

Contributions from the Philosophy of Science

to the Education of Science Teachers

VICENTE MELLADO
1
, CONSTANTINO RUIZ

1
,

MARÍA LUISA BERMEJO
2
and ROQUE JIMÉNEZ

3

1
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, University of
Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain (E-mail: vmellado@unex.es);

2
Department of Psychology and

Sociology of Education, Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain;
3
Department of Science Education and Philosophy, Faculty of Education, University of Huelva,
Spain

Abstract. One of the most important topics on the international agenda in educational re-

search is to gain an understanding of the processes of educational change in teachers and of
the factors that favour or hinder it. Such understanding is, for instance, an essential element in
planning and putting into practice initial and ongoing teacher education programs. This article
reviews the research on science teachers’ educational change. To organize the information, an

analogy is made with the process of scientific change, analyzing and evaluating the contri-
butions of the different models taken from the philosophy of science -- positivism, Popper’s
principle of falsifiability, Lakatos’ scientific research programs, Laudan’s research traditions,

Toulmin’s evolutionism, and Kuhn’s relativism. We conclude the article with the implications
for science teacher education.

1. Introduction

While we live in a time of accelerating change, of societies made interde-
pendent by economic globalization and the development of information
systems, there remain world-wide the problems of the environment,
overpopulation, war, terrorism, inequality, poverty, and the endemic dis-
eases of many parts of the planet. There is still a long way to go before
globalization affects such important aspects as health, justice, education,
sustainable development, or the spread of democracy. Also, many of the
moral, political, and cultural tenets of the XX century are changing, and it
is still not clear in which direction.
These changes have their reflection in the school (Marcelo 2002) which

is becoming ever more complex and heterogeneous, as are the pupils
themselves and the social context in which the school is a part. Longer
obligatory schooling, growing interculturality, conflictiveness in the
classroom, the loss of teachers’ traditional role of authority, and the new

Science & Education (2006) 15:419--445 � Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11191-005-8920-y


technologies which give the pupils access to many sources of information
and communication, represent a constant challenge to teachers many of
whom find a mismatch between what was taught them in their professional
education and what is actually expected of them.
Educational systems attempt to adapt to these changes by imposing cur-

ricular reforms while conserving the old organizational structures, ingenu-
ously expecting that curricular change will suffice to improve teaching. It is
not taken into account that the key to the qualitative improvement of edu-
cational systems are the teachers themselves, and it is they who truly deter-
mine the success or failure of any reform or curricular innovation
(Mitchener and Anderson 1989; Tobin et al. 1994). As noted by Fullan
(1991, p. 117) ‘‘changes in education depend on what teachers think and do,
something at once so simple and so complex’’. Teachers are not technicians
limited to applying the reforms and instructions drawn up by the experts.
Rather they have values, attitudes, and conceptions, and make decisions
on the basis of many factors, including their own history and personal
situation, and the social and professional context in which they work. This
complexity means that, unless particular attention is paid to teacher educa-
tion and change, educational reforms have little influence on life in the
classroom.
An important topic in research on teacher education and professional

development is the process of change in science teachers considered in its
various stages, and the factors that favour or hinder it (Abell and Pizzini
1992). Our purpose in this article is to attempt to understand this process
in which, in one way or another, all of us as teachers are immersed, and
thereby enable us to come to rational decisions on what should be changed
and what should be kept or improved. Our basis will be models that are
analogues of the different models of scientific change from theories of the
philosophy of science (Mellado 2003). We shall conclude the article with
the implications for science teacher education.

2. An Analogy between the Philosophy of Science and Educational Change

in Science Teachers

Until the 1980s, the philosophy of science was practically absent from both
science teaching programs and teacher education. Instead, there was an im-
plicit acceptance of immature and untested conceptions of the nature of
science (Burbules and Linn 1991). Many works then began to consider that
it was indispensable to include some reflection on the nature of science in
science teaching programs and teacher education (Matthews 1992). Despite
the best intentions, however, there are still many impediments against

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.420


science teachers receiving good instruction in the history and philosophy of
science (Matthews 2004a).
There have been numerous lines of research relating the philosophy of

science with science teaching. Adúriz-Bravo (2001) groups these relation-
ships into seven classes. Two refer to the objects of study shared by the
two disciplines -- the epistemological foundation of erudite science, and the
epistemological foundation of school-level science. The other five refer to
the relative positions taken by educational and philosophical metadiscourse
(Figure 1).
One of these research lines constructs explanations of an analogical

nature for science teaching on the basis of the models and theories of the
philosophy of the science (3a of Figure 1). Indeed, since Piaget (1970) set
out a parallel between scientific progress and the psychological process of
the development of the child, analogy with models in philosophy has been
used as a basis for theories of learning science and of pupils’ conceptual
change (Nussbaum 1989; Clemison 1990; Burbules and Linn 1991; Cobb
et al. 1991; Mellado and Carracedo 1993; Cudmani et al. 2000; Villani
2001). In this present article, we shall analyse the processes of change in
the science teacher by establishing an analogy between scientific change
according to different philosophical theories and the change in teachers’
educational practice.
An analogy is a comparison between two situations or different domains

of knowledge that have a certain similarity relationship with each other
(Bermejo et al. 2002). Constructivism, as also Piaget’s notion of equilibration
or schema theory, considers meanings to be constructed actively, relating the
new with ideas that are already held via a generally analogical process.
Science itself commonly uses analogues in the context of discovery to under-
stand the natural world, many of which remain long after their immediate
usefulness. And every expert teacher knows the effectiveness of good analo-
gies in the science classroom.

Philosophy
of science 

Science
education 

1.functions as the object of study of the

2. is used as a tool in the
3a

3b
4.incorporates its proposals into the general system

5. functions as the object of study of the

3. constructs explanations
byanalogywiththe

Figure 1. Relationships between science education and philosophy of science
(Adúriz-Bravo 2001, p. 487).

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 421


An analogy is neither an equivalence nor a justification, but a compari-
son between two essentially different domains. Analogical learning, used
with suitable limitations, has an enormous potential for building, relating,
and organizing new knowledge on the basis of what is already known.
While the establishment of analogies between scientific change and
personal cognitive change is not exempt from criticism, it has the advan-
tage of relating different scientific fields in a common endeavour, thereby
acting as an antidote against the progressive specialization in research and
the potential Balkanization of the different fields of research in the social
sciences (Gilbert 1999).
Of the many criteria for classifying different philosophical theories

(Vázquez et al. 2001), we shall take that which refers to the conditions that
cause change and scientific progress. To this end, we selected a set of theo-
ries, on the basis of which we shall set up analogies with teachers’ educa-
tional change. These theories are: positivism, Popper’s principle of
falsifiability, Lakatos’ scientific research programs, Laudan’s research tra-
ditions, Toulmin’s evolutionism, and Kuhn’s relativism. It is not our pur-
pose to go to any depth into the enormous richness and complexity of
philosophical theories. The objective is rather to make a schematic
approach to how they deal with scientific progress and change in theories
(Estany 1990) with the sole purpose of setting up the analogy.

3. Positivist and Falsifiability Models

Throughout the history of philosophy there has been constant tension in
the fundamentals of scientific knowledge between the rationalist and the
empiricist schools. The rationalist school stresses the importance of reason
and the concepts created by the mind in the process of forming the foun-
dations of scientific knowledge. Classical empiricism, however, stresses the
justification of knowledge on the basis of data obtained directly from sen-
sory experience, and deals with establishing an inductive scientific method
supported on the data of that experience. The methodology of the ‘narrow’
inductivist conception of scientific research, in the words of Hempel
(Estany 1993), can be summed up in the following steps: (1) observing and
recording the facts; (2) analyzing and classifying them; (3) using them as
the basis for the inductive derivation of generalizations; and (4) the sub-
sequent testing of those generalizations.
During the 1920s and 1930s, the components of the Vienna Circle

rejected dogmatism, and, with their different origins and academic back-
grounds, attempted to provide a rigorous foundation for scientific knowl-
edge, whose implications, both philosophical and educational, are still the
object of a debate necessary today so as not to fall into simplifications

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.422


about what this movement meant (Matthews 2004b; Philipp 2004). The
empiricist school had an important influence in the first years of the
Vienna Circle in its so-called logical positivism -- instrumentalist and
phenomenalist. These years were characterized by the rejection of meta-
physics as a science, the development of mathematical logic, and the
empirical and direct inductive verification of observational statements
(Vázquez et al. 2001). Although logical positivism dealt with the context of
the justification and not with discovery, so that one cannot properly speak
of a change of theories, it regarded scientific progress as taking place by
the accumulation of knowledge when there exists experimental verification
of a new theory. This new theory has to maintain the confirmed predic-
tions of the previous theory, incorporate new predictions which were not
shown by that old theory, and avoid its false consequences.
The corresponding educational analogy with the accumulative concep-

tion of knowledge is the model of technical rationality (Figure 2). This
considers that there is nothing problematic about change since teachers
will change when they attend quality courses in which they are transmitted
the most appropriate content and the best way of teaching it as verified by
experts. For the in-service teacher, ongoing education based on courses
given by experts is normally not very effective, except for a minority of
courses with which the teacher shares the theoretical framework and dis-
course and hence is already willing to accept change. Teachers are usually

Scientific theories change by
falsification via conjecture and
refutation. 

There is nothing problematic
about educational change. The
teacher is a technician who
applies educational models that
have been tested and transmitted
by experts.Logical

positivism

Principle of
falsifiability

(Popper) 
There exist crucial experiments
that contradict the existing
theories and hence provoke
change.

Verification is by the empiricist
scientificmethod. The primacy
of observation. 

Teachers’ educational change is
producedby dissatisfaction with
their conceptions and teaching
practices.

Practical knowledge is learned
by observation and imitation.

Knowledge is tested by positive
verification, and the new theories
are adopted as true. 

Figure 2. Analogy with logical positivism and Popper’s principle of falsifiability.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 423


fairly skeptical about the reforms and ideal teacher models that are trans-
mitted to them at any given time. They think that one can be a good tea-
cher using very different teaching styles and strategies (Wildy and Wallace
1995). Thus, these teacher education strategies have not been at all
effective in changing teachers’ conceptions, and even less so their teaching
practices, and when changes do occur it is more from the discussion and
collaboration between the participants than from experts transmitting new
models to them (Garret et al. 1990).
Paradoxically, this model of academic-propositional knowledge often

co-exists in initial teacher education, but as two separate and independent
parts, with a craft orientation towards the practice of teaching, based on
inductive empiricism, which considers that practical knowledge of teaching
is learned by one’s own experience, by trial and error, and by the mere
observation and imitation of expert teachers.
At university, hardly any attention is paid to the pedagogical educa-

tion of the future university teacher. Indeed the empiricist conception
predominates, and one finds fairly commonplace the simplistic concep-
tion that teaching is easy, and that to be a teacher it is enough to have
knowledge of the material to be taught, experience, common sense, and
innate personal qualities (Gil-Pérez et al. 1991; Perales 1998). The aca-
demic reward system is clearly coherent with this conception, being
focused on research with little evaluation of teaching and few incentives
to teach well.
Inductivist empiricism was rejected by many components of the Vienna

Circle, and positivism evolved towards an orientation that stressed the role
of hypotheses, and recognized that observation depended on theory. The
principle of verification was maintained, but the validation of empirical
statements would not be at the beginning, but a posteriori through empirical
verification of the hypotheses by checking the conformity of a predicted fact
with an observed fact (Kraft 1977).
Critical realism, Popper (1983), rejects principle of empirical induction,

and emphasizes the value of theories as against observation. For Popper, a
theory does not change by verification, but by falsification when a crucial
experiment is found that contradicts it. Scientific progress occurs through
the repeated overthrow of theories by falsification and their temporary
replacement by other more satisfactory theories in a process of successive
conjecture and refutation.
Analogously, change in teachers would be produced by dissatisfaction

with their conceptions and teaching practices as against others considered
more suitable (Figure 2). Nevertheless, although dissatisfaction are neces-
sary elements for change (Ritchie and Rigano 2002), they are not suffi-
cient, since the teacher may well continue living and working with

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.424


unresolved conflicts and dilemmas (Hashweh 2003). Gil-Pérez (1993) con-
siders the strategy of provoking dissatisfaction from outside to be
‘perverse’ in the sense that the intention is to make teachers’ ideas and
educational strategies explicit only to immediately reject them, and that
this leads to even greater resistance instead of stimulating change.
The strategy could also turn and work against change when the level of

dissatisfaction and the mismatch between the teachers’ expectations
(whether self-established or externally imposed) and what they actually do
is excessive and not under their own control, and no viable alternative is
apparent. Teachers have frequent motives for dissatisfaction (Hargreaves
1996; Troman and Woods 2000): they see how the old certainties are col-
lapsing, their teaching strategies are subjected to criticism, their authority
is questioned, their roles are not those they went into the profession
expecting, and reforms and proposals for innovation come one after
another creating an added overload that often leads not to change but to
fatigue, frustration, guilt, discouragement, disenchantment, depression,
cynicism, and even abandonment of the profession.

4. Models of Conceptual Change

The limitations of the contradiction-based model have given rise to teacher
education proposals that consider that dissatisfaction with, and
self-criticism of, initial educational strategies and practices do not necessar-
ily imply that there is a willingness to change them. The teacher has to
have viable alternatives available and be capable of anticipating the actions
required to put them into practice (Lucio, unpublished thesis). The models
of scientific change of Lakatos and of Kuhn have for years been used as
analogues for science learning by conceptual change.
For Lakatos (1983), every scientific research program has core compo-

nents that are resistant to change, and the most that can be achieved by
falsification is to reject auxiliary hypotheses which are easily substituted
without altering the essentials. Scientific progress, for both Lakatos and
the pragmatists, is produced by competition between programs, so that one
would have to consider simultaneously the disadvantages of the old and
the advantages of the new. Analogously, the basic aspects of teachers’ the-
ories and practices are strongly resistant to change, and when this does
occur it is because the teachers have alternatives available with which they
can feel more satisfied (Figure 3).
Many constructivist-based teacher education programs take as referents

the four conditions of Posner et al. (1982): to determine and evaluate
teachers’ initial ideas, and, if they are unsatisfactory, to present new
ideas that are intelligible, plausible, and useful (Hewson and Hewson

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 425


1989; Gunstone et al. 1993; Stofflet 1994). The strategies in teacher
education encourage conceptual change through reflection on cognitive
conflict (Pintó et al. 2005). While there is general agreement on the need
for reflection on these initial ideas and practices, even if there is dissatis-
faction with them and alternatives are available this is not enough for
teachers’ educational change to take place. There must also be motiva-
tion and confidence in the changes that are to be put into effect, as well
as anticipation in preparing strategies for classroom action (Davis 1996;
Hashweh 2003). Teachers will only change their personal theory when
they perceive it as being irrelevant for their own practice, and when they
have new strategies and resources available that they find useful for their
everyday teaching of their specific subjects and for the learning process
of their pupils (Bell and Gilbert 1994; Ritchie and Rigano 2002). In this
sense, knowledge of the pupils’ alternative ideas has shown itself to cata-
lyse reflection and change on the part of teachers (Hewson et al. 1999;
Lucio, unpublished thesis).
In analogy with the change-resistant core components of Lakatos,

teachers do not easily change their conceptions, and even less their educa-
tional practices. They limit their changes to secondary aspects, equivalent
to the auxiliary hypotheses of Lakatos (Blanco and Niaz 1998). Experi-
enced teachers find it hard to change. In some cases this resistance is
because they are satisfied with educational models that have been consoli-
dated by professional experience, and there is coherence between their
goals, conceptions, teaching behaviour, and perception of their pupils
(McRobbie and Tobin 1995). In other cases, it is because there exist as-
pects of the educational system and the teaching community itself that
reinforce traditional models and impede educational change (Tobin 1998;
Hashweh 2003; Vázquez, unpublished thesis). In sum, the reason is that
educational change is a complex process involving numerous obstacles and

Progress is produced by competition
between programs.The advantages of
the new and disadvantages of the old
have to bedemonstrated. 

Dissatisfaction is a necessarycondition for 
teachers’ educational change, butit is not
sufficient. The new theories have to be
intelligible, plausible and useful for science
teaching.

The new ideas have to compete with
teachers’ existing pedagogical practice.

Research programs have core
component that are resistant to change. 

Teachers’ theories andpractices are
resistant to change. There exist many
impediments to change. 

Figure 3. Analogy with the scientific research programs of Lakatos.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.426


impedances (Davis 2003). As was observed by Delval (2002, p. 79),
‘‘changing teachers is something that is extremely difficult. For one thing,
they have strongly set habits of behaviour and teaching. They teach, above
all, as they themselves were taught, and when one has a certain practice it
becomes extremely difficult to change it’’. Resistance to change in the face
of new ideas is not exclusive to teachers. It is also found amongst pupils
and scientists themselves (Campanario 2002).
Teachers’ personal pædagogical conceptions, acquired not reflexively but

naturally from their own school experiences as pupils, are a great
obstacle -- the hard core of Lakatos -- to their educational change and
ongoing education (Gil-Pérez 1991). If these problems are not taken into
account in teacher education, any changes are very unlikely to be consoli-
dated and there will be a return to the previous educational practices
(Marx et al. 1998).
Initial teacher education itself can be an impediment to change if the

prospective teachers have insufficient scientific and educational knowledge
(Tobin and Espinet 1989). At the primary education level, the relative lack
of education in scientific content may lead to ‘functional illiteracy’ with
respect to the culture of science (Cañal 2000). This will be both a constraint
on their teaching and a barrier against educational change, since the future
teachers will feel insecure and lack self-confidence in teaching science. The
result is that they will fall back on the textbook, dedicate less time to these
topics, and find it more difficult to diagnose their pupils’ alternative ideas
and learning difficulties and to put changes and innovative activities into
practice (Appleton 1995; Harlen and Holroyd 1997).
At the secondary education level, the academist models of teacher educa-

tion -- which are centred on knowledge of the material to be taught with
only a bit of pedagogical knowledge and some teaching practice tacked on
at the end -- are not the most appropriate, not even for the scientific
content itself. They are neither oriented towards teaching nor are they
particularly relevant to it, and are usually presented in a form that is
atomized, static, and with no global vision (Hewson et al. 1999). More-
over, they take no account of the difference between the structure of the
academic discipline and that of learning (Gess-Newsome and Lederman
1995). Another of the aspects of teacher education that impedes educa-
tional change is the epistemological absolutism of science that is often
transmitted (Porlán et al. 1997; Jiménez and Wamba 2003). With their
pædagogical education being so sparse, the teaching behaviour of the fu-
ture teachers will be decisively influenced by the methodology of their
instruction in scientific content (Gess-Newsome 1999).
The paradigm shifts of Kuhn (1970) were a radical expression of change

in scientific theories, where paradigm was used to mean a scientific

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 427


community’s shared set of beliefs, values, and methods. In periods of nor-
mal science, scientists work within a shared paradigm, resolving the anom-
alies that arise within it. A shift of paradigm occurs in periods of
revolutionary science, at times of crisis. The cause is rather a reconstruc-
tion of the field than any accumulation or extension of the old paradigm.
The result is that the old paradigm becomes incommensurate with the new.
Although we do not believe that teachers’ educational change occurs so

radically, we shall refer to two aspects considered by Kuhn that seem to us
to be important in establishing an analogy with the teaching community --
the importance of personal and contextual aspects in scientific change, and
the holistic nature of scientific theories. Analogously (Figure 4), profes-
sional change in teachers is inseparable from their personal and social as-
pects, and it involves factors that also have to be analysed holistically.
To understand the processes of teachers’ educational change, one must

take the personal dimension into account (Marcelo 1994) and consider not
only the teachers’ capacity to change, but also whether their feelings, moti-
vation, willingness, commitment, and emotional stability allow them to
make the change effective (Hargreaves 1996). Every teacher has to identify
the problematic facets of their own teaching, analyse the personal psycho-
logical effects of their situation, and be aware of the difficulties and risks
involved both in adopting changes and in not doing so (Bell and Gilbert
1994). These aspects are closely related to a teacher’s self-esteem, since
change implies recognizing that something can be done better than it is
being done at present. Elliot (1993), from an action research standpoint,
considers an indispensable condition for teachers to initiate a process of
change in their educational practice to be that they learn to control and tol-
erate a certain loss of self-esteem. The balance between loss and strengthen-
ing of self-esteem is very fragile. We therefore believe that, while critical
analyses are needed, one must beware of falling into pessimism. The tea-
cher’s positive aspects must be valued for what they are, and change must
be built on them as the foundation, since a strengthening of self-esteem

Personal and social
aspects influence
teachers’ educational
changes.

Psychological  and
sociological factors influence
scientific paradigm shifts. 

Scientific paradigm shifts
occur at moments of crisis, in 
a revolutionary and global
manner.

Teachers’ educational
changes  involve
holistic factors.

Figure 4. Analogy with Kuhn’s paradigm shifts.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.428


and of the concept of oneself usually provides the security needed to initiate
and consolidate changes (Copello and Sanmartı́ 2001; Reyes et al. 2001;
Zembylas 2002). A focus only on the negative, and an excessive loss of
self-esteem, could lead to a paralyzing situation of impotence and
frustration.
Social aspects are also fundamental. The teacher is an integral part of

the community of a school, and it is very difficult for change to be individ-
ually implemented, and even more so for it to be consolidated, against the
current of that school’s educational ‘culture’ and socially accepted norms
(Bell 1998; Sánchez and Valcárcel 2000; Milicic et al. 2004). As noted by
Hargreaves (1996, p. 280), ‘‘change takes place when the culture is acted
upon, supporting it so that the teachers as a community are able to carry out
the changes that benefit the pupils’’. Sharing problems and seeking solutions
in collaboration with other teachers reinforces professional skills and pro-
vides affective and emotional support (Bell and Gilbert 1994). To be effec-
tive, however, cooperation can not be artificial or imposed, but has to
encourage individual creativity (Hargreaves 1996) and respect different
practices and points of view (Elliot 1993).
The class and the pupils are fundamental to the teacher’s social develop-

ment. Reflection on the pupils’ achievements and the reinforcement and
support that the teacher receives from them are a major stimulus for
change (Tobin et al. 1994; Jiménez and Segura 2002), since change is clo-
sely related to ‘‘the harvesting of fruit’’ (Climent, unpublished thesis) in the
pupils’ learning process. It has even been suggested that changes in the tea-
cher’s conceptions and attitudes take place after, and not before, changes
are made in teaching practice that lead to changes in the pupils’ learning
(Guskey 1986).
Finally, the educational administration and the parents themselves can

also stimulate change in the teacher, or indeed hinder it if those changes
do not respond to their conception of what is good teaching or if the ini-
tial rates of learning do not come up to their expectations (Bencze and
Hodson 1999; Anderson and Helms 2001).
Another characteristic of the Kuhnian picture of scientific change that

allows us to set up the analogy is the importance of holistic factors, and
not just of the parts. The language that teachers use to speak about their
conceptions, roles, and professional activity is not usually literal and struc-
tured, but rather symbolic and metaphoric in nature. The metaphors used
in this language have shown themselves to be a means of articulating the
thinking of the teaching community and of establishing ‘bridges’ between
practical knowledge and the narrative that describes life in the classroom.
They help to give an overall organization and articulation to a teacher’s
conceptions, roles, and practical knowledge, and allow one to discover the

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 429


implicit referents that sustain the teacher and that have a powerful
influence on his or her teaching behaviour in the classroom (Tobin and
LaMaster 1995; BouJaoude 2000). There exist metaphors to define every
educational environment. Examples are the teacher paradigms (reflexive,
entertainer, craftsman, practical, researcher), teacher education (swimmer,
ship-wrecked, novice researcher, consumer), learning (tabula rasa, sponge),
the teacher’s explanation (story teller), evaluation (fair judge, windows into
the pupils’ minds), etc.
For Tobin and Tippins (1996), metaphors may be regarded as a source

of reflection, and as ‘seeds’ that ‘will germinate’ into new ideas and knowl-
edge. Metaphors have a major affective component since teachers construct
them on the basis of personal experience. When the teacher analysed in
Tobin and Tippins (1996) says that his class is a ‘hell’, he is expressing not
just an academic assessment, but something that affects his feelings and
that will mark his attitude towards the class for the remainder of the
course if he is unaware of what the metaphor signifies and of the negative
consequences that it could have. An important aspect of educational
change that is supported by many studies of science teachers (Tobin et al.
1994; McRobbie and Tobin 1995; Martı́nez et al. 2001) is that these
teachers make changes in their conceptions and educational practices when
they are able to construct new roles by way of a process of critical reflec-
tion at the same time as adopting or constructing new metaphors that are
compatible with the changes.
Several studies have analysed teachers’ personal metaphors (Ben-Peretz

et al. 2003), many referring specifically to science teachers: traditional
(transmitter, animal trainer, delivery man, shopkeeper, preacher, policeman,
captain of the ship, puppeteer, watchman, training camp sergeant, etc.); con-
structivist (diagnostician, mediator, provocateur, cheer-leader, tour guide,
facilitator, catalyst, social director, motivator, innovator, travel agent, etc.);
eclectic (mother, father, brother, tutor, gardener, farmer, human being, enter-
tainer, chameleon, doctor, etc.). To extract the richness and connotations of
each of these, one would have to delve into the particular context in which
they are used and into the meanings they are assigned by each teacher. For
instance, the gardener metaphor could mean that the teacher ‘prepares the
ground’ for learning, with ‘fertilizer’, ‘irrigation’, and motivation, etc., or
on the contrary it could mean that the teacher ‘prunes’ and limits any
initiative that the pupil might have.

5. Models of Gradual Change through Internal Development

Although the conceptual change models represented a considerable
advance in science teacher education over those of technical rationality,

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.430


they are still based more on change by substitution than on growth or
internal development. Teachers do not usually make radical changes,
however, but proceed by successively incorporating and putting into
practice the ideas that seem to them important and approachable, and that
in time they come to regard as positive (Arora et al. 2000). Such change is
usually slow, but steady and gradual (Appleton and Asoko 1996; Tal et al.
2001). It also rarely involves the complete abandonment of their existing
educational models in favour of new ones, but rather consists of acquisi-
tions with partial retention (Gunstone and Northfield 1994; Valcárcel and
Sánchez 2000). We believe that the processes of change in teachers can be
better explained by taking as referents Laudan and Toulmin’s pragmatic
theories of scientific change, or Kuhn’s latest versions of his theory which
are close to evolutionary change: ‘‘The revolutions that have produced new
divisions between fields throughout the course of scientific development
closely resemble the episodes of specialization in biological evolution. The
biological equivalent of revolutionary change is not mutation, as I thought
for many years, but specialization’’ (Kuhn 1994, p. 37).
Laudan (1986) establishes the concept of research traditions (including

assumptions, methodology, problems, and theories) similar to Lakatos’
research programs or to Kuhn’s paradigms, but now scientific change
occurs continuously as problems are solved. Hence science only advances if
the successive theories solve more problems than their predecessors.
Change of research tradition takes place when there also exists an ontolog-
ical and methodological change that affects the basic assumptions, the nat-
ure of the questions, and the goals and values.
Analogously, some constructivist-based teacher education programs

(Gil-Pérez 1993; Furió and Carnicer 2002) emphasize that changes have to
affect not only conceptual aspects but also methodological and attitudinal
aspects and values. They propose that change should be based on research
into open problematic situations in teaching and learning that are of
interest to the teaching community (Figure 5).

The change of tradition occurs ina
continuous manner. It has to bea
change in ontology, methodology, and

Teachers’ educational change has to 
be conceptual, methodological, and 
attitudinal.

The unit of scientific progress is the
resolution ofproblems.

Educational change is favoured by:
- Resolving the practicalproblems
of science teaching/learning.
- Acting withing the teacher’s ZPD.
- Educational research.

Figure 5. Analogy with Laudan’s research traditions.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 431


It has been assumed for years that teachers’ conceptions, attitudes,
values, and classroom practice are related. Several studies have found,
however, that, depending on the teacher and the context, these aspects are
often out of phase with each other, and even plainly in contradiction, and
that changes in one are not necessarily accompanied by a change in the
rest (Lederman 1992; Mellado 1997, 1998; de Jong et al. 1998; Marx et al.
1998; Meyer et al. 1999). Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) establish four
interrelated domains for teachers’ educational change -- the personal, the
external, the practical, and the consequential -- involving multiple growth
networks, and with changes in one domain not implying changes in the
rest. Normally an epistemological change towards less dogmatic and abso-
lutist conceptions of science and science teaching can lead to more open
attitudes and to the exploration of new educational situations. But even
such a change in conceptions and attitudes is no guarantee of transfer to
the classroom in the form of a change in teaching practice if the teacher
has no access to procedural skills and practical schemes of action in the
classroom (Tobin 1993; Furió and Carnicer 2002). Unlike novice teachers,
experienced teachers are usually more innovative in what they actually do
in the classroom than in what they say they do, although one has been
observing recently that, in some cases, the discourse of the reforms is
apparently accepted without there being any concomitant change in class-
room practice (King et al. 2001; Freitas et al. 2004). There is growing evi-
dence that change is more likely to be consolidated if all its aspects,
including values, are integrated and related (Sanmartı́ 2001).
In analogy with Laudan’s model, in which the unit of scientific change is

the resolution of problems, most teachers consider change to be worth-
while if it helps them to resolve the everyday practical situations that they
have to face together with their pupils (Hargreaves 1996). This is a concept
that is closely related to the utility of conceptual change models. There are
three standpoints from which the resolution of problematic situations may
be approached.
The first is that, for a teacher, pedagogical activities and practice depend

largely on the subject that is being taught, and that the problematic situa-
tions of teaching and learning are problematic precisely because of the
subject matter (Stodolsky 1991). The ‘‘pedagogical content knowledge’’
construct due to Shulman (1986) -- knowledge that is specific to how each
particular subject is taught, and a form of reasoning and educational
action by means of which teachers transform the subject matter into repre-
sentations that are comprehensible to the pupils -- have been the impulse
behind many studies of science teachers (Gess-Newsome and Lederman
1999). This has led to a consolidation of the didactics of specific areas of

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.432


teaching, since change in the teachers is developed on particular content,
not in the abstract (Gunstone and Northfield 1994).
The second, more psychological, standpoint is based on the studies of

Vygotsky (1979) -- in particular on the concept of zone of proximal devel-
opment (ZPD). This concept was developed for learning, but it has a
potentially generic applicability. The problematic situations with greatest
capacity for change are those which lie within a teacher’s ZPD. Then the
teacher is motivated because there is the expectation of being able to
resolve the situation (Jones et al. 1998; Ash and Levitt 2003; Lucio,
unpublished thesis), and he or she sees the process of change as a stimulat-
ing and useful challenge, not as an unsolvable and discouraging problem
(Bell 1998).
The third defends the encouragement of research into important prob-

lems and situations of science teaching and learning that are of interest to
teachers. The relationship between research and educational practice is a
central theme in both the development of science teaching and the profes-
sional development of teachers (Pro 1999), and there is sufficient evidence
of the benefits of research strategies. However, the results of studies carried
out by experts who themselves are outside primary and secondary schools
hardly ever reach the classroom, even though these studies may have been
carried out ‘for’ teachers. The reason is the abyss between the two cultures
-- that of the researcher and that of the practicing teacher. Neither is there
any real classroom impact of research carried out by experts ‘on’ teachers,
when the latter act as mere informants or subjects of the study. The inves-
tigations that have the greatest capacity to add to teacher education and
the greatest likelihood of influencing actual practice are not those done
‘for’ or ‘on’ teachers, but ‘by’ and ‘with’ teachers, in teams that cross disci-
plines and levels (Gil-Pérez 1993; Cachapuz 1995; Gil-Pérez, Furió and
Gavidia 1998).
The philosophy of science of Toulmin (1972) puts forward the concept

of intellectual ecology, considering that scientific theories evolve as the
result of selective pressure between populations of concepts. It thereby
makes an analogy between biological evolution and the construction of
scientific knowledge. The ideas of science constitute concept populations
under historical development, and scientific theories change by selective
evolution of these populations. Starting from unresolved problems, there
arise intellectual requirements or specific practices that lead to a selective
pressure on the concept populations, and eventually to a development by
innovation and selection in which concepts belonging to both the old and
the new theories co-exist (Batista and Porlán 1999). Analogously, teachers
show a tendency to some type of model, rather than neatly fitting the pure
model itself. Indeed, the new components that they incorporate have to

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 433


co-exist with the foregoing elements, and this of course leads to partial
contradictions (Figure 6).
Porlán and Rivero (1998) propose an evolutionary framework for tea-

cher education. This is organized around major problems in the practice of
science teaching, starting from the traditional educational models, passing
through intermediate levels dominated by spontaneist and technological
tendencies, and having the most innovative alternative models as the level
of reference. Valcárcel and Sánchez (2000) also propose progressive levels
for teacher education: a first level in which the focus is on motivating,
energizing, questioning, and modelling through case studies; a second level,
with more emphasis on curricular development and educational research;
and a third level of consolidation, with participation in collaborative
projects of research and innovation.
While modelling is an extraordinarily useful instrument to help under-

stand and guide what is thought and what is done in the classroom, in our
opinion it has to avoid the determinist temptation of imposing an external
direction on the evolutionary process towards an ideal model of teaching.
Otherwise, besides losing the correspondence with biological evolution
which is neither deterministic nor teleological, it would run the risk of
standardizing and pigeon-holing good teaching outside the personal and
social context of each individual teacher. As Kuhn (1994) noted in his last
stage, scientific development should be seen as a process pushed from
behind (evolution from something), and not pulled from in front (not evo-
lution towards something).
In this sense, taking a metacognitive standpoint, Lucio (unpublished the-

sis) proposes the progressive evolution in teachers’ reflection from levels
that are acritical or that have external attributions, through levels of reflec-
tion that are progressively more internalized and committed, to levels of
self-regulatory metacognitive reflection. Also Vázquez (unpublished thesis)
considers that the professional development of science teachers will not take
place by going from one set of models to another, but by reaching a greater

Concepts of the old and the new
theories co-exist.

Teachers incorporate elements of new
educational models which then co-
exist with previous models, resulting
in partial contradictions.

Scientific theories evolve gradually
due to selective pressure (in analogy
with the evolution of living beings).

In teachers, there is a gradual
evolution of their teaching models.
Metacognition is a key factor in the
evolution of those models.

Figure 6. Analogy with Toulmin’s evolutionism.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.434


complexity both in their reflection and in how they teach, passing from a
more technical dimension to others that are more practical and critical.
Teachers’ educational change is governed by internal, complex, autono-

mous dynamics that are closely related to the context, and are not subject
to ideal external models. If one had to make an analogy with physics, the
dynamics of teachers’ educational change would seem to be nearer the
self-organizing processes of the physics of chaos than to the classical phys-
ics of ideal deterministic models. A line that seems very interesting to us is
the relationship between teachers’ educational change and metacognition.
Here the focus is on the development of metacognitive skills that facilitate
understanding the cognitive processes themselves, reflection in and about
action, and awareness of the causes of both the difficulties that arise in
teaching practice and of the obstacles to educational change, and that
thereby enable self-regulation and control of that change (Gunstone and
Northfield 1994; Copello and Sanmartı́ 2001; Hashweh 2003; Lucio,
unpublished thesis). While the control and self-regulation of the evolution,
speed, and nature of the changes doubtless require far more time and sup-
port than just the superficial execution of external guidelines, they have
proved to be fundamental in consolidating improvements in classroom
practice (Bell and Gilbert 1994).

6. Implications for Science Teacher Education

There is growing recognition that teacher education and educational
change are strongly dependent and two facets of the same thing (Carr
1990; Marcelo 1994; Delval 2002). In the following, we shall highlight cer-
tain aspects of the analogy developed in this article that we consider
important for the professional development of experienced science teach-
ers. The stages of initial teacher education and beginning teaching would
require specific treatment, and we shall only refer to them as to what they
imply for experienced teachers’ subsequent resistance to educational
change.

6.1. GROWTH AND GRADUAL EVOLUTION OF THE TEACHER RATHER THAN
CHANGE BY SUBSTITUTION (TOULMIN)

For experienced teachers, ongoing education can not be designed and pre-
sented as a ‘change’, but rather as an internal process of ‘growth’ and
‘gradual development’ based on what they already think and do (Day
1999), on the real problems of science teaching and learning, on their
everyday concerns, and on the context in which they work. The prime aim
is to support and enhance their motivation, confidence, willingness, collab-
oration, and commitment to their own professional development.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 435


Professional development is stimulated by successive processes of meta-
cognitive self-regulation, based on the teachers’ reflection, comprehension,
and monitoring of what they think, feel, and do, and of the changes that
they put into effect. This involves awareness of what problems of teaching
and learning might be improvable, elaborating new activities, materials,
and teaching proposals (Powell and Anderson 2002; Sassi et al. 2005),
putting them into practice in the appropriate context, successive reflection
on their teaching and on the results in the pupils’ learning, and comparing
their practices with other cases to again revise and self-regulate them
(Marx et al. 1998). In this process, teachers evolve from their own individ-
ual situation and context towards a greater complexity in reflection and in
how they teach science (Vázquez, unpublished thesis).

6.2. THE CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED PROGRAMS OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
(LAKATOS)

Science teaching research has been dominated since the 80s by the con-
structivist paradigm, which has led to considerable progress in many
aspects of the teaching and learning of science. There is currently a debate
in the international community on the origins, foundations, types, and
future possibilities of the development of constructivism (Gil-Pérez et al.
2002; Niaz et al. 2003) which will indubitably redound in a more solid
basis for science teaching and in a greater richness of approaches.
Matthews (1994, 1997) has criticized the epistemological foundation of

constructivism with its marked empiricist aspects in the individual con-
struction of scientific knowledge in the learning of science, and its neglect
of the role of idealization in the construction of theoretical concepts that
are not coincident with personal experiences. The situation is different,
however, with respect to the way in which teachers learn to teach science,
and the subsequent change or evolution of their teaching models, because
teachers have no universal referents available in science teaching equivalent
to scientific theories.
Constructivist-based programs for the professional development of

teachers have evolved from the initial conceptual change by substitution
through competition towards more gradual change. The authors of the
four conditions of conceptual change themselves in subsequent teacher
education programs progressively incorporated such new concepts as the
changing status of ideas and conceptual ecology, and introduced perspec-
tives shared with other orientations such as action research or metacogni-
tion (Hewson 1993; Hewson et al. 1999). With these additions, we consider
that the constructivist paradigm constitutes an appropriate theoretical
framework for science teacher education.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.436


Another fundamental aspect of Lakatos that has to be borne in mind is
resistance to change. The beliefs and practical knowledge of experienced
teachers are very stable and resistant to change, having been formed and
consolidated over the course of their education and careers (Appleton and
Asoko 1996). Neither do in-service teachers have much time available for
ongoing education courses. These imply for them extra effort, even work
overload, for something that they often consider irrelevant to what they
have to do every day in their classroom (Munby and Russell 1998).
One very important stage is the initiation to teaching during the first

years of their career, when the novice teachers are subjected to tension,
dilemmas, and overload, and when their teaching routines and strategies
are fixed. We believe, however, that the origin of the hard core of teachers’
subsequent resistance to change may lie in their initial teacher education.
For this resistance not to develop, prospective teachers will have to
learn to understand educational changes and also to understand and
self-regulate changes in themselves. The challenge is to endow them with
the criteria, the creative and critical thinking, and the tools needed to help
them construct an effective self-regulatory system so that they can continue
educating themselves autonomously throughout their careers as teachers
(Sanmartı́ 2001). Initial teacher education has to integrate academic knowl-
edge, personal conceptions, and practical knowledge, and contribute to the
prospective teachers’ generating their own pædagogical content knowledge.
Since propositional academic knowledge is not transferred directly into
practice (Bryan and Abell 1999), teacher education has to provide students
with the opportunity -- via a metacognitive process of reflection -- of
becoming aware of their own conceptions, attitudes, and classroom prac-
tice when they are teaching their particular subject matter (Mellado et al.
1998). They will then be able to self-regulate and re-structure these facets
of their teaching, and progressively develop a personal teaching model
(Sanmartı́ 2001).

6.3. THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE TEACHING AND LEARNING
AS A MOTOR OF CHANGE (LAUDAN)

In analogy with Laudan’s model, in which the unit of scientific change is
the resolution of problems, most teachers consider change to be worth-
while if it helps them to resolve the everyday practical situations that they
have to face together with their pupils. Gil-Pérez (1993) proposes that
change should be based on research into open problematic situations in
teaching and learning that are of interest to the teaching community.
Academic knowledge, conceptions, attitudes, values, and the actual prac-

tices of teachers when they are teaching their subjects have to be integrated
into these open problematic situations. The axis of their professional

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 437


development, however, has to be science education, since the content to be
taught conditions both the teacher’s role and the teaching strategies (Tobin
and McRobbie 1999). Action research in collaboration with other teachers
into important situations and problems in science teaching and learning,
and which are of interest for their own classes -- in particular longitudinal
studies of their own case -- is an extraordinarily effective strategy for
professional development in the medium and long terms (Baird et al. 1991;
Lyons et al. 1997; Roth 1998). These investigations are done ‘by’ and
‘with’ teachers, in teams that cross disciplines and levels, where the teach-
ers are not consumers of external knowledge, but co-producers and
agents of change in the problems that really concern them in their classes
(Gil-Pérez et al. 1998).
Tutoring novice teachers or prospective teachers in their practice teach-

ing can be turned into a positive experience of ongoing education and pro-
fessional development, both for primary or secondary school teachers and
for university instructors (Roth et al. 2001). For the tutor, it can involve
collaborating with teachers of different levels, elaborating joint teaching or
research projects, analyzing science teaching and learning situations in a
real class context, and many other activities that help the teacher to escape
from isolation and to work in collaboration (Ash and Levitt 2003).

6.4. TEACHERS’ PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TOGETHER WITH THEIR
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (KUHN)

Professional development has to go together with personal and social devel-
opment (Bell and Gilbert 1994), taking affective aspects into account, rein-
forcing the teacher’s self-esteem, encouraging constructive collaboration,
strengthening the culture of the corresponding school, and building on the
good practice that the teachers are already carrying out (Hargreaves 1996).
As noted by Day (1999), change is not just a matter of the head, but also of
the heart. It will be difficult to put changes into effect unless they are com-
pensated affectively and contribute to greater personal job satisfaction. Tea-
cher education programs have to treat the teacher as an integral member of
a group, providing collective development experiences and encouraging col-
laboration. In sum, they must consider the school as being the most suit-
able place for professional development and as the unit for change
(Valcárcel and Sánchez 2000; Anderson and Helms 2001; Reyes et al. 2001;
Marcelo 2002; Ritchie and Rigano 2002; Davis 2003; Sassi et al. 2005). This
requires time and much sustained support before the teacher can see the
improvement in the pupils’ learning and perceive ongoing education as a
meaningful experience personally, for his or her classes, and for the school
(Sánchez and Valcárcel 2000; Tal et al. 2001; Peers et al. 2003).

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.438


7. Final Thoughts

Over the course of this article, we have reviewed the results of studies that
have contributed data about the process of educational change in science
teachers. We organized the information by setting up analogies with
the process of scientific change according to different theories of the
philosophy of science, and analysed and evaluated the contributions of the
different models. Many of the characteristics of the educational change of
science teachers we found to be not exclusive, but complementary, forming
a network that, at least for us, helped understand this complex process.
While ours may be a somewhat eclectic solution, we could find no single
theory that explained the complexity of the change. We believe, however,
that this represents no cause for concern since, as observed by Shulman
(1986), there is no reason in education for there to exist dominant and
exclusive paradigms in the Kuhnian sense. Indeed, the co-existence of
apparently divergent schools of thought, far from being a weakness of
development, may rather be the natural state and a reflection of maturity,
allowing one to better understand the multiple nuances in the complexity
of teaching (Tobin 1998).

Acknowledgements

This work was financed by Research Project BSO2003-03603 of the Ministry
of Science and Technology (Spain). A first version of this paper appeared in
Spanish in 2003 in the journal Enseñanza de las Ciencias and is published
here with permission.

References

Abell, S.K. & Pizzini, E.L.: 1992, ‘The Effect of a Problem Solving In-Service Program on the

Classroom Behaviors and Attitudes of Middle School Science Teachers’, Journal of Re-
search in Science Teaching 29(7): 649--667.

Adúriz-Bravo, A.: 2001, ‘Relaciones entre la didáctica de las ciencias experimentales y la

filosofı́a de la ciencia’, in Perales F.J. (ed.), et al. Congreso Nacional de Didácticas Espe-
cı́ficas. Las didácticas de las áreas curriculares en el siglo XXI (vol I), Grupo Editorial
Universitario, Granada (Spain), pp. 478--491.

Anderson, R.D. & Helms, J.V.: 2001, ‘The Ideal of Standards and the Reality of Schools:
Needed Research’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(1): 3--16.

Appleton, K.: 1995, ‘Student Teachers’ Confidence to Teach Science: Is More Science
Knowledge Necessary to Improve Self-Confidence?’, International Journal of Science

Education 19(3): 357--369.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 439


Appleton, K. & Asoko, H.: 1996, ‘A Case Study of a Teacher’s Progress Toward Using a
Constructivist View of Learning to Inform Teaching in Elementary Science’, Science
Education 80(2): 165--180.

Arora, A.G., Kean, E. & Anthony, J.L.: 2000, ‘An Interpretative Study of a Teacher’s
Evolving Practice of Elementary School Science’, Journal of Science Teacher Education
11(1): 1--25.

Ash, D. & Levitt, K.: 2003, ‘Working within the Zone of Proximal Development: Formative
Assessment as Professional Development’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 14(1):
23--48.

Baird, J.R., Fensham, P.J, Gunstone, R.F. & White, R.T.: 1991, ‘The Importance of
Reflection in Improving Science Teaching and Learning’, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 28(2): 163--182.

Batista, J. & Porlán, R.: 1999, ‘La epistemologı́a evolucionista de Stephen Toulmin y la

enseñanza de las ciencias’, Investigación en la Escuela 39, 17--26.
Bell, B.: 1998, Teacher Development in Science Education, in Fraser B.J. and Tobin K. K.

(eds.) International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 681--694.

Bell, B. & Gilbert, J.: 1994, ‘Teacher Development as Professional, Personal and Social
Development’, Teaching and Teacher Education 10(5): 483--497.

Bencze, L. & Hodson, D.: 1999, ‘Changing Practice by Changing Practice: Toward more

Authentic Science and Science Curriculum Development’, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 36(5): 521--539.

Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N. & Kron, F.W.: 2003, ‘How Teachers in Different Educational
Contexts View their Roles’, Teaching and Teacher Education 19(2): 277--290.

Bermejo, M.L., Fajardo, M.I. & Mellado, V.: 2002, ‘Teaching and Learning Sciences for Blind
and Visually Impaired Students’, Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
9, 15--21.

Blanco, R. & Niaz, M.: 1998, ‘Baroque Tower on a Gothic base: A Lakatosian Reconstruction
of Students’ and Teachers’ Understanding of Structure of the Atom’, Science and
Education 7(4): 327--360.

Boujaoude, S.: 2000, ‘Conceptions of Science Teaching Revealed by Metaphors and Answers
to Open-Ended Questions’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 11(2): 173--186.

Bryan, L.A. & Abell, S.K.: 1999, ‘Development of Professional Knowledge in Learning to

Teach Elementary Science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(2): 121--139.
Burbules, N.C. & Linn, M.C.: 1991, ‘Science Education and Philosophy of Science: Con-

gruence or Contradiction?’, International Journal of Science Education 13(3): 227--241.
Cachapuz, A.: 1995, Da investigação sobre e para professores à investigação com e pelos

professores de Ciências, in Blanco L.J. and Mellado V. (eds.) La Formación del Profes-
orado de Ciencias y Matemáticas en España y Portugal, Diputación Provincial, Badajoz
(Spain), pp. 243--254.

Campanario, J.M.: 2002, ‘The Parallelism between Scientists’ and Students’ Resistance to New
Scientific Ideas’, International Journal of Science Education 24(10): 1095--1110

Cañal, P.: 2000, ‘El conocimiento profesional sobre las ciencias y la alfabetización cientı́fica en

primaria’, Alambique 24, 46--56.
Carr, W.: 1990, ‘Cambio educativo y desarrollo profesional’, Investigación en la Escuela 11,

3--11

Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H.: 2002, ‘Elaborating a Model of Teacher Professional Growth’,
Teaching and Teacher Education 18(8): 947--967.

Clemison, A.: 1990, ‘Establishing an Epistemological Base for Science Teaching in the Light of
Contemporary Notions of the Nature of Science an of how Children Learn Science’,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(5): 429--455.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.440


Cobb, P., Wood, T. & Yackel, E.: 1991, ‘Analogies from the Philosophy and Sociology of
Science for Understanding Classroom Life’, Science Education 75(1): 23--44.

Copello, M.I. & Sanmartı́, N.: 2001, ‘Fundamentos de un modelo de formación permanente

del profesorado de ciencias centrado en la reflexión dialógica sobre las concepciones y las
prácticas’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 19(2): 269--283.

Cudmani, L., Pesa, M.A. & Salinas, J.: 2000, ‘Hacia un modelo integrador para el aprendizaje

de las ciencias’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 18(1): 3--13.
Davis, K.S.: 2003, ‘‘‘Change is Hard’’: What Science Teachers are Telling us about Reform

and Teacher Learning and Innovative Practices’, Science Education 87(1): 3--10.

Davis, N.T.: 1996, ‘Looking in the Mirror: Teachers’ use of Autobiography and Action
Research to Improve Practice’, Research in Science and Education 26(1): 23--32.

Day, Ch.: 1999, Developing Teachers, the Challenges of Lifelong Learning, Falmer Press,
London

De Jong, O., Korthagen, F. & Wubbels, T. : 1998, ‘Research on Science Teacher Education in
Europe Teacher Thinking and Conceptual Change’, in: B.J. Fraser B.J. and K. Tobin
(eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 745--758.

Delval, J.: 2002, ‘Entrevista a Juan Delval, realizada por P’, Cañal’, Investigación en la Escuela
43, 71--80

Elliot, J.: 1993, El cambio educativo desde la investigación-acción, Morata, Madrid (Spain).

Estany, A.: 1990, Modelos de cambio cientı́fico, Crı́tica, Barcelona (Spain).
Estany, A.: 1993, Introducción a la filosofı́a de la ciencia, Crı́tica, Barcelona (Spain).
Freitas, M.I., Jiménez, R. & Mellado, V.: 2004, ‘Solving Physics Problems: The Conceptions

and Practice of an Experienced Teacher and an Inexperienced Teacher’, Research in

Science Education 34(1): 113--133.
Fullan, M.: 1991, The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teacher College Press, Chicago.
Furió, C. & Carnicer, J.: 2002, ‘El desarrollo profesional del profesor de ciencias mediante

tutorı́as de grupos cooperativos. Estudio de ocho casos’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 20(1):
47--73.

Garret, R.M., Satterly, D., Gil-Pérez, D. & Martı́nez, J.: 1990, ‘Turning Exercises into

Problems: An Experimental Study with Teachers in Training’, International Journal of
Science Education 12(1): 1--12.

Gess-Newsome, J.: 1999, Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Subject Matter

and their Impact on Instruction, in Gess-Newsome J. and Lederman N. (eds.) Examining
Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 51--94.

Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G.: 1995, ‘Biology Teachers’ Perceptions of Subject Matter
Structure and its Relationship to Classroom Practice’, Journal of Research in Science

Teaching 32(3): 301--325.
Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G.: 1999, Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge,

Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht.

Gil-Pérez, D.: 1991, ‘Qué hemos de saber y saber hacer los profesores de ciencias’, Enseñanza
de las Ciencias 9(1): 69--77.

Gil-Pérez, D.: 1993, ‘Contribución de la historia y de la filosofı́a de las ciencias al desarrollo de

un modelo de enseñanza/aprendizaje’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 11(2): 197--212.
Gil-Pérez, D., Beléndez, A., Martı́n, A. & Martı́nez, J.: 1991, ‘La formación del profesorado

universitario de materias cientı́ficas: contra algunas ideas y comportamientos de ‘‘sentido

común’’’, Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 12: 43--48.
Gil-Pérez, D., Furió, C. & Gavidia, V.: 1998, ‘El profesorado y la reforma educativa en

España’, Investigación en la Escuela 36: 49--64.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa, A.M., Martı́nez, J., Salinas,

J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené, A., Dumás-Carré, A., Tricárico, H. & Gallego, R.:

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 441


2002, ‘Defending Constructivism in Science Education’, Science and Education 11(6): 557--
571.

Gilbert, J.K.: 1999, ‘On the Explanation of Change in Science and Cognition’, Science and

Education 8(5): 543--557.
Gunstone, R.F. & Northfield, J.R.: 1994, ‘Metacognition and Learning to Teach’, Interna-

tional Journal of Science Education 16(5): 523--537.

Gunstone, R.F., Slattery, M., Baird, J.R. & Northfield, J.R.: 1993, ‘A Case Study Exploration
of Development in Preservice Science Teachers’, Science Education 77(1): 47--73.

Guskey, T.R.: 1986, ‘Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change’, Educational

Researcher 15(5): 5--12.
Harlen, W. & Holroyd, C.: 1997, ‘Primary Teachers’ Understanding of Concepts of Science:

Impact on Confidence and Teaching’, International Journal of Science Education 19(1):
93--105.

Hargreaves, A.: 1996, Profesorado, cultura y modernidad, Morata, Madrid.
Hashweh, M.Z.: 2003, ‘Teacher Accommodative Change’, Teaching and Teacher Education

19(4): 421--434.

Hewson, P.W.: 1993, Constructivism and Reflective Practice in Science Teacher Education, in
Montero M.L. and Vez J.M. (eds.) Las didácticas especı́ficas en la formación del profes-
orado., Tórculo, Santiago, Spain, pp. 259--275.

Hewson, P.W. & Hewson, M.G.: 1989, ‘Analysis and Use of a Task for Identifying Con-
ceptions of Teaching Science’, Journal of Educational for Teaching 15(3): 191--209.

Hewson, P.W., Tabachnick, B.R., Zeichner, K.M. & Lemberger, J.: 1999, ‘Educating Pro-
spective Teachers of Biology: Findings, Limitations, and Recommendations’, Science

Education 83(3): 373--384.
Jiménez, E. & Segura, P.: 2002, Ideas de los profesores de fı́sica sobre la enseñanza y la solución

de problemas en el bachillerato, University of La Laguna, Tenerife (Spain), pp. 164--172XX

Encuentros de didáctica de las ciencias experimentales.
Jiménez, R. & Wamba, A.M.: 2003, ‘Es posible el cambio de modelos didácticos? Obstáculos

en profesores de Ciencias Naturales de educación secundaria’, Investigación en la Escuela

17(1): 113--131.
Jones, M.G., Rua, M.J. & Carter, G.: 1998, ‘Science Teachers’ Conceptual Growth within

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(9):

967--985.
King, K., Shumow, L. & Lietz, S.: 2001, ‘Science Education in an Urban Elementary School:

Case Studies of Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Practices’, Science Education 85(2): 89--110.
Kraft, V.: 1977, El Cı́rculo de Viena, Taurus, Madrid.

Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T.: 1994, ‘El camino desde ‘La estructura’’’, Arbor 584, 27--47.
Lakatos, I.: 1983, La metodologı́a de los programas de investigación cientı́fica, Alianza

Editorial, Madrid (Spain).
Laudan, L.: 1986, El progreso y sus problemas Hacia una teorı́a del progreso cientı́fico,

Ediciones Encuentro, Madrid (Spain).

Lederman, N.G.: 1992, ‘Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A
Review of the Research’’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(4): 331--359.

Lyons, L.L., Freitag, P.K. & Hewson, P.W.: 1997, ‘Dichotomy in Thinking, Dilemma in

Actions: Researcher and Teacher Perspectives on a Chemistry Teaching Practice’, Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 34(3): 239--254.

Marcelo, C.: 1994, Formación del profesorado para el cambio educativo, PPU, Barcelona.
Marcelo, C.: 2002, ‘Los profesores como trabajadores del conocimiento Certidumbres y de-

safı́os para una formación a lo largo de la vida’, Educar 30, 27--56.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.442


Martı́nez, M.A., Sauleda, N. & Huber, G.H.: 2001, ‘Metaphors as Blueprints of Thinking
about Teaching and Learning’, Teaching and Teacher Education 17(8): 965--977.

Marx, R.W., Freeman, J., Krajcik, J. & Blumenfed, P.: 1998, Professional Development of

Science Education, in Fraser B.J. and Tobin K. (eds.) International Handbook of Science
Education, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 667--680.

Matthews, M.R.: 1992, ‘History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching: A Present Rapproche-

ment’, Science and Education 1(1): 11--47
Matthews, M.R.: 1994, ‘Vino viejo en botellas nuevas: Un problema con la epistemologı́a

constructivista’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 12(1): 79--88.

Matthews, M.R.: 1997, ‘Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism in
Science Education’, Science and Education 6(1--2): 5--14.

Matthews, M.R.: 2004a, ‘Thomas Kuhn’s Impact on Science Education: What Lessons can be
Learned?’, Science Education 88(1): 90--118.

Matthews, M.R.: 2004b, ‘Reappraising Positivism and Education: The Arguments of Philipp
Frank and Herbert Feigl’, Science and Education 13(1/2): 7--39.

McRobbie, C. & Tobin, K.: 1995, ‘Restraints to Reform: The Congruence of Teacher and

Students Actions in a Chemistry Classroom’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching
32(4): 373--385.

Mellado, V.: 1997, ‘Preservice Teachers’ Classroom Practice and their Conceptions of the

Nature of Science’, Science and Education 6(4): 331--354.
Mellado, V.: 1998, ‘The Classroom Practice of Preservice Teachers and their Conceptions of

Teaching and Learning Science’, Science Education 82(2): 197--214.
Mellado, V.: 2003, ‘Cambio didáctico del profesorado de ciencias experimentales y filosofı́a de

la ciencia’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 21(3): 343--358.
Mellado, V. & Carracedo, D.: 1993, ‘Contribuciones de la filosofı́a de la ciencia a la didáctica

de las ciencias’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 11(3): 331--339.

Mellado, V., Blanco, L.J. & Ruiz, C.: 1998, ‘A Framework for Learning to Teach Science in
Initial Primary Teacher Education’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 9(3): 195--219.

Meyer, H., Tabachnick, B.R., Hewson, P.W., Lemberger, J. & Park, H.: 1999, ‘Relationship

Between Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Classroom Practice and their Conceptions of
Biology and of Teaching Science’, Science Education 83(3): 323--346.

Milicic, B., Utges, G., Salinas, B. & Sanjosé, V.: 2004, ‘Creencias, concepciones y enseñanza en

la Universidad: Un estudio de caso de desarrollo profesional colaborativo centrado en un
profesor de fı́sica’, Revista española de Pedagogı́a. 229, 377--389.

Mitchener, C.P. & Anderson, R.D.: 1989, ‘Teachers’ Perspective: Developing an Imple-
menting an STS Curriculum’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(4): 351--369.

Munby, H. & Russell, T.: 1998, Epistemology and Context in Research on Learning to Teach
Science, in Fraser B.J. and Tobin K. (eds.) International Handbook of Science Education.,
Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 643--665.

Niaz, N., Abd-el Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburu, C.E., Marı́n, N., Montes,
L.A., Nola, R., Orlik, Y., Schamann, L.C., Tsai, C.-C. & Tsaparlis, G.: 2003, ‘Con-
structivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal. A Response to Gil-Pérez et al.’,

Science and Education 12(8): 787--797.
Nussbaum, J.: 1989, ‘Classroom Conceptual Change: Philosophical Perspectives’, Interna-

tional Journal of Science Education 11((special issue)): 530--540.

Peers, Ch.E., Diezmann, C.M. & Watters, J.J.: 2003, ‘Supports and Concerns for Teacher
Professional Growth During the Implementation of a Science Curriculum Innovation’,
Research in Science Education 33(1): 89--110.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 443


Perales, F.J.: 1998, ‘La formación del profesorado universitario en didáctica de las ciencias
experimentales Desde el inmovilismo a la búsqueda de alternativas’, Revista de Educación
de la Universidad de Granada 11, 345--354.

Pintó, R., Couso, D. & Gutiérrez, R.: 2005, ‘Using Research on Teachers’ Transformations of
Innovations to Inform Teacher Education The Case of Energy Degradation’, Science
Education 89(1): 38--55.

Philipp, D.: 2004, ‘Two Decades After: ‘After the Wake: Postpositivistic Educational
Thought’’, Science and Education 13(1/2): 67--84.

Piaget, J.: 1970, Genetic Epistemology, Columbia University Press, New York.

Popper, K.R.: 1983, Conjeturas y refutaciones El desarrollo del pensamiento cientı́fico, Paidos,
Buenos Aires.

Porlán, R. & Rivero, A.: 1998, El conocimiento de los profesores, Diada, Seville (Spain).
Porlán, R., Rivero, A. & Martı́n, R.: 1997, ‘Conocimiento profesional y epistemologı́a de los

profesores-I: teorı́a, métodos e instrumentos’, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 15(2): 155--171.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. & Gertzog, A.: 1982, ‘Accommodation of a

Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change’, Science Education 66(2):

211--277.
Powell, J.C. & Anderson, R.D.: 2002, ‘Changing Teachers’ Practice: Curriculum Materials

and Science Education Reform in the USA’, Studies in Science Education 37(1): 107--136.

Pro, A.: 1999, Qué investigamos cómo lo hacemos ‘A qué conclusiones llegamos: tres pre-
guntas que hacen pensar, in Martı́nez C. and Garcı́a S. (eds.) La didáctica de las ciencias
Tendencias actuales, University of Coruña, Coruña (Spain), pp. 19--43.

Reyes, L., Salcedo, L.E. & Perafán, G.: 2001, Acciones y Creencias IV: Análisis e interpretación

de creencias de docentes de Biologı́a y Ciencias Naturales, University Pedagógica Nacional,
Bogotá (Colombia).

Ritchie, S.M. & Rigano, D.L.: 2002, ‘Discourses about a Teacher’s Self-Initiated Change in

Praxis: Storylines of Care and Support’, International Journal of Science Education 24(10):
1079--1094.

Roth, W.M.: 1998, ‘Science Teaching as Knowledgability: A Case Study of Knowing and

Learning During Coteaching’, Science Education 82(3): 357--377.
Roth, W.M., Tobin, K., Zimmermann, A., Bryant, N. & Davis, Ch.: 2001, ‘Lessons On and

From the Dihybrid Cross: An Activity-Theoretical Study of Learning in Coteaching’,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(3): 253--282.
Sánchez, G. & Valcárcel, M.V.: 2000, ‘‘Qué tienen en cuenta los profesores cuando seleccionan

el contenido de enseñanza? Cambios y dificultades tras un programa de formación’,
Enseñanza de las Ciencias 18(3): 423--437.

Sanmartı́, N.: 2001, ‘Enseñar a enseñar ciencias en secundaria: un reto muy complejo’, Revista
Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado’ 40: 31--48.

Sassi, E., Monroy, G. & Testa, I.: 2005, ‘Teacher Training About Real-Time Approaches:

Research-Based Guidelines and Training Materials’, Science Education 89(1): 28--37.
Shulman, L.S.: 1986, Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching: A Con-

temporary Perspectiva, in Wittrock M.C. (eds.) Thrid Handbook of Research on Teaching.,

Macmillan, New York, pp. 3--36.
Stodolsky, S.S.: 1991, La importancia del contenido en la enseñanza Actividades en las clases de

matemáticas y ciencias sociales, MEC-PAIDOS, Madrid (Spain).

Stofflett, R.T.: 1994, ‘The Accommodation of Science Pedagogical Knowledge: The Appli-
cation of Conceptual Change Constructs to Teacher Education’, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 31(8): 787--810.

VICENTE MELLADO ET AL.444


Tal, R.T., Dori, Y.J., Keiny, S. & Zoller, U.: 2001, ‘Assessing Conceptual Change of Teachers
Involved in STES Education and Curriculum Development. The STEMS Project
Approach.’, International Journal of Science Education 23(3): 247--262.

Tobin, K.: 1993, ‘Referents for Making Sense of Science Teaching’, International Journal of
Science Education 15(3): 241--254.

Tobin, K.: 1998, Issues and Trends in the Teaching of Science, in Fraser B.J. and Tobin K.

(eds.) International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 129--151.
Tobin, K. & Espinet, M.: 1989, ‘Impediments to Change: Applications of Coaching in High

School Science Teaching’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(2): 105--120.

Tobin, K. & Lamaster, S.U.: 1995, ‘Relationships Between Metaphors, Beliefs, and Actions in
a Context of Science Curriculum’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(3): 225--242.

Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C.: 1999, ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Co-Participation in
Science Classrooms’, in Gess-Newsome J. and Lederman N. (eds.) Examining Pedagogical

Content Knowledge, Kluwer A.P., Dordrecht, pp. 215--234.
Tobin, K. & Tippins, D.J.: 1996, ‘Metaphors as Seeds for Conceptual Change and the

Improvement of Science Education’, Science Education 80(6): 711--730.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. & Gallard, A.J.: 1994, Research on Instructional Strategies for
Teaching Science, in Gabel D. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning, MacMillan, New York, pp. 3--44.

Toulmin, S.E.: 1972, Human Understanding, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Troman, G. & Woods, P.: 2000, ‘Careers Under Stress: Teacher Adaptations at a Time of

Intensive Reform’, Journal of Educational Change 1, 253--275.
Valcárcel, M.V. & Sánchez, G.: 2000, La formación del profesorado en ejercicio, in Perales

F.J. and Cañal P. (eds.) Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentale, Marfil, Alcoy, pp.
557--581.

Vázquez, A., Acevedo, J.A., Manassero, M.A. & Acevedo, P.: 2001, ‘Cuatro paradigmas

básicos sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia’, Argumentos de Razón Técnica 4, 135--176.
Villani, A.: 2001, ‘Filosofı́a da ciencia e ensino de ciência: Uma analogı́a’, Ciencia & Educaçao

7(2): 169--181.

Vygotsky, L.: 1979, El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores, Grijalbo, Barcelona
(Spain).

Wildy, H. & Wallace, J.: 1995, ‘Understanding Teaching or Teaching for Understanding:

Alternative Frameworks for Science Classrooms’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching
32(2): 143--156.

Zembylas, M.: 2002, ‘Constructing Genealogies of Teachers’ Emotions in Science Teaching’,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1): 79--103.

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE IN SCIENCE TEACHERS 445


<<
  /ASCII85EncodePages false
  /AllowTransparency false
  /AutoPositionEPSFiles true
  /AutoRotatePages /None
  /Binding /Left
  /CalGrayProfile (None)
  /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
  /CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated)
  /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
  /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
  /CompatibilityLevel 1.3
  /CompressObjects /Off
  /CompressPages true
  /ConvertImagesToIndexed true
  /PassThroughJPEGImages true
  /CreateJDFFile false
  /CreateJobTicket false
  /DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
  /DetectBlends true
  /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
  /DoThumbnails true
  /EmbedAllFonts true
  /EmbedJobOptions true
  /DSCReportingLevel 0
  /SyntheticBoldness 1.00
  /EmitDSCWarnings false
  /EndPage -1
  /ImageMemory 524288
  /LockDistillerParams true
  /MaxSubsetPct 100
  /Optimize true
  /OPM 1
  /ParseDSCComments true
  /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
  /PreserveCopyPage true
  /PreserveEPSInfo true
  /PreserveHalftoneInfo false
  /PreserveOPIComments false
  /PreserveOverprintSettings true
  /StartPage 1
  /SubsetFonts false
  /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
  /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
  /UsePrologue false
  /ColorSettingsFile ()
  /AlwaysEmbed [ true
  ]
  /NeverEmbed [ true
  ]
  /AntiAliasColorImages false
  /DownsampleColorImages true
  /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
  /ColorImageResolution 150
  /ColorImageDepth -1
  /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
  /EncodeColorImages true
  /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
  /AutoFilterColorImages false
  /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
  /ColorACSImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.76
    /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
  >>
  /ColorImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.76
    /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
  >>
  /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /AntiAliasGrayImages false
  /DownsampleGrayImages true
  /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
  /GrayImageResolution 150
  /GrayImageDepth -1
  /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
  /EncodeGrayImages true
  /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
  /AutoFilterGrayImages true
  /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
  /GrayACSImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.76
    /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
  >>
  /GrayImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.15
    /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
  >>
  /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /AntiAliasMonoImages false
  /DownsampleMonoImages true
  /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
  /MonoImageResolution 600
  /MonoImageDepth -1
  /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
  /EncodeMonoImages true
  /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
  /MonoImageDict <<
    /K -1
  >>
  /AllowPSXObjects false
  /PDFX1aCheck false
  /PDFX3Check false
  /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
  /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
  /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
  ]
  /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
  /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
  ]
  /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
  /PDFXOutputCondition ()
  /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)
  /PDFXTrapped /False

  /Description <<
    /DEU <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>
    /ENU <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>
  >>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
  /HWResolution [2400 2400]
  /PageSize [2834.646 2834.646]
>> setpagedevice