The relationship between biology teachers’ identities and their integration of the outdoors by Julieta Soledad Delos Santos A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education University of Alberta © Julieta Soledad de los Santos, 2018 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the identities of biology teachers and their integration of outdoor settings with their practice. In the context of this study, teacher identity is considered as enacting and being recognized as a particular kind of teacher at a particular time and place for pedagogical purposes while simultaneously co-constructed with discourse, socio-cultural-historical context, and practice (or activity). Additionally, outdoor education is taken to mean education about and for the outdoors, working in conjunction with indoor classroom instruction. The theoretical framework laid the foundation for the following research questions: (1) What is the relationship between identities of biology teachers and integration of the outdoors? (1a) In what ways does identity influence biology teachers’ pedagogical decisions towards their outdoor practice? (1b) In what ways does biology teachers’ identities and outdoor practice influence each other? The answers to these questions will help educators and others better understand the relationship between identity and teaching practice. A qualitative, multiple case study design (n=3) was employed, and purposive sampling was used to identify ideal participants who are: secondary biology teachers in Alberta, have had more than three years of teaching experience, and who incorporate the outdoors with their teaching. Teachers began by completing an open-ended questionnaire asking about their outdoor teaching practices. Questionnaire results were used to generate questions for the initial interview and then those results were used to formulate questions for the final interview that was forty-five minutes. Discourse analysis, with an emphasis on its social context and as a representation of teacher identity and context, was used to examine the transcripts. Results indicated key characteristics of their identity including: fulfilling curriculum, viewing teaching as helping ii students, using multiple methods of teaching, valuing different aspects (ex. students, other learning settings, natural environment, and others). To determine underlying coherences of these teachers’ connections between identity and integration of the outdoors, a cross-case analysis was used. Big “D” Discourse was used as a framework to organize the cross-case analysis since it transcends small “d” discourse by combining those results with characteristics that extend beyond language such as attitudes, values, and others. Overall, there were two coherences: (1) these teachers appear to have a flexible view of teaching methods and learning environments; and (2) it seems that these teachers also implement the outdoors as a setting for developing students’ attitudes. These coherences may contribute towards other ways of understanding biology teaching practice. Together, these coherences suggest a Discourse of flexible teaching and pedagogical practice so that it naturally includes the outdoors with science. iii PREFACE This thesis is an original work by Julieta de los Santos. The research project, of which this thesis is a part, received research ethics approval from the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board, Project Name “The identities of biology teachers who use outdoors in their teaching: Using discourse as a lens”, No. Pro00021270, December 16, 2011. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For putting me on the road to this journey, I would like to thank Dr. Finney Cherian and Dr. Geri Salinitri without whom I would not have considered pursuing a doctorate. For Dino Ratacco whose advice convinced me to start this journey. For those who helped me stay on this journey, words cannot describe how thankful and grateful I am and how invaluable they are to me. To Dr. Susan Barker, her support and advice laid the foundation for my research and kept me going. To Dr. Marie-Claire Shanahan, whose guidance, and support was so essential in seeing this through to the end. If it had not been for their time, brilliance, and unwavering encouragement, I can honestly say that I am not sure where I would be at this moment. I feel fortunate to have worked with them and blessed to know them. They are an inspiration to me as professors, scholars, and for who they are. For Dr. David Chorney and Dr. Jerine Pegg whose edits and suggestions helped to clarify and strengthen my ideas. For my family and friends who supported me throughout this journey, please accept my heartfelt thanks that goes beyond words. Especially to my parents Bill “Tibot” and Eva de los Santos who never doubted my ability. For those who saw me on this journey but could not make it to the very end: Julieta P. de los Santos, Arturo F. Pacificador, Petra Pacificador, Portia Pacificador, Julian Paolo “Tiny” Perez, Sonny Pacificador, Michael Girnth, Jeremy Carmelo, Emilio Carmelo Sr., Lola Caring, Lola Ren, “Tita Lumen”, Teak, Caricia, Bjorn, and Lille Bjorn, I am grateful for the time we had with one another and may you all rest in peace. These sparse words do not capture the esteem, positive emotions, and thankfulness that I have for all of you. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………..…………………………….……………………………… ii Preface………………………………………………………….…………………………… iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………..… v Table of Contents………………………………………………………….………………... vi List of Tables……………………………………………………….………………………. ix List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………….. x Chapter 1 Research Introduction……………………………………….……………….….. 1 1.1 Context of Study…………………………………………….………………………..… 1 1.2 Purpose of Study…………………………………………………….………………..… 3 1.3 Overview of the Dissertation…………………………………….……………………... 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………….……………….…. 7 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………….……………………………..… 7 2.2 Outdoor Learning..……………………………………………….…………………...… 7 2.3 Pedagogical Reasons on Whether to Incorporate Outdoor Learning…………………... 13 2.3.1 Pedagogical Reasons in Favour of Incorporating Outdoor Learning…………… 13 2.3.2 Pedagogical Reasons Not in Favour of Incorporating Outdoor Learning………. 16 2.4 Using Outdoor Learning in K-12 Teaching…………………………………………….. 20 2.5 The Relationship Between Science Education and Nature……………………………... 21 2.6 Similar Pedagogical Approaches to My Study…………………………………………. 24 2.7 Summary: Outdoor Education………………………………………………………….. 25 2.8 Science Teacher Identity……….…………………….……………………………..…. 26 2.9 Influences on Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices……………………………………….. 30 2.9.1 Identities and Practice…………………………………………………………… 33 2.10 Summary………….…………………………………………………………………. 35 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………. 36 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 36 3.2 Historical Perspectives of Identity……………………………………………………… 37 3.3 Identity, Sociocultural Context, Discourse, Activity (or Practice)……………………... 39 3.3.1 Identity…………………………………………………………………………… 39 3.3.2 Sociocultural Context……………………………………………………………. 41 3.3.3 Discourse………………………………………………………………………… 42 3.3.4 Practice…………………………………………………………………………... 43 3.3.5 One-on-One Relationships………………………………………………………. 44 3.3.6 Three-Way Relationships………………………………………………………... 50 3.4 Figured Worlds…………………………………………………………………………. 52 3.4.1 Cultural Models…………………………………………………………………. 53 3.4.2 Activities………………………………………………………………………… 54 3.4.3 As a Research Tool for Identity…………………………………………………. 55 3.5 Big “D” Discourse……………………………………………………………………… 56 3.6 Gee’s Discourse Analysis………………………………………………………………. 56 3.6.1 Contributing Theories…………………………………………………………… 56 3.6.2 Why Gee’s Discourse Analysis Was Chosen…………………………………… 63 vi 3.7 Summary………………………………………………………………………………... 65 Chapter4 Research Methodology…….………………………….……………………….… 67 4.1 Design and Procedures……………………………….……………………………….… 67 4.1.1 Reflection on Choosing a Qualitative Approach ….……………………………. 67 4.1.2 Case Study Approach………………………….……….....……………………... 72 4.1.3 Inclusion of Participants for this Study…………...…..………………………… 80 4.1.4 Data Collection………………………………………………………………….. 83 4.2 Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………. 87 4.3 Analytical Framework…………………………………………..……………...……….. 87 4.3.1 Discourse Analysis………………………………………….…...………………. 89 4.3.2 Micro Tools………...……………………………………………………………. 92 4.3.3 Discourse Tools………………………………………………………………….. 97 4.3.3 Discourse Analysis: Validity…………………………….……………..……..… 112 4.3.4 Discourse Analysis: Limitations…………………………….…………………… 113 4.4 Researcher’s Position…………………………………………………………………… 114 4.5 Summary……………………………………………….……………………………….. 118 Chapter 5 Case: Zatanna………………………………………….………………………… 119 5.1 The Significance Building Tool……………………………..…….……...…………….. 119 5.2 The Activities Building Tool and The Identities Building Tool……………...………… 128 5.3 The Connections Building Tool………………………………..…......…….…………... 134 5.4 Social Language Tool and Doing, Not Just Saying Tool and Situated Meaning Tool……………………………………….……………………………………………….... 142 5.5 The Figured Worlds Tool…………………………………..……….………..………… 147 5.6 Case Summary: Zatanna……………………………………….…………………..…… 150 Chapter 6 Case: Shiera……………………………………………….…………………...… 152 6.1 The Significance Building Tool……………………………..…….……...…………….. 152 6.2 The Activities Building Tool and The Identities Building Tool……………...………… 162 6.3 The Connections Building Tool………………………………..…......…….…………... 167 6.4 Social