ABSTRACT Background One approach to enhancing the pedagogy of science education is to employ academics who are not only science-trained but also engaged in education research. As some academics begin their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research careers with a pure science background, shifting in disciplinary perspectives can be a source of professional tension. The pedagogic frailty model provides a framework that helps us to integrate institutional efforts to enhance teaching improvements by maintaining a simultaneous focus on critical areas that are thought to impede academic development. Purpose This paper draws attention to the importance of disciplinary crossover by uncovering and comparing academics’ teaching perspectives, views and beliefs from three disciplines: natural science (chemistry), social science (education) and science education. Method Through a case study design using the pedagogic frailty model and concept map-mediated interviews as a tool, three academics engaged in a non-linear discourse in which their conceptions could be visualised and analysed. Findings and Discussion Analysis of the case study interviews indicated that the academics’ conceptions of teaching were highly individualised. The discourse surrounding the curriculum, and the embeddedness of and connection between pedagogy and discipline, were both subject-sensitive and influenced by professional backgrounds and research areas. On the other hand, because they operated under the same institutional values and regulations, we found a considerable overlap in terms of how the academics perceived the tensions between research and teaching and academic leadership. By comparing three academics who were at a different stage in the journey from disciplinary experts (chemistry) to teaching expert (education), we were able to uncover and understand more about the ways that the teaching environment impacted upon their practices. The science educator shared aspects of the other two perspectives, which suggests that his profile was a transitory state in comparison with the chemist and the educationist. Conclusion The findings provide a glimpse of the distinctive nature of the values that underpin teaching and offer insights that can be used to promote dialogue about quality enhancement in science education.

中文翻译：

---

使用教学法弱点模型作为工具揭示和比较学术界的教学观点：科学教育中的案例研究

摘要 背景 加强科学教育教学法的一种方法是聘请不仅受过科学培训而且还从事教育研究的学者。当一些学者以纯科学背景开始他们的教学和学习奖学金研究生涯时，学科观点的转变可能是专业紧张的根源。教学弱点模型提供了一个框架，帮助我们整合机构努力，通过同时关注被认为阻碍学术发展的关键领域来加强教学改进。目的本文通过揭示和比较来自三个学科的学者的教学观点、观点和信念，引起人们对学科交叉的重要性的关注：自然科学（化学），社会科学（教育）和科学教育。方法 通过使用教学法脆弱模型和概念图介导的访谈作为工具的案例研究设计，三位学者参与了非线性话语，其中他们的概念可以被可视化和分析。结果与讨论 案例研究访谈的分析表明，学者的教学理念高度个性化。围绕课程的论述，以及教育学与学科之间的嵌入性和联系，都具有学科敏感性，并受专业背景和研究领域的影响。另一方面，由于他们在相同的制度价值观和法规下运作，我们发现学术界在如何看待研究与教学与学术领导之间的紧张关系方面存在相当大的重叠。通过比较处于从学科专家（化学）到教学专家（教育）不同阶段的三位学者，我们能够发现和了解更多关于教学环境对其实践的影响方式。这位科学教育家分享了其他两种观点的各个方面，这表明与化学家和教育家相比，他的形象是一种过渡状态。结论 这些发现让我们得以一瞥支撑教学的价值观的独特性质，并提供了可用于促进科学教育质量提高对话的见解。我们能够发现和了解更多关于教学环境影响他们实践的方式。这位科学教育家分享了其他两种观点的各个方面，这表明与化学家和教育家相比，他的形象是一种过渡状态。结论 这些发现让我们得以一瞥支撑教学的价值观的独特性质，并提供了可用于促进科学教育质量提高对话的见解。我们能够发现和了解更多关于教学环境影响他们实践的方式。这位科学教育家分享了其他两种观点的各个方面，这表明与化学家和教育家相比，他的形象是一种过渡状态。结论 这些发现让我们得以一瞥支撑教学的价值观的独特性质，并提供了可用于促进科学教育质量提高对话的见解。