the level of the interactional dimension, the analysis was focused on the discursive rules pacing and evaluation criteria and was made by using Bernstein’s concept of 7

For the analysis of the transmission/acquisition context of practical work, the instruments have four indicators: practical work request, practical work exploration/discussion, students’ questions in the practical work exploration/discussion and practical work conclusion. These indicators characterise the teacher-student relation in practical work lessons.

[2] Degree 3

Degree 4 Scientific knowledge of very high level of complexity, as unifying themes and theories, is referred.

Degree 3 Scientific knowledge of level of complexity greater than degree 2, as complex concepts, is referred.

Degree 2 Scientific knowledge of level of complexity greater than degree 1, as simple concepts, is referred.

[The students observe and discuss a video with a dissection of a fish. Teacher Marta is giving some additional explanation:] Teacher – Bone pieces, operculum… The shark has no operculum. He has gill slits. [The video focuses on these cartilaginous fishes.] The ray and the dogfish also have gill slits. They do not have operculum. […] Now notice the information presented in the video… Indirect diffusion. Why? Because it has to go in to the blood [through specialised organs for gas exchange] and then it goes in to the cells. Ok? It doesn’t go directly in to the cells [as in direct diffusion]. […] (Lesson 7, Teacher Marta) Teacher – Explain the sucrose concentration variation over the day. What do you notice? [in the graph that relates the sucrose concentration with the stomatal opening]? First tell me what it is, then explain why. Student – So, it [sucrose concentration] is increasing until it reaches a peak... Teacher – Around…? Student – About 4 p.m. [...] Exactly, then it will decrease and become constant and decreases again. Teacher – What is it that happens in the early hours of the day that makes sucrose to increase? [... Some interactions later.] Student – So ... at around ... noon, sucrose starts to increase because of the increase in solar radiation that causes photosynthesis. […] Teacher - That speeds up the photosynthetic process, doesn’t it? (Lesson 5, Teacher Vera)

Scientific knowledge of low level of complexity, as facts, is referred.

Practical work exploration/discussion

Examples of practices [1] Degree 2

Degree 1

Indicator

Table 4 Excerpt of the instrument to characterise the complexity of scientific knowledge in pedagogic practices and examples

Res Sci Educ

[4] Degree 4

[Students were doing a lab activity of observation of the movement of water across cell membranes of geranium petals (Pelargonium sp.). Teacher Sara discusses some of the results with a pair of students:] Teacher – In the preparation with salt water, what happened to the cells? Student – The cells look much bigger. Teacher –How did this occur? Student – The vacuole has got more water. […] Teacher – Water entered, is it correct? So there was a renewal of water by the cells. That’s right, so the water, in this case, moved from the hypotonic solution into the cells. […] Understood? (Lesson 3, Teacher Sara) [Four groups of students were planning a lab activity related to the factors that can influence the velocity of alcohol fermentation or lactic acid fermentation. Teacher Vera talks to one of the groups:] Teacher – What is it that are you going to investigate? […] Student – We haven’t done the procedure yet. Teacher – I know you haven’t done it yet, but let’s think about this together. Are you studying lactic acid fermentation? Ok. What is it that you need to initiate lactic acid fermentation? Student – Yeast? Teacher – No, in this case it’s lactic bacteria. Where do you think these bacteria can be found? It’s part of… Where…? Student – In the yogurt. [Later on, after some classroom interactions.] Teacher - You have to change the temperature and the pH. How many temperatures do you think you must vary, from a minimum to a maximum? Student – Two, three? Teacher – Two is insufficient. […] Because a graph has to be built with more than two points, because two points only give me the beginning and the end, it doesn’t give me what happens in between. So, three temperatures that have to be distinct enough to lead to differences in the reaction’s speed. Tell me of three places where we can place test tubes at different temperatures? […] (Lesson 5, Teacher Vera)

Cognitive skills of very high level of complexity, involving cognitive processes of knowledge utilisation, are mobilised in the answers to the students’ questions.

Cognitive skills of level of complexity greater than degree 2, involving cognitive processes of analysis, are mobilised in the answers to the students’ questions.

Cognitive skills of level of complexity greater than degree 1, involving cognitive processes of comprehension, are mobilised in the answers to the students’ questions.

Cognitive skills of low level of complexity, involving cognitive processes of retrieval, are mobilised in the answers to the students’ questions.

Students’ questions in practical work exploration/discussion

Examples of practices [3] Degree 2

Degree 4

Degree 3

Degree 2

Degree 1

Indicator

Table 5 Excerpt of the instrument to characterise the complexity of cognitive skills in pedagogic practices and examples

Res Sci Educ

Res Sci Educ Table 6 Excerpt of the instrument to characterise the relation between vertical and horizontal discourses in pedagogic practices and example Indicator

C+

C−

Discourse valued by teacher

The teacher uses a discourse based on academic or official knowledge – vertical discourse – although s/he may use examples of everyday knowledge – horizontal discourse – to explore or apply academic knowledge.

The teacher uses a discourse based on every day or common sense knowledge, which tends to be local, dependent and specific of the context – horizontal discourse – there occurring a suspension of the vertical discourse. Such everyday knowledge does not contribute to students’ science learning.

Example of practice [5] C−

[The students were doing a lab activity of paper chromatography of the pigments of spinach leaves. The teacher, Sara, discusses some of the procedures with a group of students:] Student – May we place it [the solution of spinach leaves and acetone obtained after using the mortar and pestle] inside the Petri dish, Miss Sara? Teacher – No, otherwise we all end up all doing it the same way… Now, darling, you see, the guy is working. Wanting him to be so careful he doesn’t soil your fingertips, is asking too much. […] Look, he’s very handy. That’s how you get it. Girls, keep watching your classmates, that’s how you find ... that’s how you find good husbands. Hey girls, there’s a good one. Come on. […] (Lesson 9, Teacher Sara)

framing in a four degree scale. The strongest framing (F++) indicates a situation where the teacher has control upon the time given to learning (pacing) and the text produced as the result of learning (evaluation criteria). The lowest framing (F− −) indicates a situation where the student has some control upon pacing and evaluation criteria. Table 7 shows an excerpt of the instrument used to analyse the discursive rule ‘evaluation criteria’ and two examples of practices. Example [6] shows teacher Rute’s concern to make explicit to students the intended legitimate text, which implies a clear explanation of the concept under study—isotonic solution. On the contrary, example [7] presents a situation where the teacher leaves criteria implicit to the students. Teacher Marta’s directions of the experimental procedure are confusing and contain scientific inaccuracies, for instance some of the variables were not controlled, as in the case of the amount of flour used in each situation (with and without yeast). In order to clarify how the same example of practice was classified in the study in terms of the dimensions related to the what and the how of the instructional context of practical work, an illustrative example of the analysis is given. [Two groups of students were planning a lab activity related to the factors that can influence the velocity of lactic acid fermentation. Teacher Vera talks to one of the groups:] Teacher - You already know what you have to do, don’t you? Which are the variables that will change and which are the variables that you are going to measure? Based on that, you have to follow the procedure. Student - We don’t know which materials we’ll have to use. Teacher - No? So, how can you activate the fermentation reaction? Student - With yogurt.

Res Sci Educ Table 7 Excerpt of the instrument to characterise the teacher-student relation in pedagogic practices with regard to the discursive rule ‘evaluation criteria’ and examples Indicator

F++

F+

F−

F− −

Practical work exploration/ discussion

The teacher systematically indicates what is incorrect, at the level of declarative and /or procedural knowledge, and tells clearly what is missing for the production of a correct text.

The teacher indicates what is incorrect, at the level of declarative and/or procedur al knowledge, and tells generi cally what is missing for the production of a correct text.

The teacher indicates what is incorrect, at the level of declarative and/ or procedural knowledge, but does not mention what is missing for the produc tion of a correct text.

The teacher does not indicate what is incorrect, at the level of declarative and / or procedural knowledge, nor does s/he indicate what is missing for the production of a correct text. or Explanations are unclear and contain inaccuracies.

Examples of practices [6] F++ [Teacher Rute is discussing with the students the results of a lab activity focused on observing the movement of water across cell membranes of geranium petals:] Teacher – Let us now discuss the petals [activity] and ... of the flower. We have said that Ringer’s solution was a medium...? Student – Isotonic. Teacher – Isotonic. What is it that that means, Maria? Maria – That the… Teacher – Speak louder. Maria - That the concentration of solute and water... Teacher – It is not water. This is a solution… Maria – Ok. The composition of the solution is equivalent in both. Teacher – The concentration of the Ringer’s solution is equal to the concentration... in the vacuole. What I would like to know now is if there is movement of the solution in an isotonic solution. Students – Yes, there is. [Several students answer at the same time] Teacher – So, the equilibrium is…? Students – Dynamic. Teacher – […] Ok! There are some of you who wrote that down [in the interpretation of the lab activity results] and who should now understand it. (Lesson 4, Teacher Rute) - [7] F [Students are going to do a lab activity related to the yeast role in the bread production. The teacher gives some directions about the procedure:] Teacher – I am going to give this [the material needed for the activity] to two groups. […] Let’s see what we’re going to do, it’s this: [she reads the procedure] ‘pour the flour inside the bowl’. So, each one of the two groups will work with the same amount of flour, half a kilogram which we’ll have to weigh. Ok? Ok. Then, we’ll... [reads the procedure] ‘put the salt into the hole’ and... Oh, no. Let’s do it another way. I’m thinking of doing it another way. So each one of the several groups will receive... because in this way more students will have the chance to mix the mass, everyone will have the chance to mix the [bread] mass. Ok? Each group will receive… We’ll make 400 grams of bread that we can eat and 100 grams of bread that we will not eat, but that we’re going to compare. Ok? [Later on, after some classroom interactions.] Teacher – Let’s do it here. We’re going to make the bread here. Ok? We are going to make it inside the containers... So I'll repeat. 400 grams [of flour] in one and 100 grams in the other. Ok? This [the 400 grams of flour] takes yeast, this does not take yeast. That’s right. This is the variable we introduce… (Lesson 4, Teacher Marta)

Res Sci Educ

Teacher - You're the lactic acid fermentation group, with yogurt. What else? What is the substrate for the action of lactic acid bacteria? […] Student – Isn’t it the milk? Teacher - It’s the milk. The bacteria make lactic fermentation, therefore you have to put milk in, you then have to add yogurt to activate fermentation. Now, how do bacteria do it? How do you change the factors under study, what is the second question? […] (Lesson 5, teacher Vera). In this example, teacher Vera focused their explanation on simple concepts about the process of lactic acid fermentation, related to its simplified equation and without the exploration of the concept of ATP (degree 2). The cognitive skills involved cognitive processes of knowledge utilisation. Although the discussion was focused on the mobilisation of science process skills of selecting variables, it contributed to the planning of the investigative lab activity (degree 4). In this situation, the teacher only valued the vertical discourse (C+). At the level of the discursive rule ‘pacing’, the control of the relation was centred on the students, because the teacher explored the practical activity taking into account the interventions of the students (F−). With regard to the ‘evaluation criteria’, the teacher guided the planning of the lab activity telling clearly what is missing for the production of the intended text (F++) (Table 8).

Regulative Context The teacher-student relation concerning the hierarchical rules was characterised in a four degree scale by also using Bernstein’s concept of framing. A very strong framing (F++) characterises a form of communication where the teacher has high control, as is the case of imperative control, when the teacher uses orders and admonitions as a form of leading students to behave in a given way, without giving any reasons to them. When the teacher appeals to given rules and statuses, the control is positional and in this case the framing is strong (F+). A weak and very weak framing characterises a personal control, which means, for example, that the student may be critical about teacher’s practices or the teacher explains the reasons why the student should behave in a given way (Morais and Neves, 2001). This instrument had the following specific indicators: communication relations, students’ questions, students’ opinions, students’ interventions with inaccuracies, form of relation, non-legitimate behaviours and making working groups. Table 9 contains an excerpt of this instrument and examples of its respective application in practical work practices. In example [8], teacher Rute gave orders without any justification (imperative control). In example [9], teacher Vera keeps having high control, but she gives justifications based on established rules (positional control). In example [10], the students also had some control in the relation evidenced by the fact that teacher Vera explained the reasons why the student should behave in a particular way (personal control).

Results The present study was focused on the practical work implemented in the high school discipline of Biology and Geology and intended to investigate four Portuguese teachers’ practices in different social schools and classes. For each participating teacher, the results focus the type of practical work and the pedagogic characteristics of teachers’ practices.

Complexity of scientific knowledge (based on several psychological concepts) G1 G2 G3 G4 X

The what of practical work

Complexity of cognitive skills (based on Marzano and Kendall, 2007, 2008) G1 G2 G3 G4 X

Instructional context of practical work in pedagogic practices

Relation between vertical and horizontal discourses (based on Bernstein 1999) C+ CX

The how of practical work

Table 8 Illustrative example of the analysis made of each unit of analysis of pedagogic practices

F++

F+

F− X

F− −

F++ X

F+

F−

Discursive rules (based on Bernstein 1990, 2000) Pacing Evaluation criteria F− −

Res Sci Educ

The teacher does not give any kind of justification, using imperative control.

Form of relation

F− − The teacher basis his/her arguments, appealing to the personal attributes of the students. The teacher uses a personal control.

F− The teacher basis his/her arguments, appealing only to his own personal attributes. The teacher uses a personal control.

F+ The teacher gives justifications based on established rules, using a positional control.

Examples of practices [8] F++ Teacher – Hey Marco, hurry up! Lara, hurry up! [Students were preparing microscope slides for observation.] (Lesson 3, Teacher Rute). [9] F+ Teacher – […] Let’s organise together the procedure that we’re going to follow... I’ll turn on the light. Silence! We have 10 min left and I want to make use of them. Rui! Rui, look straight ahead! Ok, raise your hand whenever you want to participate so that it’s not going to be a big mess. Ok? We have to be organised. I’m going to refer to the lactic fermentation and the alcoholic fermentation ... because you’re obviously going to have to ... We’re obviously going to have to do different procedures, don’t we? […] (Lesson 5, Teacher Vera). [10] FJosé – I couldn’t hear, Miss Vera. Teacher – No, but you’re supposed to, it’s you that I am asking to, depending on what? Which question are we analysing, José? José – So… What’s the relation between the potassium ions and… Teacher – the stomatal opening. It’s all written in the question. What’s the dependent variable? José – Ok, it’s the potassium ions… Teacher – Independent! Well, guessing doesn’t work, José, it's better to say that you don’t understand. José – Ok, I don’t understand. Teacher – Ok. It’s more honest to say you don’t understand rather than just guessing, isn’t it? Student – Be humble! Keep it in mind! Teacher – Exactly, because you aren’t learning anything. […] (Lesson 5, Teacher Vera).

F++

Indicator

Table 9 Excerpt of the instrument to characterise the teacher-student relation concerning hierarchical rules in pedagogic practices and examples

Res Sci Educ

Res Sci Educ

Type of Practical Work in the High School Classroom The four teachers carried out two main types of practical work, teachers Rute and Sara in the field of transmembrane transport and photosynthesis and teachers Vera and Marta in themes related to fermentation and gas exchange in animals: laboratory activities and application activities (application of knowledge to new situations). Within these themes, the activities that were considered as being practical work were only those which allowed the mobilisation of science process skills. In the case of Rute’s practices (Darwin school), the following lab activities were observed: diffusion of potassium permanganate in distilled water, construction of osmometers by using carrots and decalcified chicken eggs, lettuce leaves placed in solutions of varying salt concentration, movement of water across cell membranes of geranium petals (Pelargonium sp.) and paper chromatography of the nettle leaves pigments. The application activities were centred on the interpretation of experimental results and the interpretation of data in graphs and tables. Teacher Sara (Mendel school) developed two lab activities in her class, one focused on observation and interpretation of the movement of water across cell membranes of geranium petals, and another on paper chromatography of the spinach leaves pigments. Students also actively mobilised science process skills when interpreting experimental results and data in graphs and tables. Teacher Vera’s students (Pasteur school) carried out a lab activity related to the factors that can influence the velocity of alcohol fermentation or lactic acid fermentation. This practical activity involved several tasks which took place at interlinked lessons, namely the discussion of the variables involved, the planning of the activity and its realisation, the recording of the results and the discussion of some of the results. Science process skills were also mobilised in the interpretation of data in graphs. In Marta’s practices (Fleming school), three lab activities were made by the students, one related to the microscope observation of yeasts, another focused on the action of yeasts when making bread and a third one which dealt with the dissection of a horse mackerel (Trachurus sp.). The application activities were centred on the interpretation of experimental results and the interpretation of data in graphs.

Characterisation of Pedagogic Practices Teacher and student relations are asymmetric, power being detained by the teacher who has a higher status in the pedagogic relation. For that reason the teacher-student classification is necessarily strong at the level of the structural dimension. However, the pedagogic practices of the four participating teachers showed differences in this relation which corresponded to strong degrees of classification of higher or lower intensity. In the case of the teachers Rute and Vera’s practices, the teacher-student relation was characterised by a very strong classification (C++). The two teachers had the higher status and power in the classroom, making decisions about the type of relations and contexts that were possible and allowed. In the case of teachers Sara and Marta’s practices, the teacher-student relation was characterised by a strong classification (C+). In Sara’s lessons, the decreasing of her power was mainly due to the various situations in which there was a blurring of the boundary between vertical and horizontal discourse. In Marta’s classes, the classification was not considered very strong because there were several situations in which the students disturbed the functioning of the class, without the teacher calling their attention.

Res Sci Educ

The characterisation of the four pedagogic practices is the result of the trend of the characterisation of all units of analysis of each teacher’s classes, in terms of the structural and interactional characteristics of the practices and of the level of complexity of knowledge and skills they promote. In order to clarify how this trend was defined to each dimension, an illustrative example is given in Table 10 for the dimension of analysis Bcognitive skills.^ Table 11 presents a synthesis of the results of the four teachers’ practices. While the dimensions of the what were only analysed in practical work contexts (practical component), the dimensions of the how were also analysed in the theoretical contexts without practical work (theoretical component). The four pedagogic practices showed differences between them, particularly when the teachers of the same region were compared. In the case of the West Coast region schools, the level of conceptual demand of practical work was slightly higher in the case of teacher Rute’s practices (SC+R+), when compared with the teacher Sara’s practice, namely at the level of practical work contexts and in the dimensions related to scientific knowledge, cognitive skills and the relation between vertical and horizontal discourse. For instance, in the relation between vertical and horizontal discourse, teacher Rute valued the vertical discourse (C+) and teacher Sara (SC−R−) valued both discourses (C+/C−) in their classes. In the other dimensions studied, both practices were similar. For example, at the level of the discursive rules ‘selection’ and ‘pacing’, the control of the teacher-student relation was more centred on the teacher; and at the level of ‘evaluation criteria’, the text produced as the result of learning was not always made explicit which may have compromised students’ scientific learning when doing practical work. Moreover, this explication was further reduced by some scientific inaccuracies made by both teachers in their practices. Table 10 Characterisation of all units of analysis of each teacher’s classes for the dimension of analysis ‘cognitive skills’ and respective trend Teacher

Degree 1

Degree 2

Rute

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓

Sara

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓

Vera

✓✓✓

Marta

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓

Degree 3

Degree 4

Trend Degree 2

Degree 1/ Degree 2

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓

Degree 2/ Degree 4

Degree 2

Hierarchical rules

Evaluation criteria

C classification, F framing, SC+ R+ favourable social context and highest levels of the national rankings, SC− R− unfavourable social context and lower levels of the national rankings

Regulative context

Discursive rules

Relation between teacher and students

Pacing

Vertical and horizontal discourses

Relation between discourses

Cognitive skills

Degree 2 Degree 1/ Degree 2 Degree 2 Degree 1/ Degree 2 Degree 2 Degree 1/ Degree 2 Degree 2/ Degree 4 Degree 2 C+ C+/C− C+ C+/C− F+ F+ F+/F− F+ F+/F− F+/F− F+ F−/F- F+/F− F+/F− F+/F− F+/F−

– – – – – – – – C+ C+/C− C+ C+/C− F+ F++/F+ F+ F+ F+/F− F− F++/F+ F−/F- F+/F− F+ F+ F+ Rute (West, SC+R+) Sara (West, SC−R−) Vera (Lisbon, SC+R+) Marta (Lisbon, SC−R−) Rute Sara Vera Marta Rute Sara Vera Marta Rute Sara Vera Marta Rute Sara Vera Marta Rute Sara Vera Marta

Instructional context

Scientific knowledge

Practical component

Theoretical component

Teachers

Transmission/acquisition context

Dimensions of analysis

Table 11 Characterisation of pedagogic practices in instructional and regulative contexts

Res Sci Educ

Res Sci Educ

In the case of the Lisbon region schools, the differences between teachers Vera and Marta’s practices were slightly more marked in the various dimensions of the level of conceptual demand of practical work. Teacher Vera (SC+R+) had a higher level of conceptual demand. At the level of the discursive rules ‘selection’ and ‘pacing’, the control in the teacher-student relation was more centred on the teacher in both practices. However, the students of Vera’s class had some control upon pacing in practical work contexts. Teacher Vera was the teacher that better explained the intended legitimate text in their science classroom (evaluation criteria), both in theoretical and practical components. On the contrary, teacher Marta (SC−R−) had the tendency to leave the legitimate text implicit or to give explanations with scientific inaccuracies. The teacher-student relation with regard to hierarchical rules was similar in the four participating teachers’ practices, as showed in Table 11. The teachers allowed the students to have some control in that relation. In all practices occurred forms of communication that ranged from personal control in which the teacher appealed to students’ personal attributes and imperative control in which the teacher used orders without any justification, to forms of communication of positional control where the justifications and arguments were based on established rules.

Discussion The results of the study showed that the social context of the school together with teachers’ academic qualification and professional development seem to influence science teachers’ practices in practical work contexts. The two schools placed in the lower levels of national external assessment and also whose students belonged to class sectors of less economic, cultural, academic and/or social resources showed to have teachers’ practices mostly characterised by lower levels of complexity of both scientific knowledge and cognitive skills and a valuing of the horizontal discourse, this representing a low level of conceptual demand of practical work. Such teachers—Sara and Marta—made a greater recontextualisation of the message of the curriculum and of the external assessment in the direction of lowering the level of conceptual demand of practical work. Thus, those teachers are putting at stake what Smith et al. (2001) point out when, addressing the issue of low-achieving and economically disadvantaged students, they say that in order Bto elevate mastery of basic skills, interactive instruction should be increased and the use of didactic instruction and review moderated^ (p. 33). On the contrary, the practice of teacher Vera—whose students came from social sectors with more resources and from a school situated at the great metropolis and placed at the highest levels of the national external assessment—showed to have a higher level of conceptual demand. Among the four teachers, Vera was also the teacher with the highest qualification in education and also with the highest professional development degree. Both these conditions— school context and teacher characteristics—seemed to be responsible for her best practice. Teacher Rute and her school’s context shared with teacher Vera and her school’s context some of those conditions and this may explain Rute’s relative good level of conceptual demand. The valuing of the horizontal discourse observed in the practices of the two teachers that teach in the schools with an unfavourable social context, in each region, is worth to be discussed. As emphasised by Morais and Neves (2001, 2011), students’ learning can be improved when teachers introduce examples of everyday situations in order to explain them

Res Sci Educ

on the basis of scientific knowledge. However, this was not the case of the practice of those two teachers. In several situations of both practices, the horizontal discourse prevailed over the vertical discourse and the teachers did not establish a relation between such everyday knowledge and academic knowledge. Bernstein (1999) had warned to the risk of horizontal discourse having a higher status than vertical discourse, particularly in school contexts with more disadvantaged students. When this occurs Bvertical discourse is reduced to a set of strategies to become resources for allegedly improving the effectiveness of the repertoires made available in horizontal discourse^ (Bernstein 1999, p. 169). Moreover Bhorizontal discourse may be seen as a crucial resource for pedagogic populism in the name of empowering or unsilencing voices to combat the elitism and alleged authoritarianism of vertical discourse^ (Id., p. 169). Likewise, Young (2009) also criticises the decreasing opportunities that students have for acquiring academic knowledge, especially knowledge which cannot be acquired elsewhere than at school. At the level of the teacher-student relation and in the case of the discursive rules Bpacing^ and Bevaluation criteria,^ the results show that the differences between teachers’ practices were more marked in the Bevaluation criteria.^ The teacher in the school at the great metropolis and also with a more favourable social context was the teacher that better explained the intended legitimate text to her science students. On the contrary, the teachers in the schools with more disadvantaged students, especially the teacher at the great metropolis, developed practices characterised by implicit evaluation criteria. As mentioned by Hodson (1996), Blearning science involves an introduction into the world of concepts, ideas, understandings and theories that scientists have developed and accumulated (that is, what science knows)^ (p. 127) and, as a consequence, the teacher should make the scientific knowledge explicit to students. The relation between teacher and students with regard to the hierarchical rules was similar in the practices of participating teachers. Teacher Vera was the teacher who most approached the characteristics of the modality of pedagogic practice, at the level of discursive rules, that research has shown to be fundamental for all students’ scientific learning—a specific mixed pedagogic practice (Morais and Neves 2011). The following characteristics of her practices stand out: students have some control over the time of acquisition of their learning and the teacher makes explicit the text to be acquired by the students in practical work contexts. Morais and Neves (2011) pointed out to the interconnection of some characteristics of pedagogic practice, as it is the case of the two mentioned discursive rules, evaluation criteria and pacing. As they explained, Bexplicit evaluation criteria (very strong framing) requires student control over pacing (very weak framing), so that there is time to explicate the criteria^ (p. 205). A possible explanation for the greater scientific and pedagogic proficiency of teacher Vera may be related to her higher education—undergraduate and master degrees in science education—and also to her professional experience: working for some time in the practice of initial teachers’ training and in higher teacher education and also in the central services of the Ministry of Education. Together with the social context of the school, teachers’ education and professional development seem to be an essential variable in the relations studied. Defended by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) and many others, this study also points out to the importance of an effective professional development. The teacher who taught in the Lisbon school with an unfavourable social context was the teacher who departed most from the modality of mixed pedagogic practice, namely with regard to the evaluation criteria. For these reasons, most of this teacher’s students were in fact in triple disadvantage when compared with most of teacher Vera’s students, also in Lisbon. First, those

Res Sci Educ

students came from families with less cultural resources as given by our questionnaire information. Second, they came from families with less economic resources as given by both our questionnaire information and by the fact that their school had a high percentage of students on free or reduced lunch.8 These two conditions by themselves would most probably imply that communication at home in the case of these students would not support the appropriation of the school legitimised discourse (e.g. Domingos 1989; Neves and Morais 2005). Third, teacher’s practice was characterised by implicit evaluation criteria and also by scientific inaccuracies, indicating a poor scientific and pedagogic proficiency of the teacher. These features of her practice also put at stake the scientific learning of her students.

Conclusion The study intended to analyse the influence of the social context of the school on science teachers’ practices, in terms of the structural and interactional characteristics of the practices and of the level of complexity of knowledge and skills they promote, specifically in the case of practical work contexts. The study also intends to explore the relation between teachers’ academic qualification and professional development and their practices. The findings of the study show that teachers in schools whose students came from social sectors with fewer resources have practices characterised by lower levels of complexity, of both scientific knowledge and cognitive skills, a valuing of the horizontal discourse and implicit evaluation criteria. On the contrary, teachers’ practices in socially advantaged schools are characterised by higher levels of complexity, a valuing of vertical discourse and explicit evaluation criteria. As explained elsewhere (Morais and Neves 2016, 2017), teachers in the first case are limiting access of disadvantaged students to the structure of scientific knowledge, since such access requires conceptually demanding contexts. The study also suggests that higher teachers’ academic qualification and professional development lead to higher levels of conceptual demand which in its turn may raise the level of scientific literacy of all students. The conclusions of this study should not go in the direction of generalising from practical work conducted by four teachers only, but instead should raise questions related to the influence of the social context of the school on science teachers’ practices, in terms of the structural and interactional characteristics of the practices and of the level of conceptual demand of practical work. Furthermore, the influence of teachers’ academic proficiency and professional development should also be considered. The strong conceptual and explanatory power of the theory in which the study was based, and the constant dialectics between the theoretical and the empirical, enabled the construction of instruments with descriptors that allowed a detailed analysis of practical work implemented by teachers in distinct social contexts. The strength of both conceptualisation and methodological line of the study constitute an innovative approach that accords to the study of science education texts and contexts a rigour greater than that of other approaches found in literature. Although the analysis is focused on Portuguese teachers’ practices, the approach followed in the study may be transferred to other studies by using the same concepts and procedures, and it may allow to compare and discuss science teachers’ practices. 8

A high percentage of students on free or reduced lunch suggest that they came from families with fewer resources.

Res Sci Educ Acknowledgements The authors thank teachers Ruth, Sara, Vera and Marta for their willingness to participate in the study. The authors also acknowledge to Isabel Neves for her contribution in the analysis of the pedagogic practices and for her suggestions to the manuscript.

References Abrahams, I. (2017). Minds-on practical work for effective science learning. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education: An international course companion (pp. 403–413). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bell, L. R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: Volume IV, the structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (rev. ed.). Londres: Rowman & Littlefield. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616. Cantu, L. L., & Herron, J. D. (1978). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(2), 135–143. Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-based science: Strategies and techniques for encouraging inquiry in the classroom. Science Teacher, 64(7), 22–26. Chin, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in school: A theoretical framework for evaluating in inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6ª ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Costa, A. F. (1999). Sociedade de bairro: Dinâmicas sociais da identidade cultural [Neighborhood society: Social dynamics of cultural identity]. Oeiras: Celta. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conduction mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Domingos, A. M. (now Morais) (1989). Influence of the social context of the school on the teacher's pedagogic practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(3), 351–366. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington: National Academies Press. Eurostat (n.d.). NUTS – Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. Retrieved from . Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2013). Exigência conceptual do trabalho prático nos exames nacionais: Uma abordagem metodológica. [Conceptual demand of practical work in national exams: A methodological approach.]. Olhar de Professor, 16(1), 149–172. Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2014). Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula: A methodological approach. Research in Science Education, 44(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9377-7. Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Germann, P., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499. Harlen, W. (1999). Purpose and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 129–144. Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

Res Sci Educ Hofstein, A. (2017). The role of laboratory in science teaching and learning. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education: An international course companion (pp. 357–368). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. INE (National Institute of Statistics). (2011). Classificação portuguesa das profissões 2010 [Portuguese classification of professions 2010]. Lisbon: National Institute of Statistics. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Machado, F., Costa, A., Mauritti, R., Martins, S., Casanova, J., & Almeida, J. (2003). Classes sociais e estudantes universitários: Origens, oportunidades e orientações [Social classes and university students: origins, opportunities, and orientations]. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 66, 45–80. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Millar, R., Maréchal, J. F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). Maping the domain – Varieties of practical work. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education (pp. 33–59). Denmark: Roskilde University Press. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2001). Pedagogic social contexts: Studies for a sociology of learning. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 185–221). New York: Peter Lang. Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2011). Educational texts and contexts that work: Discussing the optimization of a model of pedagogic practice. In D. Frandji & P. Vitale (Eds.), Knowledge, pedagogy & society: International perspectives on Basil Bernstein`s sociology of education (pp. 191–207). London: Routledge. Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2016). Vertical discourses and science education: Analyzing conceptual demand of educational texts. In P. Vitale & B. Exley (Eds.), Pedagogic rights and democratic education: Bernsteinian explorations of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 174–191). London: Routledge. Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2017). The quest for high level knowledge in schools: Revisiting the concepts of classification and framing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 261–282. https://doi. org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1335590. Morais, A. M., Neves, I. P., & Pires, D. (2004). The what and the how of teaching and learning: Going deeper into sociological analysis and intervention. In J. Muller, B. Davies, & A. Morais (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein (pp. 75–90). London: Routledge & Falmer. Neves, I. P., & Morais, A. M. (2005). Pedagogic practices in the family socialising context and children's school achievement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(1), 121–137. Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used? School Science Review, 96(357), 16–24. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). Introduction: Research matters? In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research was to say? (2nd ed., pp. 1–5). New York: McGraw-Hill. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S., Kamp, E., Manoli, C., Zacharia, Z., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. Rose, D. (2004). Sequencing and pacing of the hidden curriculum: How indigenous children are left out of the chain. In J. Muller, B. Davies, & A. Morais (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, researching Bernstein (pp. 91–107). London: Routledge. Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newman, F. M. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Illinois: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage. Young, M. (2009). Education, globalization and the ‘voice of knowledge. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 193–204. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.