Research Paper
GEOSPHERE
GEOSPHERE; v. 12, no. 6
doi:10.1130/GES01202.1
6 figures
THEMED ISSUE: Human Dimensions in Geoscience
Toward an understanding of “teaching in the making”: Explaining
instructional decision making by analyzing a geology instructor’s
use of metaphors
Glenn Robert Dolphin
University of Calgary, Department of Geoscience, Earth Science 118, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
CORRESPONDENCE: glenn​.dolphin@​ucalgary​.ca
CITATION: Dolphin, G.R., 2016, Toward an under‑
standing of “teaching in the making”: Explaining in‑
structional decision making by analyzing a geology
instructor’s use of metaphors: Geosphere, v. 12,
no. 6, p. 1–19, doi:10.1130/GES01202.1.
Received 20 May 2015
Revision received 19 July 2016
Accepted 5 October 2016
OL D
G
ABSTRACT
Research shows that teachers presented with new curricula designed to be
more student-centered do not usually implement that curricula as intended,
even when they receive associated professional development. To date, researchers have examined the implementation issue by focusing on t­ eachers’
beliefs, knowledge, and motivations to explain their practices, although results are complex and sometimes contradictory. Similarly, this case study
­research investigates how a geology instructor (Eric, a pseudonym) chose to
implement a student-centered, inquiry-rich, discussion-focused curriculum by
using traditional teacher-centered strategies instead. Classroom observations
and multiple audio-recorded meetings with Eric were a means to understand
why he chose and amended certain parts of the proposed curriculum. The object of focus is Eric’s spontaneous use of metaphor when talking about teaching, learning, and knowledge to understand and explain the factors involved in
his instructional decision making. Analyzing Eric’s conversations and teaching
through an embodied cognition theoretical framework shows that he structured his teaching with two metaphors: the jigsaw puzzle metaphor and the
fieldtrip metaphor. These parallel metaphors worked in concert to shape how
Eric perceived his role, his students’ role, and the role and nature of knowledge; thus, they structured what and how he taught. Understanding teachers’
conceptual metaphors can aid curriculum designers to develop content with a
higher likelihood of implementation, just as collaboration and communication
between designers and teachers will support teaching-in-the-making.
INTRODUCTION
OPEN ACCESS
This paper is published under the terms of the
CC‑BY license.
Determining why instructors implement curricular aspects in different ways
would facilitate more effective curricular and teacher development. In this research project, I draw on a growing body of literature in the cognitive sciences
and linguistics to build a novel approach for investigating how teachers implement curricula: specifically, the study analyzed an instructor’s metaphor use.
This provided an effective lens to understand why a particular geology instructor intervened in a curriculum dense with student-centered activities, choosing
instead to use a more traditional lecture-based format.
Geology is replete with metaphor, from “rock record” to “tectonic plate.”
We use these metaphors as shorthand for understanding. We also use metaphor in instruction to help students develop understanding (Nersessian, 2008;
Sibley, 2005). For instance, we often substitute space or distance for time when
talking about Earth’s history (i.e., “deep time”). Where experts are much better at discerning meaning from the metaphor, novices often are not (Amin,
2009). Indeed, particular metaphors could act as a barrier to understanding
for students, because students’ common understanding structures how they
derive meaning from the metaphor (Taber, 2003). As an example, Dolphin and
Benoit (2016) demonstrated how their student participants’ understanding of
“tectonic plate” was actually grounded in their everyday experience with ceramic plates. Their separate and brittle nature precluded the students from
developing a useful understanding of elastic rebound theory. This current research concludes that the geology instructor’s metaphors to describe teaching,
learning, and students structured his understanding of how to teach and thus
explains why he implemented an innovative, highly student-centered curriculum in a traditional, teacher-centered manner.
Fairweather (2008) asserted that student-centered curricula enhance student learning in science. Freeman and his colleagues (2014) echoed these
findings in their review of 225 different studies, showing that students in traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses
were more likely to fail in a lecture-only class than one that promoted students’
active learning. Regardless of these results, traditional lectures continue to be
the format for most introductory geology courses (Macdonald et al., 2005).
However, curriculum developers, emphasizing active learning in their products, design as if teachers are only technicians (Barnett and Hodson, 2001),
merely executing curricula as written. The result is that these curricula are seldom implemented as designed (Hulleman and Cordray, 2009).
To explain why teachers pick up certain aspects of curriculum and not
­others, and why they teach the way they do, much current research has focused on linking teachers’ explicitly declared beliefs to their practice (Jones
and Carter, 2007; Markley et al., 2009; Ryker, 2014). Some researchers have
reported factors other than beliefs that account for why instructors implemented innovative curricula in ways that were not intended by the developers.
Mansour (2009) asserted that contextual constraints influence how teachers
© 2016 The Authors
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
1
Research Paper
implement curricular tools. Barnett and Hodson (2001) identified pedagogical
context knowledge (PCxtK) as a reigning factor in instructor decision making.
Höttecke and Silva (2011) described the varied factors affecting teachers’ implementation of history and philosophy of science (HPS)–rich curricular tools,
such as a “culture of teaching physics,” physics teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
about teaching physics, institutional constraints, and textbook limitations.
Orion and Ault (2007) also identified that “professional inertia” affects implementation. Markley et al. (2009) said many of their participants—postsecondary geology professors—did not think teaching practice had much impact
on learning outcomes. They also proposed that professors needed intrinsic
motivation to be good educators since the university system did not reward
good teaching. Brown (2009) termed teaching a “design activity” (p. 18), an
iterative process of implementation, testing, and amending curriculum. He
stated that “teachers must perceive and interpret existing resources, evaluate
the constraints of the classroom setting, balance tradeoffs, and devise strategies—all in the pursuit of their instructional goals” (p. 18).
This qualitative case study breaks with the prior research strategies by
analyzing an instructor’s language as he talked about teaching, learning, and
knowledge, incidental to the conversation at hand. I did not ask the participant
instructor, Eric (a pseudonym), explicitly about his thoughts and beliefs about
these concepts. Instead, I encouraged Eric to talk about his experiences with
teaching and learning (his and his students’) and then analyzed what was implicit in his words, in tandem with observations of his practice. I argue here
that this approach is superior to other methods noted in the literature review.
By employing new understandings of the way the brain works (Shapiro, 2011),
this approach explains why Eric made the pedagogical decisions he did, why
lecture-based instruction seems so hard to move away from, and also gives a
starting point for how we might develop more effective teaching strategies in
undergraduate geology classrooms.
THE NEED FOR A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
To determine why instructors teach the way they do, researchers have
used various strategies to delineate instructors’ beliefs (about teaching,
learning, students, etc.) and the relationship between their beliefs and teaching practices. The outcomes of these inquiries have conflicted. Some partici­
pants describe beliefs that parallel each other, while other participants hold a
multi­plicity of beliefs. Some studies have shown that an instructor’s beliefs
are consistent with her/his practice, while others have shown inconsistencies
between beliefs and practice. The root of the discrepancies may be the nature
of the instruments being used to understand teacher beliefs. In most cases,
researchers ask questions explicitly about the participants’ beliefs concerning
teaching, learning and science, or ask teachers to explain their practice. I invite
the interested reader to view specifics of the studies used to make the above
claims in Appendix 1.
While Luft and Roehrig (2007) feel that this method is reliable for ascertaining teacher beliefs, the limitations of this approach become obvious below,
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
where I build an argument that most of our decisions are made automatically,
structured by unconscious metaphorical understandings of the environment
(Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999). Explanations of such decisions are often
created post hoc and accepted (and expressed) as causal espoused beliefs
(Kahneman, 2011). The next part of this section supports a data analysis framework that more accurately explains and predicts practice.
The purpose of this section is to build an argument for analyzing a participant’s metaphor usage in order to explain his actions. The analysis of
metaphor for this purpose is rare in the literature (Tobin and LaMaster, 1995;
BouJaoude, 2000; Reeder et al., 2009). In these studies, metaphors were elicited explicitly (for instance, “what metaphor would you use to describe your
teaching?”) as a tool for understanding participants’ beliefs about teaching
and science. In this way, the strategy suffers the same limitation of a post hoc
creation to rationalize practices. In this research, where I analyze this geology
instructor’s use of metaphor to explain his instructional decision making, I utilize Eric’s automatic or spontaneous use of metaphor during his teaching, and
our conversations inform on how he structured his unconscious reality. I then
argue that this, in turn, framed certain teaching strategies as reasonable to
him, while it constrained others.
A metaphor is a type of analogy that directly compares one thing, such as
a concrete experience that is easily understood by most people, to another
thing—a thing or experience that the user or speaker is trying to better under­
stand (Nersessian, 2008). This latter item is called the “target” domain or
concept, while the concrete thing is classified as the “source” concept. Reddy
(1979) claimed that the semantic structures of the English language lead its
speakers into a particular frame that creates barriers to effective communication. He explained this with an example: the conduit metaphor, where thoughts
or ideas (target domain) are characterized as physical objects or things (source
domain) that can be given and received (e.g., She tried to get her thoughts
across to the audience, but they were not receptive to her ideas 1.). Words are
containers that can hold the ideas or thoughts (e.g., He spent a long time trying
to put his thoughts into words.), and language is a conduit for transferring the
ideas to someone else (e.g., It took a lot of persuasion, but I think I finally got
my message through to him.). Reddy argued this metaphor structures how we
use and understand communication, which manifests as expectations for the
communicator and the listener (or reader).
Elaborating on Reddy’s (1979) work, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) claimed we
gain meaning of the world through concrete, embodied experiences. They labeled this type of learning as “embodied cognition.” Because we cannot have
concrete experiences with abstract ideas (love, mind, learning, etc.), we create
that meaning for them by projecting our experiences with concrete things onto
those abstract concepts, through the use of metaphor. For example, when we
say, “I’m in love,” love is a hopelessly abstract concept, but the brain concepThroughout this paper, to note textual metaphors in sample sentences, or quotations from Eric
(the participant), I will italicize the text to identify the metaphor. Such italicization appears most
often in the Findings section where I quote Eric several times. Please note that this is distinct
from any typical usage of italics elsewhere to emphasize a word or idea.
1
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
2
Research Paper
tualizes it, in this case, as a bounded container, a concept with which we have
many experiences (a can, a bottle, a bathtub, etc.). Recent neurologic studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) indicate the brain
does not perceive metaphors as a language device. It derives meaning of “in
love” from our embodied concrete experiences with the insides of containers
(­Gallese and Lakoff, 2005). Our mind perceives love, in this case, as a bounded
container (a common experience, as with cans, buckets, and pools) that we
can enter into, explore, and fall out of.
Grady (1998) and Lakoff and Johnson (1999) asserted that we develop
many primary metaphors based on early concrete experiences and then create
compound metaphors by combining primary metaphors; in this way, we pro­
ject concrete meaning onto abstract concepts. Importantly, the metaphorical
projection is automatic, unconscious, and systematically highlights and hides
aspects of the target (abstract) concept (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Metaphori­
cal projection takes place via our cognitive unconscious and embodied mind
(Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). Kahneman (2011) described this as “system-1
thinking.” System-1 thinking is responsible for such activities as orientating
yourself in space, doing routine activities, and recognizing stereotypes and
metaphors. It also controls associative activation, where exposure to one idea
or metaphor triggers many other related ideas in a “spreading cascade of activity” (p. 51) creating a “vast network of associated ideas” (p. 53). This was
also referred to as a metaphorical gestalt (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999), influencing that person’s perceptions of reality. Tobin and LaMaster (1995) used
this idea to foster change in how an in-service teacher taught, by changing
the metaphors underpinning her understandings of teaching and students. I
argue here that it was Eric’s spontaneous use of two compound metaphors
for teaching that structured his reality of teaching introductory geology. The
metaphors both highlighted his traditional style of teaching and suppressed
the more student-centered approach of the curriculum.
Drawing on this embodied cognition theoretical framework, I sought to answer the following questions:
1.What metaphors did Eric use when discussing concepts such as teaching, learning, and science?
2.What does Eric’s use of metaphor tell us about the meaning he holds for
such concepts as teaching, learning, and science?
3.How might these meanings be related to Eric’s teaching practice when
implementing student-centered, inquiry-rich, and historically contextualized curriculum?
METHODS
This research investigates the instructional decisions a geology instructor,
Eric, made while implementing a curricular intervention. The purpose of the
intervention was to facilitate student mental model building within the context
of the theory of plate tectonics and to foster a more robust understanding of
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
the nature of science (NoS). The research took place at an R-1 university in the
northeastern United States, during two undergraduate introductory geology
courses taught in two sequential summer terms in 2012. I engaged in two lines
of inquiry—student conceptual development and instructor decision making—
within the structure of a multi-tiered teaching experiment (Lesh and Kelly,
2000). This means it was similar to an intervention study but with constant
analysis and the freedom to manipulate variables (teaching, curriculum, etc.)
to better reach the learning objectives. This paper reports only on the results
related to instructor decision making. The design of the intervention included
student-centered activities such as mental model building, small group discussions, and argumentation within the context of the historical development
of the theory of plate tectonics. Between classes, Eric and I met to discuss the
progression of the intervention and any changes needed, based on classroom
observations.
Data Collection
As a participant observer, I took field notes and audio-recorded classroom
instruction of the intervention (totaling 15 two-hour classes). My status as
a participant observer meant that I would observe class activities, but I also
participated to a limited extent in the activities, whether this was to answer
student questions, interject ideas, or ask students what they were thinking
during activities. Participating in this minimal way normalized my presence in
the classroom, so that both the students and Eric felt more comfortable. This,
in turn, facilitated normal interactions, and student and teacher behavior in
the classroom. My focus was student-teacher and student-student interactions
during student model building. I developed an observation protocol, divided
into columns—“instructor actions” and “student actions.” Within these columns and based on the time of occurrence in class, I recorded observations of
actions, such as “use of data” (Da), “analogy” (An), “explanation”(Ex), “questioning” (Qs), etc. There were a total of 22 different actions for recording. I also
audio-recorded 19 planning and/or reflection meetings with Eric, lasting from
10 min to over one hour each. During these meetings, I also took the opportunity to ask Eric to clarify particular statements he made in previous meetings
or in class. I transcribed the audio recordings and analyzed the data through
Eric’s use of metaphor.
The Intervention
The intervention (that is, the student-centered curricula the instructor was
to adopt) employed various instructional strategies to facilitate learning about
earthquakes and their relationship to the theory of plate tectonics. It was a product of “braiding” the history of science with inquiry- and model-based learning
(MBL). In this case, “braiding” means that aspects (or strands) of the curriculum
(history, inquiry, and MBL) were designed to flow from one to the next, with the
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
3
Research Paper
history setting up the inquiry and guiding its trajectory (Allchin, 2014). Student
participants in each of the two classes were to experience five days of historically contextualized discussion and inquiry-rich content concerning the history
of seismology and its role in the development of the theory of plate tectonics.
The planned sequence of content and activities were as follows:
4. Historical Interlude, Inquiry Activity, MBL
1. Historical Prelude, Inquiry Activity, MBL
5. Historical Interlude, Inquiry Activity, MBL
• Explore different maps of seafloor data (similar to Sawyer [2002]), while
learning about the history of seafloor exploration (Lawrence, 2002;
Höhler, 2003).
• The 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, encountered through the per• Discuss the development of World Wide Synchronized Seismic Network
sonal accounts of William James (1911) and Jack London (1906).
(WWSSN) in reaction to nuclear test ban treaty and the implications to
• The Lawson Report (Reid, 1910).
the new wealth of seismic data.
• Discussions on the above.
• Use the IRIS Earthquake Browser to refine students’ understanding of
• Through a concrete functional model (Boulter and Buckley, 2000)—an
the patterns of global seismicity.
earthquake machine (Hubenthal et al., 2008; https://​
www​
.iris​
.edu​
/hq​
• To further refine their model of Earth dynamics, students employ learn/resource​/redefining​_an​_earthquake​_v12)—students explore the elastic
ing strategies such as “what-if” questions (Khan, 2008). After reading
rebound theory (Reid’s mechanism for earthquakes). The model consists
portions of Hess (1962) and Vine and Matthews (Vine and Matthews,
of a block of wood (2″ × 4″ × 4″) with sand paper affixed to the bottom
1963; Vine, 1966), they start to develop a model consistent with the cur(4″ × 4″ side) and a rubber band attached to a side that is used to pull
rent theory of plate tectonics.
the wood block across a length of belt-sandpaper fastened to a table
top. Students pull the block along the sandpaper with the rubber band,
The sequence of activities, readings, and discussion (Fig. 1) parallels porwhich allows for a “stick-slip” behavior as elastic potential is built up in
tions of the historical evolution of the theory of plate tectonics. This pattern
the rubber band and is then released when the friction of the block on the
demonstrates the iterative nature of scientific knowledge development and the
sandpaper is overcome.
role of wrong turns and false starts. Students are not given activities where
they already know the outcomes, and thus only work to rationally reconstruct
Through this activity, students analyze the model as a system of blocks,
the known history (Allchin, 2013). Rather, they experience the sense of discovery as they ask their own questions and work through them to find answers.
sand paper, and rubber bands, and all the forces and other variables at work
The inquiry is open but constrained by the history (Allchin, 2014).
within it. They can develop questions that they then answer by manipulating
the model, collecting data, and making an evidence-based claim about the
The original study was intended to look at how students developed their
own models of plate tectonics within a learning environment engineered for
model. Once they are familiar with all the aspects of the model, they map asmental model building (Boulter and Buckley, 2000; Clement, 2008b) through
pects of the model onto reality, ideally deriving understanding of the role of
elastic strain and rebound in the making of an earthquake.
a series of historical case studies (Allchin, 2014) in the form of interrupted
cases (Herreid, 2007). Having become familiar with the curricular intervention, Eric volunteered to implement it in his two summer geology courses.
2. Historical Interlude, Inquiry Activity, MBL
Eric received no formal professional development prior to implementing the
curriculum as we only discussed how to approach leading a discussion or an
• Analyze and discuss Robert Mallet’s (1858) map of global seismicity for
inquiry activity.
possible patterns of seismic activity.
• Develop their own models to explain their observations.
The Participant
3. Historical Interlude, Inquiry Activity, MBL
• Read about different models of Earth dynamics, such as the porous earth
(Şengör, 2003), contracting earth and land bridges (Dana, 1847; Suess
et al., 1904), expanding earth (Jordan, 1971; Carey, 1976) and horizontal
displacement (Wegener and Skerl, 1924). Each idea answered some of
the data.
• Students needed to determine the implications of each explanation and
how they might test each one.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Eric, a professor and researcher in the field of plate tectonics, was teaching
two introductory courses in geology. Aware of my desire to implement new
curricula, he approached me about implementing it in his summer courses.
During a later interview, he maintained that he was motivated to learn new
ways to teach and engage students. Eric described his trajectory from undergraduate to graduate student, to holding a postdoctoral research position at
a research-intensive university, followed by a position as a research scientist
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
4
Day 1
What is an earthquake?
Where do they get their
energy? Why is it
important to study them?
1906 earthquake :
description, personal
accounts, Lawson report
Modeling and
models-based
learning
Inquiry
activities
Historical
“Interludes”
How can we
model this
phenomenon?
Earthquake
machine
mapping to real
world earthquakes
5
Essential
questions:
Model generation,
accretion, analogical
structuring: Earthquake
machine and elastic
rebound theory
What is the nature of
seismic data?
Day 3
How can there be
multiple possible
explanations for the
same data? What is the
benefit MWH?
Day 4
How can we describe and
explain the pattern of
global seismicity
Day 5
Robert
Mallet’s map
Model accretion: Rapid
earthquake viewer and
gestural and concrete
models of wave
propagation
What are the patterns
of seismic activity?
How can we explain
these data?
Historic models of
earth dynamics:
Compare and
contrast models.
What do they
explain?
porous earth, contracting
earth, land bridges, horizontal
displacement
History of
seafloor
exploration
WWII,
WWSSN
Affordances,
limitations,
implications
Where else should
we look for data?
What patterns do you
discern from the
data? How do they fit
with previous
models?
What patterns can
you discern from
global seismicity
data?
Hess’s
“Geopoetry”
Expanding
earth and plate
tectonics
Historic
model
analysis
Determine the
reliability of this
model compared to
others
Description,
explanation,
relevance to prior
models
What is role of n
new
technologies?
Seafloor data
IRIS
Earthquake
Browser
Depth, magnitude,
and frequency of
occurrence
How
ow
w were these data
explained?
Model analysis
and critique
Affordances,
limitations, and
implications
Research Paper
Figure 1. Graphic organizer depicting the iterative structure of the intervention. Driven by essential questions, activities have historical
contextualization (Interludes), followed by an inquiry activity, and then student mental model building. Model building is then followed by
another historical interlude. Abbreviations: MWH—Multiple working hypotheses; WWII—World War II; WWSSN—World Wide Synchronized
Seismic Network.
Model Competition,
analogical structuring,
visualization: Sponge
model, balloon model,
drifting continents
Model accretion,
analogical structuring:
Maps, seismograms,
cross-sections
Model accretion:
3-D visualizations
of of seismic
activity
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
How are seismic data
expressed? What can we
infer about the earth’s
interior from them?
Model competition:
expanding earth
vs. plate tectonics
Create
C
t ad
descriptive/
i ti /
explanatory model of
earth dynamics
within the context of
earthquakes
Model generation:
Spatial/static - causal/
dynamic diagram of
global seismicity
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Day 2
Research Paper
at an international lab. He eventually made his way to a professorship at the
current institution. From informal observations of Eric’s teaching prior to the
investigation, I found him to be a very engaging speaker, using stories, well–
thought-out explanations, and plenty of analogies including multiple metaphors to relate difficult concepts to students. He seemed to relate well with
many of the students before and after class. That being said, his lectures were
decidedly one direction—going from professor to students with little to no student interaction during the entire two-hour class period.
Data Analysis
During the data collecting period, I began analyzing Eric’s teaching and discussions for clues to help explain why he seemed to choose more traditional
modes of teaching as opposed to the more student-centered mode called for
by the curriculum. His practices contradicted his statements about using more
reform-based teaching methods: letting students do the work, “letting them
put the pieces together.” As I looked at the transcripts, I noticed that Eric utilized
language coherent with Reddy’s (1979) conduit metaphor (ideas are things,
words are containers for those things, and language is a conduit to transfer the
containers from one person to the next). Jensen (2006) stated that “metaphors
are a valuable research tool for gaining new insights into education practice
and theory” (p. 49), because “the researcher is able to enter into the inner
world of the perceptions, understandings, and experiences of the participants”
(p. 41). With this in mind, I began to consider Eric’s use of metaphor within the
context of teaching, learning, and knowledge. He often referred to teaching
as “giving pieces of information” to his students and that they would put the
pieces together or “shelve them in their library full of facts.” I looked closer to
discern a pattern to Eric’s use of this metaphor. I familiarized myself with some
of the more common primary metaphors described by L
­ akoff and Johnson
(1999) to help in this process.
A particular aspect of metaphorical language Lakoff and Johnson (1999)
described is the emphasis of motion as part of the metaphor. It is very common for us to experience a subject that moves with respect to a stationary
background, and so this aspect is common in our metaphors. For instance,
“time is passing me by” has time as the subject moving relative to me, the
background. I noted this aspect of motion in the metaphors Eric used. Not only
did Eric describe the motion of knowledge to the students by “giving them
pieces,” but he also repeatedly talked about “taking students through” a particular topic, having students make “a leap… a conceptual leap.” He would
“pull them into” a topic or “keep them on track.” In general, Eric described
knowledge (subject) moving with respect to the students (background), or the
students (subject) moving with respect to knowledge (background). This subject/background relative motion became the criterion upon which I built the
two compound metaphors discussed below.
The process of forming the two compound metaphors followed this trajectory. Starting from two overarching metaphor systems—“mind is a body”
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
system and “event-structure” system, each divided into multiple primary meta­
phors—I categorized the vast majority of the narrative transcript passages
(~400 passages, or 90%) into four primary metaphors: (1) thinking is manipulating objects; (2) thinking is moving, descending from the mind is a body
system; (3) events are objects; and (4) events are locations descended from the
event-structure system (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999).
Once classified, I subdivided each primary metaphor group into four to
six subgroups based on the nature of the text. I based the subgroups on what
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) identified as “entailments.” Entailments are the
asso­ciations or implications we link to a metaphor, derived from our commonplace cultural knowledge of the source of the metaphor. For example, Lakoff
and Johnson (1999) pointed out that if thinking is manipulating objects, then
ideas are manipulable objects, understanding is grasping, communicating is
sending, and memory is a storehouse. From the primary metaphors and their
entailments, I discerned two compound metaphors. In terms of the subject/
background relationship, the first emphasized the movement of knowledge in
the form of puzzle pieces (subject) with respect to the students (background).
I identified this as the jigsaw puzzle metaphor—a compound metaphor of
“thinking is manipulating objects” and “events are objects.” The second compound metaphor emphasized the movement of students (subject) against the
field of knowledge (background), where they can cover a lot of ground. I identified this as the fieldtrip metaphor—a compound of the “thinking is moving”
and “events are locations” primary metaphors.
Figure 2 gives an illustration of the relationships among the systems, primary metaphors, and resulting compound metaphors. The compound metaphors incorporate the associations and extensions (entailments) of the four
primary metaphors described above. Mapping the entailments refers to matching aspects of the source domain (e.g., storage facility) to aspects of the target
(e.g., learning in the mind) based on Eric’s words (building them a memory
palace). Figures 3 through 6 show the four primary metaphors, their individual
entailments, and examples of Eric’s use of them. I demonstrate below that
Eric’s use of these particular metaphors explains the teaching choices he made
because the structure of each source domain (jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip) emphasized certain teaching strategies, while simultaneously subduing others.
I also grouped ~20 passages in the “thinking is perceiving” primary metaphor, fewer in the “thinking is eating” primary metaphor, and ~10 fit the “existence is being located here” primary metaphor. Finally, there were ~10 passages that I could not classify into any particular group of primary metaphors.
It is important to reiterate here that, contrary to the explicit use of metaphor
by participants in other investigations, Eric’s use of metaphor was completely
spontaneous during the study period. At no time did I elicit Eric to use meta­
phorical language to describe his teaching or how he understands student
learning. Nor did I discuss Eric’s use of metaphor with him at any time during
the data collection period. Doing so would have jeopardized the reliability of
the analysis (Morse et al., 2002), because Eric would have become self-conscious to his use of metaphor and possibly altered it in light of that self-­
consciousness.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
6
Research Paper
A
B
Conceptual
System
entailments
b
ro
broken
oken into
o
multiple
m
EventStructure
system
entailments
Events are
E
objects
P
Primary
metaphorr
m
entailments
em
e
ess
emphasizes
mphasize
particularr
p
Mind is a body
system
y
Events
vents are
locations
Thinking is
manipulating
objects
j
Thinking
ng is
moving
entailments
Knowledge
moves relative to
students
Figure - ground
relationship
guides grouping
into
Learning is
putting together
a jigsaw puzzle
Compound
metaphor
Students
moves relative to
knowledge
Learning is
being on a field
trip
with
ith
Entailments
Teaching is
distributing the
puzzle pieces
Scientific
theory is a
jigsaw puzzle
Scientific theory
is the ground
being covered
Teaching is
leading the
field trip
Facts are the
individual
stops
Facts are
puzzle
pieces
Figure 2. Structure of metaphor grouping. (A) shows the general progression from conceptual system (light-blue rectangle), broken into primary metaphors (purple rounded
rectangle; see Figs. 3–6 for more detail) and entailments (white rounded rectangles), determination of the figure/ground relationship (yellow oval), then assembly of compound metaphor (green oval). (B) shows the specific primary metaphors under consideration, figure/ground relationships that guided grouping the primary metaphors into
compound metaphors, and their entailments. (Key to passage identification for Figures 2–6: 20120809:224 is 8 August 2012 recording date, line 224 in transcript.)
Subjectivity Statement and Analysis Reliability
Formally schooled in geology, I worked as a professional geologist prior to
being trained and then working as an Earth science teacher in a ninth grade,
public school classroom. I designed the current intervention based on lessons
developed during that decade-long teaching career (Dolphin, 2009). The lessons used history and philosophy of geology to encourage student inquiry,
discussion, collaboration, argumentation, and model building and critique.
When I compare my activities as an academic researcher with my previous
professional experience as a geologist, I find that qualitative research—such as
this investigation—is remarkably parallel to geological fieldwork. In fact, education researchers call the space where we collect our data, “the field.” In essence,
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
I collect empirical data (observations and audio recordings) and analyze the
data with the intent to discern patterns and ultimately construct, inductively, an
explanation for those patterns. As a geologist, I might venture into the field with
multiple working hypotheses, which I then narrow down as the data demand.
Or, I may enter the field with a theoretical framework already in mind (like plate
tectonics theory for the geologist, or embodied cognition for this particular
­paper), which directs me to know what I should even consider data. When the
theory leads to meaningful geological observations, this explanatory power
reciprocally demonstrates the reliability and validity of the theory (Thagard,
2012). Or, from another angle, how well does the theory respond to the data,
compared to other possible explanations? Just as geologists might make arguments about the reliability of their data and the conclusions they draw from it,
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
7
Research Paper
they are starting with a framework in
which they can begin to hang that
library full of facts; to shelve those
things. 20120809:224
then reworking it
and molding it and
shaping it and
shaving it, until you
get, “OK, this part
seems to hold. This
works so now I can
take this and, and
try to expand that
part of it.”
starting to pull apart fluctuations in
earth’s magnetic field
20120526:406
Analyzing
ideas is taking
apart objects
Memory is a
storehouse
Ideas are
manipulable
objects
Understanding
is grasping
I mean part of teaching these classes is,
is you’ve got to judge, you've got to
gauge what’s really important to come
away with. 20120713:60
Thinking is
manipulating
objects
The structure of an
idea is the structure of
an object
Communicating
is sending
Is there anything you
want me to hold
back?
20120526:257
b
where what they’re doing is using the given
material as pieces of a bigger puzzle, as
opposed to just learning the shape of those
pieces. 20120611b:37
Well, and part of it, too, is- is it’s hard to fitit’s hard to fit an alternative learning mode
into a defined learning structure, right?
That’s an issue, too. And that’s something that
I’ve been struggling with and not just in this
class, and not just with this. 20120614a:115
Attributes are
possessions
Or see if
they come
up with that.
20120611b:
97
Becoming
accessible is
emerging
So, pumping their heads full of
knowledge or stuffing their heads
full of facts in a disconnected
way... 20120614a:134
I think they’re starting to
really, hopefully, you
know, get that a lot of
this
th stuff is really simple
20120618:61
Purposes are
desired objects
Events are
objects
Causation is
transfer of
possessions
But I just don’t
think they have
enough experience.
20120614b:198
I tried a few times to get
them to talk about the
models. 20120614b:197
Achieving
A
hi i a
purpose is
acquiring a desired
object
and I am supposed to be
giving them the information
that they then give back to
me. 20120611:42
Figure 4. Events are objects primary metaphor (dark-purple, rounded rectangle) and its entailments (white rounded rectangles) supported by Eric’s quotes (white rectangles).
Figure 3. Thinking is manipulating objects primary metaphor (dark-purple, rounded rectangle)
and its entailments (white rounded rectangles) supported by Eric’s quotes (white rectangles).
similarly, qualitative education researchers also make such claims. I invite the
interested reader to view Appendix 2 for an expanded section on my line of reasoning for the reliability and the validity of the results presented in this paper.
Eric’s Use of the Jigsaw Puzzle Metaphor
FINDINGS
A Tale of Two Metaphors
This section presents my analysis of Eric’s use of metaphor through the
lens of embodied cognition as described by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999).
As a reminder, our understanding of the world comes through our embodied
awareness of it. This means we have embodied experiences, received through
our senses. To develop meaning for abstract concepts (those we cannot experience concretely), we project our experiences with the concrete onto the abstract through the use of metaphor. This use of metaphor is automatic and unconscious, and in turn, structures the target domain (abstract concept) in terms
of the source domain (embodied experience) (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).
When Eric talked about teaching, learning, and science, he did so within the
context of two separate compound metaphors. I identify them as the jigsaw
puzzle metaphor and the fieldtrip metaphor. They incorporate the associations
and extensions (entailments) of the four primary metaphors described above.
Mapping the entailments refers to the matching aspects of the source domain
(e.g., storage facility) to aspects of the target (e.g., learning in the mind) based
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
on Eric’s words (building them a memory palace). I argue next that Eric’s use
of metaphor explains the teaching choices he made because the structure of
each source domain (jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip) afforded him certain teaching
tools while constraining others.
Oftentimes, when Eric spoke of teaching or learning about plate tectonics, he spoke of it in terms of “a puzzle” whose “pieces” he would “give out”
to students. Subsequently, students had the responsibility to “receive” and
“store” the pieces and “put them back together.” This metaphor incorporates
entailments of both the thinking is manipulating objects metaphor and the
events are objects metaphor (Figs. 3 and 4).
Within the context of thinking is manipulating objects, ideas are considered
things, which maintain an existence separate from the mind, can be put together, “shaved”, flipped around, and even have a shape to them. Throughout
our discussions, Eric referred to details or scientific facts as “bits and pieces”
or “pieces of a puzzle.”
Exceptions to patterns, parts of the whole, trying to figure out if the sum of the parts
and the whole equal out. Or is there some synergy? Is there a little bit of Gestalt
happening, wherein when you put all of the pieces together, it’s a lot more dynamic
than looking at all of the pieces in isolation? (20120620:36–40 [20120620 is date of
recording; 36-40 is line number in recording transcript])
where what they’re (students) doing is using the given material as pieces of a bigger
puzzle, as opposed to just learning the shape of those pieces. (20120611b:37–38)
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
8
Research Paper
What I really want to do on
Monday is maybe combine,
get back to- so, so, so take a
step back and say let’s take a
look at earthquakes again.
20120614b:114
Rethinking is
going over the
path again
Line of
thought is a
path
They potentially get more
out of an intro class that
teaches them and guides
them towards a way of
thinking. 20120809:214
Communicating
is guiding
Thinking is
moving
Rational thought is motion
that is direct, deliberate,
step-by-step, and in
accordance with the force
of reason
So that’s where I’m going to go today. I just
thought I’d let you know. It’s probably going to
be a lot of me lecturing. I’m going to try to get
them engaged. 20120712:91
T
Thinking
Th
about X is
moving
in the area
m
around X
Figure 5. Thinking is moving primary meta­
phor (dark-purple, rounded rectangle) and its
entailments (white rounded rectangles) supported by Eric’s quotes (white rectangles).
Because there’s lots of little if
if-then
then
statements that get you from A to Z. And yes,
going from A to Z is correct. It’s like
Wegener. Right? He really did get it. But he
didn’t get all of the if-then statements that
got him from that starting point to the
finishing point. 20120620:45
What you want to do is give them pieces and have them put the pieces together…
instruct them in the characteristics of these pieces without enforcing or directing
them to put the pieces together in a particular way. (20120809:357–368)
In the above passages, Eric emphasized giving ideas to students as pieces
of a bigger puzzle. Here, Eric utilized entailments of the events are objects primary metaphor where pieces of information are attributes, possessed by the
whole puzzle. To affect learning in his students, he gave information (causation
is a transfer of possessions) to them, or pieces (attributes are possessions) of
the plate tectonics puzzle. Students would learn (achieving a purpose is acquiring a desired object) and connect the pieces (synthesizing understanding is
putting objects together), or put the attributes into the bigger puzzle.
And we’ve got these different pieces of evidence that were from different parts of
the globe that were interpreted by different people throughout history, right?... All
of these things exist, but there’s a big picture, and that big picture has to do with the
Phrases located in parentheses are examples of mapping the entailments of a primary metaphor onto the data.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
trying to explore
ways that the
students
themselves will
arrive at
conclusions...
20120705:277
Ideas are
locations
In Eric’s mind, he was giving (communication is sending)2 pieces of content
(ideas are manipulable objects), and students would learn more than just the
shape of those pieces (the structure of an idea is the structure of an object). It
was then up to the student to put them together to make their own connections
(synthesis is putting together).
2
“Well, we’ve
wandered around all
of these different
things and they are all
connected, we know
they are connected."
20120611b:309
shapes of the continents, and once we started looking off shore—understanding
how the system worked in total—then we really saw this picture of plate tectonics.
So you’ve been … juggling all of these ideas .... (20120712:54–74)
Eric described evidence and theory as the relationship between the pieces
and the bigger picture. In keeping with the metaphor, Eric saw the theory as
the puzzle and the evidence for the theory as the pieces of that puzzle that students could juggle, flip, and fit into place. Importantly, the shape of the pieces
of a jigsaw puzzle is already set, unchanging, just as the facts of plate tectonics,
to Eric, were already set, unchanging. As is also characteristic of jigsaw puzzles, there is only one correct and ready-made solution. For Eric, he gave the
set pieces, and students would put them together in the set way, developing an
understanding for plate tectonics that was identical reality, just like the puzzle
is identical to the picture on the puzzle box.
The puzzle metaphor is consistent with the belief that truths about the
world exist separately from the mind—objectivism3. The final picture of plate
tectonics was the only correct answer. The structure or shape of the pieces,
each a discovered effect of plate tectonics, was also certain. In other words, the
The use of the term “objectivism” is in the context of an epistemological stance. It is a descriptor
of how one understands the nature of knowledge. As such, if one has an objectivistic epistemology, (s)he views objects and ideas as having intrinsic meaning that is universally under­
standable regardless of background knowledge, culture, or bias. It is explained fully in Lakoff
and Johnson (1980).
3
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
9
Research Paper
And leading them through that- and I think they
got some pieces. I mean, he was, he was right on.
He was like, “Hey, if it’s not expanding, then
doesn’t that stuff that gets created in one place
have to be destroyed?” Yes. Absolutely.
Absolutely. That’s right. You know and getting
them to make that jump, you know, it’s a
conceptual jump. And then they can go back and
start ...20120620:43
Long-term,
purposeful
activities are
journeys
Changes are
movements (into or
out of bounded
regions)
It’s also interesting flipping
back and forth between
lecture, discussion and play
20120611b:100
And then, and then, and that’s the thing they start
seeing; the contortion that people put themselves
through defending their model. 20120614b:189
Actions are
self-propelled
movements
Events are
locations
States are locations
(interiors of
bounded regions)
vocabulary
b l
is such
h a bbarrier ffor
people who might intuitively or,
or, or maybe not intuitively but
actually be intellectually get what
is going on 20120611:b124
Difficulties are
impediments
to motion
Causation is forced
movement (from onee
location to another)
Umm. Or don’t have the words, so there’s
that. Umm, part of it is, part of it is that
getting to the point of being able to discuss
that material requires, requires reading it.
20120614b:29
data speak for themselves, with no room for individual interpretation (subjectivism). Just as a jigsaw puzzle has a ready-made (preexisting) picture, so the
students would experience ready-made science (Latour, 1987).
The source of this metaphor may be, in part, from Alfred Wegener’s reference to the “jigsaw puzzle fit” of the continents when he proposed continental
drift as a model for the origin of continents and ocean basins (Wegener and
Skerl, 1924) and the ubiquity of this metaphor in geology textbooks. Eric, a researcher of plate tectonics, perceived the theory as the way to order apparently
disparate pieces of data.
… describe how plate tectonics both incorporates, and integrates, and synthesizes
all of these pieces to make a coherent whole…describe the pieces of data, like
yesterday’s lecture, describe the important pieces of data that we use to test and
support plate tectonics. What is important about these disparate pieces of data?
(20120619:167–173)
Eric taught that scientists synthesized the theory through the 1960s and
1970s. He thought students should be able to simply and logically put the pieces
together. The difference is that since the inception of the idea of horizontal displacements of the continents, scientists had many pieces, and they were using
them to create the jigsaw puzzle (Frankel, 2012). To do this, some of the pieces
may have needed shaping to get them to fit, as the whole puzzle continued to
change shape. Eric taught only relevant data, the pieces that came directly from
the finalized puzzle, in the manner of rational reconstruction (Allchin, 2013).
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
to order or
structure that
allowed me the
freedom to learn in
my own way and my
own pace within a
structure that kept
me on track to get
me through the
material.
20120611b:241
Figure 6. Events are locations primary
metaphor (dark-purple, rounded rectangle) and its entailments (white rounded
rectangles) supported by Eric’s quotes
(white rectangles).
And see if I can pull
them into hot spots,
satellites, radio
telescopes 20120713:13
Eric’s Use of the Fieldtrip Metaphor
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) pointed out that we have an abundance of
knowledge about motion in space, simply because we have a great deal
of experience moving ourselves or other objects through space. These experiences, then, become the source upon which we draw to make sense
of events such as learning that take place in our lives. Fundamental to the
fieldtrip metaphor is the idea of traveling intentionally from one point to another, where thinking is considered to be moving along a path, and learning
is a purposeful journey to a destination of understanding. Mapping Lakoff
and Johnson’s (1999) outline of the important aspects of making a purposeful journey onto the concept of learning about plate tectonics, in this case,
looks like this: The purposeful journey has a plan (course syllabus) or a route
(series of lessons) to get to the destination (understanding); sometimes there
are obstacles (learning challenges) to traveling that must be anticipated; and
there are supplies (text, models, etc.) that need to be brought and an itinerary
(course schedule) that should be made indicating where the journey leads
(content) and what stops (individual concepts) there are and how long will
be spent at each stop.
The fieldtrip metaphor is a compound of the thinking is moving and the
events are locations metaphors (Figs. 5 and 6). Based on the data, Eric saw it
as his responsibility to “cover a lot of ground,” keeping students “on the path”
with “benchmarks” and “guidelines” so they would not “get lost.” He sought
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
10
Research Paper
to “expose them to the background material” when necessary, and to prevent
them from “flailing” by helping them make “forward progress.”
Eric often spoke in terms of the journey.
If we could sort of lead up to Thursday, umm, and, get a lot of stuff and this class is
actually front-loaded in terms of plate tectonics. We are starting with it. So, if you
could gear up and get ready to roll, and work with [teaching assistant] in terms of
what he wants to do for lab and maybe even, you know, roll what you are doing into
what he is going to do for lab ... that would be really good if we could do it that way.
And Uhh, the thing that I would like to do with this is to try and streamline what we
did last time around so that it fits into that one week, maybe, plus or minus a day …
without diverging too much from last time. (20120705:123–229)
Eric set a departure time (Thursday) and location (plate tectonics) for a
journey along a path (thinking about plate tectonics) that would lead to the
destination (the event of having learned about plate tectonics). He was concerned that we get “a lot of stuff” and “gear up” (get texts and equipment,
videos, etc.) for the journey. Although he wanted us to “streamline” what we
did the last time we took this journey, so he could go quicker, he still wanted
to go the same general way. Eric also would be “leading them through that”
(20120620:43), or “guiding them towards this idea of taking good data…” with
them (20120705:300).
I feel like they potentially get more out of an intro class that teaches them and guides
them toward a way of thinking… And if they are interested students that, and come
back to take more classes…at least they are starting with a framework in which they
can begin …. (20120809:214–225)
In his view, Eric guided (communicating is guiding) the students along a
path (line of thought is a path). This path was helpful to students, even those
not following any further. Going this way would help them to navigate the
news and other decisions in life. However, if the students were interested, they
could come back and continue the journey.
In the following passage, Eric shared that the textbook also provided a kind
of aid along the path.
It (textbook) also is a crutch for me … I can get to and use the resources available in
the text to, umm, drive a discussion… I feel that students without a book will be a
little bit lost…the textbook in some ways becomes a crutch for both the students and
the professor .... (20120809:441–458)
He perceived he and the students used the textbook as a crutch, helping
them along the path. The text could help drive discussion and lead students
to a certain point keeping them from getting lost. This is consistent with other
statements Eric made, that the “text is ballast” or a “security blanket” (or security sleeping bag, maybe) for the students—something that they have to carry
and will help them reach their destination.
Of course, with all journeys, there is the possibility of obstructions or barriers. Students must devise a way to overcome impediments to further their
progress. Eric saw two different types of structure along the path of learning—
one blocking and one guiding.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
…vocabulary is such a barrier for people who might intuitively or, or, or maybe not
intuitively but actually intellectually get [sic] what is going on. (20120611:b124–126)
… a structure that allowed me the freedom to learn in my own way and my own
pace within a structure that kept me on track to get me through the material.
(20120611b:240–243)
In Eric’s view, the geologists’ vocabulary posed a formidable obstacle to the
students. Without a working knowledge of the language of geologists, even if
there was conceptual understanding, lack of vocabulary was apt to prevent
students from making further progress. However, Eric did also talk about structures that more or less occurred parallel to the path. He attributed this structure
to his teachers and indicated that it allowed him the freedom to get through
the material in his own way and his own pace. Basically, Eric perceived that
being within this structure kept him on track. This idea was important as he discerned his role as guide. He favored structured instruction to keep students on
track as opposed to student-centered instruction, because any “self-direction”
would ultimately lead to “flailing” in the wilderness.
As with the jigsaw puzzle metaphor, determining the implications of the
fieldtrip metaphor is important in understanding the motivations in Eric’s instructional decision making. It made sense that Eric should plan the appropriate stops, guidelines (structure), and benchmarks (facts) along the way, so students could “get from A to Z” (step by step motion) and reach their destination
(ideas are locations).
Well, because they want to have benchmarks. You know? They want to have proof
of x, y, or z, right? (20120619:70–71)
And leading them through that- … You know and getting them to make that jump,
you know, it’s a conceptual jump. And then they can go back and start filling in some
of the pieces. Because there’s lots of little if-then statements that get you from A to
Z. And yes, going from A to Z is correct. It’s like Wegener. Right? He really did get it.
But he didn’t get all of the if-then statements that got him from that starting point to
the finishing point. (20120620:43-54)
Here, Eric described the importance of known locations along the way of the
journey. These certain facts would serve as benchmarks (ideas are locations)
for students. They may even have to make jumps (actions are self-propelled
motions) to keep progressing. Eventually, students will have made all of the
stops from A to Z and reached their destination (states are locations), just like
with Wegener, only he may not have stopped at all of the stops along the way.
Eric’s use of the fieldtrip metaphor has its experiential basis in one of the
major teaching tools in geology—the fieldtrip. As with any fieldtrip, the path,
the stops, and the destination are already well blazed and interpreted (readymade) by the fieldtrip leader. The role of those taking the fieldtrip is simply to
follow and listen to the leader, and hopefully pick up some stuff along the way.
They are not encouraged to wander off the path or really be self-directed in
any way. This could slow or even halt progress. If they continue in a straightforward manner, from stop to stop, eventually, at the end of the trip, they will
have an understanding of the ground they covered.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
11
Research Paper
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Motivated by Authority and Responsibility
Eric described himself as the holder of the puzzle pieces. He stated that the
students needed the pieces so they could put together the puzzle for themselves; “because I’m the lecturer and I am supposed to be giving them the
information that they then give back to me” (20120611b:42–44). This gave Eric
a sense of authority in class.
Eric expressed that students perceived themselves as subordinate to him,
making them hesitant to participate in discussions because they were afraid of
being wrong in front of him. He asserted, “They don’t want to disappoint me”
(20120809:656). He also perceived that they expected to receive the knowledge
he and the textbook had to give. He characterized the students’ mindset as,
“you are the teacher and you will teach me” (20120614b:20) and that they considered the textbook as a “security blanket” (201209:434), grounding course
material in the truth.
In addition to authority, Eric intimated a sense of responsibility to his students. Eric said that he was “always looking for better ways to engage students”
(201200611b:348–349). Eric perceived his responsibility to cover as much territory (content material) as possible, get through the journey on time, and
not let anyone get lost. He was teaching “a massively accelerated course”
(201200705:267). This meant there was no time to allow self-direction for students. Eric also stated that students wanted boundaries. Just as they wanted
him to give pieces of information, he thought they looked to him to be a responsible leader and keep them “on track.”
When we set up the experiment in a particular way, they feel that that is the way the
experiment should be …. There is a framework and a guideline. There’s a track and
everything has to be this way .... And I think thinking outside of those boundaries
is something that they have not been doing … if you give them that push, are they
going to then- are they going to… And the whole set up of lecture and teacher-­
student is an interesting one in terms of setting the guidelines for how the learning
happens…I want them to get to the point [free but on track]…That’s a very hard point
to get to. (20120611b:10-41)
Eric asserted his students perceived that the structure of the class was
purposeful, and they were not allowed (or did not desire) to go out of those
boundaries, or wander off that particular path. They had to follow the guidelines. On the one hand, Eric sensed a need for some structure for his students; that they needed background and experience to make the path more
obvious. He thought that self-direction would lead to flailing and slow forward progress. He did say that he wanted to get his students to a point where
they could let go of the structure; where they would have the freedom to go
on their own. However, Eric saw this as a goal because he envisioned only
one ready-made path to understanding. It would be so obvious to students
that they would not need structure or guidelines. As with the jigsaw puzzle
metaphor, the fieldtrip metaphor also foregoes any independence of the students to think and derive meaning on their own; there was no opportunity
(or need) for students to blaze their own trail (see the discussion about objectivity, below).
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Eric referred to teaching, learning, and knowledge in terms of the jigsaw
puzzle metaphor and the fieldtrip metaphor. It is reasonable to associate the
experiential basis of these two metaphors with the “jigsaw puzzle” reference
commonly associated with Wegener’s continental drift theory and the relative
significance of fieldtrips to the teaching of geology. Eric would have experienced both of these throughout his trajectory from student to geologist and
professor. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) asserted that the metaphors we use are
very important because, unlike explicit beliefs, metaphors are lived unconsciously; therefore, they are not noticed and escape critical assessment.
Mapping the Two Metaphors
According to the jigsaw puzzle metaphor, a theory is the big picture or whole
puzzle. The facts that made up the theory are the constituent pieces to that puzzle. Eric said the puzzle pieces could be put together if they were properly positioned, flipped, or juggled around. Putting the pieces together to make a coherent whole was simple and logical and an indication of understanding the whole
theory. When mapping out the fieldtrip metaphor, the theory was the ground
over which the fieldtrip participants navigated. Facts were designated stops
and benchmarks along the way. Learning was forward progress along a path,
covering ground. Challenges to that learning were barriers to forward progress.
Understanding of the material was equated to reaching the final destination.
The two metaphors parallel each other in a number of ways. First, both
metaphors make allowance for the theory/fact relationship. Scientific facts are
attributes of a particular theory, and Eric often referred to the pieces as constituents of the puzzle. The attributes of theory in the fieldtrip metaphor were
parts of the terrain—locations along the path. They might be benchmarks that
students looked for or locations they needed to be pushed to cross or pulled
into. They might have to make a conceptual jump right over it. Some were
even barriers if they were hard to understand.
Second, in both metaphors, Eric perceived himself in a position of authority. For the jigsaw puzzle metaphor, Eric, and the textbook, possessed the big
picture—or puzzle—and both could break it down into smaller pieces of knowledge. He saw his role as giving these bits and pieces of knowledge to the
students; the students’ task was to put them back together. According to Eric,
this should be a relatively straightforward task because, as with puzzles, the
shapes of the pieces and the puzzle are already made. All the students have to
do is think logically and fit the pieces together—for the fieldtrip metaphor, the
path that was already made. Eric led the trip and designated and interpreted
the stops. In addition to authority, he also had the responsibility of getting
the student through the course on time. To do so, he “might have to be a bit
[intense] about rolling through lecture” (20120705:558). He structured the way
with guidelines and benchmarks to keep students on track and to not let them
get lost. He also had to keep them from flailing because the course was massively accelerated, and flailing would slow them down.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
12
Research Paper
Third, Eric wanted to give the pieces to the students and describe the shape
of those pieces; yet he did not want to force students into putting the puzzle
together in a certain way. He would leave that up to them. Eric also expressed
the desire to have students get to a point where they could be self-directed
along the path. These examples would appear to give students freedom to
create their own, personal knowledge (a constructivist approach to learning).
But again, in the context of the metaphors, the pieces and the puzzle were
already set, and the path was well trodden over a known terrain. Students
should understand the logic of following the path as with putting the pieces
together. Thus, the implication for both of these metaphors reflects instead
the notion that scientific ideas, or knowledge, exists independently of the human mind (objectivism); that facts speak for themselves. There is no need for
negotiation, or interpretation of meaning with or by students. The shape of
the puzzle pieces was given. The trail was already blazed. Learning should be
straightforward, simply a matter of fitting the pieces together, or keeping on
the path with common sense and logic.
Herein lies the strength of this type of analysis. I did not ask Eric for his
explicit understandings of teaching, learning, students, knowledge, or science.
I gathered data from his teaching and discussions that focused on how he was
teaching, how his students were learning, and how science is done. By looking
at the language Eric used during our discussions, I discerned patterns of how
Eric unconsciously structured his reality with respect to those topics. Those
structures were consistent and paralleled his actions throughout the entirety
of the investigation period. Even in places where Eric seemed to contradict his
actions with his words, the inconsistencies disappear when taken in the larger
context of his metaphorical structuring. By contrast, much of the teacher beliefs literature (Appendix 1) reports on researchers asking explicitly about participants’ beliefs. Kahneman (2011) described how, when asked, people often
rationalize their behaviors, post hoc, by making up a reasonable explanation,
and then believing what they just made up. One can only surmise that this
leads to such inconsistencies and contradictions among beliefs and between
beliefs and practice as described above (see Appendix 1 for a fuller description
of this). These inconsistencies vanish, as the interpretation of metaphor consistently predicts Eric’s practice.
Whether Eric’s language primed his actions or his actions primed his language is not so important here. Most likely they are mutually reinforcing. Either way, by determining these two metaphors that Eric used in his teaching, I
developed an understanding of how Eric structured his reality. This helped me
to explain Eric’s instructional decisions because the metaphors systematically
afforded and constrained different teaching tools.
What the Metaphors Afforded
The metaphors Eric utilized made some instructional tools more reasonable than others. The jigsaw puzzle and the fieldtrip metaphors allowed Eric a
position of authority, as holder of the pieces of knowledge or as fieldtrip leader.
In both cases, he had the authority and responsibility to give the pieces of
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
information to students or to lead and interpret stops along the path. His role
in both metaphorical structures made direct instruction reasonable. Students
received or followed. As such, the tools most appropriate to Eric were lecture
and discussion, as he identified it. In actuality, discussion was simply lecture
without PowerPoint support. Over the two iterations (11 total classes), Eric lectured almost the entire time. Most lectures lasted close to the entire period
except during those classes where the four approximately hour-long activities
took place. In those instances, lectures were 30–40 min.
Because Eric already possessed the big picture, it was easy for him to see
the pieces, namely earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain ranges, and ocean basins, as results of plate tectonics, as opposed to evidence supporting plate
tectonics as a possible explanation. His teaching was “cleansed” of the
­errors of thought, dead-end investigations, and incomplete data of the past
(­Allchin, 2013). Allchin described this way of teaching the history of science
as a “­rational reconstruction.” It is this manner of teaching that misleads students’ under­standings about the nature of science by picking out only the data
that answers the pertinent question and presenting it to students who already
know and who therefore only need to verify the answer. Instead, Allchin argued for giving examples of science-in-the-making (Latour, 1987) that were
complete with its uncertainties. This approach demonstrates respect for the
historical context, complexities and controversies, and to explain errors instead of purging them from history.
Reading was another tool Eric chose often. Most readings were from the
textbook. This was an important tool for Eric. In contrast to a more subjective
understanding of knowledge, where words are interpreted and quite possibly
not as the writer intended, this approach considered meanings to be in the
words. For Eric, this meant that students could get just as much from reading
as they could from him telling them the information. The text had a certain
authority of knowledge but was a “crutch.” Though Eric considered many of
the curriculum’s historical readings to contain a “personal entry,” or “wrong
hypotheses,” or to be “too dense,” he attempted to mitigate these drawbacks
by using summaries of historical readings and structuring discussions around
the major points he wanted them to get from the reading.
Eric did take up two of the inquiry activities called for by the curriculum
intervention—the earthquake machine (Hubenthal et al., 2008; http://​www​.iris​
.edu​/hq​/resource​/redefining​_an​_earthquake​_v12) and the seafloor data activity
(Sawyer, 2002; http://​plateboundary​.rice​.edu/). The earthquake machine was
new to Eric, but an activity very similar to the seafloor activity was already
incorporated with the laboratory portion of the introductory geology courses.
For the first iteration, he implemented both without any written directions or
worksheets for the students. There were no written questions to answer at the
end. Students performed these activities with varying levels of engagement,
although every student present did participate. Eric spoke a number of times
about his struggle implementing such free-form activities. Though he appreciated the engagement the activities garnered, he was uncomfortable that students might not derive the appropriate knowledge they needed. As a result,
for the second iteration, Eric asked that some instructions and some questions
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
13
Research Paper
be added to the activities to help “direct” students. The structure helped to
“streamline” the activities so they would take less time, and Eric expressed
more confidence that students would “get what they need” from them. Eric
instructed his students to do the laboratory activities early on in the series of
classes, leaving the later classes time for lecture-based instruction.
What the Metaphors Constrained
For Eric, the source domains in both the jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip metaphors hide aspects that do not map well to the target domain of teaching.
This hidden quality arises because the imagery conjures or suggests some
relationships but not others. An exemplary illustration lies in the history of
genetics: Müller-Wille and Rheinberger (2012) demonstrated that “the lock and
key principle … acted as an ‘epistemological obstacle’ to the molecularization
of genetics…as its vivid imagery made it hard to adopt a different and new
perspective” (p. 163). In the case of Eric, his teaching metaphors structured
his perception of teaching and learning in such a way that they “hid” particular teaching tools. They were not appropriate, and so, Eric simply did not
consider them.
The metaphoric lenses that shaped Eric’s view of knowledge and learning hid the amount of work that must take place in actual and meaningful
communication (Reddy, 1979). During communication (teaching and learning),
the brain filters, decodes, interprets, and categorizes incoming signs and signals (Kahneman, 2011). It does this unconsciously and automatically. To learn
a novel concept, learners must draw from new experiences, if available, and
then fix them to already existing experiences or portions of previous experiences in the mind. In so doing, they engage processes like thought experimentation, analogies, and visualization (Clement, 2008a; Nersessian, 2008; Carey,
2009). This is much more work (Reddy, 1979) than the “myth of objectivity”
(objectivism) implies (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980); work which was obscured
further by the metaphors Eric employed. The subjectivity that is part of
meaning-­making, and the role of student-student and teacher-student inter­
actions in meaning-making had little place within the structure formed by Eric’s
metaphors of the jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip. These created epistemological
obstacles that interfered with the type of teaching integral to the curriculum I
had proposed.
The prescribed puzzle pieces and a well-trodden trail of Eric’s ready-made
science prevent students from developing their own conceptions. They hide
the notion that students’ final understandings were, in fact, personal. The jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip metaphors and entailments hide the importance of
such instructional tools as collaborative work among students and teacher
and student personal model building. Students trying to negotiate meaning together might take (or make) an unpredicted path. Eric would need to anticipate
such “forks in the road” and be there to mark the appropriate direction (Stein
et al., 2009). His belief that meaning was in the words meant there was no need
for interpretation by students. There was no need for activities such as col-
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
laboration, mutual construction of understanding, or negotiation of meaning.
There was no worry they would take a different path. Meaning already existed,
separate from the mind and universal. Eric rarely had students work with each
other. They never had to rely on each other, or even talk to each other in class.
Further, students rarely answered questions posed by Eric. They focused their
attention on the holder of the pieces or the leader of the fieldtrip and copied
his words or writings carefully. They picked up the facts as he dropped them.
He perceived this to be their need.
I contend, with this research, that it was Eric’s understanding of the nature
of knowledge, his objectivism, reinforced by his experiences as a student and
as a scientist, that guided his pedagogical decision making. By thinking knowledge has universal objective meaning and is not a personal construction, lecture was the only action that made sense. This was not a conscious decision by
Eric, but an unconscious, or default, action based on his construction of reality.
For in-depth treatment of the role of objectivism in science and education, I
refer the curious reader to Appendix 3.
What about Using New Metaphors?
If these metaphors structured Eric’s reality, would it be possible to utilize a
different metaphor or metaphors and structure a reality that affords more student-centered teaching practices? Tobin and LaMaster (1995) described a case
where a struggling middle school science teacher changed the metaphors she
taught by and noted marked progress in the classroom atmosphere and effectiveness of her teaching. Their participant changed from metaphors that gave
her responsibility for student actions to ones emphasizing classroom director
and observer. This changed how she viewed her relationship to her students.
The participant no longer had to worry about controlling student behavior or
making sure they learned exactly what she taught. She placed responsibility
for learning with the students and became an observer of that learning. She
began refocusing her energy on teaching, and students responded very well
to the change.
As the puzzle master, or the fieldtrip leader, Eric had the authority and
made it his responsibility that students learned exactly what he was teaching.
Anything else would be “malpractice.” The most efficient way to accommodate that, accordingly, was through direct instruction. There is another element
in geology education that would provide an experiential base different from
Eric’s jigsaw puzzle and fieldtrip metaphors. Field camp (or field school) is a
field-based course that is structured to have students map and interpret an
area whose geological structure is unknown to them. Students canvas a given
area, stopping in many different areas to collect data and interpret the geologic
structure under their feet, based on its expression at the surface.
Typically, the role of the field camp instructors is to point out geologically
significant locations to students and have them do the work of collecting and
interpreting data. Could referring to teaching and learning in terms of a field
camp metaphor and its entailments (collecting observations, integrating data,
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
14
Research Paper
visualizing structures, and synthesizing a map, etc.) shift the responsibility of
student learning more toward the student, affording the instructor to “point
out” aspects of significance but allowing students to derive that significance?
The instructor would maintain much of her/his authority and would have responsibility of guiding them in productive directions, letting them struggle and
maybe even flail as they create their own understandings. Through such an
approach, students would come to know the terrain through personal trial and
have the experience of generating their own knowledge.
“Teaching in the Making”
This paper started with a couple of assertions. First, the implementation of
reformed curriculum has a profound impact on student learning (Fairweather,
2008; Freeman et al., 2014). Second, reform-based curricular interventions
are seldom implemented as designed (Hulleman and Cordray, 2009). Finally,
teaching is a design activity (Brown, 2009) that, in addition to curricula, is also
affected by such variables as teachers’ knowledge and perceptions, classroom
settings, institutional structures, and culture (Markley et al., 2009). To facilitate
the development (and implementation) of new curricula, it might help to draw
a parallel to the development of new scientific knowledge.
Many have described the creation of novel scientific knowledge as an
itera­tive process of generating a model, testing it, and then amending the
model based on those results to enhance the model’s descriptive or explanatory power. This includes philosophers (Frodeman, 1995), cognitive scientists (Nersessian, 2008), historians of science (Giere, 1988), science education
­researchers (Clement, 2008a), as well as geologists (Oliver, 1991). The implication here is that the knowledge generation process for any one concept is
never ending. Models, by definition, are never complete. There is always more
to learn. Awareness of this process in the development of scientific knowledge is what Latour (1987) labeled “science-in-the-making.” In contrast, he saw
“ready-made-science” as objectified scientific concepts in completed form—
which is what is traditionally taught in science class. Indeed, science-in-themaking forms the foundation of the curriculum I wished Eric to implement.
Just as a considerable amount of communication and collaboration needs
to take place to facilitate concepts-in-the-making, so a considerable amount of
communication and collaboration needs to take place between those developing curriculum and those implementing it. Having the instructor be a part
of the creative process of curriculum development ensures that factors influencing implementation, such as metaphorical structuring, are factored in or
mitigated. Curricular development needs to be iterative; create a curriculum,
implement (test) it, and modify it in light of results. I identify this process as
“teaching-in-the-making.” I wanted Eric to implement a curriculum that I developed alone—“ready-made-teaching”—when I should have collaborated with
him in an iterative process that allowed us both to communicate our ­ideals,
buy-in, and ownership of the material. As with concepts, the curriculum is
never “finished” but should ever be refined in a design-based research fashion
(Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992).
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
APPENDIX 1. PERTINENT RESEARCH ON
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICE
Educational researchers have tried to understand teacher practice by discerning teachers’
beliefs about such concepts as teaching and learning, students, and the nature of knowledge (also
referred to as epistemology), which are then related to observed teacher practices. An underlying assumption informs this research: “Science teachers’ epistemologies—which include beliefs
about science, beliefs about teaching science, and beliefs about learning science—affect the type
of instructional behaviors that occur in science classrooms” (Jones and Carter, 2007, p. 1075). Indeed, others have echoed this same sentiment:
It seems self-evident that teachers’ own views about the nature of science and scientific inquiry will influence substantial aspects of their professional practice, including decisions about the
design of learning experiences (Hodson, 1993, p. 41).
[T]he constructivist-oriented [beliefs] appeared to foster the creation of more constructivist-­
oriented science learning environments (Tsai, 2006, p. 222).
“[E]ducators should pay more attention to teacher beliefs because these beliefs profoundly influence decision-making and teaching practices (Chen, 2008, p. 66).
Much work has been done, therefore, to determine the beliefs of teachers with the intent of
modifying those beliefs to influence teacher practice.
Operationalizing someone’s beliefs has been an elusive task to date. In his review of teachers’
beliefs and practices literature, Mansour (2009) acknowledged the difficulty of defining this construct within the research literature. Jones and Carter (2007) gave a list of 11 different definitions of
beliefs that appear in the science education literature. Given this diversity, it is not surprising that
many approaches exist to discern teachers’ beliefs:
• Open- and closed-ended questionnaires (Aikenhead and Ryan, 1992; Lederman et al., 2002)
and survey instruments (Chai et al., 2009; Kinchin et al., 2009; Eick and Stewart, 2010).
• Interview protocols (Richardson and Simmons, 1994; Luft and Roehrig, 2007).
• “Draw a Scientist” analyses (Minogue, 2010) where participants’ elicited drawings of a scientist are analyzed to determine their understanding of scientists.
• Written metaphors (BouJaoude, 2000; Reeder et al., 2009).
While the latter two strategies here are less common, the overriding approach in all of these
methods has been to identify beliefs by asking for participants to explicitly declare their beliefs.
This research project differs from these prior approaches in that it develops an understanding
of the instructor participant’s beliefs as implicit in his descriptions of experiences with teaching,
learning, and the nature of knowledge.
That a person should hold beliefs about teaching, learning, and the nature of knowledge paralleling each other seems intuitive. For instance, if someone thought that knowledge was objective and separate from the human mind—objectivism—(s)he would likely see teaching as the
transfer of such information from the teacher (delivering a lecture) to the student (who receives
it). Indeed, some researchers have reported evidence supporting such parallel beliefs in teachers
(Tsai, 2002; Bryan, 2003) and school students (Tsai, 2006; A. Christodoulou et al., 2010, personal
commun.). However, other researchers have described more complex interrelationships among
beliefs. Kinchin et al. (2009) noted that graduate teaching assistants, who were teaching and conducting research in science, were “paradoxically, shepherded toward the language of objectivism whilst endeavouring to construct their personal understanding of their research problem”
(p. 51, emphasis original). Bryan (2003) found that her teacher participant maintained two sets of
conflicting beliefs. One set seemed to influence her traditional teaching, while the other guided
her vision of constructivist teaching practices. Hodson (1993) found his teacher participants maintained substantial areas of confusion and uncertainty concerning, for instance, the role of scientific
investigations in science teaching.
Drawing the relationship between espoused beliefs and teaching practice has been similarly
complex, though a few investigations have demonstrated coherence between teacher beliefs and
teaching practice (Brickhouse, 1990; Tsai, 2006; Ryker, 2014). Many more studies demonstrate a
more complicated relationship (Hodson, 1993; Lederman, 1999; Tsai, 2002; Kang and Wallace,
2005; Chen, 2008; Markley et al., 2009; Jackson, 2011; Dolphin and Tillotson, 2015). Of note, many
of the studies that show discrepancies between teacher beliefs and teacher practice have also
invoked some kind of mediating circumstance in order to explain why, in their case, beliefs did not
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
15
Research Paper
dictate practice. These include “knowledge structures” not being integrated, (Bartos and Lederman, 2014), “difficulties” enacting beliefs (Hanuscin, 2013), “teaching context” (Hodson, 1993;
Jackson, 2011), teacher “goals and intentions” (Lederman, 1999), “existing occupational culture”
(Schempp et al., 1993), “conflicting beliefs” (Chen, 2008), the reward structure of the research
university (Markley et al., 2009), lack of empirical evidence of the effectiveness of active learning
approaches (Day, 2012), and what Waters-Adams (2006) described as “tacit beliefs.”
APPENDIX 2. ENSURING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF RESULTS
Guba and Lincoln (1981) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) have advocated for the concept of
“trustworthiness” with regard to qualitative research, holding this up as a parallel concept to
quantitative research’s reliability and validity. However, Morse and her colleagues (2002) have
asserted that “the broad and abstract concepts of reliability and validity can be applied to all research, because the goal of finding plausible and credible outcome explanations is central to all
research” (p. 3). In this section, I will thus review “how verification strategies were used to shape
and direct the research during its development … [including] investigator responsiveness, methodological coherence, theoretical sampling and sampling adequacy, and active analytic stance
and saturation.” (Morse et al., 2002, p. 9).
This project began as an investigation into student learning in the undergraduate geology
classroom. However, I encountered an unanticipated circumstance: Eric did not implement the
curriculum as we had discussed, which led me to change the focus of my research from student
learning to Eric’s teaching. The investigation became a case study of instructor decision making
in light of the contradiction between what Eric said he would do and what I actually observed
him doing. I responded to these circumstances by refining the investigation and incorporating an embodied cognition theoretical framework after noticing the frequent use of metaphor
(later identified as the jigsaw puzzle metaphor) and focused on metaphor use by Eric during his
teaching and our discussions. As the data analysis got under way, I also identified the metaphor
of student motion over the ground of knowledge, which I later characterized as the fieldtrip
metaphor.
My methods for data gathering and analysis are consistent with the goals of the investigation.
I wanted to understand Eric’s instructional decision-making motivations. This required gathering
information about his beliefs about teaching, learning, and students, as the above literature review
shows. I audio-recorded all our mutual conversations dealing with the course, curriculum, and
its implementation, and I observed and recorded his teaching. Because I was interested in Eric’s
incidental use of metaphor, I never brought to his attention this focus. Doing so would have placed
the reliability of these data in jeopardy (Morse et al., 2002), making him aware of the focus and
self-conscious of his use of metaphor. To understand his beliefs, I am interpreting how Eric described his own experiences, because personal experiences are “a central lens for understanding
a person” (Creswell, 2008, p. 518) and a reflection of his structured reality. If, instead, I asked him
explicitly about his beliefs, I would be asking him to do the interpretation, and I would not know
the rules under which that interpretation took place.
My analysis of the data started early in the data collection process, as it became apparent
that Eric’s implementation was quite divergent from my intended implementation. This timing
facilitated an iterative approach to interpretation. It is this “iterative interaction between data and
analysis [which] is the essence of attaining reliability and validity” (Morse et al., 2002, p. 12). My
analysis went from emergent themes (Eric’s statements about science, the textbook, students,
learning, teaching, the curriculum, and expressions of knowledge), to metaphor-based themes,
and I began listing data in terms of primary metaphors and their entailments. About three quarters
of the way through the data, I had identified eight primary metaphors, with four of them encompassing the majority of the data, which I describe below. I noted several instances of metaphor use
in the remaining transcripts, but no new categories emerged. This process, whereby no new coding categories form, is known as data saturation and “ensures replication in categories; replication
verifies and ensures comprehension and completeness” (Morse et al., 2002, p. 12).
The results of the analysis describe Eric’s metaphorical structuring of his role, the role of his
students, and the role of knowledge, and it consistently explains his actions. The explanation
broadens and deepens (Thagard, 2012) our understanding of how the mind works. It broadens
our understanding by extending embodied cognition beyond recent research on learning (Amin,
2015; Niebert and Gropengiesser, 2015; Dolphin and Benoit, 2016) into research on teaching. It also
deepens our understanding by explaining metaphorical thinking (Nersessian, 2008) as a mechanism for decision making.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
I utilize a case study approach because it allows for the in-depth, exploratory investigation of
some system (a person, a group, or a process) that is bounded or separate from other systems
(Creswell, 2008). Due to the nature of the case study having a single participant, my ability to generalize to a larger population is limited. However, as Taber (2003) stated with respect to his student
participants, “studies that explore thinking in depth…go further than just identifying alternative
conceptions or preferred mental models, but rather inform teachers about the learning process
itself.” In other words, the investigation of teacher beliefs is not new, but investigation of teacher
beliefs using an embodied cognition framework is. Further, this in-depth look into one instructor’s
thought processes while teaching a new kind of curriculum may not inform us on how all instructors would think in a similar circumstance but can give us insight into areas that will be useful and
important to investigate with other instructors.
APPENDIX 3. OBJECTIVISM IN BOTH SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
The idea that objects (including ideas) have intrinsic meaning that is separate from the mind
and are therefore universally understandable (epistemological objectivism) underpins both the
metaphors that structured Eric’s teaching. This is not surprising, in that objectivism plays a major
role in both science and education. Considering the pervasiveness of the traditional style teaching
(in both time and space), it is easy to understand that objectivism forms the foundation of how
many instructors think learning happens (Sfard, 1998; Bartholomew et al., 2004). Bereiter (2002)
identified the “mind as container” metaphor as a folk theory informing much educational decision
making. This metaphor emphasizes the mind as a container into which we can put ideas. Similarly,
Sfard (1998) identified the “acquisition” metaphor of learning. She said the way we normally talk
about education “makes us think about the human mind as a container to be filled with certain
materials and about the learner as becoming an owner of these materials” (Sfard, 1998, p. 4). In
fact, until just decades ago, it was common knowledge that students came to us as blank slates to
be written on, or empty vessels to be filled (Freire, 1970). This idea resonates with such common
language as, “delivering a lecture.”
These metaphors match Eric’s descriptions of “stuffing students full” of information, “building them a memory palace,” and giving them “bits and pieces” of information. Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) pointed out that the experiential basis of this metaphor comes from our receiving signs and
signals through our senses, which our brain then translates into meaning. Books with cultural
symbols (letters, words, and sentences) come into our possession, and sounds from a lecturer
travel to us. When we read a book, or listen to a lecture, we feel we have learned. Because we are
not conscious of the sense-making process, it seems as if we received that knowledge rather than
having created it.
Giere (1988) demonstrated how objectivism is common in scientific research. He described
constructive realism in his study of particle physicists in a proton accelerator lab. In the lab, physi­
cists worked on creating beams of protons and spoke of manipulating protons as if they were
real entities that had the physical properties ascribed to them by theory. Having never directly
observed a proton, the concept is purely theoretical. However, because proton behavior is now
so well tested and predictable, the physicists in the laboratory took for granted that protons with
their prescribed characteristics are real objects that they can now use it as a tool for research. Giere
said that it is important to understand that scientific knowledge is created, but it is also valuable to
consider previous results as “real” in order to further investigation.
Being a scientist myself and studying such a well-tested theory as plate tectonics, I found it
was easy to understand Eric’s objectivist stance while teaching about it. Like the protons in Giere’s
(1988) study, plate tectonics is a well-established construction, developed from many areas of
geoscience. It is used as a tool for prediction, for determining what should be found in a location
that has a particular tectonic setting.
… we are able to predict with ever finer detail…then we go and look in these Andean arcs and low
and behold we find basaltic andesites at the bottom of the pile and rhyolites and dacites at the top
of the pile. (20120809:258-265)
For Eric it was perfectly reasonable to teach plate tectonics as the cause of as opposed to
an explanation for observations: ready-made-science, as opposed to science-in-the-making. This
same mischaracterization of plate tectonics as a construct is common in many introductory textbooks (Plummer et al., 2007; Marshak, 2012; Reynolds et al., 2013) where authors point out, for
instance, that the pattern of earthquake epicenters is such that they happen at plate boundaries.
In reality, plate boundaries are constructions that rely on the patterns of earthquake epicenters for
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
16
Research Paper
their location. The boundaries are not the cause of the pattern but an explanation (a construction)
for the observations of the pattern of seismicity. In our initial conversations about the intervention,
I expressed my desire to record students building their own model to explain data given to them.
Eric heartily agreed. He thought it was a great idea to have students “put the pieces together” for
themselves. We were saying the same thing, but each of us was speaking in terms of a different
gestalt. “Putting it together by themselves” in my constructive realism (Giere, 1988) sense emphasized the personal nature of knowledge development; for Eric, it meant putting together universal
facts to replicate universal truths. This was something very different indeed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the insights and comments of the two reviewers of this manuscript. They helped to shape it into a more approachable piece of research. The research was also
funded by a Creative Research Grant from the participating university. Funding for Open Access
was provided by the Tamaratt Teaching Professorship in Geoscience.
REFERENCES CITED
Aikenhead, G., and Ryan, G., 1992, The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS): Science Education, v. 76, p. 477–491, doi:​10​.1002​/sce​
.3730760503​.
Allchin, D., 2013, Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives & Resources: Saint Paul, Minnesota, SHiPS Education Press, 310 p.
Allchin, D., 2014, The episodic historical narrative as a structure to guide inquiry in science and
nature of science education: Minneapolis, Minnesota, 10th International Conference on the
History of Science and Science Education, University of Minnesota, p. 1–19.
Amin, T.G., 2009, Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change: Human Development, v. 52,
p. 165–197, doi:​10​.1159​/000213891​.
Amin, T.G., 2015, Conceptual metaphor and the study of conceptual change: Research synthesis
and future directions: International Journal of Science Education, v. 37, p. 966–991, doi:​10​
.1080​/09500693​.2015​.1025313​.
Barnett, J., and Hodson, D., 2001, Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know: Science Education, v. 85, p. 426–453, doi:​10​.1002​
/sce​.1017​.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., and Ratcliffe, M., 2004, Teaching students “ideas-about-science”:
Five dimensions of effective practice: Science Education, v. 88, p. 655–682, doi:​10​.1002​/sce​
.10136​.
Bartos, S., and Lederman, N., 2014, A new perspective on teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science and scientific inquiry and their classroom practice: San Antonio, Texas, Association
of Science Teacher Educators 2014 International Conference, p. 21.
Bereiter, C., 2002, Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age: Mahwah, New Jersey, L. Erlbaum
Associates, 526 p.
BouJaoude, S., 2000, Conceptions of science teaching revealed by metaphors and by answers
to open-ended questions: Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 11, p. 173–186, doi:​10​
.1023​/A:​1009477010693​.
Boulter, C., and Buckley, B., 2000, Constructing a typology of models for science education, in
Gilbert, J., and Boulter, C., eds., Developing Models in Science Education: Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic Publishing, p. 41–57, doi:​10​.1007​/978​-94​-010​-0876​-1_3​.
Brickhouse, N., 1990, Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice: Journal of Teacher Education, v. 41, p. 53–62, doi:​10​.1177​/002248719004100307​.
Brown, A.L., 1992, Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings: Journal of the Learning Sciences, v. 2, p. 141–
178, doi:​10​.1207​/s15327809jls0202_2​.
Brown, M.W., 2009, The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum
materials, in Remillard, J.T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., and Lloyd, G.M., eds., Mathematics
Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum and Classroom Instruction: New York, Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group, p. 17–36.
Bryan, L., 2003, Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 40,
p. 835–868, doi:​10​.1002​/tea​.10113​.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Carey, S., 2009, The Origin of Concepts: New York, Oxford University Press, 598 p., doi:​10​.1093​
/acprof:​oso​/9780195367638​.001​.0001​.
Carey, S.W., 1976, The Expanding Earth: Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., 488 p.
Chai, C., Teo, T., and Lee, C., 2009, The change in epistemological beliefs and beliefs about
teaching and learning: A study among pre-service teachers: Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, v. 37, p. 351–362, doi:​10​.1080​/13598660903250381​.
Chen, C.-H., 2008, Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology inte­
gration?: The Journal of Educational Research, v. 102, p. 65–75, doi:​10​.3200​/JOER​.102​.1​
.65​-75​.
Clement, J., 2008a, Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion, in Clement, J., and Rae-Ramirez, M.A., eds., Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science: Volume 2: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer, p. 11–22, doi:​10​.1007​/978​
-1​-4020​-6494​-4_1​.
Clement, J., editor, 2008b, Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role
of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation: Dordrecht, Springer, 602 p., doi:​10​.1007​/978​
-1​-4020​-6712​-9​.
Collins, A., 1992, Toward a design science of education, in Scanlon, E., and O’Shea, T., eds.,
New Directions in Educational Technology: Berlin, Springer, p. 15–22, doi:​10​.1007​/978​-3​-642​
-77750​-9_2​.
Creswell, J.W., 2008, Educational Research: Planning, Conduction, Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research (third edition): New York, Sage Publications, 670 p.
Dana, J.D., 1847, Geological results of the earth’s contraction in consequence of cooling: American Journal of Science, v. 53, p. 176–188.
Day, T., 2012, Undergraduate teaching and learning in physical geography: Progress in Physical
Geography, v. 36, p. 305–332, doi:​10​.1177​/0309133312442521​.
Dolphin, G., 2009, Evolution of the Theory of the Earth: A Contextualized Approach for Teaching
the History of the Theory of Plate Tectonics to Ninth Grade Students: Science Education,
v. 18, p. 425–441, doi:​10​.1007​/s11191​-007​-9136​-0​.
Dolphin, G., and Benoit, W., 2016, Students’ mental model development during historically contextualized inquiry: How the ‘tectonic plate’ metaphor impeded the process: International
Journal of Science Education, v. 38, p. 276–297, doi:​10​.1080​/09500693​.2016​.1140247​.
Dolphin, G., and Tillotson, J., 2015, “Uncentering” teacher beliefs: The expressed epistemologies of secondary science teachers and how they relate to teacher practice: International
Journal of Environmental and Science Education, v. 10, p. 21–38.
Eick, C., and Stewart, B., 2010, Dispositions supporting elementary interns in the teaching of
reform-based science materials: Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 21, p. 783–800,
doi:​10​.1007​/s10972​-009​-9174​-3​.
Fairweather, J., 2008, Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: A status report: National Academies National Research Council, p. 1–31.
Frankel, H., 2012, The Continental Drift Controversy (4-volume set): New York, Cambridge University Press, 604 p.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth,
M.P., 2014, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, v. 111, p. 8410–8415, doi:​10​.1073​/pnas​.1319030111​.
Freire, P., 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed: New York, Herder & Herder, 186 p.
Frodeman, R., 1995, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, p. 960–968, doi:​10​.1130​/0016​-7606​(1995)107​
<0960:​GRGAAI>2​.3​.CO;2​.
Gallese, V., and Lakoff, G., 2005, The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system
in conceptual knowledge: Cognitive Neuropsychology, v. 22, p. 455–479, doi:​
10​
.1080​
/02643290442000310​.
Giere, R.N., 1988, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach: Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, doi:​10​.7208​/chicago​/9780226292038​.001​.0001​.
Grady, J., 1998, The “conduit metaphor” revisited: A reassessment of metaphors for communication, in Koenig, J.P., ed., Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap: Stanford, Center for
the Study of Language and Information/Cambridge, p. 1–16.
Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S., 1981, Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches: San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
423 p.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
17
Research Paper
Hanuscin, D.L., 2013, Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge
for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey: Journal of
Science Teacher Education, v. 24, p. 933–956, doi:​10​.1007​/s10972​-013​-9341​-4​.
Herreid, C.F., 2007, Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science:
Arling­ton, Virginia, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press, 466 p.
Hess, H., 1962, History of ocean basins, in Engle, A., James, H., and Leonard, B., eds., Petrologic Studies: A Volume to Honor A.F. Buddington: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society
of America, p. 599–620.
Hodson, D., 1993, Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings: Interchange,
v. 24, p. 41–52, doi:​10​.1007​/BF01447339​.
Höhler, S., 2003, A sound survey: The technological perception of ocean depth, 1850–1930, in
Hård, M., Lösch, A., and Verdicchio, D., eds., Transforming Spaces: The Topological Turn
in Technology Studies, p. 1–17, http://​www​.ifs​.tu​-darmstadt​.de​/gradkoll​/Publikationen​
/transformingspaces​.html.
Höttecke, D., and Silva, C.C., 2011, Why implementing history and philosophy in school science
education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles: Science & Education, v. 20, p. 293–316,
doi:​10​.1007​/s11191​-010​-9285​-4​.
Hubenthal, M., Braile, L., and Taber, J., 2008, Redefining earthquakes and the earthquake machine: Normal, Illinois, Science Teacher, v. 75, p. 32–36.
Hulleman, C.S., and Cordray, D.S., 2009, Moving from lab to the field: The role of fidelity and
achieved relative intervention strength: Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
v. 2, p. 88–110, doi:​10​.1080​/19345740802539325​.
Jackson, D., 2011, Authentic inquiry and science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: A multiple
case study: Paper presented at the ASTE 2011 International Conference.
James, W., 1911, On some mental effects of the earthquake, in James, H., ed., Memories and
Studies: London, New York, Longmans, Green, p. 207–226.
Jensen, D.F.N., 2006, Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts:
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, v. 5, p. 36–54.
Jones, G., and Carter, G., 2007, Science teachers attitudes and beliefs, in Abell, S., and Lederman,
N., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 1067–1104.
Jordan, P., 1971, The Expanding Earth; Some Consequences of Dirac’s Gravitation Hypothesis
(first English edition): Oxford, New York, Pergamon Press, 202 p.
Khan, S., 2008, What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry, in Clement, J., and
Rae-Ramirez, M.A., eds., Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science: Dordrecht,
Springer, p. 139–150, doi:​10​.1007​/978​-1​-4020​-6494​-4_8​.
Kahneman, D., 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow (first edition): New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
499 p.
Kang, N., and Wallace, C., 2005, Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking
epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices: Science Education, v. 89, p. 140–165.
Kinchin, I., Hatzipanagos, S., and Turner, N., 2009, Epistemological separation of research and
teaching among graduate teaching assistants: Journal of Further and Higher Education,
v. 33, p. 45–55, doi:​10​.1080​/03098770802638267​.
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphors We Live By: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M., 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge
to Western Thought: New York, Basic Books, 625 p.
Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society:
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 274 p.
Lawrence, D.M., 2002, Upheaval from the Abyss: Ocean Floor Mapping and the Earth Science
Revolution: New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 284 p.
Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., and Schwartz, R., 2002, Views of nature of science
questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of
nature of science: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v. 39, p. 497–521.
Lederman, N.G., 1999, Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship: Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, v. 36, p. 916–929, doi:​10​.1002​/​(SICI)1098​-2736​(199910)36:​8​<916:​:​AID​-TEA2>3​.0​
.CO;2​-A​.
Lesh, R., and Kelly, A., 2000, Multitiered teaching experiments, in Kelly, A., and Lesh, R., eds.,
Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, p. 197–239.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, California, Sage.
London, J., 1906, Story of an eyewitness: The San Francisco earthquake: Collier’s Weekly, The
London Journal, http://​london​.sonoma​.edu​/Writings​/Journalism/.
Luft, J., and Roehrig, G., 2007, Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview: The Electronic Journal of Science Education, v. 11,
p. 38–63.
Macdonald, H., Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., and Tewksbury, B.J., 2005, Teaching methods in
undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 on the Cutting Edge Survey of U.S.
Faculty: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 237–252, doi:​10​.5408​/1089​-9995​-53​.3​.237​.
Mallet, R. (Cartographer), 1858, Seismographic map of the world showing the distribution in
space as discussed from the British Association catalogue: 28th meeting (1858) of the B
­ ritish
Association for the Advancement of Science, Fourth report on the facts of earthquake phenomena, p. 1–136.
Mansour, N., 2009, Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research
agenda: International Journal of Science Education, v. 4, p. 25–48.
Markley, C.T., Miller, H., Kneeshaw, T., and Herbert, B.E., 2009, The relationship between instructors’ conceptions of geoscience learning and classroom practice at a research university:
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 57, p. 264–274, doi:​10​.5408​/1​.3544276​.
Marshak, S., 2012, Earth: Portrait of a Planet (fourth edition): New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 819 p.
Minogue, J., 2010, What is the teacher doing? What are the students doing? An application of the
Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test: Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 21, p. 767–781, doi:​
10​.1007​/s10972​-009​-9170​-7​.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., and Spiers, J., 2002, Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research: International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, v. 1, p. 1–19.
Müller-Wille, S., and Rheinberger, H.-J., 2012, Cultural History of Heredity: Chicago, Chicago
University Press, doi:​10​.7208​/chicago​/9780226545721​.001​.0001​.
Nersessian, N.J., 2008, Creating Scientific Concepts: Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 272 p.
Niebert, K., and Gropengiesser, H., 2015, Understanding starts in the mesocosm: Conceptual
metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International
Journal of Science Education, v. 37, p. 903–933, doi:​10​.1080​/09500693​.2015​.1025310​.
Oliver, J.E., 1991, The Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery: New York, Columbia University
Press, 208 p.
Orion, N., and Ault, C.R., 2007, Learning earth sciences, in Abell, S., and Lederman, N., eds.,
Handbook on Research on Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates Publishers, p. 653–688.
Plummer, C., McGeary, D., Carlson, D., Eyles, N., and Eyles, C., 2007, Physical Geology and the
Environment: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Higher Education, 592 p.
Reddy, M., 1979, The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language,
in Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought: Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University
Press, p. 284–324.
Reeder, S., Utley, J., and Cassel, D., 2009, Using metaphors as a tool for examining preservice
elementary teachers’ beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning: School Science and
Mathematics, v. 109, p. 290–297, doi:​10​.1111​/j​.1949​-8594​.2009​.tb18093​.x​.
Reid, H.F., 1910, The California earthquake of April 18, 1906: The mechanics of the earthquake
Report of the state earthquake investigation commission in two volumes and atlas (Vol. II):
Washington, D.C., Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Reynolds, S.J., Johnson, J.K., Morin, P.J., and Carter, C.M., 2013, Exploring Geology (third edition): New York, McGraw-Hill, 600 p.
Richardson, L., and Simmons, P., 1994, Self-Q research method and analysis, teacher pedagogical philosophy interview: Theoretical background and samples of data: Athena, Georgia,
University of Georgia.
Ryker, K.D.A., 2014, An evaluation of classroom practices, inquiry and teaching beliefs in introductory geoscience classrooms [Ph.D. dissertation]: Raleigh, North Carolina, North Carolina
State University.
Sawyer, D., 2002, Discovering plate boundaries: A classroom exercise designed to allow students to discover the properties of tectonic plates and their boundaries: http://​plateboundary​
.rice​.edu​/presentation​.html (last accessed 17 December 2011).
Schempp, P., Sparkes, A., and Templin, T., 1993, The micro politics of teacher induction: American Educational Research Journal, v. 30, p. 447–472, doi:​10​.3102​/00028312030003447​.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
18
Research Paper
Şengör, A.M.C., 2003, The Large-Wavelength Deformations of the Lithosphere: Materials for a
History of the Evolution of Thought from the Earliest Times to Plate Tectonics: Geological
Society of America Memoir 196, 333 p.
Sfard, A., 1998, On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one: Educational Researcher, v. 27, p. 4–13, doi:​10​.3102​/0013189X027002004​.
Shapiro, L., 2011, Embodied Cognition: New York, Routledge.
Sibley, D.F., 2005, Visual abilities and misconceptions about plate tectonics: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 471–477, doi:​10​.5408​/Sibley_v53p471​.
Stein, M.K., Engle, R.A., Smith, M.S., and Hughes, E.K., 2009, Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell: Math­
ematical Thinking and Learning, v. 10, p. 313–340, doi:​10​.1080​/10986060802229675​.
Suess, E., Sollas, W.J., and Sollas, H.B.C., 1904, The Face of the Earth (Das antlitz der erde):
Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Taber, K.S., 2003, Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learning: Science Education, v. 87, p. 732–758, doi:​10​.1002​/sce​.10079​.
Thagard, P., 2012, The Cognitive Science of Science: Explanation, Discovery, and Conceptual
Change: Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 384 p.
GEOSPHERE | Volume 12 | Number 6
Tobin, K., and LaMaster, S.U., 1995, Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in
a context of science curriculum change: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32,
p. 225–242, doi:​10​.1002​/tea​.3660320304​.
Tsai, C.-C., 2002, Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning
and science: International Journal of Science Education, v. 24, p. 771–783, doi:​
10​
.1080​
/09500690110049132​.
Tsai, C.-C., 2006, Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and
students’ views: Science Education, v. 91, p. 222–243, doi:​10​.1002​/sce​.20175​.
Vine, F., 1966, Spreading of the ocean floor: New evidence: Science, v. 154, p. 1405–1415, doi:​10​
.1126​/science​.154​.3755​.1405​.
Vine, F.J., and Matthews, D.H., 1963, Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges: Nature, v. 199,
p. 947–949, doi:​10​.1038​/199947a0​.
Waters-Adams, S., 2006, The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and
practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning: International Journal of Science Education, v. 28, p. 919–944, doi:​10​.1080​/09500690500498351​.
Wegener, A., and Skerl, J.G.A., 1924, The Origin of Continents and Oceans: London, Methuen
& Co.
Dolphin | Analyzing instructor metaphors
19