291

Using a Card-Sorting Task to Elicit and Clarify Science-Teaching Orientations

Patricia Meis FriedrichsenDepartment of Learning, Teaching and Curriculum, College of Education, University ofMissouri—Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211

Thomas M. DanaSchool of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville,FL 32611-7048

Identifying and working with prospective and practicing teachers’knowledge and beliefs is critical in effectively supporting the learning toteach process. A review of the literature suggests that teachers’ knowledge andbeliefs about teaching and learning are tacit, and tenacious, and serve as filtersfor acceptable learning and teaching activity (Clark & Peterson, 1986;Hollingsworth, 1989; Kagan, 1992b; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Borkoand Putnam (1996), in their synthesis of the learning to teach research base,assert that teachers’ “existing knowledge and beliefs are critical in shapingwhat and how they learn from teacher education experiences” (p. 674). Sinceknowledge and beliefs apparently serve as a filter for teacher learning (Clark& Peterson, 1986), teachers need powerful opportunities to recognize andclarify the knowledge and beliefs that they bring to initial teacher educationand professional development, evaluate those beliefs, and decide the extent towhich their beliefs are consistent with their notions of best practice. Thepurpose of this paper is to share a classroom tool for eliciting prospective andpracticing teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning.

This paper reports our efforts, as science teacher educators, to connect theresearch base on teacher learning and teacher beliefs with our ongoing inquiryabout creating and sustaining powerful and influential teacher educationpractices. After a brief review of the role of knowledge and beliefs in teacherlearning, we will focus on science teacher education, using the construct ofpedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a theoretical framework. Anorientation to teaching science, defined as “teachers’ knowledge andbeliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particulargrade level” (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999, p. 97), has been proposedas a critical component of the PCK model for science teaching. Our currentresearch explores the nature, sources and development of science teachingorientations (Friedrichsen, 2002; Friedrichsen & Dana; 2002). As part of ourwork, we have developed an elicitation and clarification tool for scienceteaching orientations. In this paper, we describe the use of the tool within aresearch context (one-on-one interviews) as well as a modified protocol forclassroom use. This tool, in the form of a card-sorting task, has been used

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4): 291−309, 2003©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

292

successfully with prospective and practicing teachers at the elementary, middleand secondary levels.

Theoretical Framework

Role of Knowledge and Beliefs in Teacher Education

Research on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs has generated a substantialbody of literature on the nature of teaching (Calderhead, 1996). Although someauthors separate knowledge from beliefs (e.g., Calderhead, 1996; Pajares, 1992;Richardson, 1996), these same authors acknowledge that “the two concepts arenot always easily distinguishable” (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715), that the constructof educational beliefs is a “messy construct” (Pajares, 1992), and that there is littledifferentiation between knowledge and beliefs in the teacher and teacher educationliterature (Richardson, 1996). Kagan (1990), in a review of research on teachercognition, used the terms knowledge and beliefs interchangeably, because “muchof what a teacher knows of his or her craft appears to be defined in highly substantiveterms” (p. 421). Borko and Putnam (1996), using a cognitive psychologyframework, combined knowledge and beliefs in their review of the literature onlearning to teach. Within the literature on PCK for science teaching, knowledgeand beliefs are often combined (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999) and, forthe purposes of this paper, we follow this trend.

Prospective teachers enter teacher education programs with preexistingknowledge and beliefs about teaching that are well grounded in their experiencesas participants in schools in our society (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Kagan, 1992a).Practicing teachers, as well, enter professional development programs withknowledge and beliefs about teaching that strongly influence their work as teachers.Borko and Putnam (1996) state, “Experienced teachers attempts to learn to teachin new ways also are highly influenced by what they already know and believeabout teaching, learning, and learners” (pp. 684–685). These existing beliefs andknowledge act as filters during teacher education programs and professionaldevelopment (Borko & Putnam, 1996). Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman (1989)assert, “teachers’ beliefs about the subject matter, including orientation toward thesubject matter, contribute to the ways in which teachers think about their subjectmatter and the choices they make in their teaching” (p. 27).

However, teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about teaching are often tacit andit is the job of teacher educators to “make the tacit explicit” (Shulman, 1988, p.33). Richardson (1996) reemphasizes this point, “A number of studies, conductedat both the preservice and in-service levels, have explored the role of teachers’beliefs in learning to teach and classroom practice. These studies point to theimportance of understanding students’ and teachers’ beliefs when engaging withthem in a change process” (p. 109). Borko and Putnam (1996) concur, stressing theimportance of “addressing teachers’ preexisting knowledge and beliefs aboutteaching, learning, learners, and subject matter” as a way of facilitating teachers’learning (p. 700). Richardson (1996), in reviewing successful constructivist staff

PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

293USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

development found that one of the major characteristics across these programswas that “The participating teachers’ beliefs and understandings are a major elementof the content of the staff development process” and that successful staffdevelopment programs had the goal “to facilitate conversations that allow theparticipants to understand their own beliefs and practices, consider alternatives,and experiment with new beliefs and practices” (p. 113). From a teacher learningperspective, beliefs that are made explicit can then become targets of change(Freeman, 1991).

PCK Model for Science Teaching & Science Teaching Orientations

In studying science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, we draw on the work ofShulman and colleagues who outlined a theoretical framework for examining aspecialized knowledge base for teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson, Shulman &Richert, 1987). Within this specialized knowledge base, Shulman (1986) definedpedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as “subject matter knowledge for teaching”and “the ways of representing and formulating a subject that make it comprehensibleto others” (p. 9). Building on Shulman’s work, Grossman (1990) further articulated theconstruct of PCK, identifying four major components: (a) knowledge and beliefsabout the purposes of teaching a subject at different grade levels, (b) knowledge ofstudents’ understanding, conceptions and misconceptions of particular topics in asubject matter, (c) knowledge of curriculum materials available for teaching particularsubject matter as well as knowledge about both the horizontal and vertical curriculafor a subject and (d) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations forteaching particular topics (pp. 8–9). Grossman refers to the first component as“conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter” and elaborates in this way:

Although beginning teachers may lack the managerial skills necessary toimplement their plans successfully, their beliefs about the goals for teaching theirsubjects become a form of conceptual map for instructional decision making,serving as the basis for judgments about textbooks, classroom objectives,assignments, and evaluation of students. (p. 86)

In accordance with this statement, Grossman places “conceptions of purposes forteaching subject matter” (p. 5) as an overarching component within the PCKdomain of teacher knowledge.

Pedagogical content knowledge, as a construct of teacher knowledge, hasbeen a visible line of research in science education, both in studies of practicingteachers (e.g., Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1999; Smith, 1999; Smith & Neale,1989; Tobin & McRobbie, 1999; Veal, 1997) and prospective science teachers inteacher education programs (e.g., Mason, 1999; Niess & Scholz, 1999; Zembal-Saul, Starr & Krajcik, 1999). Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed a model of PCK forscience teaching, retaining the components in Grossman’s (1990) but adding afifth component of “knowledge of assessment of scientific literacy” (p. 99; seeFigure 1).

294 PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

In the proposed PCK model for science teaching, Grossman’s “conceptions ofpurposes for teaching subject matter” is now identified as “orientations to teachingscience,” a term used by Anderson and Smith (1985). This component, whileundergoing a name change, retains its pivotal position, influencing the othercomponents of PCK and in turn, being influenced by these components as well.

Assessment of Science Teaching Orientations

Assessment of PCK is challenging due to the interacting components withinthe PCK model as well as between other domains of teacher knowledge: subjectmatter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context(Loughran, Gunstone, Berry, Milroy, & Mulhall, 2000). In reviewing PCKassessment techniques, Baxter and Lederman (1999) concur that PCK is not easilyassessed and recommend the use of multiple methods. Within the literature onscience teaching orientations, Magnusson et al. (1999) identify nine differentscience teaching orientations. However, many of the science teaching orientationstudies are based on classroom observations and researcher inference, and do notinclude interviews with teachers to explore teachers’ purposes and goals(Friedrichsen, 2002). Lanz and Katz’s (1987) study of chemistry teachers’

Figure 1. PCK model for science teaching (simplified version).From Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for scienceeducation (p. 99) by S. Magnusson, S., J. Krajcik, J, and H. Borko, 1999. In J. Gess-Newsome& N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Copyright 1999 by Kluwer. Adapted with permission.

which shapes

which shapes which shapes

which shapes

Knowledge & Beliefs ofInstructional Strategies

Knowledge & Beliefs of Students' Understanding of

Science

Knowledge & Beliefs about Assessment of

Scientific Literacy

includes

Knowledge & Beliefsabout Science Curricula

Orientations to Teaching Science

PCK

295USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

perceptions of teaching and Hewson and Hewson’s (1989) study of conceptions ofteaching science stand out as exceptions in that teacher interviews were part oftheir inductive approaches. However, in their use of a card-sorting task, Hewsonand Hewson (1989) chose not to label or categorize the orientations of the teachersparticipating in the study.

In our research on science teaching orientations, we employ multiple methods,including classroom observations, examination of teaching artifacts, andsemistructured interviews. In our study of highly regarded secondary biologyteachers, we have been able to co-construct, with the teacher participants, complexrepresentations of their science teaching orientations (Friedrichsen, 2002). Wefound that the information elicited from the card-sorting task was congruent withobservations of the teachers’ practice.

This literature base clearly suggests that tacit knowledge and beliefs of teachersplay an important role in learning to teach. As science teacher educators, we endeavorto engage prospective and practicing teachers with tools that enable them tobecome more aware of the knowledge and beliefs they bring to their work asscience teachers. Consequently, we developed a card-sorting task to be used inresearch settings and in science teacher education settings that facilitates elicitationand clarification of knowledge and beliefs about learning and teaching science.

Card-Sorting Task

Background and Development

The card-sorting task was originally designed as a research tool for elicitingteachers’ purposes and goals for teaching science to a particular group of students.Hewson and Hewson’s (1989) interview task to identify teachers’ conceptions ofteaching science informed the design of the card sort. In turn, Hewson and Hewson’sinterview about instances of science teaching and learning was based on the “interviewabout instances” technique developed by Osborne and Gilbert (1980). Initially, wewrote card sort scenarios using commonplace examples of the other four interactingcomponents of PCK (i.e., knowledge and beliefs about: science curricula, students’understanding of science, instructional strategies and assessment of scientific literacy).Two examples of the scenarios are shown in Table 1. In addition, different scenarioswere intended to be representative of each of the science teaching orientations identifiedin the literature. (See Magnusson et al., 1999, pp. 100–101.) However, in an initialpilot study, we found that prospective and practicing teachers’ science teachingorientations were more complex than portrayed in the literature, with the teachersholding aspects of multiple teaching orientations (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2000).

In using the card-sorting task, we found that it was not how the teacher sortedparticular cards, but what the teacher said during the sorting that offered the mostinsight into their science teaching orientation. For example, when a prospectiveelementary teacher, Mr. Gordon (a pseudonym) sorted the cards, he rejectedthe following scenario, “You, as a teacher, place bird feeders outside yourclassroom window. You ask students to carefully and accurately record their

296

Table 1 Examples of the Elementary Science Scenario Cards

Number Scenario

10 You, as a teacher, set up learning centers for a unit on Newton’s Laws of Motion. Using resource books from your school’s library, you select a variety of fun, easy-to-do activities.

17 You, as a teacher, place bird feeders outside your classroom window. You ask students to carefully and accurately record their observations in an electronic journal.

PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

observations in an electronic journal.” Our purpose with this scenario was toelicit knowledge and beliefs about learners and the potential opportunity forscientific inquiry, particularly data collection, analysis, and data-basedexplanations. During the interview, we asked Mr. Gordon to reconsider thisscenario and describe under what conditions he might place bird feeders outsidehis classroom window and engage students in feeder observations. He replied,“If I can also have a window shade then I would do it. I would pull down thewindow shade while I’m teaching science so the students won’t be distracted byactivity at the bird feeder” (Card Sort Interview, March 2000). Gordon was clearlyinfluenced by beliefs that directed him to control students and to keep the teacheras the center of classroom activity. Another prospective teacher, Ms. Nichol(pseudonym) rejected the bird feeder scenarios for a different reason. She thoughtthat observing the feeder was fine but felt that if students used a journal to recordtheir observations, the act of journaling would be unproductive and too time-consuming (Card Sort Interview, March 2000). While Nichol apparently held beliefsabout learners that supported student observation and, possibly, open-endedinvestigations, she rejected the scenario because she didn’t have a strong beliefthat collecting and organizing observational data was an important aspect ofscience learning. As a third example, an experienced elementary teacher, Ms. Kastle(pseudonym) selected the bird feeder scenario as most representative of the wayshe taught science. Kastle elaborated on the scenario, saying that she would bringin different types of bird seeds so that the students could explore the effect of seedtype on the species of birds visiting the feeder (Card Sort Interview, March 2000).In Kastle’s case, beliefs about engaging learners in active scientific inquirypermeated her reasoning. In each of the three examples, the explanation provided bythe teacher was most useful in understanding his or her science teaching orientations.

Use of the Card Sort in Teaching and Learning Science Courses

Throughout our research studies using the card-sorting task, we observedhow teachers’ consideration of the card scenarios was useful in helping themclarify what they believed about teaching and learning science. Although originally

297USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

created as a research tool, we successfully adapted the card-sorting task for usewith our teacher certification students, in both elementary and middle/secondaryscience teaching and learning courses (see Appendixes A and B for the completeset of card scenarios). In this section of the paper we describe several ways we haveused the card-sorting task.

Peer interview approach.

In preparation for the card-sorting task, the card sort scenarios can bedownloaded from the Web (http://www.missouri.edu/~pfxcf/ScenarioCards.htm)and printed onto 4 x 6 index cards to allow for easy handling. The numbers thatcoincide with each scenario may be used for record-keeping.

To introduce the activity, the science teacher educator asks for a volunteerand models the card sort task and interview process. Pairs of prospective teachersare then given a set of scenario cards. Prospective teachers take turns sorting thescenario cards and playing the role of interviewer following the protocol describedin the next section. During the interviews, emphasis is placed on listening carefullyto the ideas expressed by the partner. Prospective teachers should be cautioned toavoid agreeing with their partner, but to focus on eliciting the partner’s purposesand goals for teaching science.

The card sort protocol is as follows:1. One prospective teacher acts as the interviewer while the partner sorts the

cards. The interviewer asks the sorter to read the set of scenario cards and sort thecards into the following stacks: (a) “This scenario best represents how I wouldteach,” (b) “this scenario does not represent how I would teach,” and (c) “unsure.”The prospective teacher is encouraged to “think aloud” during the initial card-sorting process. While the prospective teacher is sorting the cards, the interviewershould note which scenarios evoke strong positive or negative reactions. In ouruse of the cards, we have found that a portion of the scenarios typically evokevisible reactions and comments. For example, an individual might shake her headand state, “I would never teach this way” or the individual may smile and sayenthusiastically, “I’ve done this and the students really liked this approach.” Inother cases, the individual may quickly and decisively dismiss a scenario. In thesecases, the interviewer should record the number of the card for use in Step 2.

2. The interviewer selects a scenario from the first stack that evoked a strongpositive reaction and asks the prospective teacher to talk about that scenario. Asa teacher might do with his or her students during a productive class discussion,the interviewer probes by asking questions that encourage the card sorter toarticulate reasoning—the knowledge and beliefs about goals and purposes forteaching science that underlie the strong response. The interview should beginthe questioning process by asking, “How does this scenario support your purposesand goals for teaching science?” Additional probing questions might include (a)“Which aspects of this scenario are the most appealing to you as a teacher?” and(b) “If you were going to teach a unit on this subject, what additional strategieswould you use?” In addition to asking questions, the interviewer should employ

298 PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

active listening strategies to further encourage the card sorter to clarify his or herthinking. Repeat with several more scenarios that evoked strong positive reactions.Typically, a theme will begin to emerge from this set of scenario cards. For example,the prospective teacher may prefer hands-on activities or the prospective teachermay value scenarios in which students explore their own questions. The interviewershould record these emerging themes as they relate to the prospective teacher’spurposes and goals for teaching science. If the interviews are audio-taped, theinterviewer will have the opportunity to return to the data and further analyze theprospective teacher’s responses.

3. The interviewer selects a scenario from the third stack that evoked a strongnegative reaction and asks the individual to explain why her or she rejected thecard. The interviewer may need to probe by asking, “What aspects of the scenariowould need to be changed before you could place the card in the first stack ofpreferred scenarios?” Repeat this process with several more scenario cards thatevoked strong negative reactions. We have found that a discussion focused aroundrejected scenarios helps to further delineate the prospective teacher’s purposesand goals for teaching science. For example, the prospective teacher may reject allscenarios portraying a discovery approach to learning because this approach doesnot support the teacher’s goal of having the students memorize the basic facts ofscience.

4. The interviewer asks the prospective teacher to reexamine the cards in thefirst stack by sorting the cards in a continuum, ranging from cards that bestrepresent how I would teach science to those that are still attractive, but not verystrong representations of my teaching. After completing the continuum sort, theinterviewer asks the prospective teacher to articulate the decision-making processused in sorting the cards. The interviewer should begin this process by asking theprospective teacher to look at the cards at one end of the continuum, the cards thatbest represent their teaching. The interviewer asks, “What do these (2–3) cardshave in common?” and “In what ways do these scenarios support your purposesand goals for teaching science?” When the prospective teacher is able to articulatethese commonalities, the interviewer moves to the opposite end of the continuum,and selects the last 2–3 cards. The interview asks, “What do these cards have incommon?” and “What aspects of these cards are appealing to you?”

5. The interviewer then identifies a small subset of scenarios that theinterviewer feels will be productive to explore. For example, the interviewer mightselect several cards from the middle of the continuum and ask, “In what ways arethese scenarios alike?….different?” By carefully probing and asking theprospective teacher to explain his/her rationale in sorting the cards on a continuum,the individual begins to articulate his or her tacit beliefs. In this step of the interviewprotocol, the interviewer adds new data to his or her emerging ideas about the cardsorter’s central purposes and goals for teaching science.

6. Based on data from Steps 1–5, the interviewer shares his or herperceptions of the prospective teacher’s purposes and goals for teachingscience. The interviewer needs to give the prospective teacher an opportunityto respond and negotiate, if necessary. If the interviewer has been thorough

299USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

and careful in his or her analysis, we have found that the interviewee will be inagreement with the interviewer’s analyses. The interviewee takes a few minutesto record insights about his or her own science teaching orientation(s) beforemoving to Step 7.

7. Within the pair, roles are switched and Steps 1–6 are repeated.8. As an out-of-class assignment, prospective teachers are asked to draw on

the information from the card-sorting task to write an initial draft of theirphilosophy of science teaching and learning. An overview of the steps for thecard-sorting task is shown in Table 2.

Modified interview approach.

Dana, the second author of this article, has designed a modification of theabove interview protocol, which eliminates the initial modeling step; this modifiedapproach is also appropriate for a large class setting. Using this approach, allprospective teachers start off as card sorters, following directions provided by theinstructor. After sorting the initial stack into the three stacks—“best representshow I would teach,” “does not represent how I would teach,” and “unsure”—theprospective teachers are directed to create a continuum with the “best represents”stack. Prospective teachers are then asked to analyze their continua to look forsimilarities and differences in the goals and purposes of teaching science underlyingeach card and record their observations about themselves in a journal. Then theyare paired to discuss each other’s sorting, offering probing questions and clarifyingcomments as warranted. The prospective teachers then complete another round ofjournaling, elaborating on their initial journal entries. This version of the card-sorting task culminates with an out-of-class assignment in which prospectiveteachers write a philosophy of science teaching statement using examples fromthe card sort to illustrate their goals and purposes for teaching science to aparticular group of students.

Another approach might be to assign the entire card-sorting task as an out-of-class activity for individuals or pairs. Prospective teachers could be asked tocomplete the card sort and to prepare a reaction paper in which they highlightinsights about their science teaching orientations. We can think of many possiblevariations on the card-sorting task but suggest that science teacher educatorsconsider their goals and purposes for using such a task before deciding on anapproach that might work for them.

Response to the Card-Sorting Task

We have used the card-sorting task with prospective teachers in both theelementary and middle/secondary science education programs. In the middle/secondary program, we used the card-sorting task in the first week of the course.Students interviewed each other and the information generated during the cardsort was used to write an initial draft of their science teaching and learningphilosophy paper. In a whole class discussion immediately following the card-

300

Table 2Overview of the Card-Sorting Task

Step Activity

1 Students work in pairs, selecting one as the interviewer and the other as the teacher. Teacher sorts the scenario cards into three stacks: (a) this scenario represents how I would teach, (b) this scenario does not represent how I would teach, and (c) unsure.

2 Interviewer selects scenarios from the first stack that evoked a strong positive reaction and asks clarifying questions. Example: “In what ways does this scenario support your purposes and goals for teaching science?” Interviewer selects scenarios from third stack that evoked a strong negative reaction and asks clarifying questions. Example: “What aspects of this scenario would need to be changed before you could place this card in the first stack?”

3 Teacher re-sorts the cards from the first stack into a continuum of “most representative to least representative of my teaching.” Interviewer asks probing questions to elicit the teacher’s decision-making process, initially focusing on the “most representative” end of the continuum and then moving to the other end. Key Question: “In what ways do these cards support your purposes and goals for teaching science?” Interviewer selects additional subsets of cards and asks clarifying questions. Example: “In what ways are these cards alike? Different?

4 Interviewer shares perceptions of teacher’s emerging science teaching orientation.

5 Roles are switched, and Steps 1 4 are repeated.

6 Students reflect on information from the card-sorting task and draft an initial version of the science teaching and learning philosophy.

PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

sorting task, many students expressed surprise in finding that their partner helddifferent goals for teaching science. Later in the semester, we referred to the card-sorting task in discussions of conceptual change learning theory, drawing parallelsbetween students learning a science concept and prospective teachers learning toteach science (Hewson & Hewson, 1989). In both cases, an important step is tomake initial ideas explicit (Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998; Thorley & Stofflett,1996). As teacher educators, we have found the card-sorting task to be a useful toolfor helping prospective teachers begin to articulate their knowledge and beliefsabout their own purposes and goals for teaching science.

Some reactions from elementary prospective teachers are worth sharing. Ms.Cary’s initial reaction was, “I actually learned that I already have pretty strong

301USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

beliefs about what is important in elementary science.” She went on to state that,“I noticed that I was very attracted to cards that showed kids following open-ended questions or exploring various materials without much direction from theteacher. All of my “best represents” cards consistently do not have me as thelecturer. I really want children to be self-directed and free explorers, and science isa great way to do that.” By further examining her card sort, it can be determinedthat Cary is very interested in having children engaged in activity, but she onlytalks of means without ends. By doing this card sort at the beginning of thesemester, it became possible to question Cary about the benefits and limitations ofopen inquiry and activity-driven science and help her reach a more moderate, andproductive, view of elementary science that will serve her during student teachingand her initial years of teaching.

Similarly, Ms. Kwon reacted to the card sort by stating, “I picked so manycards that I think are like me! The one thing that is clear is that I want hands-onscience lessons in my classroom that relate science to students’ everyday lives.This activity made me realize how much science is taught from the teacher’sperspective without taking the students’ lives into account.” Kwon’s strong positivereactions to many cards suggested to us that she had very broad and nonspecificpurposes and goals for teaching science. Her statement in the follow-up philosophyof science teaching assignment (Step 6) also supports her generalist approach:“All of the cards that I placed in my ‘like’ category pertained greatly to the hands-on approach: studying science topics in depth, connecting science to other subjectareas, having parent involvement, learning beyond the classroom walls, as well asrelating science to our everyday lives.”

In our use of the card sort we have noted that experienced teachers responddifferently to the card sort than prospective teachers. Prospective teachers tendnot to ask additional questions about the scenarios, while experienced teacherstend to infer contextual clues as they consider each scenario. We don’t provideadditional contextual information but ask the teacher to explain the conditionsunder which they would accept or reject a particular scenario. A situated cognitionperspective, in which teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are viewed as context-specific (Putnam & Borko, 2000) may account for differences we have notedbetween prospective and experienced teachers’ responses. This is an area that wehave only begun to explore in our research. Nonetheless, both prospective andpracticing teachers have found the card sort to be a useful tool in articulating theirpurposes and goals for teaching science.

Limitations

We offer this tool with several caveats. The card sort presented here is not likethe magical sorting hat of Hogswarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry that peereddeeply into the souls of Harry Potter and his classmates in order to sort them intovarious houses based on some presumably deep-seated “orientation” (see Rowling,1998). We do not think that the task is useful in sorting teachers into prescribedcategories of science teaching orientations; nor do we use the card-sorting task to

302 PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

create science teaching orientation profiles of teachers. Rather, the card-sortingtask is merely an elicitation and clarification tool. It was designed to helpindividuals begin to articulate knowledge and beliefs about their purposes andgoals for teaching science so that they can be clarified and made targets of change,if necessary. Science teaching orientations are complex in nature and appear tochange over time (Friedrichsen, 2002). The card sort task will elicit only an initiallist of purposes and goals representing the individual’s current science teachingorientation. Our goal, as instructors, is to help our students examine their individualscience teaching orientations and target these orientations for change when theyare incompatible with reform-oriented teaching practices. In both our research andteaching, the card sort is just one of the tools that we use to help individualsarticulate their science teaching orientation.

On a more specific level, we would like to note two limitations or concerns:1. The scenarios we have written are culturally bound, reflecting typical

science teaching practices that we have observed and read about. In theappendixes, we include the elementary science and the middle/secondary sciencescenario cards (see also http://www.missouri.edu/~pfxcf/ScenarioCards.htm, for asecondary biology version). In writing them, we have attempted to represent arange of instructional and assessment strategies. We have changed scenarios whenwe noted that a particular card did not evoke a strong reaction—either positive ornegative—or consistently failed to generate meaningful conversation. Thescenarios should be changed as needed by science teacher educators andresearchers, remembering that it is not agreement with the scenario that matters; itis the teachers’ reasoning about the scenario that appears to be more informative.

2. The information elicited during the card sort task is somewhat dependentupon the skills of the interviewer. Throughout the interview, the interviewer needsto ask probing questions, such as “In what ways does the scenario support or notsupport your purposes and goals for teaching science?” and “How are thesescenarios alike or different in your thinking?” While constantly probing, theinterviewer needs to pay attention to recurring themes and check for mutualunderstanding. We have found that by carefully modeling the interview process,teachers are able to help their peers articulate their knowledge and beliefs aboutthe purposes and goals for teaching science.

References

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1985). Teaching science. In J. Koehler (Ed.), Theeducator’s handbook: a research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York: Longman.

Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogicalcontent knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examiningpedagogical content knowledge the construct and its implications for scienceeducation (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

303USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In Whittrock, M.(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (pp. 255–296). New York:Macmillan.

Freeman, D. (1991). To make the tacit explicit: teacher education, emergingdiscourse, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,7(5/6), 439–454.

Friedrichsen, P. M. (2002). A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondarybiology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 63(07), 2496A (AAT 3060018).

Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T.M. (2000, April). Exploring Elementary Teachers’Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Supporting Children’s Scientific Inquiry:Orientations to Teaching Science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Friedrichsen, P.M., & Dana, T. M. (2002, January). Using a Card-sorting Task toElicit Science Teaching Orientations. Association for the Education ofTeachers of Science International Conference, Charlotte, NC.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogicalcontent knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teachereducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S. (1989). Teachers of substance: subjectmatter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for thebeginning teacher (pp. 23–36). Oxford, England: Pergammon Press.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A’ B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task foridentifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education forTeaching,15, 191–209.

Hewson, P.W., Beeth, M.E., & Thorley, N.R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change.In B.J. Fraser, & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of ScienceEducation (pp. 199–218). Great Britain: Kluwer.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.AmNeilan Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: inferences concerningthe goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469.

Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Professional growth among preservice and beginningteachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.

Kagan, D. M. (1992b). Implications of research on teacher belief. EducationalPsychologist, 27, 65–90.

Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. ScienceEducation, 71(1), 117–134.

Lederman, N.G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Reconceptualizing secondary scienceteacher education. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining

304 PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for scienceeducation (pp. 199–213). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Loughran, J., Gunstone, R., Berry, A., Milroy, P., & Mulhall, P. (2000, April). Sciencecases in action: developing an understanding of science teachers’pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and developmentof pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome& N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: theconstruct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Mason, C.L. (1999). The triad approach: a consensus for science teaching andlearning. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogicalcontent knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education(pp. 277–292). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Niess, M.L., & Scholz, J.M. (1999). Incorporating subject matter specific teachingstrategies into secondary science teacher preparation. In J. Gess-Newsome &N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: theconstruct and its implications for science education (pp. 257–273). Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Osborne, R., & Gilbert, J. (1980). A technique for exploring students’ views of theworld. Physics Education,50, 376–479.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up amessy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinkinghave to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher,29(1), 4–15.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119).New York: Macmillan.

Rowling, J.K. (1998). Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. New York: A.A. LevineBooks.

Shulman, L.S. ( 1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher 15, 4–14.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–22.

Shulman, L. (1988). The dangers in dichotomous thinking in education. In P.Grimmet & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 31–39).New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, D.C. (1999). Changing our teaching: the role of pedagogical contentknowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman(Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and itsimplications for science education (pp. 163–197). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Smith, D.C., & Neale, D.C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledgein primary science teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 5(1), 1–20.

305USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

Thorley, N.R., & Stofflett, R.T. (1996). Representation of the conceptual changemodel in science teacher education. Science Education,80(3), 317–339.

Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge andcoparticipation in science classrooms. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman(Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and itsimplications for science education (pp. 215–234). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Veal, W. R. (1997). The evolution of pedagogical content knowledge in chemistryand physics prospective secondary teachers. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, A.E. (1987). ‘150 Different ways’ ofknowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–123). London: Cassell.

Zembal-Saul, C., Starr, M.L, & Krajcik, J.S. (1999). Constructing a framework forelementary science teaching using pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical contentknowledge: the construct and its implications for science education (pp.237–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

306

Appendix A Elementary Science Card Scenarios

Number Scenario

1 You, as a teacher, are teaching a unit on space. Each day during the unit you read to the class from a chapter book about the solar system. After reading about a particular planet, you ask students to make a statement about the planet. You record these statements on the board for inclusion in a letter sent home to parents at the end of the day.

2 You, as a teacher, want students to learn about insects. You decide the best way to do this is to have children cut out pattern body parts and assemble these into an insect that is placed on the bulletin board.

3 In a unit on cells you, as a teacher, decide that the best way to learn about parts of a cell is for students to assemble a “jello cell,” where various shaped candies represent different cell parts.

4 You, as a teacher, begin a new unit by asking students what they already know about the topic. You use a KWL chart to record the students’ prior knowledge.

5 You, as a teacher, have students observe earthworms and generate questions about earthworm behavior. Each group designs and carries out their own experiment to test a hypothesis related to the group’s questions.

6 You, as a teacher, require your students to participate in the school’s Science Fair. You remind students and parents that the act of doing science is more important than the results.

7 Your students are intrigued with a toy water rocket that a classmate has brought to school. As a group, the students identify questions and ways to explore how the rocket works. You help the students organize into investigation teams, and you investigate along with the students.

8 You, as teacher, teach a recycling unit by presenting important information about recycling to your students.

9 You, as teacher, encourage students to explore their own interests about the natural world. One of your students uses library books to research information on whales while another student sets up an investigation to study bread molds.

PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

307

Appendix A (continued)

Number Scenario

10 You, as a teacher, set up learning centers for a unit on Newton’s Laws of Motion. Using resource books from your school library, you select a variety of fun, easy-to-do activities.

11 You, as a teacher, want your students to learn about simple machines. You decide the best way to do this is to provide the students with broken household gadgets and appliances to take apart.

12 You, as a teacher, set up a “Sink or Float” learning center in one corner of the room. On a weekly basis, you change the materials available at this center.

13 You, as a teacher, want students to learn the phases of the moon. You decide to ask your students to observe and make sketches of the moon each night for a period of one month.

14 You, as a teacher, want your students to learn about classification. You have students sort a collection of leaves into different categories based on the leaves’ properties.

15 In an electricity unit, you, as a teacher, give students batteries, bulbs and wires. You encourage the students to find all the possible ways to light the bulb.

16 You, as a teacher, design a science unit around the question, “What’s in our drinking water?”

17 You, as teacher, place bird feeders outside your classroom window. You ask students to carefully and accurately record their observations in an electronic journal.

18 Your students have just completed a bridge-building project. For the next unit on simple machines, you ask the students to make their bridge moveable using a combination of two or more simple machines.

USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

308 PATRICIA MEIS FRIEDRICHSEN & THOMAS M. DANA

Appendix B Middle/Secondary Science Card Scenarios

Number Scenario

1 You, as a teacher, design a unit on drinking water by organizing lecture/discussion materials, and designing laboratory activities.

2 You, as a teacher, have your students first engage in laboratory activites, then follow up with class discussion.

3 You have each student select a topic from a list that you provide. Working individually, the students use the school library and the Internet as resources for writing a report on their topic.

4 As a means of assessment, you have students role-play the process of meiosis.

5 To help your student understand arthropod characteristics, you organize a series of stations, with each station containing representatives from a different class of arthropods.

6 You, as a teacher, decide the best way for students to learn about volcanoes is to have them build models of volcanoes.

7 In a weather unit, you have students take daily temperature and rainfall readings, as well as estimate wind speeds.

8 As a teacher, you organize a unit on drinking water by having students design their own investigations related to local drinking water.

9 As a teacher, you begin a new unit by presenting basic background information and terminology before moving into the laboratory activities.

10 You, as a teacher, begin a pendulum unit by giving students strings and weights. By letting the students explore on their own, they will be able to discover which variable (length of string or mass) affects the number of swings per minute.

309USING A CARD-SORTING TASK

Appendix B (continued)

Number Scenario

11 You, as a teacher, decide the best way for your students to learn about organic compounds is to organize the students into small groups. Each small group will present information on a different type of organic compound.

12 As a means of assessment, you give your students a multiple-choice exam.

13 As a teacher, you begin a unit on light by asking students to explain how they can see the writing on the chalkboard.

14 As a teacher, you decide the best way to teach photosynthesis is to design a well-organized series of lectures.

15 In a unit on evolution, you have students debate creation vs. evolution.

16 When designing laboratory activities, you include clear, easy to follow, step-by-step directions for the procedure.

17 As a chemistry teacher, you have the students memorize the first 20 elements of the periodic table.

18 In planning a unit, you collect a variety of activities for the students to do. You organize the unit by doing a different activity each day.

19 As a teacher, you have your students observe earthworms and generate questions about earthworm behavior. Each small group designs and carries out their own experiment to test a hypothesis related to the group’s questions.

20 As a teacher, you begin a unit on plate tectonics by having your students read the chapter in the textbook.