Evaluating Drawings to Explore Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Attitudes - Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education - page 251

Evaluating Drawings to Explore Chemistry
Teachers ' Pedagogical Attitudes

Silvija Markic and Ingo Eilks

Abstract Based on a review of a set of studies conducted by the authors, this
chapter discusses the potential of using drawings of classroom situations to explore,
research, and assess the pedagogical attitudes of chemistry teachers and teacher
trainees. Justification is given for using such drawings to gain insights into teachers

'
pedagogical attitudes. Two methods for evaluating beliefs and pedagogical atti-
tudes will be outlined and illustrated by prototypical examples. Implications for
teacher education will also be discussed.

1 Drawings and Attitudes

For decades drawings and visual imagery have been used as markers or “mirrors” of
personal identity (Weber & Mitchell, 1996 ). The discipline of art therapy views
drawings as key tools for understanding patients

thoughts and feelings, including
helping them making sense of their current life situation. Adler ( 1982 ) showed that
drawings offer not only a chance to reflect upon personal feelings and attitudes
toward certain people or situations but also an opportunity to communicate cultural
issues and values which are prevalent within a specific living environment.
This paper discusses the use of drawings in teacher education. Thomas,
Pederson, and Finson in 2000 suggested the use of drawings to explore, research,
and assess pedagogical attitudes of science teachers toward student- vs. teacher-
centeredness. Their original idea was further developed by Markic and Eilks ( 2008 )
for getting a broader view into chemistry teachers

'

beliefs and attitudes toward
classroom organization, the objectives of chemistry education, and the way chem-
istry should be taught. In a set of studies, drawings of classroom situations were
used to analyze and compare chemistry student teachers

'

and experienced teachers

'
respective beliefs with their counterparts from other science teaching domains
(Markic & Eilks, 2008 ), at different phases of their teacher education program

'