Abstract
This paper uses cultural historical activity theory to examine the interactions between the choices primary teachers make in the use of practical activities in their teaching of science and the purposes they attribute to these; their emotions, background and beliefs; and the construction of their identities as teachers of science. It draws on four case studies of science lessons taught over a term by four exemplary teachers of primary science. The data collected includes video recordings of science lessons, interviews with each teacher and some of their students, student work, teachers’ planning documents and observation notes. In this paper, we examine the reflexive relationship between emotion and identity, and the teachers’ objectives for their students’ learning; the purposes (scientific and social) the teachers attributed to practical activities; and the ways in which the teachers incorporated practical activities into their lessons. The findings suggest that it is not enough to address content knowledge, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education, but that efforts also need to be made to influence prospective primary teachers’ identities as scientific thinkers and their emotional commitment to their students’ learning of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.
Boud, D. J., Dunn, J., & Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1989). Teaching in laboratories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Cripps Clark, J. (1999, December). Current primary science practice: Observing what actually happens in the classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.
Cripps Clark, J. (2006). The role of practical activities in primary school science. Unpublished doctorial thesis. Melbourne: Deakin University.
Denny, M., & Chennel, F. (1986). Science practicals: What do students think? European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 325–336.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 345–374). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757.
Jonassan, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
Kaptelinin, V., & Miettinen, R. (2005). Perspectives on the object of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 1–3.
Kostogriz, A., & Peeler, E. (2007). Professional identity and pedagogical space: Negotiating difference in teacher workplaces. Teaching Education, 18(2), 107–122.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899–916.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–128). New York: Macmillan.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prenice-Hall.
O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126.
Roth, W.-M. (2012). Cultural-historical activity theory: Vygotsky’s forgotten and suppressed legacy and its implication for mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 87–104.
Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2011). A cultural-historical perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Roth, W.-M., & van Eijck, M. (2010). Fullness of life as minimal unit: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning across the life span. Science Education, 94(6), 1027–1048.
Séré, M.-G. (2002). Towards renewed research questions from the outlook of the European project “labwork in science education”. Science Education, 86(5), 624–644.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary–secondary school transition. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science: Which way now? London: Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A poststructuralist view on emotion and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 935–948.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper draws on doctoral research done by one of the authors (Cripps Clark 2006) supported by a Deakin University Postgraduate Scholarship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cripps Clark, J., Groves, S. Teaching primary science: emotions, identity and the use of practical activities. Aust. Educ. Res. 39, 463–475 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0076-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0076-6