AN EXPLORATION INTO THE INFLUENCE OF LABORATORY CONSTRAINTS ON BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS’ EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM

Abstract

Science reform is promoting change in undergraduate biology education. Biology graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are vital instructors in undergraduate biology education. However, the culture of GTAs as laboratory instructors has not changed in a fashion that is analogous with the goals of science reform. Also, misalignments exist between GTAs’ epistemological beliefs and science instructional practices that past research has not been able to explain. An instructor’s epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning are subject to laboratory constraints and can be transformed into classroom practices. The purpose of this study was to explore how laboratory constraints provide an understanding of misalignments between epistemological beliefs and science instructional practice, in order to inform how necessary changes in undergraduate biology education can be achieved. This research implemented an exploratory, multi-case design to answer the research questions: 1. How are the features of biology graduate teaching assistants’ professed epistemological beliefs related to their science instructional practice in the laboratory, if at all? 2. How are misalignments between the features of professed epistemological beliefs and science instructional practice influenced by laboratory constraints, if at all? This study examined the relationship between the features of GTAs’ professed epistemological beliefs, science instructional practices, and laboratory constraints with complexity theory as the theoretical foundation. The study produced results that were significant in three ways. First, results indicated that the GTAs’ epistemological beliefs transferred into their practice, and they taught science in the ways that they believed that it should be, drawing mainly from their science learning experiences as students. Second, GTAs’ beliefs either aligned or misaligned with their science instructional practices. Misalignments were influenced by laboratory constraints such as the amount of time allocated for laboratory, curriculum design, and resources, which resulted in conflicts between GTAs’ core and peripheral beliefs. These results have potential pedagogical applications for the designers of GTA professional development. Finally, the study highlighted the connection among the three components—epistemological beliefs, science instructional practice, and contextual constraints—noting that each area is by no means independent and so closely related to each other that researchers cannot study one area without considering the other.