Uncovering and comparing academics’ views of teaching using the pedagogic frailty model as a tool: a case study in science education

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background One approach to enhancing the pedagogy of science education is to employ academics who are not only science-trained but also engaged in education research. As some academics begin their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research careers with a pure science background, shifting in disciplinary perspectives can be a source of professional tension. The pedagogic frailty model provides a framework that helps us to integrate institutional efforts to enhance teaching improvements by maintaining a simultaneous focus on critical areas that are thought to impede academic development. Purpose This paper draws attention to the importance of disciplinary crossover by uncovering and comparing academics’ teaching perspectives, views and beliefs from three disciplines: natural science (chemistry), social science (education) and science education. Method Through a case study design using the pedagogic frailty model and concept map-mediated interviews as a tool, three academics engaged in a non-linear discourse in which their conceptions could be visualised and analysed. Findings and Discussion Analysis of the case study interviews indicated that the academics’ conceptions of teaching were highly individualised. The discourse surrounding the curriculum, and the embeddedness of and connection between pedagogy and discipline, were both subject-sensitive and influenced by professional backgrounds and research areas. On the other hand, because they operated under the same institutional values and regulations, we found a considerable overlap in terms of how the academics perceived the tensions between research and teaching and academic leadership. By comparing three academics who were at a different stage in the journey from disciplinary experts (chemistry) to teaching expert (education), we were able to uncover and understand more about the ways that the teaching environment impacted upon their practices. The science educator shared aspects of the other two perspectives, which suggests that his profile was a transitory state in comparison with the chemist and the educationist. Conclusion The findings provide a glimpse of the distinctive nature of the values that underpin teaching and offer insights that can be used to promote dialogue about quality enhancement in science education.