PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning

ISSN 2457-0648

Tufail & Mahmood, 2020

Volume 4 Issue 2, pp. 332-347
Date of Publication: 13th October 2020
DOI- https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.42.332347
This paper can be cited as: Tufail, I. & Mahmood, M. K. (2020). Teaching Methods Preferred by School
Science Teachers and Students in their Classroom. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education,
and Learning, 4(2), 332-347.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

TEACHING METHODS PREFERRED BY SCHOOL SCIENCE

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN THEIR CLASSROOM

Imran Tufail
Technology, Environment, Mathematics and Science Education Centre, Faculty of Education,
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
[email protected]

Muhammad Khalid Mahmood

National Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (NACTE), Higher Education Commission
(HEC), Islamabad, Pakistan
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
This study was designed to stipulate an image of occurring science practices in secondary schools.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the types of science teaching practices that have
been preferred to use by science teachers to teach science subjects. This study delimits the
secondary schools of Lahore, which is the second most populated city in Pakistan. The research
was conducted on a sample of 60 schools [60 science teachers and 600 students]. The researchers
captured the complete list of secondary schools of Lahore from official websites and schools were
selected through random technique. The most senior science teacher opted for data collection in
case of more than one science teacher availability at a single school. The study adopted a survey
research design and data was collected through a newly developed reliable questionnaire with
Cronbach alpha = 0.95. The data was entered and analysed by using SPSS. The study result reveals
that secondary school science teachers prefer lecture and discussion methods for science teaching.
Significantly, science teachers are less interested in using the inquiry method and science project-

332
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

based learning in their classrooms. Science teachers should adopt recommended teaching methods
to develop a better understanding of science among students.
Keywords
Science Teaching Practices, Secondary Schools, Science Teachers, Science Students, Teaching
Methods
________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction
Effective teachers guide to the learners by using their developed set of knowledge and skills.
Teachers manage their overall classroom practice as a leader (Soares, 2020), and as a free agent in
the classroom, they can accept or reject the changes (Gess-Newsome, 2015) in the teaching. The
science teaching and learning in the classroom is influenced by different factors such as students
and teachers’ beliefs, orientation, prior knowledge, and experience within a context, which plays an
important role in students’ outcomes (Caleon, Tan & Cho, 2018; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Tufail,
Eames, Buntting & Cheng, 2019). The science teachers create a situation of teaching that supports
and stimulate students’ learning by using an amalgam of different teaching knowledge (Shulman,
1986), encouraging students for learning, developing interest, conceptual teaching, imparting
realistic knowledge and practical experience about the world are elements of teaching practices that
create a great influence of teachers on their students (Arends, 2012; Wang, 2020).
Science teachers’ teaching methods play a vital role in classroom practices if they adopt
suitable teaching instructions according to the need of science topics and students. A variety of
research-based teaching methods are recommended in the literature for science teachers, teachers
may select one, a combination of two or more to suit the needs of science learners to develop the
conceptual understanding (Tufail et al., 2019). Moreover, science teaching standards provide a road
map to choose teaching methods. Lamentably, education policies of Pakistan (Ministry of
Education, 2009; Ministry of Education, 2017) did not pay much emphasis on the quality of science
education, therefore, no science teaching standards have been determined yet at any level.
Currently, Pakistan facing many problems in the education sector particularly in the field of
science education. For instance, non-availability of teaching materials unequipped and in some
cases non-existence of science laboratories, outdated curriculum with little relevance to today’s
scientific research, unrealistic teacher to student ratio in large class sizes are some of the factors that
discourage teachers to adopt discovery and inquiry-based teaching approaches in their classrooms
(Memon, 2007) that may make impossible face to face teaching (Chui, 2020). Teachers have
limited option to adopt teaching method according to available resources, as result, the lecturing

333
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

method is the most commonly adopted teaching strategy by science teachers (Iqbal, Azam & Rana,
2009) whilst encouraging students to rote memorize the science concepts from the textbooks in
order to replicate in the examination. Moreover, the lack of trained teachers and the cheating culture
in the examinations also contribute to the indicators of the bad quality of education in Pakistan
(Ministry of Finance 2002).
In developed countries science teachers have the support of lab assistance and teacher aides
to enhance the teaching and learning experience and such assistance develops a positive attitude in
teachers toward their teaching (Ualesi & Ward, 2018). On the other hand, the developing countries
have only two biotic factors in classrooms that influence teaching practice, i.e., students and
teachers (Tufail, 2020). Generally, students develop their scientific understanding in the classroom
as well as in a laboratory context where they can have hands-on experience of learning theoretical
science concepts. In Pakistan, poor quality or lack of laboratory facilities impede the development
of scientific concepts and discoveries, thus leading to rote memorization (Iqbal, Azam & Rana,
2009), which eventually leads to unnourished minds of lacking innovative ideas.
Research in science teaching asserts that teachers’ subject matter knowledge, attitude to
adopt new teaching methods, and using their teaching skills in classroom practices are central
components of their practices (Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013). According to Ajaja (2007), most of
the science teachers do not put their skills into classroom practices, which they have acquired
during the teaching certification. Similarly, some deficiencies reported in science teaching in
Pakistan (Malik, Farooq, & Rabia, 2016), which are noncompliance with the curriculum, where
teachers do not cover the complete syllabus due to time restriction or their lack of knowledge on
certain topics. Furthermore, the absence of a mechanism to teacher observations followed by
constructive feedback to improve teaching practice, weak lesson planning, and teacher assessment
based on student learning outcomes are considered as deterrent factors of science teaching. The
study aims to investigate the preferred teaching methods by teachers and students in their secondary
science classrooms.
The rest of the paper is structured in five sections: The first section presents a brief review
of the related literature. The next section is consisting of the methodology followed by data analysis
and interpretation. Finding and discussions are offered at the end.

2. Literature Review
The classical point of view about teaching was simple and considered as a process of
transferring knowledge (Warren, 1985). However, recent research suggests that teaching is a

334
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

complex and uncertain creative activity which requires teachers to continually adjust their
instructional strategies, presentation and representations of ideas, on-the-spot decision making on
effective pedagogies, responses to students to meet student needs and to support learning (Park &
Chen, 2012; Tufail et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2012). It is clear, there is no facile set of
instructions to inform and prepare teachers for the challenges of teacher planning and practice
(Barnett & Hodson, 2001). Different teaching and learning elements make effective teaching
practices such as teachers’ attitudes, skills, subject matter knowledge, organization knowledge,
knowledge of student understanding, teacher training, and school context.
Effective science teaching practice is an intellectual work that involves expert judgment to
adopt appropriate methods and therefore reflection needs to have a developmental dimension in the
educational process. The emphasis should be on effective teaching that helps teachers understand
their practice for improvement (Sachs, 2003). In a true sense, science teaching is not only the
transfer of the scientific knowledge, content, and curriculum, it also works like an explorer of the
hidden knowledge in nature or the mind of the learner. The core of science teaching at the
secondary level is to provide students with the foundation of basic science knowledge, which leads
them towards further science study in their future, and to understand science applications in their
daily lives (Ministry of Education, 2017). This understanding helps students to perceive the world
scientifically. During the science teaching-learning process at the school level, students face many
problems in understanding scientific ideas in their classrooms and this happens due to inauthentic
teaching methods (Darling-Hammond, 2008) used by the science teachers which reduce the student
interest in science concepts. The upcoming paragraphs of this subsection offer summary of
prevailing teaching methods, which were used in the questionnaire for data collection of this study.
In the lecture method, most of the time teacher stands in front of the students giving
information verbally and sometimes using audio-visual aids depending upon their availability to
help to explain the concept. Historically, teaching has revolved around the behaviorist approach
now termed as ‘traditional method’ and these traditional teaching practices include lecture and
teacher-led activities (Woolfolk, 2013) and mostly, teachers look dominant throughout these
practices. The traditional approach assumes the transfer of a planned body of knowledge to the
students in prescribed class time. Through traditional methods, teachers facilitate students with the
subject matter but it does not enhance the creative habits of students’ minds (Neuby, 2010). The
lecture method is a one-way flow of information with low student involvement. Contrary to this, the
‘discussion method’ encourages students’ to participate in their learning process by posing probing
questions and reflecting on constructed ideas.

335
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

The term ‘discussion’ is generally used in different aspects; firstly, presenting perspectives
on a unique idea with another person or a group of people, and secondly, talk or write about some
ideas in detail and consider different opinions on it to construct new knowledge. Discussion as a
teaching method could be adopted by science teachers in various ways, for example, Kauchak and
Paul (2017) argued that science teachers used discussion for exploring prior knowledge of students,
uplift students’ involvement, evaluation, and development of interest. In this process, students are
involved by questioning, listening, and responding to their queries. Students think about the
possible answers to a question posed by the teacher, and then discuss the answers with each other.
The teacher explains the consensus of this discussion along with the correct science concept to the
class. Besides, the teacher helps students’ reflection on the discussion process, ask them to write
about how the discussion changed their thinking or understanding (Davis, 2001). The discussion
method is favorable for evaluating student performance and foster self-confidence and leadership
abilities in students (Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). However, the discussion method is limited to
elaborate on all the aspects of science learning e.g., students cannot investigate chemical reactions
in a laboratory through it.
The limitation of the discussion method can be surmounted by using the inquiry method that
enables students to actively investigate their environment by themselves or under the supervision of
their teacher. The inquiry method is characterized by students’ actions such as investigation,
searching, and exploring (Martinello & Cook, 2000) about a part of the context. This method
requires a shift in the role of teacher to that of a facilitator rather than an information provider.
Different inquiry methods can be adopted by teachers in the science classroom such as open
inquiry, guided inquiry, coupled inquiry, and structured inquiry or a combination of them as per the
demand of the science concept. Science teachers can develop critical thinking and a deeper
understanding of science concepts through inquiry methods (Pratt & Hackett, 1998). This method
overlaps some of the features of project-based learning; however, it carries out a clear distinction
between their unique features.
The project-based teaching method encompasses specific experiments, recreational field
trips, hands-on activities, and student-directed activities. In this learning activity, students usually
face problems and challenges; therefore, teachers’ involvement is crucial, not only in designing or
in choosing the broader theme of the project, but also facilitating students during the project phase
to lead them in the right direction. Science students working within a group would improve their
characteristics such as team-building relationships, goal setting, developing existing skills,
acquiring new skills, and a creative outcome that has a clear benefit to the community. In addition

336
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

to this, project-based teaching enhances the students' ability to manage the time and available
resources (Schneider, Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2005) and they can apply to learn to resolve real-
world problems (Bell, 2010).
During the above-mentioned teaching methods, many new ideas may strike students’ minds,
which could remain as imagination until not tested. This calls for an additional approach to teaching
science such as learning through experiments (Duit & Tesch, 2010), which gives students a chance
to apply theoretical knowledge and ideas into practice. Science teachers’ deeper understanding of
the scientific process and the use of scientific tools necessary to carry out further studies is
witnessed when students are involved in the experiment phase (NRC, 2000). To capture the
teaching methods that are preferred by teachers and students in secondary schools; a proper research
method was selected that is presented in the following section.

3. Methodology
Since the focus of the study was to measure teachers' and students’ perceptions about
teaching methods in their classroom, therefore, survey research was adopted for this study. Survey
research designs are desirable procedures within the quantitative research paradigm used to describe
the opinions, attitudes, beliefs, self-classification, knowledge, behaviors, and characteristics of the
population (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Neuman, 2014) to get a reliable, valid, and accurate data.
All secondary science school teachers in Lahore city is the population of this study, 60 science
teachers were randomly selected as a sample of this study, 10 students (of grade 9 and 10) randomly
chosen from each teachers’ class to confirm their claims, total 600 science student were involved.
The sampling for this study is shown in Table 1. The sample is representing the population of study
which indicating its generalizability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and through this sample researcher
trying to find teaching practice in reality that increases its validity.
Table 1: Sampling Table
School types Male Female
Teacher Students Teacher Students
Public school teacher 15 150 15 150
Private school teacher 15 150 15 150
Total 30 300 30 300

The purpose of the sample from the public (male and female) and private schools (male and
female) to investigate the clear picture of secondary school practices, that increase the

337
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

generalizability. The study employed a newly developed 40-item questionnaire on five points Likert
scale [always=5, often=4, sometimes=3, rarely=2, never=1] which were pilot tested before the study
on 10% of the total parent sample. Literature in educational research suggests a recommended
sample size of 10% of the parent sample for pilot testing (Connelly, 2008). The survey
questionnaire has consisted of seven subscales: lecturing, discussion, role-play, inquiry method,
scientific activities, project-based, and experiments, with five to six questions in each subscale. The
overall Cronbach alpha value of this survey questionnaire 0.95 confirms excellent reliability (Taber,
2018). The responses in this questionnaire are analyzed by using proper statistical formulae, which
are reporting in the next subsection with their analysis and interpretation.
3.1 Analysis and Interpretation
The respondents were required to respond to each statement on five points scale from
always to never. Numerical values of the responses were ‘always 5, often 4, sometimes 3, rarely 2,
never 1’. The data was entered and analysed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) software. Mean Response Values (MRVs) and Chi-square test were applied to find out the
results: MRV’s indicated the extent of prevalence of science teaching practices and it showed that
what practices were the most and the least common while, Chi-square test was employed to see the
significant differences among the responses of different categories. In addition to this, the collected
data were analysed by cross tabulating the percentages of teachers’ and students’ responses
obtained through the questionnaire. The percentage of responses in crosstabs showed the degree of
occurrences of science teaching practices as responded by teachers and observed by students in their
classes. MRV aggregates the responses representing the degree of occurrences of science teaching
practices. A higher degree of MRV is considered the most common practice.
Following criteria were developed for interpreting the results:
 1≤ MRV < 1.5 : the absence of practice or never adopted by the teacher
 1.5≤MRV<2.5 : rare frequent practices
 2.5≤MRV<3.5 : practice being used sometimes
 3.5≤MRV<4.5: often used practices
 4.5≤MRV≤ 5: always used practice
MRVs of students’ and teachers’ responses and interpretation of these values as per set criteria as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Mean Responses on Prevalence of Most Common Science Teaching Practices
Teaching Practices Students’ Responses Teachers’ Responses

338
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

MRVs Interpretation MRVs Interpretation

Communicating in a clear and respectable 3.48 Often 3.62 Often
way with students.
Engaging students in peer learning 3.48 Often 3.63 Often

Summarizing the topic at the end of the 3.47 Often 3.83 Often
lecture.
Responding to a student's question. 3.42 Sometimes 3.45 Sometimes
Delivering a lecture to the whole class for 3.39 Sometimes 3.65 Often
providing information to the students.
Asking students to memorize Science 3.36 Sometimes 3.5 Often
definition and scientific facts.
Using white/blackboard during the lecture. 3.32 Sometimes 3.47 Sometimes
Assessing student's pre-requisite 3.31 Sometimes 3.6 Often
knowledge.
Give examples from the local scenario, 3.29 Sometimes 3.9 Often
such as society classroom, etc.
Self-learning through engaging students in 3.28 Sometimes 3.38 Sometimes
solving textbook exercises.

According to the highest MRV, students and teachers perceive clear communication as a
part of lecturing, peer learning, and recap through lesson summary as often-adopted practices in the
science classrooms. Students and teachers both agree on the opinion that teachers sometimes
respond to the students’ questions in the classrooms, use white/blackboard to explain the concepts
during the lecture, and students also self-learn through engagement in solving textbook exercises
during the sessions.
MRVs of teachers’ and students’ responses show a slight difference of opinion in delivering
a lecture to the whole class and memorization of scientific facts, where teachers claimed to practice
lecturing techniques and used rote memorization more frequently. Similarly, a difference of opinion
was also found on teachers’ assessment of students’ pre-requisite knowledge and giving examples
from real-world scenarios
The overall results of MRVs most adopted practices show a mixed trend of learning
theories, where behaviorism and constructivism are taking precedence over cognitivism, and these
trends are shown in the following Figure 1.

339
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9

Student Teacher

Figure 1: Students' and Teachers' Responses about the Most Common Science Teaching Practices
Figure 1 shows the comparison of most common science teaching practices from students'
and teachers’ perspectives. Aggregated MRVs of students’ responses are lower as compared to the
teachers’ responses against all questions. The biggest difference of opinion is found on the use of
local scenarios in the classroom, where students aggregated MRV is equivalent to 3.3, and teachers’
responses equate to 3.9. Similarly, the other major difference among opinions is found on the
summarization of the ideas at the end of the session, where students’ MRV aggregated to 3.5 and
teachers to 3.8. On the other hand, teachers and students almost agreed to answer students’
questions in class with teacher aggregate MRV = 3.45 and students MRV= 3.42.
Table 3, indicates the least common science teaching practices adopted by science teachers
in their classes according to captured data.
Table 3: Mean Responses on Prevalence of Least common Science Teaching Practices
Teaching practices Students’ Responses Teachers’ Responses

MRVs Interpretation MRVs Interpretation

Engaging students in writing about their 2.89 Sometimes 3.3 Sometimes
science experiments or science activities.
Involving students in activities to enable the 2.88 Sometimes 3.15 Sometimes
understanding of scientific concepts.
Conduct whole class discussion at the end 2.87 Sometimes 3.25 Sometimes
of the activity.

340
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

During the discussion, asking probing 2.85 Sometimes 3.17 Sometimes

questions such as "why do you so think
so"?
Using visual aids (charts, pictures etc.) to 2.8 Sometimes 3.22 Sometimes
explain the concepts.
Organizing field trips for increasing the 2.72 Sometimes 3 Sometimes
information of the students.
Encouraging students to role-play for 2.69 Sometimes 3.05 Sometimes
explaining Science concepts.
Using different techniques during activities 2.69 Sometimes 3.3 Sometimes
such as flashcards etc.
Inviting guest speakers (Science subject 2.64 Sometimes 2.92 Sometimes
experts) in class.
Engaging students in learning from various 2.57 Sometimes 2.53 Sometimes
sources other than the textbook (CDs,
magazines, etc.)

It can be easily observed in the table that the aggregate of all student responses is below the
mid-point (2.5≤MRV<3.5) of the range identified for practices adopted sometimes in the classroom
teaching, whereas, majority of teachers have acclaimed to practice these methodologies above the
mid-point of the MRV range (2.5≤MRV<3.5: practice being used some time). It is interesting to
note that majorly all the least commonly adopted practices belong to the constructivist approach to
teaching. A comparison of students' and teachers’ perceptions are presented in figure 2.

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Students Teachers

Figure 2: Student and Teacher Responses about least Common Science Teaching Practices
341
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

This figure illustrates the comparison of students' and teachers’ responses against the same
question item. MRV of student responses against all statements lower than teachers’ responses
except this statement ‘Engaging students in learning from various sources other than the textbook
(CDs, magazines, etc.)’. This confirms an agreement between students and teachers in using
resources other than textbooks in classroom teaching.
To sum up, there are noteworthy differences between teachers' and students’ perceptions of
science teaching. Teachers’ responses claim to deliver a high-level of science teaching practices in
the classrooms in contrast to students’ perceptions. The upcoming section subscribed to the
discussion of the key findings of this study with some recommendations and suggestions for future
study.

4. Discussion
The findings of this study showed that traditional methods and its associated practices are
relatively more common among students and teachers for science teaching, for instance, rote
memorizing from the textbooks and enhancing science concepts through lecturing. These results
reflect those of Ajaja (2007), who also found that science teachers used a lecture method to deliver
science concepts instead of recommended teaching methods for teaching science.
This study also highlights the difference between students’ perceptions of teaching and
teachers’ responses to their teaching. The science teachers believed to adopt constructive teaching
methods, but their students did not support their claims. This also accords with earlier observations
in research, which showed that science teachers who claimed to use constructivist teaching methods
were found to be practicing traditional methods during the classroom observations (Mansour, 2013).
This shows a gap in teachers’ beliefs where they are unable to turn their teaching claims into
successful practice. Another explanation of the difference between students' and teachers’
perceptions; might be the students’ preferred teaching methods are different from teachers’. Overall,
teachers and students like those activities which are based on traditional methods. A study by
(Qualters, 2002) also found that students show less interest in active learning teaching methods
because of their fear of wasting time, not being able to complete the syllabus, and possibly feel
anxious about changing traditional classroom culture. The finding of this study about students'
preferred methods is lecturing followed by discussions is supported by other researchers (e.g.,
Casado 2000; Carpenter 2006; Gillies & Kim 2015).
The study also indicated that the inquiry method and its associated practices were less
commonly used for science teaching in secondary schools. Finding in the present study is consistent

342
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

with the findings of Eltanahy and Forawi (2019), they found that the inquiry method is not much-
preferred in the classroom as compared to the textbook method. Inquiry-based teaching requires a
highly structured approach to pose the inquiry at the students, therefore, teachers who do not feel
confident or have no formal training in using inquiry-based teaching struggle to implement this
approach in their classrooms (Gillies & Kim, 2015). Science teachings demand teachers to use
teaching methods recommended by the experts (Bell, 2010; Duit & Tesch, 2010; Pratt & Hackett,
1998) for a better understanding of scientific concepts. Tseng, Tuan, and Chin (2013) study also
concluded that teachers who have been successful in implementing effective inquiry-based teaching
in their classes are those who have been taught using the same technique by their teachers.
The new teaching techniques should be included in teacher training, refresher courses for in-
service teachers, and teaching educators. It is also asserted by some studies, [e.g., Chui 2020; Malik
et al., 2016] teacher educators should receive up-to-date training on using modern teaching methods
and techniques to support 21st-century learning. The use of innovative technologies should also be
made part of teacher training courses to enable teachers to exploit such technologies to impart more
student-centered pedagogies in their sessions (Bell, 2010). Moreover, science teachers should be
able to relate their teaching to real-world scenarios through project-based learning, thus enabling
students to implement their learned knowledge and acquired skills in real-life situations.
The present study adopted a survey design to gather students' and teachers’ responses to the
methods of science instruction. Future research could benefit from using qualitative research
designs or quantitative research in another context to get further insights into the difference of
students and teachers’ opinions regarding the use of teaching practice as indicated by the present
study.

REFERENCES
Ajaja, O. (2007). Teaching Methods across Disciplines. Agbor, Nigeria: All well Publications.
Arends, R. (2012). Learning to Teach. 9th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill.
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of
what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1017
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The clearing house,
83(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415

343
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

Caleon, I. S., Tan, Y. S. M., & Cho, Y. H. (2018). Does teaching experience matter? The beliefs and
practices of beginning and experienced physics teachers. Research in Science Education, 48(1),
117-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9562-6
Carpenter, J. M. (2006). Effective teaching methods for large classes. Journal of Family & Consumer
Sciences Education, 24(2). 13-23
Casado, M. (2000). Teaching methods in higher education: A student perspective. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Education, 12(2), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2000.10685283
Chui, J. (2020). Real-Time Learning Analytics for Face-to-Face Lessons. PUPIL: International Journal
of Teaching, Education and Learning 4(2): 121–31.
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.42.121131
Connelly, L. M. (2008). Pilot Studies. Medsurg Nursing 17(6):411–13.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.7.29056
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher Learning That Supports Student Learning. CA: Crown Press.
Davis, B. G. (2001). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Brass.
Duit, R., and Maike, T. (2010). “On the Role of the Experiment in Science Teaching and Learning–
Visions and the Reality of Instructional Practice. Retrieved June 02, 2020 from
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-the-role-of-the-experiment-in-science-teaching-
*-Duit-Tesch/bf6f48f52f246adad5991f16e22fd5c9e69ec2f7

Eltanahy, M., & Sufian, F. (2019). Science Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of the Implementation
of Inquiry-Based Learning Instruction in a Middle School in Dubai. Journal of Education
199(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057419835791
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK:
Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. (pp. 28–42) In Berry a, Friedrichsen, & J.
Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining of pedagogical content knowledge in Science Education.
London: Routledge.
Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry:
Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science
Education, 45(2), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9418-x
Iqbal, H. M., Azam, S., & Rana, A. R. (2009). Secondary School Science Teachers’ Views about the
‘Nature of Science.’ Bulletin of Education and Research 31(2):29–44.

344
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

Kauchak, D., and Eggen, P. (2017). Introduction to Teaching: Becoming a Professional. 6th ed. Pearson
FL. USA
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Malik, M. I., Farooq, & Rabia, T. (2016). The Comparative Study of Achievement of Male and Female
Mathematics Students of Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges at Intermediate Level in
Punjab. Bulletin of Education and Research 38(2):219–27.
Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and Inconsistencies between Science Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices. International Journal of Science Education 35(7):1230–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.743196
Martinello, M. L., & Gillian, E. C. (2000). Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning. ERIC.
Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of Chemical Equilibrium in Pre-Service
Teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education
17(1–2):113–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2013.828406
Memon, G. R. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and the New Challenges.
Journal of Management and Social Sciences 3(1):47–55.
Ministry of Education. (2017). National Education Policy 2017. Ministry of Education, Islamabad
Pakistan
Ministry of Education. (2009). National Education Policy 2009. Ministry of Education, Islamabad
Pakistan.
Ministry of Finance. (2002). Economic Survey of Pakistan 2002-03. Ministry of Finance, Islamabad
Pakistan.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for
Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Neuby, B. (2010). Inquiry Teaching in the College Classroom. Journal of Effective Teaching 10(1):4–
21.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Basic of Social Research Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd ed.
USA: Pearson Education.
Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 49(7), 922-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022
Pratt, H., & Hackett, J. (1998). Teaching Science: The Inquiry Approach. Principal, 78(2), 20-22.

345
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

Qualters, D. (2002). Do Students Want to Be Active Learners. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning 51–60. Retrieved June 02, 2020, from
http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/1588/1587

Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: controlling or developing teaching? Teachers and
teaching, 9(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309373
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform‐based science materials: The
range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching:
The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-
312. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20055
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher,
15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Soares, L. (2020). Awakening Teachers Leaders: A New Paradigm in Education for School and
Students Success. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning 4(2): 96–
106. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.42.96106
Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research
Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education 48(6): 1273–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tseng, C. H., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching:
Perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 809-825.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9292-3
Tufail, I. (2020). Science Teaching Practices in Public and Private Secondary Schools of Lahore,
Pakistan. Presented on-line at the 10th ICTEL 2020 – International Conference on Teaching,
Education & Learning, 08-09 June, Singapore, June 8.
Tufail, I., Eames, C., Buntting, C., & Cheng, M.M.W. (2019). One Teacher’s Enactment of PCK in a
Secondary Chemistry Classroom. Presented at the Australasian Science Education Research
Association, Queenstown, New Zealand.
Ualesi, Y., & Ward, G. (2018). Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching Science in a New Zealand
Intermediate School. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 43(6): 35–49.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.3
Wang, J. (2020). “An Awareness-Raising Approach to Teaching Small Talk in an EFL Classroom.”
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning 4(1): 01–11.
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.41.0111

346
PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning
ISSN 2457-0648

Warren, D. (1985). Learning from Experience: History and Teacher Education. Educational Researcher
14(10): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X014010005
Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Development for Early Career Secondary Teachers in Science and Technology Using Content
Representations. Research in Science & Technological Education 30(3): 327–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.740005
Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational Psychology. 12th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. 2005. Encouraging Active Learning Can Improve Students’
Performance on Examinations. Teaching of Psychology 32(2): 91–95.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2

347