What affects Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives in lower secondary schools? A case study of international comparison between Hiroshima (Japan) and Leeds (England)

ABSTRACT

Science curriculum is delivered to students through a controlled process at different levels and in various contexts. Although it has been said that science teachers’ viewpoints and attitudes influence the interpretation of curricula, this study is interested in factors affecting their pedagogical perspectives, such as their beliefs and teaching practices. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the factors involved in forming lower secondary science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives in Japan. To achieve this objective, we conducted a survey of lower secondary science teachers in the city of Hiroshima in Japan and the city of Leeds in England (we do not intend to imply that Leeds is representative of all of England). We then examined their pedagogical perspectives both quantitatively and comparatively. Based on the empirical research data, we discussed science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives in the context of proximal fields of study, and with reference to research literature more closely related to the present investigation. Through empirical and theoretical analyses, we could confirm the influence of the so-called ‘sociocultural contexts’ composed both of the social environments that act indirectly and the cultural contexts that act directly. In other words, we concluded that sociocultural contexts imbued in Japanese society serve as universal elements and are accepted implicitly by Japan’s science teachers. These customs serve to regulate science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives in Japan.

KEYWORDS:

• Science teacher
• pedagogical perspectives
• sociocultural contexts
• lower secondary school

Introduction

The science curriculum is delivered to students through a controlled process at different levels and in various contexts. Generally, ‘science teachers’ beliefs and attitudes influence the interpretation of the curriculum, whether or not teachers use inquiry in their instruction, choices of assessments, and involvement in professional development’ (Jones & Leagon, 2014, p. 830). Until now, many studies on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs have been conducted and various discussions have been developed in diverse countries throughout the world (e.g. Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Magnusson et al., 1999; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Shulman, 1986, 1987). In Japan, Ueda and Isozaki (2016) also qualitatively elucidated the development of beliefs about the goals and purpose of science teaching through an analysis of the life stories of five experienced science teachers. However, there are still unclarified points regarding factors that influence science teachers on a basic level. This study considers factors affecting the pedagogical perspectives of science teachers, including their beliefs and teaching practices. It is important for science education researchers to discuss not only science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs themselves, but also the factors involved in forming their pedagogical perspectives. In this paper, we do not intend to imply that Leeds is representative of all of England.

Theoretical background

As mentioned previously, science curricula are delivered to students through a controlled process at different levels and according to various contexts (Goodson & Dowbiggin, 1994; Jenkins, 2000; Lloyd-Staples, 2012). Logically, science curricula, such as the Course of Study in Japan and the National Curriculum in England, affect classroom practices of science teachers. Ryder and Banner (2013) analysed the experiences of secondary science teachers after reform of the National Curriculum, and Hanley et al. (2007) also examined science teachers’ experiences of teaching ‘ideas-about-science’ in Twenty First Century Science, a set of GCSE courses developed by the University of York Science Education Group beginning in the early 2000s. All these studies found that changes in science educators’ teaching practices were neither uniform nor dramatic; rather, they were various and gradual. This is probably because science teachers also shape the science curriculum based upon their own various, and gradually changing across a cohort, beliefs and knowledge about science lessons. Discussing a case of mathematics,

Chevallard advocated [the] “theory of didactic transposition” that formulates the need to consider that what is being taught at school (“contents” or “knowledge”) is, in a certain way, an exogenous production, something generated outside school that is moved—“transposed”—to school out of a social need of education and diffusion. (Bosch & Gascón, 2006, p. 53)

Fensham (2009) also referred to many countries’ traditions of teaching/learning pedagogy as teachers’ authoritative domain, indicating that ‘[t]he “how” of teaching is seen as the teachers’ province’ (p. 1086). The research focusing on teachers as important figures who connect policies and classrooms is arguably playing its exact role and significance. It is inevitable that the ‘Implemented Curriculum’ defined by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) has gaps between ‘Intended Curriculum’ and ‘Attained Curriculum’ due to diversity in teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, as well as other factors that affect science lessons.

Many studies on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs have been conducted thus far (e.g. Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Lumpe et al., 2000; Lunn & Solomon, 2000; Magnusson et al., 1999; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Simmons et al., 1999; Van Driel et al., 2001). Shulman (1986, 1987) advocates pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) – the special amalgam of content and pedagogy that identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching – and also discusses the phases of pedagogical reasoning and action (i.e. comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new comprehensions). Magnusson et al. (1999) conceptualise PCK for science teaching as consisting of five components: orientation toward science teaching, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students’ understanding of science, knowledge of assessment in science, and knowledge of instructional strategies. The authors indicated that these components function as parts of science teaching by interacting in highly complex ways. These studies assume that science teachers can teach only within the knowledge structure they possess. However, science teachers’ beliefs are also involved. It is difficult to make a clear distinction between knowledge and beliefs, and we cannot specify the boundary where knowledge ends, and belief begins. Nespor (1987) and Pajares (1992) attempt to distinguish beliefs from knowledge theoretically, and to identify the structure and features of teachers’ educational beliefs. Such studies argue that teachers’ beliefs – rather than their knowledge – strongly affects their behaviours in the classroom (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). In sum, while beliefs and knowledge are closely intertwined, beliefs are acquired through the process of cultural transmission and these beliefs act as a filter when teachers faced some new phenomena. Barnett and Hodson (2001) suggest that good teachers have the ability to respond to shifting contexts in appropriate ways and coined the term pedagogical context knowledge. This is an extension of knowledge rather than PCK, and also considers a societal knowledge landscape. Pedagogical context knowledge consists of four elements that overlap and interact with each other: academic and research knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional knowledge, and classroom knowledge.

Dillon and Manning (2010) note that pedagogy implies the whole philosophy and value system that leads teachers to make choices about what they do and how they teach. In this study, we focus on science teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices, defining them as ‘science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives’.

Aims and research questions

The objective of this study is to investigate the factors involved in forming the pedagogical perspectives of lower secondary science teachers in Japan. To this end, the following research questions were formulated:

1. How are lower secondary science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and teachers’ personal attributes related in Hiroshima (Japan)?

2. Is there a difference between Japanese science teachers’ perspectives compared with those of science teachers in Leeds (England)?

3. If so, how does the sociocultural situation regulate Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives?

Sample and methods

In a comparative analysis, it is necessary to align the various dimensions and levels such as the educational system. As a result of examining from various aspects, we selected England as the object country to be compared for the following reasons in this research.

1. Both Japan and England have a unified curriculum in each country (i.e. the Course of Study in Japan, and the National Curriculum in England) and they are statutorily enacted.

2. In order to teach at a school, a teacher’s certificate (i.e. the teaching certificate in Japan, the qualified teaching status in England) is required in each country.

3. In both countries, the lower secondary school stage is defined as the three years from 7th to 9th grade (i.e. lower secondary school in Japan, and Key Stage 3 in England).

Additionally, since there is no previous research comparing Japan and England so far, we expected to derive new research findings from reconsidering Japan in the light of England’s approach to science education.

To answer these research questions, we designed a survey for lower secondary science teachers so that we could analyse their pedagogical perspectives. We arranged the direction of this survey at Hiroshima University in Japan and the University of Leeds in England; then, we selected the following three dimensions of science teaching: science teachers’ beliefs, the approach used in designing lessons, and the method used in teaching science. The survey instrument used in this research was a questionnaire conducted in Hiroshima and Leeds that consisted of carefully selected items, and each question was based on the selection form to analyse the findings objectively and statistically. The questionnaire was administered in the first language of the respondents in each district (Hiroshima: Japanese, Leeds: English). The initial questionnaire was written in Japanese and translated to English. The translation was done by the authors who are somewhat familiar with the educational context and background of both countries. Furthermore, in order to improve their accuracy of the translation, we met with Professor Jim Ryder of Leeds University and conducted language coordination.

First, we conducted a pilot survey of science teachers in a training course for students at Hiroshima University (Japan) and the University of Leeds (England). We collected 24 different data responses from Japan in May 2013 and 11 from England in June 2013. The questionnaire was modified to account for nuances of Japanese and English based on the pilot survey results. Specifically, we conducted multiple consistency checks by having all respondents from both countries write directly into the questionnaire to identify places where the meaning of the question text was difficult to understand or ambiguous. It was configured to ask our main questions at the end after carefully examining each option. By doing so, we attempted to prevent short-circuiting judgements even though the questionnaire was arranged in selection form for a statistical analysis (see Appendix). Appendix is the survey distributed to the participants in Leeds. It is an English translation of the questionnaire conducted in Hiroshima. As Taber (2018) points out, such translations are not always a perfect process, and the original nuances can be lost in translation. In order to minimise these risks, the above-mentioned modifications were carefully performed after the pilot survey.

Next, we conducted a final survey of 84 science teachers at lower secondary schools in Hiroshima (Japan) in July 2013, and 24 science teachers at comprehensive secondary schools in Leeds (England) in December 2013. Valid responses were obtained from 79 teachers (Hiroshima) and 24 teachers (Leeds). In order to exclude special cases, the target schools in both districts were narrowed down to maintained schools (or state schools), and we offered the opportunity to participate to all the science teachers in the schools. By doing this, we tried to approach the derivation of the general characteristics, although this was a local survey. The quantitative data from the questionnaires were summarised in tabular form and statistical tests were applied.

Finally, we examined the factors involved in forming science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives based on the survey results from quantitative and comparative viewpoints. Additionally, we discussed the science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives in relation to the proximity field of research and with references to the relevant research literature. Through these research methods, we attempted to clarify the factors involved in forming Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives both empirically and theoretically.

Data collection and analysis

We performed cross-tabulations regarding Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives (science teachers’ beliefs, the approach used in designing lessons, and the method used in teaching science) and personal attributes, respectively. Four personal attributes were identified: gender (G), teaching experience (TE), teaching specialty (TS) (i.e. the particular subject), and faculty (department) issuing a university degree (FU). To statistically examine the effects of each personal attribute, these items were categorised further according to the context of the Japanese educational system. For instance, statutory training is given to teachers in Japan with 10 years of experience to improve their teaching skills. Therefore, we divided teaching experience into two categories: 0–10 years, and 11 or more years. Furthermore, Japanese lower secondary school science consists of Field One (physics and chemistry) and Field Two (biology and earth science). In some cases, separate teachers specialising in one of the fields instruct a class, so we divided teaching specialties as either ‘physics and chemistry’ or ‘biology and earth science’. It is possible to obtain a teacher’s certificate without graduating from the faculty of education in Japan. Therefore, we classified teachers who graduated from a university according to their major: ‘Education’ and ‘Other’.

The data collected were qualitative data of nominal scale (categorical data) with small sample sizes, and the frequencies were unevenly distributed. Therefore, we statistically analysed the significant difference between the two groups using Fishers’ exact test of nonparametric method. In analysing the significant difference, the numerical value of ‘Blank (Unidentified)’ has no meaning, and there was a fear that an erroneous result could be obtained in the analysis. Consequently, the numerical value of ‘Blank (Unidentified)’ was excluded in each statistical test. In addition, some responses regarding personal information were incomplete, so the totals did not coincide with the number of valid responses.

Analysis of Hiroshima (Japan)

To investigate the relationship between lower secondary science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and teachers’ personal attributes in Japan, we conducted a survey using a domestic approach.

First, we investigated to what extent personal attributes affect Japanese science teachers’ beliefs (e.g. What do you think is the most important learning objective in school science?). We performed cross-tabulations between Japanese science teachers’ beliefs and personal attributes (see Table 1).

Table 1. Cross-tabulations regarding Japanese science teachers’ beliefs and personal attributes.

The most important learning objective in school science
	1. Skills of laboratory work and observation	2. Knowledge and understanding about science	3. ‘Decision-making’ ability based on scientific evidence	4. Scientific thinking	5. Interest in science	6. Ability to explain scientifically	7. Investigation and inquiry	8. The relation between science and daily life	9. The others
Gender
Male (n = 48)	2 (4.2)	5 (10.4)	7 (14.6)	7 (14.6)	11 (22.9)	0	1 (2.1)	14 (29.2)	1 (2.1)
Female (n = 17)	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)	3 (17.6)	2 (11.8)	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	4 (23.5)	0
Total (N = 65)	3 (4.6)	6 (9.2)	10 (15.4)	10 (15.4)	13 (20.0)	1 (1.5)	3 (4.6)	18 (27.7)	1 (1.5)
Teaching experience
0–10 years (n = 33)	1 (3.0)	2 (6.1)	7 (21.2)	4 (12.1)	4 (12.1)	1 (3.0)	2 (6.1)	12 (36.4)	0
11 or more years (n = 35)	1 (2.9)	7 (20.0)	4 (11.4)	5 (14.3)	11 (31.4)	0	1 (2.9)	5 (14.3)	1 (2.9)
Total (N = 68)	2 (2.9)	9 (13.2)	11 (16.2)	9 (13.2)	15 (22.1)	1 (1.5)	3 (4.4)	17 (25.0)	1 (1.5)
Teaching specialty
Physics & Chemistry (n = 38)	0	3 (7.9)	9 (23.7)	3 (7.9)	10 (26.3)	1 (2.6)	2 (5.3)	9 (23.7)	1 (2.6)
Biology & Earth Science (n = 29)	3 (10.3)	4 (13.8)	2 (6.9)	6 (20.7)	5 (17.2)	0	1 (3.4)	8 (27.6)	0
Total (N = 67)	3 (4.5)	7 (10.4)	11 (16.4)	9 (13.4)	15 (22.4)	1 (1.5)	3 (4.5)	17 (25.4)	1 (1.5)
Faculty of graduated university
Education (n = 24)	0	4 (16.7)	3 (12.5)	6 (25.0)	6 (25.0)	0	2 (8.3)	3 (12.5)	0
Other (n = 39)	3 (7.7)	3 (7.7)	6 (15.4)	4 (10.3)	7 (17.9)	1 (2.6)	0	14 (35.9)	1 (2.6)
Total (N = 63)	3 (4.8)	7 (11.1)	9 (14.3)	10 (15.9)	13 (20.6)	1 (1.6)	2 (3.2)	17 (27.0)	1 (1.6)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

Results according to Fisher’s exact test indicated that significant differences were not recognised for any combination at the 0.05 level (G: p = .534, n.s.; TE: p = .089, n.s.; TS: p = .143, n.s.; FU: p = .096, n.s.). There is no statistically significant difference, but it is understood from the p value that it is more susceptible to the influence of ‘teaching experience’ and ‘faculty of graduated university’ than other factors.

Next, we investigated the extent to which personal attributes affect the design of science lessons in Japan (e.g. When you are planning your teaching, what resources do you refer to the most?). We performed cross-tabulations between the approach used in designing lessons and personal attributes (see Table 2).

Table 2. Cross-tabulations regarding the approach used in designing lessons and personal attributes.

The most useful information for designing science lessons
	1. Textbooks	2. National curriculum	3. Textbook publishing company’s instruction books for teachers	4. Notebooks of your own composition (Your own experience)	5. Pupils’ current knowledge	6. The policy of your school	7. Materials of outside seminars and workshops	8. The others
Gender
Male (n = 48)	23 (47.9)	3 (6.3)	3 (6.3)	6 (12.5)	9 (18.8)	0	2 (4.2)	2 (4.2)
Female (n = 16)	6 (37.5)	2 (12.5)	2 (12.5)	3 (18.8)	2 (12.5)	0	1 (6.3)	0
Total (N = 64)	29 (45.3)	5 (7.8)	5 (7.8)	9 (14.1)	11 (17.2)	0	3 (4.7)	2 (3.1)
Teaching experience
0–10 years (n = 32)	12 (37.5)	4 (12.5)	3 (9.4)	4 (12.5)	7 (21.9)	0	1 (3.1)	1 (3.1)
11 or more years (n = 34)	15 (44.1)	1 (2.9)	1 (2.9)	8 (23.5)	5 (14.7)	0	3 (8.8)	1 (2.9)
Total (N = 66)	27 (40.9)	5 (7.6)	4 (6.1)	12 (18.2)	12 (18.2)	0	4 (6.1)	2 (3.0)
Teaching specialty
Physics & Chemistry (n = 38)	16 (42.1)	4 (10.5)	2 (5.3)	4 (10.5)	8 (21.1)	0	3 (7.9)	1 (2.6)
Biology & Earth Science (n = 28)	11 (39.3)	0	4 (14.3)	7 (25.0)	4 (14.3)	0	1 (3.6)	1 (3.6)
Total (N = 66)	27 (40.9)	4 (6.1)	6 (9.1)	11 (16.7)	12 (18.2)	0	4 (6.1)	2 (3.0)
Faculty of graduated university
Education (n = 24)	8 (33.3)	2 (8.3)	1 (4.2)	6 (25.0)	5 (20.8)	0	1 (4.2)	1 (4.2)
Other (n = 38)	17 (44.7)	2 (5.3)	5 (13.2)	5 (13.2)	6 (15.8)	0	3 (7.9)	0
Total (N = 62)	25 (40.3)	4 (6.5)	6 (9.7)	11 (17.7)	11 (17.7)	0	4 (6.5)	1 (1.6)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

Results according to Fisher’s exact test indicated that significant differences were not recognised for any combination at the 0.05 level (G: p = .810, n.s.; TE: p = .477, n.s.; TS: p = .289, n.s.; FU: p = .522, n.s.).

Finally, we investigated to what extent personal attributes affect the method used to teach science in Japan (e.g. What teaching materials do you use the most in your science class?). We performed cross-tabulations between the method used in teaching science and personal attributes (see Table 3).

Table 3. Cross-tabulations regarding the method used in teaching science and personal attributes.

The most useful teaching material(s) for science lessons
	1. Textbooks	2. Exercise books	3. Explanatory diagrams	4. Worksheets of your own making	5. Worksheets of textbook publishing company making	6. Teaching materials for experiment and observation	7. ICT resources	8. The others
Gender
Male (n = 45)	15 (33.3)	0	2 (4.4)	13 (28.9)	1 (2.2)	8 (17.8)	5 (11.1)	1 (2.2)
Female (n = 16)	6 (37.5)	0	2 (12.5)	2 (12.5)	0	2 (12.5)	2 (12.5)	2 (12.5)
Total (N = 61)	21 (34.4)	0	4 (6.6)	15 (24.6)	1 (1.6)	10 (16.4)	7 (11.5)	3 (4.9)
Teaching experience
0–10 years (n = 33)	6 (18.2)	0	4 (12.1)	10 (30.3)	0	5 (15.2)	6 (18.2)	2 (6.1)
11 or more years (n = 31)	15 (48.4)	0	0	8 (25.8)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)	2 (6.5)	1 (3.2)
Total (N = 64)	21 (32.8)	0	4 (6.3)	18 (28.1)	1 (1.6)	9 (14.1)	8 (12.5)	3 (4.7)
Teaching specialty
Physics & Chemistry (n = 36)	11 (30.6)	0	2 (5.6)	11 (30.6)	1 (2.8)	5 (13.9)	5 (13.9)	1 (2.8)
Biology & Earth Science (n = 26)	9 (34.6)	0	2 (7.7)	6 (23.1)	0	4 (15.4)	3 (11.5)	2 (7.7)
Total (N = 62)	20 (32.3)	0	4 (6.5)	17 (27.4)	1 (1.6)	9 (14.5)	8 (12.9)	3 (4.8)
Faculty of graduated university
Education (n = 23)	7 (30.4)	0	1 (4.3)	10 (43.5)	0	2 (8.7)	2 (8.7)	1 (4.3)
Other (n = 36)	11 (30.6)	0	3 (8.3)	8 (22.2)	1 (2.8)	5 (13.9)	6 (16.7)	2 (5.6)
Total (N = 59)	18 (30.5)	0	4 (6.8)	18 (30.5)	1 (1.7)	7 (11.9)	8 (13.6)	3 (5.1)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

Results according to Fisher’s exact test indicated that significant differences were not recognised for any combination at the 0.05 level (G: p = .431, n.s.; TE: p = .053, n.s.; TS: p = .965, n.s.; FU: p = .752, n.s.). There is no statistically significant difference, but it is understood from the p value that it is more susceptible to the influence of ‘teaching experience’ than other factors.

As mentioned in the Theoretical background section, the knowledge and beliefs possessed by science teachers directly or indirectly affect their actual teaching practices, and we had supposed this knowledge and these beliefs to be dependent on personal attributes. Therefore, as an initial research hypothesis, we thought that differences in personal attributes had a major influence on science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives. Unexpectedly, however, Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives did not significantly change because of differences in gender, teaching experience, teaching specialty, and faculty (department) issuing a university degree. These results show that personal attributes were not a significant factor in differences involving Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives.

Comparative analysis

To investigate whether Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives differed from those of science teachers outside Japan, we first analysed the extent to which differences in terms of country affect science teachers’ beliefs. We performed the cross-tabulation of our respondents’ answers to the survey questions with regard to those beliefs (see Table 4).

Table 4. A Cross-tabulation regarding science teachers’ beliefs in Hiroshima (Japan) and Leeds (England).

The most important learning objective in school science
	1. Skills of laboratory work and observation	2. Knowledge and understanding about science	3. ‘Decision-making’ ability based on scientific evidence	4. Scientific thinking	5. Interest in science	6. Ability to explain scientifically	7. Investigation and inquiry	8. The relation between science and daily life	9. The others
Country (District)
Japan (Hiroshima) (n = 74)	3 (4.1)	9 (12.2)	11 (14.9)	10 (13.5)	16 (21.6)	1 (1.4)	4 (5.4)	19 (25.7)	1 (1.4)
England (Leeds) (n = 17)	0	7 (41.2)	0	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	2 (11.8)	0	5 (29.4)	0
Total (N = 91)	3 (3.3)	16 (17.6)	11 (12.1)	11 (12.1)	18 (19.8)	3 (3.3)	4 (4.4)	24 (26.4)	1 (1.1)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

The percentage of science teachers who considered ‘the relation between science and daily life’ the most important was high in both districts. On the other hand, the percentage of science teachers who considered ‘interest in science’ the most important was high in Hiroshima, whereas that of science teachers who considered ‘knowledge and understanding about science’ the most important was high in Leeds. A finding from Fisher’s exact test indicated that a significant difference appeared at the 0.05 level (p < .05).

Next, we investigated to what extent differences based on country affect the approach used in designing science lessons. We performed a cross-tabulation with regard to the approach used in designing lessons in Hiroshima and Leeds (see Table 5).

Table 5. A Cross-tabulation regarding the approach used in designing lessons in Hiroshima (Japan) and Leeds (England).

The most useful information for designing science lessons
	1. Textbooks	2. National curriculum	3. Textbook publishing company’s instruction books for teachers	4. Notebooks of your own composition (Your own experience)	5. Pupils’ current knowledge	6. The policy of your school	7. Materials of outside seminars and workshops	8. The others
Country (District)
Japan (Hiroshima) (n = 72)	30 (41.7)	5 (6.9)	7 (9.7)	12 (16.7)	12 (16.7)	0	4 (5.6)	2 (2.8)
England (Leeds) (n = 17)	0	5 (29.4)	0	2 (11.8)	2 (11.8)	2 (11.8)	0	6 (35.3)
Total (N = 89)	30 (33.7)	10 (11.2)	7 (7.9)	14 (15.7)	14 (15.7)	2 (2.2)	4 (4.5)	8 (9.0)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

In Hiroshima, the percentage of science teachers who considered ‘textbooks’ to be the most useful resource for designing lessons was high, whereas the tendency was different in Leeds. The percentage of science teachers who considered ‘national curriculum’ and ‘the others (e.g. schemes of work, specification, etc.)’ as the most useful information for designing lessons was high in Leeds. A finding from Fisher’s exact test indicated that a significant difference appeared at the 0.01 level (p < .01).

Finally, we investigated to what extent differences based on country affect the method used in teaching science. We performed a cross-tabulation regarding this topic for science teachers in Hiroshima and Leeds (see Table 6).

Table 6. A Cross-tabulation regarding the method used in teaching science in Hiroshima (Japan) and Leeds (England).

The most useful teaching material(s) for science lessons
	1. Textbooks	2. Exercise books	3. Explanatory diagrams	4. Worksheets of your own making	5. Worksheets of textbook publishing company making	6. Teaching materials for experiment and observation	7. ICT resources	8. The others
Country (District)
Japan (Hiroshima) (n = 70)	24 (34.3)	0	4 (5.7)	18 (25.7)	1 (1.4)	12 (17.1)	8 (11.4)	3 (4.3)
England (Leeds) (n = 16)	0	3 (18.8)	1 (6.3)	4 (25.0)	0	2 (12.5)	4 (25.0)	2 (12.5)
Total (N = 86)	24 (27.9)	3 (3.5)	5 (5.8)	22 (25.6)	1 (1.2)	14 (16.3)	12 (14.0)	5 (5.8)

Figures in parentheses are percentages of n or N values relating to each row.

The percentage of science teachers who considered ‘Worksheets of your own making’ to be the most useful teaching material was high in both districts. On the other hand, the percentage of science teachers who considered ‘textbooks’ the most useful teaching material was high in Hiroshima, whereas that of science teachers who considered ‘ICT resources’ the most useful teaching material was high in Leeds. A finding from Fisher’s exact test indicated that a significant difference appeared at the 0.01 level (p < .01).

Although we could not confirm significant differences between respondents in the analysis of Hiroshima (Japan), we were able to confirm significant differences of all dimensions in comparative analysis with Leeds (England). These results show that the country in which a teacher worked was a factor in differences involving science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives. Among the three dimensions of science teaching, the approach used in designing lessons and the method used in teaching science showed a marked difference compared to science teachers’ beliefs.

Discussion

From the analysis of empirical research data (Nozoe & Isozaki, 2016, 2018), we deduced that Japanese science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives (science teachers’ beliefs, the approach used in designing lessons, and the method used in teaching science) do not depend on personal attributes, such as gender, teaching experience, teaching specialty, or faculty (department) issuing a university degree. Compared with the data from Leeds, we found that a science teacher’s pedagogical perspective depended on the respective country in which he/she taught. What implications follow from these results?

Approach from the social environment

In Table 4, the percentage of science teachers who considered ‘interest in science’ to be the most important learning objective was higher in Hiroshima than in Leeds. One reason for this may be the influence of formal assessment, based on four viewpoints, which has been carried out since 1991 in Japan. Among them, the viewpoint of ‘interest, motivation, and attitude’ has been an important evaluation position until recently. In particular, since this assessment was introduced, many study meetings and much research on themes such as how to assess ‘interest, motivation and attitude’ in science and how to increase students’ ‘interest, motivation, and attitude’ toward science have been developed in various cities, regions, and schools. The influence of the social environment, in light of the history of educational systems, can be read from the analysis results.

Furthermore, in Table 5, the fact that the percentage of science teachers who considered their national curriculum guidelines the most useful resource for designing lessons was lower in Japan than in England does not mean the status of such guidelines was lower in Japan than in England. Since all kinds of textbooks in Japan are authorised by the Ministry of Education, published textbooks must comply with the Course of Study without fail. The origin of this textbook system goes back to the 1883 approval system in which the state examined the contents of textbooks and prohibited the use of inappropriate ones. Since then, the state has consistently managed the contents of textbooks in Japan, although the system has changed slightly over time (Hori, 1961, pp. 138–164). Even today, all textbooks used in Japan are authorised every four years based on the provisions of the School Education Law. Japanese science teachers understand that if they do not deviate from textbooks, they will never deviate from the Course of Study. In addition, textbook companies are always competing to be adopted by local governments, and all textbooks are designed to make it easier for science teachers to teach. The social environment based on such an educational system increases the percentage of science teachers who considered ‘textbooks’ as the most useful resource for designing lessons. Such social environment influences not only the information for designing lessons but also the teaching materials for science lessons. In Table 6, many Japanese science teachers selected ‘textbooks’, in addition to the above-mentioned influences, owing to another factor that textbooks belong to individual students in Japan (unlike textbooks in England, which are school-owned). As described above, the social environment of the Japanese educational system indirectly regulates science teaching in Japan.

Approach from the cultural contexts

Dillon and Manning (2010) argued that science teachers’ pedagogical development relates to their perceived need to challenge the orthodox ‘teaching values and intentions’ (p. 14), which manifest themselves in what many would describe as ‘traditional science teaching’ (p. 14). ‘Traditional science teaching in Japan’ should be questioned. Generally, Japanese science teachers are trained at domestic universities; then, they belong to the teacher group at the school and acquire the paradigm, which includes their roles and positions. Kind (2009) indicated that part of the process involved in becoming a science teacher is a re-shaping of subject matter knowledge (SMK), adapting prior personal SMK to an extent that is replaced by a modified version for school use. That is to say, after being science teachers, their professional development has been conducted within their professional societies and in the context of their professional culture (e.g. Isozaki, 2015, 2016). This is deeply related to the fact that the teacher’s behaviour in science lessons is physicalised tacit knowledge – If it is verbalised, it will not be handed down because there are many aspects that are truncated. For instance, ‘lesson study’ in Japan has continued since the Meiji era (1868–1912), and involves two main intentions. One is the orientation toward standardisation, which is handed down from the top to the bottom with the aim of efficiently disseminating it under the national education policy. The other is the orientation toward the ability formation of teachers, who train to make choices and judgments in specific practical situations centred on the learner (Inagaki, 1995, pp. 394–397). That lesson study is embedded in the traditional culture of science teachers may provide significant opportunities for both novice and experienced science teachers to develop appropriate competencies. During their professional development, teachers acquire the paradigm that contains elements of tacit knowledge, which cannot be specified or recognised consciously. In other words, it can be argued that the educational culture of a country regulates its science teachers at a deep level.

Hammond and Brandt (2004), who discussed an anthropological approach to science education, indicated that pedagogical questions of who teaches science, how it is taught, and what ends it serves take on new meanings that can be addressed through research by using a cultural approach that assumes science learning is a cultural as well as a cognitive activity. Since culture is something that is inherited rather than changed, the paradigm possessed by each science teacher inevitably has been inherited to include some room for their improvement; it is not a new creation without an underlying framework. Culture internalised by science teachers in each country involves ‘universality’ and ‘variability’; that is, the former elements which are inherited in the period and society in which they live, and the later elements which are more individualised. What is the universal culture inherited by science teachers in a specific country? Generally, teachers understand their students’ cultural experiences, scientific practice (ways of knowing, doing, and talking science), and habits of mind (scientific values, attitudes, and worldviews). Thus, they are able to relate science to students’ background experiences (Carlone et al., 2014). Although it is just one cultural perspective,

the selection of knowledge for the science curriculum does not reflect a common heritage but one rooted in the knowledge, assumptions, and values of those who have dominated society and educational discourse—in Western society, mostly white, male, and middle class. (Hodson, 2015, p. 244)

Japanese science teachers, for instance, have taught science based on Western culture to their students living in a Japanese cultural world (Kawasaki, 1996; Ogawa, 1986, 1989, 1995). Specifically, ‘cultural differences in cognition could affect the way the learner approaches the subject matter of science education because of presuppositions about the nature of the world that the learner brings to the learning situation’ (Erickson, 1986, p. 121). In other words, teachers have taken on the role of culture brokers (Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999). Such cultural contexts are inherited implicitly as universal elements by science teachers, thereby regulating traditional science teaching in Japan directly.

Conclusion

Davis et al. (2016) reviewed the literature on teachers and science curriculum materials and pointed out that much of the teacher-curriculum research takes, either implicitly or explicitly, a sociocultural perspective. Indeed, Jones and Carter (2007) referred to the ‘sociocultural model of embedded belief systems’ (p. 1074), and mentioned that instructional practices are influenced by a complex set of belief systems, prior knowledge, epistemology, attitudes, knowledge, and skills.

As a matter of fact, our survey analysis confirmed the influence of the so-called ‘sociocultural contexts’ composed of the social environments that act indirectly and the cultural contexts that act directly. In other words, science teachers are influenced by the complex controls that are mainly due to the cultural contexts in the process of carrying out the science curriculum in the classroom while being placed in social environments (Nozoe, 2016). Teachers’ culture certainly changes depending on social environments, but the speed of the change varies, and consequently these sociocultural contexts include a time lag. That is to say, the social environments change relatively quickly as the educational system changes, but the culture possessed by science teachers in that country or region changes gradually. The gradually changing structure makes the factors that influence the pedagogical perspectives of Japanese science teachers complex and difficult to see. Through empirical and theoretical analyses, we can conclude that a major factor in the formation of Japan’s lower secondary science teachers’ pedagogical perspectives is the surrounding sociocultural contexts.

Since the 1980s, educational reforms have been promoted around the world, and various educational policies (i.e. curriculum reforms) have been implemented. In particular, the subject of science is directly linked to the economic development of the countries, so it was difficult for education to be autonomous with respect to national politics. For example, science and technology policy and science education have been inseparable. In various countries around the world, science educational policies are actually positioned from the perspective of human resource development as part of policies related to science and technology (e.g. STEM Learning). What implications can be obtained based on the insights of this study? In the case of science and technology policy, ‘science and technology’ in and of themselves have no intentions; if the scientific or technological procedure is correct executed, it will work to some extent in accordance with the theory behind it. However, in the case of educational policy, the targets of the policy are human beings, and teachers and learners have their own will. This makes the planning and implementation of science educational policy decidedly different from that of science and technology policy. On the other hand, did policymakers in each country truly understand that changing the educational system through policy would also change the perspectives of science teachers in that country? Furthermore, was it supposed that science teachers’ perspectives changed by that policy would be inherited as a teacher culture for an extended period of time? Until now, there have been studies on the relationship between teachers and policies in science education, but most of their approaches are based on qualities and abilities. The knowledge gained empirically in this study is specific to Japan, but it may have encouraging suggestions and possibilities as a new approach to consider when making educational policies. This is because the characteristics of the science teachers who are the mediator of the policy are the key to the success or failure of the policy.

Additional notes

This study has been significantly revised by adding new analysis based on the data presented at international conferences of EASE 2016, EASE 2018, and ESERA 2019. The paper has not been previously published, although it received the EASE 2018 Outstanding Paper Award.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the University of Leeds for its helpful support. In particular, we are deeply grateful to Professor Jim Ryder for his insightful comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI [Grant Numbers JP15K17405, JP17H01980, JP19K14344, JP20K20832].

Appendix