University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The pedagogy of science teachers from non-natural science backgrounds

(USC Thesis Other)

The pedagogy of science teachers from non-natural science backgrounds

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 1

THE PEDAGOGY OF SCIENCE TEACHERS FROM NON-NATURAL SCIENCE
BACKGROUNDS

by

Shaneka Woods

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 2

The Pedagogy of Science Teachers from Non-Natural Science Backgrounds

Copyright © 2017
by
Shaneka Woods

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 3

University of Southern California
School of Education
Los Angeles, CA 90005

This dissertation written by Shaneka Woods, under the direction of the Dissertation Committee,
is approved and accepted by all committee members, in partial fulfillment of requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Education.

Date

Dissertation Committee

Dr. Anthony B. Maddox, Ph.D., Committee Chair

Dr. Frederick Freking, Ph.D., Committee Member

Dr. Artineh Samkian, Ph.D., Committee Member

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 4

Acknowledgements
Many people walked with me through this dissertation process. First, I thank my
dissertation chair, Dr. Anthony B. Maddox for the “thrashing period.” You took me on
independently, and you sowed into me personally and professionally. You gave me
opportunities, and you valued my voice as a teacher, a mother, a student, a researcher, and as a
professional. For this, I will be forever grateful. I also thank my committee member Dr.
Frederick Freking, for your willingness to support me and for the value you constantly
communicated that you saw in my work. I also thank my committee member, Dr. Artineh
Samkian, for availing herself to me above and beyond her call of duty. Thank you, Dr. Samkian,
for the ways in which you challenged me, and for the time, effort, energy, and sacrifice you
invested into my story. Words cannot express my gratitude. The collective wealth of knowledge
and insight from my committee has been invaluable, and the support, input and encouragement
along the way has gone a long way to get me here.
Secondly, there are not adequate words to express my gratitude toward my family and
friends. To my husband and King, Wilbert, your belief in and support of me has been the fuel I
needed to complete this journey. The way you love me is the best love I have ever known. I love
you, and I’m so proud to be Mrs. Bullins. Dawn Monet Fields, you are the definition of a true
friend. Thank you for being a surrogate mother to my daughter for the past three years. I love
you. To every friend and family member that loves me and understood how much of myself I
had to dedicate to this process, thank you.
I also send my love, respect, and admiration to my Co-Hearts. I could have never made it
through this without you.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 5

Thank you to my study participants. Thank you for your willingness to share your story
and share your voice to help change what we do.
Last, but certainly not least, I thank God! My Heavenly Father continuously opened
doors and created opportunities for my success, for my support, for my achievement, and for my
future. Thank You, Lord, for trusting me to carry out Your will. Lord, Your Word is true: Every
good and perfect gift comes from You.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 6

Dedication
This work is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who has
given me everything I needed to complete this task to which He called me. Secondly, I dedicate
this work to my daughter, Jae Arielle Escoe. Thank you for sharing your mommy for three years
in order for me to pursue my dreams. With the same unconditional love and support, I promise to
watch you achieve your dreams as well. You were the fuel behind the fire that kept me going. I
hope I have made you proud and showed you an example of strength. I also dedicate this work to
Tony Craig Bowman—your life was taken too soon, but the legacy you have left has ignited a
passion for equity and social justice, and for this, we thank you.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 7

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 4
Dedication 6
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 10
List of Appendices 11
Abstract 12
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 13
Background of the Problem 15
Nature of the Study 19
Statement of the Problem 21
Research Questions 22
Purpose of the Study 22
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 23
Operational Definitions 23
Summary and Organization of the Study 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Introduction 26
The Next Generation Science Standards and Scientific Literacy 27
Defining High-Quality Science Teachers 30
Content Knowledge 30
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 33
Stimulating Classroom Environment 34
Classroom Knowledge 36
Opportunities for Interactive Learning 36
Integrated Instruction 37
Collaborative Learning Environment 38
Positive Attitude 39
Teacher Quality and Student Learning 40
“Teach Like a Champion” Techniques 44
Conceptual Framework 47
Summary 53
Chapter Three: Research Designs and Methods 54
Introduction 54
Research Questions 55
Research Design 56
Criteria 57
Sample and Population 57
Instrumentation 58
Interviews 59
Observations 59
Document Review 59
Data Analysis 60
Validity and Reliability 61
Summary 62

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 8

Chapter Four: Results 63
Introduction 63
Descriptive Framework 64
Conceptual Framework 65
Findings for Research Questions 66
Research Question 1 66
Comparative Analysis 106
Research Question 2 110
Conclusion 121
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions 122
Introduction 122
Discussion of Findings 122
Implications for Practice 125
Recommendations for Future Research 125
Conclusion 126
References 128
Appendix A: IRB Information Sheet 149
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 152
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 155
Appendix D: Document Analysis Protocol 157
Appendix E: Recruitment Email 158
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 9

List of Tables
Table 3-1 High-quality Teachers, High-Quality Science Teachers,
and “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques 45
Table 4-1 Depth-of-Knowledge Levels for Science and Associated Activities 68
Table 4-2 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
Displayed by Carol, Teacher Participant A 76
Table 4-3 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
Displayed by Nikki, Teacher Participant B 87
Table 4-4 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
Displayed by Marsha, Teacher Participant C 96
Table 4-5 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
Displayed by Shanna, Teacher Participant D 105
Table 4-6 Summary of Comparative Analysis 107

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 10

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 STEM Education Decline Funnel 18

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 11

List of Appendices
Appendix A IRB Information Sheet 148
Appendix B Interview Protocol 151
Appendix C Observation Protocol 154
Appendix D Document Analysis Protocol 156
Appendix E Recruitment Email 158

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 12

Abstract
This is a descriptive, exploratory, qualitative, collective case study that explores the
pedagogical practices of science teachers who do not hold natural science degrees. The intent of
this study is to support the creation of alternative pathways for recruiting and retaining high-
quality secondary science teachers in K-12 education. The conceptual framework is based on
Social Cognitive Theory & Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997) and Problem-Solving
& Transfer (Berg & Strough, 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013). The research questions are: What
does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without natural science
degrees are teaching? and How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees
believe their prior experiences inform their instruction? The participants were 4 science teachers
from middle and high schools in Southern California. The instruments used in this study were
interviews, observations, and document analysis. The research revealed that science teachers
without natural science degrees utilize techniques that make them high-quality teachers. The
current qualifications for science teachers should be revisited to consider utilizing self-
efficacious teachers with an interest in science and a passion for teaching students. Science
teaching competency can be measured by more than natural science degree attainment.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 13

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Academic performance and interest in secondary science in the United States has been on
the decline for decades (Elster, 2007; National Academy of Sciences, 2005). According to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data collected between 1990 and 2009,
the number of high school graduates who had taken at least one course in chemistry was at 70%,
and the number of high school graduates who had taken at least one course in physics was at
36% (Kena et al., 2015). This is indicative of the lack of science pursuit among all high school
graduates in the United States, which supports that science education is not prioritized among
high school graduates. The number of American males pursuing science careers is on a
continual decline, and interest in science declines every year that a student attends school (Elster,
2007). Furthermore, an increasingly large portion of United States science degrees, especially at
the Ph.D. level in the natural sciences, go to persons who were born abroad (Borjas, 2005;
Heylin, 2008).
Although research has not revealed the specific reasons for the decrease in the number of
university science graduates or the reason that high school students elect not to take science
courses while in college, a lack of interest in science and scientific careers appears to be a factor
(Xie & Achen, 2009). Not only does there seem to not be interest in taking science classes, there
is also the concern that students are not proficient in the math and science courses they need for
the future economy. For example, according to the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, approximately 75 % of U.S. 8
th
graders are not proficient in mathematics upon
completion of 8
th
grade (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011). Without argument, science
teaching is a complicated system between teacher and student. The teacher is often confined to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 14

topics and approaches as determined by policymakers that are far-removed from the classroom.
For example, the emphasis on standardized assessments is a considerable point of blame for the
stifled interest and motivation in and understanding of science (Settlage & Meadows, 2002;
Stiggins, 2004; Yager, 2000).
One area of interest that policymakers, school districts, science professionals, and even
Former President Obama himself, have attempted to address is the lack of quality educators in K-
12 science classrooms. As of 2013, the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM), which is
comprised of 13 agencies that support STEM efforts, including the Department of Education,
convened to create a national strategy. This 5-year strategic plan includes, at its core, the
intention to improve STEM instruction from preschool through 12
th
grade (Holdren, Marrett, &
Suresh, 2013). Five years prior to the creation of this national strategy were legislative efforts to
improve STEM education, which centered on improving K-12 STEM education by improving
the quality of K-12 STEM educators (Kuenzi, 2008).
Qualified science educators are critically important in meeting the aforementioned national
demands to improve K-12 science instruction and, ultimately, generate competitive STEM talent.
In order for our students to be prepared to compete for 21
st
century jobs that are primarily
technology-based, science-dense jobs, today’s learners need to be more adequately prepared with
science skills, and for those students who possess the initial skills needed to be proficient in
science, that talent must be recognized and developed. However, the United States,
unfortunately, is struggling to produce and retain science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) talent that will meet the demands of an ever-changing, ever-growing global economy
(Chen & Soldner, 2014; Commission, 2010; Hernandez, Schultz, Estrada, Woodcock, & Chance,
2013; Oakes, 1990).
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 15

The objective of this study was to explore the characteristics and pedagogy of science
teachers who do not have formal education in a natural science. This was an attempt to
determine to what extent these science teachers fit the description of “high-quality science
teachers” as well as make sense of why these individuals choose the path of teaching content
outside of their expertise. Additionally, this research explored the ways in which these science
teachers without natural science degrees utilized their experiences outside of natural sciences to
teach science. “Teach Like a Champion” (Lemov, 2010) was used as a descriptive framework to
create a list of characteristics of high-quality science teachers to be used for the purpose of
comparison. Each teacher’s observation and interview data was compiled, and each teacher’s
description of being “high-quality” was examined.
Background of the Problem
In May of 2011, the National Academy of Sciences convened an advisory committee
comprised of university former presidents, professors, and industry leaders in order to
extensively analyze the state of the United States’ STEM efforts, with an intentional focus on
mathematics and science (National Research Council (NRC), 2011). The report that was
published as a result of this analysis, Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, revealed imperative data
regarding the US ranking in STEM efforts as well as directives to increase this nation’s role in
STEM efforts on a global scale (NRC, 2011).
Predictions have been consistently made over more than ten years that the future economy
and workforce will primarily consist of jobs that require STEM knowledge (NRC, 2011).
However, national data reveals that approximately 75 percent of U.S. 8
th
graders lack
proficiency in mathematics upon completion of 8
th
grade (NRC, 2011). Furthermore, minorities
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 16

make up approximately 25% of the U.S. population, yet people of color tend to do worse in
STEM-related programs due to achievement gaps and poverty (NRC, 2011). The presence of
minority groups is important to serve as models to students of color in urban communities; urban
communities are where there is the highest need of science professionals (Darling-Hammond,
2000).
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) reported that, by the time U.S.
students reach their senior year of high school, they rank below their counterparts in 17 other
developed countries in mathematical and scientific literacy (Gonzales, Guzman, Partelow,
Pahlke, Jocelyn, Kastberg, & Williams, 2004). U.S. students also lag behind the highest
performing nations on international assessments: for example, only 10 percent of U.S. 8
th

graders met the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study advanced international
benchmark in science, compared with 32 percent in Singapore and 25 percent in China (NRC,
2011). International students fill an increasing portion of elite STEM positions in the United
States (NRC, 2011). After their education is completed in America, they return to their
homelands and, therefore, limit available talent in the U.S. (NRC, 2011).
The United States is considered a global leader due to its contributions in the domains of
science, technology, and engineering. In order for today’s students to become active participants
in these contributions, students today must be taught how to think like a scientist, which includes
the capacity to solve difficult problems, make sense of data, gather reliable and valid data, and
communicate this data to a wide audience. Because of inadequate science education, future
leaders are not being equipped with the skill sets that are necessary for them to become major
contributors to the STEM efforts of the United States. The goal of science education reform is to
increase science literacy for all Americans. The most vital component in attaining this goal of
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 17

increased science literacy for all is to begin by improving K-12 science education. The science
education for all students must be constructivist, student-centered, and more aligned with the
nature of science than it is in current classrooms today. During the third annual White House
Science Fair, Former President Barack Obama emphasized the importance of and value in
providing all students with an adequate STEM education:
One of the things that I’ve been focused on as President is how we create an all-hands-
on-deck approach to science, technology, engineering, and math…We need to make this
a priority to train an army of new teachers in these subject areas, and to make sure that all
of us as a country are lifting up these subjects for the respect that they deserve (Obama,
2013).
Many efforts have been put into action to support the beliefs in and support of STEM
pursuits on a national scale, including Former President Obama. During his State of the Union
Address in 2011, Former President Obama declared the need to find 100,000 new STEM
educators to fill the predictable gaps in STEM classrooms that will be caused by retiring baby-
boomer teachers (Obama, 2011). Since this State of the Union Address, a growing alliance of
more than 100 organizations began the 100Kin10 Movement, which is a movement that has
committed to strategically addressing the nation’s need for STEM teachers that will, in turn,
augment STEM learning for students (100Kin10, 2015). Obama established a clear-cut yet lofty
goal for STEM education: within the next ten years, American students must move to the top
rankings in math and science on a global scale. Therefore, the Obama Administration galvanized
many agencies to work collaboratively toward achieving this goal. One committee, known as the
Committee on STEM Education, or CoSTEM, has been working to facilitate a national strategy
that is now inclusive of preschool all the way through 12
th
grade, which will increase and retain
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 18

STEM interest and promote diversity within the STEM field (Holdren, Marrett, & Suresh, 2013).
Furthermore, the Department of Education has changed grant funding expectations to include
teaching and learning in STEM domains (U.S. DOE, 2016). Additionally, the Department of
Education is working to build stronger collaborative relationships with NASA, the National Park
Service, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services to make real-world connections
between what students are learning in the classroom and how that STEM content is applicable in
real settings (U.S. DOE, 2016).
Figure 1-1 STEM Education Decline Funnel

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 19

Former President Obama’s intentions to support STEM have not matched legislative
efforts, however. On December 10, 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed into law,
replacing the onerous No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (United States Department of
Education, 2015). The establishment of this new law did not retain Math Science Partnerships,
and it does not provide adequate resources to counteract this loss (U.S. DOE, 2015). This shift
in resources will now place a sufficient burden on states and districts to ensure that adequate
STEM education is taking place, and that the variables that impact their STEM instruction that
are under their control are ideally implemented and executed.
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, certain aspects introduced by No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) will be retained, such as states will continue to be required to maintain standards
in math and science that are aligned with entrance requirements in higher education, and science
tests will continue and must be given three times between grades 3 and 12 (Act, 2015). Some of
the new expectations that accompany this legislation include the integration of engineering and
technology into science assessments and the support for alternative means for certification of K-
12 STEM educators, increased professional development opportunities, differential pay for the
recruitment and retention of STEM teachers, an integration of career and technical education to
strength the workforce needs, the creation of STEM Specialty Schools, grants that support
STEM activities, professional development for STEM teachers in technology, and the inclusion
of STEM-classified courses as core courses (Act, 2015).
Nature of the Study
Over the past several decades, secondary science education in the United States is
considered to be in a condition of crisis by many researchers (Cuban, 1993; Goodlad, 1983), and
this stance has been shared by American government and professional scientists (Astin, 1982).
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 20

Educational and political leaders fear that this state of crisis is ultimately yielding inequities on a
national and global scale; students are not leaving secondary educational institutions ready to
thrive in post-secondary science studies. The lack of preparedness of undergraduate science
students has been associated with the mirrored lack of preparedness of their secondary science
teachers, who are often found in high-need urban school districts (Darling-Hammond, 1996), and
most urban school districts predominantly service low-income minority students. Therefore,
research suggests that the United States is engaging in inequitable practices that fail to ensure
democratic access to adequate resources, fair opportunities, and, ultimately, educational equity
due to the minimal presence of underrepresented minorities in STEM careers (Board, 2010).
From 2000 to 2010, the growth of jobs in STEM domains was three times that of non-STEM
domains, and this type of demand is expected to continually increase (Beede, Julian, Langdon,
McKittrick, Khan, & Doms, 2011). Therefore, in 2013, Former President Barack Obama created
a budget that included an investment of “$300 million to support re-design of high
schools…focusing on high-demand employment sectors such as STEM fields” (Brown, Peters,
& Nyarko, 2014, p. 275). This has led to major reform efforts in K-12 education across the
nation that impact students and teachers alike.
For students, the birth of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the results of national efforts to promote
improvement of the STEM literacy of American students by reforming the curriculum across all
academic domains (Workosky & Willard, 2015; NRC, 1996; National Science Teachers
Association, 2012). Therefore, the focus has shifted to recruiting and retaining high-quality
teachers that can meet the needs of millennial learners given how their brains have evolved
(Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007).
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 21

Statement of the Problem
The objective for this study was to explore the characteristics and pedagogy of
individuals who teach science without natural science degrees (termed non-science degrees for
the purposes of this study). This study also intends to reveal how these individuals believe they
use their non-natural science backgrounds to teach science to their students. Research has
argued that there is a need for high-quality science teachers in K-12 classrooms. Because one of
the characteristics of a high-quality teacher is, unanimously, strong content knowledge,
individuals without natural science degrees are not always considered to fit those criteria. If it
can be determined that secondary science educators that do not have formal natural science
education fit the criteria of “high-quality” science teachers, then individuals who express interest
in and demonstrate a certain level of mastery over science content and teaching could potentially
fill major voids in K-12 science classrooms.
Science education is a multifaceted discipline because it incorporates knowledge from
many other disciplines, such as mathematics, social sciences, history, and language arts. Science
integrates history because learners study the history and development of scientific knowledge,
theory, and practice over time. Learners collect data, organize and analyze that data, interpret
the meaning of the data, and use mathematics when applicable in order to make sense of data.
Additionally, science learners are taught the importance of communicating that data to a larger
audience while simultaneously balancing the social issues involved (Educational Policy
Improvement Center [EPIC], 2007). The National Science Education Standards and the
standards promoted by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and American
Chemical Society (ACS) intentionally emphasize the need for students to become scientifically
literate and to be able to use scientific information as adults (Lowery Bretz, 2008; National
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 22

Research Council [NRC], 1996; National Science Teacher Association, 2004). A scientifically
literate generation is imperative if the United States is expected to make scientifically –informed
contributions toward issues of ethical and moral nature (Osborne & Collins, 2001; Rutherford &
Ahlgren, 1990). Therefore, recruiting and retaining high-quality science teachers is of
paramount importance to meeting the demands of reformed science education. The
characteristics of a “high-quality science teacher” need to be revisited because an educator that
brings more than science content knowledge to the table can contribute to efforts to integrate
science and history, language arts, mathematics, and the social science which will, in turn,
increase scientific literacy for K-12 students.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without natural
science degrees are teaching?
2. How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees believe their prior
experiences inform their instruction?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the pedagogy of individuals who choose to
teach K-12 secondary science without natural science degrees and to gain insight into why these
individuals choose this path as well as how these individuals believe they use their experiences
outside of natural science to inform their science instruction. Science educators without natural
science backgrounds bring in valuable skills and perspectives outside of science content, which
will help meet the demands of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). For example,
one domain of the NGSS is that science students should learn more than science content but
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 23

should also learn crosscutting concepts. Crosscutting concepts are considered valuable because
they equip students with an intellectual arsenal that are related across disciplines, and these
crosscutting concepts can enrich students’ application of science and engineering practices as
well as enrich their understanding of core ideas across the sciences (National Research Council,
2012).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
There are several assumptions that have been made regarding this study. First, the
respondents will provide honest expressions of their knowledge of science. Secondly, the
participants will behave as they normally would in the setting being observed. The respondents
will fully understand the questions they will be asked.
Limitations of the study include the lack of any studies done with this intention in the
past. Delimitations include a small sample size and the potential bias of myself as the researcher
due to my interests in and experience with STEM education initiatives. The study is also
delimited by the viewing the data through the lens described in the conceptual framework.
Therefore, the limitations and delimitations of this study prevent generalizability to all science
teachers without natural science degrees.
Operational Definitions
There are several terms frequently utilized throughout this study that require a consistent
definition due to either the recurrent use of acronyms or the lack of a consistent definition among
available research. The following definitions will be used for terms relevant to this study:
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Developed by the Council of Chief State School
Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices that identify the
knowledge and skills students need to be prepared for college and careers after high school. The
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 24

CCSS include standards in English-language arts, math, and literacy in science, history/social
studies, and technical subjects for grades Kindergarten through twelve (Content Standards,
2010).
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): Based on the National Research Council’s
Framework for K-12 Science Education, the Next Generation Science Standards identify what
K-12 students should know and be able to do in science at each grade level (NSTA, 2012).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Shulman (1986) defines PCK as ‘‘the most
powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the
ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible for others’’ (p.
9).
STEM: STEM is an acronym that was developed by the National Science Foundation in
the late 1990s. The acronym stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. “STEM” is
a term that is commonly utilized in conjunction with educational policy and has been coined for
use with the intention to improve the competitiveness of students in schools in the domains of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
Teacher Quality: Teacher quality is a measure of a teacher’s ability to effectively deliver
curriculum and support student learning (Strong, 2011).
Summary and Organization of the Study
Chapter One has presented the introduction, statement of the problem, research questions,
significance of the study, definition of terms, and limitations of the study. Chapter Two contains
the review of related literature and research related to the Next Generation Science Standards,
scientific literacy, the definition of high-quality science teachers, and science teacher
recruitment, retention, and attrition. The methodology and procedures used to gather data for the
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 25

study are presented in Chapter Three. The results of analyses and findings to emerge from the
study are contained in Chapter Four. Chapter Five contains a summary of the study and findings,
conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and recommendations for further study.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 26

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
STEM education is considered to be in a condition of crisis, and one of the variables that are
contributing to this crisis is the lack of highly qualified secondary science educators. However,
there may be an untapped pool of secondary educators that have degrees outside of natural
science but are capable of providing a high-quality science education to students. In this chapter,
the literature review will reveal major published sources that were researched regarding the
topics of the Next Generation Science Standards and scientific literacy, the definition of high-
quality science teachers, and science teacher recruitment, retention, and attrition. The literature
review is grounded in the theories of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977;
Bandura, 1997) as well as problem-solving and transfer (Berg & Strough, 2011; van
Merrienboer, 2013).
By consulting the scholarly literature, Chapter Two will build upon literature that addresses
the need for the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and
emphasizes the role of scientific literacy as a result of NGSS. Research on the characteristics of
high-quality teachers is reviewed, revealing similarities between the expectations of a good
teacher and those of a good science teacher. Additionally, research on the significance of non-
natural science experiences in teaching and learning science is examined, which supports the
notion that non-natural science experiences do not hinder one’s ability to effectively teach
science but actually aid in science instruction in a variety of ways. Lastly, this literature review
will conclude with implications for future understanding.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 27

The Next Generation Science Standards and Scientific Literacy
In 2007, a Carnegie Foundation New York commission of distinguished researchers as
well as leaders from the public and private sector concluded that “the nation’s capacity to
innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the modern
workforce depend on a broad foundation of math and science learning, as do our hopes for
preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility that lie at the heart of the
American dream. However, the U.S. system of science and mathematics education is performing
far below par and, if left unattended, will leave millions of young Americans unprepared to
succeed in a global economy” (National Research Council [NRC], 2012, p. 1).
We now live in a world that faces plights such as pandemics and energy shortages, and
solutions to such predicaments will require scientific and technological intellect (Kutner,
Greenburg, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006). Furthermore, Americans make decisions, which include their
healthcare and retirement planning, which require literacy in mathematics and sciences (Kutner
et al., 2006). In the grand scheme of things, many of the jobs that today’s students will have do
not even exist yet, and these jobs will be created to solve problems that have yet to emerge.
These data begs the question of what will we do to prepare our students for their anticipated
future?
The NGSS (2017) website asserts that the standards are for states and by states with the
goal of being relevant for today’s students and tomorrow’s workforce. The new K-12 science
standards are based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education, developed in 2011 by the
National Research Council (NGSS, 2015). In April of 2013, the NGSS were completed by a
team that consisted of members from the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA),
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), K-12 teachers, leading
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 28

scientists and engineers, higher education faculty, cognitive scientists, and business leaders
(Pruitt, 2014). Through a process of collaboration, these professionals developed a set of new K-
12 science standards that consist of three dimensions which, when implemented in curriculum,
promote scientific literacy (Ames, 2014). The three dimensions of the NGSS are: disciplinary
core ideas (DCIs), crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices (SEPs).
The disciplinary core ideas identified by NGSS research teams were selected based on
four criteria: have broad importance across multiple science and engineering disciplines, provide
a key tool for solving problems and understanding more complex ideas, be relevant and relatable
to societal and personal concerns of students that require scientific or technical knowledge, and
be teachable and learnable over multiple years of education with increasing depth and
complexity (Ames, 2014). Disciplinary core ideas include life science topics such as biological
evolution, physical science topics such as matter and its interactions, earth and space science
topics such as Earth’s place in the universe, and engineering and technology topics such as
engineering design (NRC, 2013). The crosscutting concepts include patterns, cause and effect:
mechanism and explanation, scale, proportion, and quantity, systems and system models, energy
and matter: flows, cycles, and conservation, structure and function, and stability and change
(NRC, 2013). The science and engineering practices consist of: asking questions and defining
problems, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and
interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, developing explanations and
designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and
communicating information (NRC, 2013). These three dimensions of learning science promote
scientific literacy.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 29

Scientific literacy can be defined as “a desired familiarity with science on the part of the
general public” (DeBoer, 2000). A fundamental goal of science education as well as science
education reform efforts is to support students to become scientifically literate citizens who can
make positive contributions to society because they have high levels of science awareness that
makes them capable of making informed decisions (DeBoer, 2000). However, equipping
students with this ability to obtain and utilize science knowledge has continued to be a challenge
in science education. Scientific literacy, at its core, promotes the idea of knowledge in use.
Knowledge in use signifies that “Students’ knowledge is not static, and proficiency involves
deploying knowledge and skills” (NRC, 2007, p. 38). Therefore, science literacy promotes
critical thinking skills, which is a goal of the successful implementation of the NGSS.
Critical thinking skills embody the purpose and function of the NGSS as well as scientific
literacy. Characteristics of critical thinkers include individuals who: are active, not passive
learners, are honest with themselves, resist manipulation, overcome confusion, ask questions,
solve problems well, question assumptions, are persistent, discover truths, clearly communicate,
base judgments on evidence, make connections between subjects, and are intellectually
independent (Fisher, 2011). Because the only way to teach critical thinking is to have students
engage in critical thinking, the implementation of NGSS in K-12 science classrooms will support
the development of critical thinking skills, thus preparing students for the expectations of their
future, thereby promoting scientific literacy. However, in order to accomplish the goal of
successful NGSS implementation, the efforts of NGSS must be matched with the efforts of a
high-quality science teacher. Because the definition of a high-quality science teacher can vary
from source to source, contextualizing what is meant by “high-quality science teacher” will be of
great value in order to hone in on the intention of the study.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 30

Defining High-Quality Science Teachers
The National Science Board (NSB) 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators report
characterizes science/STEM teacher quality in two ways. The first includes “educational
attainment, professional certification, participation in practice teaching, self-assessment of
preparation, and years of experience” (NSB, 2014, p. 1-22). The second characterization
includes teachers’ “abilities to motivate students, manage the classroom, maximize instruction
time, and diagnose and overcome students’ learning difficulties” (NSB, 2014, p. 1-22). These
two characterizations of a quality STEM teacher is complex because the two domains provided
by NSB are loaded with expectations emphasizing that the definition of a high-quality science
teacher is varied and complex across the literature. However, there are several characteristics
that remain consistent across the literature. The literature characterizes a high-quality science
teacher as having pedagogical content knowledge (Chowdhary, Liu, Yerrick, Grant, Nargund-
Joshi, & Smith, 2013; Dawkins, Dickerson, McKinney, & Butler, 2008; Mullock, 2003;
Shulman, 1986, 1987), creating a stimulating classroom environment (Ames, 1992; Baylor &
Ritchie, 2002; Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Carlsen, 1987; Stronge , Ward, & Grant, 2011),
providing opportunities for interactive learning (Davidson, 2011; Dibapile, 2012; Gillies, 2006;
Gonzalez & DeJarnette, 2015), and providing integrated instruction that promotes transfer
(Ames, 1992; Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). By focusing on these four domains, the literature
presents a developing relationship between the characteristics of high-quality science educators
and student variables such as achievement, interest, self-efficacy, and persistence in STEM
pursuits.
Content Knowledge. The idea of content knowledge (CK) is used in many different
contexts. Loosely defined, content knowledge is the facts, theories, ideas, methods, and ability
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 31

to use the tools within a specific domain (Loewenberg Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Teachers
who possess content knowledge can enter the classroom and focus on pedagogy more than
content because these two domains are separate (Cochran, 1991). As teachers gain experience in
teaching they develop knowledge of student misconceptions, curriculum guidelines and
expectations, and the types of materials that are available and fruitful for teaching a topic in a
lesson. Experienced teachers, in contrast to novice teachers, are more capable of providing
examples of or making connections between real-world scenarios and the content of the lesson
being taught (Brown & Borko, 1992). The content knowledge of the teachers and their
experience teaching, or their pedagogical content knowledge, reduced their cognitive load when
placed in situations in which students may not have clearly understood the information in the
way it was initialed presented by the instructor (Brown & Borko, 1992). Content knowledge is
not to be confused with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), a term coined by Lee Shulman
(1986), which emphasizes the merger of content knowledge with pedagogical knowledge in
order to attain effective teaching. Yet, research supports the notion that effective pedagogical
content knowledge cannot exist in the absence of sufficient content knowledge. In other words,
without strong CK, strong PCK is unlikely to be acquired (Kaya, 2009; Van Driel, De Jong, &
Verloop, 2002) because it is only in the knowledge of the content that instructors can design
appropriate learning opportunities for students.
In a study which explored the role of teachers’ mathematical knowledge on student
achievement, Hill, Rowan, and Loewenberg Ball (2005) tracked student achievement of first and
third graders over the course of a year. Using a linear mixed model to approximate the influence
of teacher content knowledge on student achievement, the researchers concluded that the content
knowledge of the mathematics teachers was significantly related to the performance and
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 32

achievement of the learners. Through the lens of cognitive load theory, the complexities of
teaching can easily overwhelm and inundate a novice teacher (Feldon, 2007). Thus, if a novice
teacher enters the teaching profession with strong content knowledge, then they can focus on
developing pedagogical knowledge, and they can reduce their cognitive load by engaging in
automated processes more frequently than deliberate processes. Content knowledge is a
significant variable for an educator to develop pedagogical content knowledge; however, are
grades and test scores the only measures of sufficient content knowledge?
Studies that have used teachers’ scores on tests that assess professional knowledge show
mixed results. Additionally, research that attempts to demonstrate a correlation between a
teacher’s undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and that teacher’s effectiveness provide
positive and negative associations as well. In a study of teachers who had graduated from
teacher education programs at Georgia State University, Guyton and Farokhi (1987) studied
approximately 700 graduates to assess to what extent their academic performance and content
knowledge was related to their teaching performance. Each participant had scores available for
their basic skills as well as for subject matter knowledge. Additionally, each participant’s GPA
was used as a measure of academic performance, and a teacher performance assessment
instrument was used to assess teaching performance. Guyton and Farokhi analyzed the
participants’ data, and found no statistically significant correlation as a result.
Some studies that provide statistically significant data regarding the correlation between
teacher ability and teacher effectiveness, as measured by student achievement are studies that
address teachers’ verbal skills (Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, 1992). However, more contemporary
data analyses suggest that there are no statistically significant correlations between the verbal
scores of educators and teacher effectiveness (Andrew, Cobb, & Giampietro, 2005).
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 33

In a study that used student test performance data to address what teacher certification
says about teacher performance, Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006) analyze the relationship
between undergraduate GPA and teacher productivity in elementary and middle school. The
researchers use student data gathered over six years, and the data is analyzed using regression
analysis. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference between teachers
who are certified, uncertified, and alternatively certified.
In a study of the impact of teachers’ academic skills on student’ academic achievement,
researchers Metzler and Woessmann (2010) select a primary school in Peru, and data for test
scores from the Peruvian national evaluation of student achievement in two academic subjects is
collected for each student and each teacher. The data analysis revealed a statistically significant
association between student test scores on this assessment and their teacher’s test scores on the
same assessment. In short, student achievement was positively associated with teacher
achievement in that subject area (Metzler and Woessmann, 2010).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Novice science teachers tend to have inaccurate,
simplified views of teaching and learning (Geddis, 1993). Such simplistic views of teaching and
learning lead to traditional, didactic forms of instruction, which research supports is not the most
effective form of instruction in urban education. Shulman (1986) first coined the term
pedagogical content knowledge to describe the need for science teachers to not only know and
understand the knowledge of their discipline, but to also understand how to apply that knowledge
to meet the needs of learners (Van Driel & Berry, 2010). PCK has come to be known as a
separate domain in relation to a teacher’s knowledge base due to its complexities and relative
components (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Furthermore, research has argued that
preservice science teachers do not enter the teaching profession with much PCK, if any at all,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 34

due to the prerequisite for PCK being teaching experience (Magnusson et al., 1999; Van Driel et
al., 1998).
Stimulating Classroom Environment. One pedagogical method that can contribute to a
greater feeling of autonomy within students is the adoption of a learner-centered teaching
framework. When using learner-centered instructional practices, teachers not only take into
account each student’s current cultural, social and developmental progress, they also foster an
environment where students are active participants in the learning process and are seen as co-
creators of knowledge. Meece, Herman and McCombs (2003) studied approximately 150 middle
school and high school classrooms, where the teachers received professional development
training in implementing a learner-centered model. After implementation, their students were
surveyed about the learning environment, along with questions about their performance
orientation and self-efficacy, among other factors in the learning environment. In this study,
they found that those students who perceive their teachers as using learner-centered practices
also reported a higher mastery orientation, which was also found to have a positive effect on self-
efficacy.
An additional instructional aspect that has been shown to provide benefits to students is
when instructors set clear expectations for the classroom. In one study, Skinner and Belmont
(1993) found that children’s engagement in learning activities is a direct result of both their
perception of teachers as well as the actions of those teachers. They also found that children’s
behavior engagement is primarily driven by how they perceive the way that teachers structure
classroom activities. Consequently, when children experience teachers that provide clear
expectations, they are more prone to show greater effort and persistence.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 35

Along with her findings regarding the importance of students having an internal locus of
control, Au (2015) also notes the value of setting clear expectations as a part of the process for
targeting outcome control. She asserts that “teachers should provide clear guidelines for learning
goals as ambiguity in teacher expectations undermines the sense of outcome control” (Au, 2015,
p. 439). As the fostering of outcome control is an essential link between students having an
internal locus of control and academic achievement, the establishment and communication of
classroom objectives to students becomes a critical step in this process. Research by Carroll and
O’Donnell (2010) further supports this claim. In a study of over 25,000 student course
evaluations, they examined factors that contribute to student effort and positive course outcomes.
One of their primary findings was a positive association between the clarity of communication
from the professor regarding the requirements of the course and how the students perceived their
learning in that course. Specifically, they found that when faculty used class time effectively to
explain the main requirements and other key points of the course, student learning outcomes
were positively affected. This example from higher education can be applied to K-12 education
because research supports that K-12 learners are also positively impacted by their classroom
settings (Ames, 1992).
There are also reports from professors themselves who identified the setting of
expectations and goals as a critical aspect of effective teaching. In their 2013 study, Lumpkin
and Multon surveyed 100 Teaching Fellows at a Midwestern university (where “Teaching
Fellows” was the name given to those instructors singled out as being the best instructors at the
school). In asking what these instructors felt were their most powerful teaching techniques, they
mentioned “setting clear expectations and goals” (p. 295) as one of their top methods.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 36

Classroom Knowledge. A high-quality science teacher’s classroom knowledge focuses
on the physical, mental, and emotional demands of the classroom that may augment or impede
effective instruction and learning. Classroom knowledge varies slightly from professional
knowledge because it is a more specific domain; classroom knowledge refers to things such as
classroom organization, accessibility of content, physical space, and cooperative grouping
structures (Ames, 1992). Researchers Brickhouse and Bodner (1992) conducted a case study of
a middle school science teacher in which they identified the beliefs of the science teacher about
science and how those beliefs may have potentially influenced their instruction. Over a seven-
month period, a life science class was observed, and interviews were conducted. The researchers
concluded that this teacher struggled to provide structure to his science content due to his
prioritized focus on making the content relevant and accessible to students by teaching students
content in a less direct fashion than the institution would prefer. Due to the complex nature of
teaching science, high-quality teachers have to often make difficult decisions regarding what
protocol takes precedence in their classroom in order to most effectively educate their students
and simultaneously meet the demands of their professional expectations.
Opportunities for Interactive Learning. High-quality teachers provide opportunities
for their learners to engage in and direct their own learning. In a study of team-based learning
(TBL) in an undergraduate medical course, Davidson (2011) asked three sequential cohorts of
learners how they valued the various instructional methods implemented within the course.
Students were given a course evaluation at the end of the course. This course evaluation data
was then analyzed using a t-test, and the results were that each cohort of 100 participants
revealed that they welcomed new pedagogical practices and found more value in these practices
than in the traditional didactic lecture format. In a study of the role of scaffolded group work in
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 37

a geometry class, researchers Gonzalez and DeJarnette (2015) gathered data from the same
lesson taught to six different high school classes. Using systemic functional linguistics in order
to analyze the behaviors and language of the learners before, during, and after scaffolding of the
lesson occurred while students were engaged in group work, the research concluded that by
giving the students the opportunity to have agency and control over the timeliness of the
scaffolds, learners persevered more to solve the problem due to the increased self-efficacy that
the timely scaffolds provided.
Some of the mentioned studies are not directly from science classrooms or the K-12
setting. However, because STEM education is often viewed as a pipeline from preschool
through postsecondary educational pursuits, it is relevant to include studies regarding observed
behaviors in STEM classes outside of the realm of K-12 education. Additionally, a learner’s
lack of skill sets in one academic discipline will impact that student’s academic success in other
disciplines, which adds relevance to examples from K-12 mathematics, economics, and non-
natural science classrooms.
Integrated Instruction. High-quality teachers provide integrated instruction to meet the
needs of their diverse learners, which, in turn, increases student motivation. Integrated
instruction is defined as curriculum that is interdisciplinary and unifies a broad range of concepts
(Vars, 1991). Integrated instruction can be the fruit of one’s “emotional ecology” (Zembylas,
2007), which is the demonstration of a symbiotic relationship among the aforementioned
variables that high-quality teachers possess. Integrated instruction allows students to build
meaningful relationships between their prior knowledge and experiences, other course work, and
their future aspirations (Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000). When students are exposed to
the same theories, concepts, and facts across the curriculum, students are exposed to the content
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 38

multiple times, and the repetition of the content can lead to long-term memory storage.
Ultimately, integrated instruction promotes retention and engagement, which can yield high
levels of mastery of content. Additionally, when learners perceive that the tasks in which they
are engaged are meaningful, students will put forth effort and be motivated to learn (Ames,
1992).
Mullock (2003) engaged in interviews and surveys with 42 postgraduate Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) students who had earned their Masters or
Graduate Diploma among three universities in Sydney, Australia. In this study, Mullock asked
her participants to describe the qualities of the best teacher they had in the program or otherwise.
The interviews were transcribed, and the interviews and surveys were coded for categorization.
Mullock found that the most common characteristic of a good teacher according to the
participants was a teacher that understood their students’ strengths, weaknesses, and needs, and
that teacher was able to adapt. A teacher that is capable of integrating instruction can employ a
variety of pedagogical practices to support the needs of the students being served, which makes
the teaching, and learning, more effective.
Collaborative Learning Environment. A high-quality teacher is one who collaborates
with colleagues to support student learning. A community of teachers with substantial
background knowledge in their discipline significantly impact student achievement in one
discipline. In a quantitative study among 12 high school teachers in Nebraska enrolled in
economics courses, the study intended to compare the performance of students on an economics
assessment after their four years at one high school after their social science teachers enrolled in
varying hours of economics courses (Allgood & Walstad, 1999). The teachers who taught
history and business courses were required to take at least three semester hours of economics
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 39

courses, and the teachers who directly taught economics were required to take at least six
semester hours of economics courses over the course of three summers. The study showed a
22% improvement in students’ understanding of economics after their 4-year high school career
based on the more intensive instruction that their teachers received (Allgood & Walstad, 1999).
This study reflects the pervasive impact that adequate content knowledge in one discipline can
have on a learner in that one domain. These findings give way to this study being replicated in
the sciences. If teachers of biological and physical science are all trained in a specialized
science, and they diffuse that content throughout their curriculum, the retention of such content
can be increased significantly.
Positive Attitude. Highly effective teachers demonstrate positive attitudes toward their
learners. This positive attitude includes setting and reinforcing high expectations of students,
demonstrating fair practices among all students, putting forth evident efforts in teaching the
content, and showing students respect and compassion.
Researchers Lee and Loeb (2000) conducted study of teacher’s attitudes about their
responsibility for student learning. Data from mathematics achievement scores was collected
from approximately 5,000 teachers and 23,000 sixth through eighth grade students from schools
within Chicago of varying sizes. Participants were also asked to complete surveys as well. The
research concluded that schools with either collective accountability or teachers with personal
accountability saw greater gains on the standardized math test over the course of one year (Lee &
Loeb, 2000). Researchers Peterson and Schreiber (2006) conducted research on attribution
theory. Attribution theory states that individuals make conscious decisions (Weiner, 1992), and
those decisions are often the result of their desire to know and master their surrounding
environment (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2014). A facet of the research from Peterson and
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 40

Schreiber concluded that previous experiences influence the outcome that learners predict on
future similar tasks (Peterson & Schreiber, 2006). Therefore, if a student has a negative
interaction with a teacher because this teacher does not hold him or herself accountable for that
student’s academic achievement in their class, then that student will make a negative association
between that subject matter and him or herself based on that negative experience with that
teacher. Such data is supported by researchers Tuckman and Monetti (2011), who agree with
Peterson and Schreiber (2006) in that an individual’s emotions are impacted by the stability that
comes from how certain expectations are presented and perceived, and these emotions are
directly connected to how this individual expects to perform in the future.
Teacher Quality and Student Learning
Research supports that one of the most integral variables that affects student learning and,
ultimately, student achievement, is teacher quality. Adamson and Darling-Hammond (2012)
found that students’ growth in achievement was substantially higher “if they were taught by a
teacher who was certified in his or her teaching field…had higher scores on the teacher licensing
test, graduated from a competitive college…or was National Board Certified” (p. 6). Many
studies suggest that high-quality teachers impact student achievement so significantly that high
quality-teachers have the potential to help close the achievement gap (Center for Public
Education, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Teachers who are considered to be “highly-qualified” consistently experience higher
student achievement results (Richardson, 2008). Richardson (2008) conducted a causal-
comparative study with twenty full-time mathematics teachers in which the study examined the
effects of teacher qualifications on middle school mathematics academic performance by
predicting that mathematics teacher qualifications considerably impacted middle school students
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 41

mathematics performance on the Alabama Reading and Math Test (ARMT). The teacher
qualifications measured included (1) the number of mathematics semester units completed, (2)
type of teacher certification, (3) the total number of years teaching mathematics, and (4) the total
number of years teaching middle school mathematics. Richardson (2008) utilized a Teacher
Background Survey and analyzed the data using a t-test. The results were matched to student
achievement data from the 2007 ARMT math section. The results showed that students with
mathematics teachers with five or more years teaching experience performed better on the
ARMT (Richardson, 2008). In addition, the teacher with traditional secondary mathematics
certification had students who tended to score higher on the ARMT than did students with
teachers with alternative certification (Richardson, 2008).
An important variable related to teacher quality is how a teacher’s college major or minor
impacts student achievement (Richardson, 2008). A teacher’s type of academic degree is often
a measured used to determine teacher content knowledge, which is a strong predictor in relation
to student performance (Richardson, 2008: Skandera & Sousa, 2007). Legislation, such as
NCLB, has pushed for advanced degrees for teachers (Act, 2015; Seed, 2008), and although
there has been an increase in the number of teachers who hold these advanced degrees, teachers
may not hold a degree in the subject in which they teach (Richardson, 2008; Skandera & Sousa,
2003). Furthermore, it is less likely for a teacher to hold an advanced degree in more technical
subjects (Richardson, 2008; Skandera & Sousa, 2003).
Hawkins, Stancavage, and Dossey (1998) investigated the effects of teacher experience
on student achievement in middle school math. Their research found that the more knowledge
that the teachers reported having of the National Council on Teaching and Mathematics
curriculum and evaluation standards and the students who had teachers with five or more years
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 42

of experience teaching math, the higher their students performed on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment. Hawkins et al. (1998) revealed that 83%
of 4th grade mathematics teachers had college majors in education versus in mathematics or
mathematics education, whereas over 50% of 8th grade mathematics teachers had majors in
mathematics or mathematics education. This shows that secondary STEM education utilizes
college degree type to be a measure of teacher quality.
In a post-hoc study of a survey of the nation’s elementary and secondary teachers,
Ingersoll (1999) collected data to answer the question of why so much out-of-field teaching
occurs in the United States. The study obtained data on the academic majors and minors for 7th-
12th grade public school teachers and revealed that 25% of all English teachers did not have a
major or minor in English nor in associated domains such as literature, communications, speech,
journalism, English education, or reading education, 33% of all life science teachers did not have
a major in biology or an associated life science, more than 56% of all physical science teachers
did not have a major or minor in physics, chemistry, geology, or earth science, and more than
50% of all history teachers did not have a major or minor in history. This study offers that out-
of-field teachers have been classified as under-qualified to teach STEM subjects based on their
lack of a degree that correlates with the subject matter they teach. There is much disagreement
surrounding teacher characteristics that classify them as “high-quality” (Richardson, 2008).
Research generally supports that high-quality teachers have a strong knowledge base; however,
questions exist regarding how that knowledge base translates into effective teaching (Richardson,
2008; Skandera & Sousa, 2003).
In 1997, the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) launched Making Middle
Grades Work (MMGW), which was a high-priority effort to improve education in the middle
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 43

school grades (Cooney & Bottoms, 1998). The MMGW effort focused on raising student
achievement in both reading and math in middle grades in the southern region of the United
States (Cooney & Bottoms, 1998). The groups in the study included both rural and urban
schools with populations ranging from 100 students to 1,300 students, school sites with minority
populations ranging from 0% to 90%, and students eligible for free and reduced lunch ranging
from 14% to 88% (Cooney & Bottoms, 1998). Using data collected over three years, the study
showed that the most-improved schools had teachers who possessed a major in the subject they
taught (Cooney & Bottoms, 1998). In an analysis of National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) data, a positive relationship between student performance and teachers’
undergraduate mathematics coursework was found (Monk, 1994). Additionally, a study by
Darling-Hammond (1998) revealed that a teacher who did not have, at least, a minor in the
subject being taught contributed to approximately 20% of variation found in NAEP scores.
Lastly, Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) established that 12th grade students who had teachers who
earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics outperformed their peers who had teachers who
earned degrees in other fields.
There is a substantial inventory of research that supports that teacher quality has an
impact on student achievement; however, most of this research equates teacher quality to
certification, type of degree attained, and number of years teaching. One area lacking in the
research is the characteristics of teacher pedagogy and its role in student achievement. Another
area lacking in the research is the correlation between teacher quality and student achievement in
secondary science.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 44

“Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
The field of teacher education is undergoing a major shift, moving away from what
knowledge teachers should have to teach, and moving toward what teaching practices teachers
should adopt that put their knowledge into practice (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013).
Research supports that when educators implement core practices that are grounded in “ambitious
teaching” and teacher education pedagogy, teachers’ inculcation about teaching can be better
facilitated while these teachers are immersed in the practice of teaching which is, simply put,
complex (McDonald et al, 2013). Lemov’s (2010) “Teach Like a Champion” techniques will be
utilized to provide a basis for comparison.
Lemov offers that great teaching can be learned, and that after hours of observations of
successful teachers, he created a framework of techniques across nine domains of classroom
instruction that, when consistently utilized, can improve student achievement and success in the
classrooms. The first domain challenges teachers to set high academic expectations by creating a
common language among students so that the phrase “high expectations” does not become lost in
translation. The second domain suggests that teachers must plan their lessons in a way that
promotes academic achievement; Lemov places emphasis on planning what the students should
be able to do at the end of a lesson versus what students should do during a lesson. The third
domain, structuring and delivering lessons, promote a deliberate progression within a lesson
where the responsibility, or load, of the work is gradually transferred from the teacher to the
student. The fourth domain calls teachers to engage students in lessons so that students are
active, not passive learners in the classroom. When used in tandem with the structure and
delivery of lessons, student engagement in lessons leads to opportunities for more meaningful,
in-depth, cognitively-demanding tasks.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 45

The fifth domain focuses teachers on implementing and refining a strong classroom
culture so that the expectation is that their classroom is the place where students come to work
hard, behave well, model strong character, and put forth their greatest effort. Domain six
encourages teachers to set high behavioral expectations in addition to the established high
academic expectations because high academic achievement cannot be accomplished in the
absence of 100% compliance. Domain seven shifts the focus on to the high behavioral
expectations that teachers must place on themselves in order to build trust between the teacher
and the students they serve as well as to establish good character among the students. Domain
eight covers the importance of pacing lessons and highlights that the adolescent brain needs to
experience a reset frequently, therefore, the format lesson activities must be paced in a way to
where learners feel as if they are making progress in their learning. Domain nine emphasizes the
importance of implementing questioning strategies that, as mentioned in domain three, support
the transition of the cognitive load from teacher on to students. Lemov asserts that any of the
techniques from any given domain do not work isolation, but yield the most effective results
when used symbiotically.
Table 3-1 High-quality Teachers, High-Quality Science Teachers, and “Teach Like a Champion”
Techniques
High-Quality Science Teachers (WHAT
THEY DO)
“Teach Like a Champion” Techniques
(HOW THEY DO IT)
 Strong Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(PCK)
 Planning that Ensures Academic
Achievement
o Begin with the End
o 4 Ms
o Post It
o Shortest Path
o Double Plan
o Draw the Map
 Stimulating Classroom Environment  Set High Academic Expectations
o No Opt Out
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 46

o Right is Right
o Stretch It
o Format Matters
o Without Apology
 Improving Pacing
o Change the Pace
o Brighten Lines
o All Hands
o Every Minute Matters
o Look Forward
o Work the Clock
 Opportunities for Interactive Learning  Structure and Delivery of Lessons
o The Hook
o Name the Steps
o Board = Paper
o Circulate
o Break It Down
o Ratio
o Check for Understanding
o At Bats
o Exit Ticket
o Take a Stand
 Student Engagement
o Cold Call
o Call and Response
o Pepper
o Wait Time
o Everybody Writes
o Vegas
 Integrated Instruction  Challenge Students to Think Critically
o One at a Time
o Simple to Complex
o Verbatim
o Clear and Concise
o Stock Questions
o Hit Rate
 Collaborative Learning Environments  Creating a Strong Classroom Culture
o Entry Routine
o Do Now
o Tight Transitions
o Binder Control
o SLANT
o On Your Mark
o Seat Signals
o Props
 Positive Attitude  Set and Maintain High Behavioral
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 47

Expectations
o 100%
o What to Do
o Strong Voice
o Do It Again
o Sweat the Details
o Threshold
o No Warnings
 Building Character and Trust
o Positive Framing
o Precise Praise
o Warm/Strict
o The J-Factor
o Emotional Constancy
o Explain Everything
o Normalize Error

Conceptual Framework
Teacher self-efficacy is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1977). Bandura
(1997) defines self-efficacy as one’s confidence in their ability to perform a specific task. Self-
efficacy is one’s beliefs about their competence rather than one’s actual competence (Hoy &
Spero, 2005). Drawing on theories of self-efficacy, researchers have extended these theories to
be applicable to teachers. A teacher’s beliefs in their abilities ultimately influence how much
effort the teacher employs in pursuing their teaching objectives as well as the extent to which
they will persist in the face of adversity (Bandura, 1997; Milner, 2002; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Given that teacher self-efficacy plays such a vital role in teachers’
actions, it is meaningful to evaluate the factors that relate to teacher self-efficacy in the literature
review.
The planning, implementation, and execution of any subject are quite complex and very
cognitive demanding; therefore, teachers must apply knowledge and skills from a variety of
domains (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989). It is immensely beneficial when teachers with
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 48

varying backgrounds enter science classrooms because they are well-equipped with a variety of
skill sets that support the complexities of designing effective instruction.
Research supports that one manner in which individuals acquire problem-solving skills is
through their personal experiences. One acquires certain skills as a result of constantly working
to solve the problems they face in their daily environments (Berg & Strough, 2011). Problem-
solving has a variety of definitions which range from more exact methods to methods with less
structure that can yield more than one “right” answer (Berg et al., 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013).
Therefore, one’s life experiences present opportunities for learners to apply the problem-solving
strategies they have learned in one context to a novel context, which is known as transfer.
The abilities of large numbers of potential future STEM innovators currently go
unrecognized and are underdeveloped. Spatially-talented students may not fit the classic model
of what parents, the public, and even educators think of as “gifted.” Rather than excelling in a
typical classroom, these individuals might actively engage in vocational or career training classes
or in projects outside of school where they can perform hands-on activities in three dimensions.
These students may gravitate to engineering classes if offered early in the curriculum.
Individuals with spatial abilities are routinely overlooked because these abilities are “rarely
measured and, if they are, the results often are not given the proper attention” (National Science
Foundation, 2010, p. 19)
Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) conducted a study utilizing two longitudinal
databases in order to observe the effects of students’ experiences with ethnic and racial diversity
on that student’s overall experience at the university level. Their research concluded that the
informal, quality opportunities for interactions among diverse populations are extremely
beneficial to the students and positively impact their overall experience during their academic
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 49

career (Gurin et al., 2002). Researchers Chemers, Zurbriggen, Syed, Goza, and Bearman (2011)
provide research that agrees with Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin, and the researchers place
emphasis on the effects of science support programs on the overall success of STEM
participants. Studies have shown that minority students who participate in community-centered
activities such as mentorship opportunities, peer interest communities, and research experiences
have significantly greater academic gains, and their retention rates in STEM are higher than
those who are nonparticipants.
STEM education is rooted in inquiry-based instruction. Scientific inquiry is a subset of
general inquiry (Welch, et al., 1981). In the discipline of science, one way to think about inquiry
is that it involves the steps by which scientists know and explain the natural world (Bybee,
2006), or what scientists do. The National Science Education Standards refer to inquiry as “the
diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on
evidence derived from their work (National Research Council (NRC), 1996, p. 23).” Scientific
inquiry is a way of exploring the natural world, which is guided with the learner’s previous
understanding, their assumptions or personal beliefs. In learning settings, regardless of whether
these are formal, informal, or non-formal, this learning method helps novice learners to pull apart
scientists “thinking processes” into a concrete “experience” and transfer this skill, and the
learning that can follow. Minner, Levy, and Century (2010) suggested three categories of
scientific inquiry activities – 1) learning to do what scientists do, 2) learning to think like
scientists, and 3) identifying the methods that instructors/facilitators use to provoke inquiry.
The theory of inquiry-based instruction has positive implications for developing young minds
to be more scientific in their approaches to solve problems. As DeBoer (2004) explained,
"Inquiry teaching mirrors scientific inquiry by emphasizing student questioning, investigation,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 50

and problem-solving. Just as scientists conduct their inquiries and investigations in the
laboratory, at field sites, in the library, and in discussion with colleagues, students engage in
similar activities in inquiry-based classrooms" (p. 17). Unfortunately, in practice, scientific
inquiry is another name for minimally-guided instruction, which, researchers argue, is quite
ineffective for novices to learn how to do as well as learn how to teach.
Instruction with minimal assistance for the sake of “discovery” is unprofitable to a novice
learner (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).
Alferi et al. (2011) conducted two meta analyses which concluded that learning is stymied in the
absence of appropriate scaffolds. Appropriate scaffolds mirror Wittrock’s generative process, in
which meaningful learning occurs when learners are provided with learning approaches that are
appropriate to their cognitive demands when processing new information (Mayer, 2011).
Researchers Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) agree with the significance of appropriate
cognitive procedures that fit within the abilities of human cognition, concluding that, “any
instructional procedure that ignores the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture is
not likely to be effective” (p. 76). The successful application of minimally-guided instruction
depends upon teachers' knowledge, not only of the scientific content they are teaching, but also
of the kinds of pedagogical moves that are likely to engage students in successful inquiry
experiences (Cohen, 1989; Shulman, 1987) and that will provide opportunities for students to
attain desired scientific literacy skills.
Being a scientist and being a science teacher are two distinct roles. Science teachers are
taught to be collaborative, and such practices are encouraged within science classrooms.
However, research supports the notion that STEM fields are very isolated and competitive,
which can be a major turn off to those engaged in STEM pursuits, especially underrepresented
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 51

minorities. One of the major contributing factors to STEM attrition is the competitive workplace
climate in which many individuals feel isolated and unsupported due to the lack of mentors and
role models in STEM domains (Chen & Soldner, 2013). According to self-efficacy theory, one
becomes more self-efficacious when they have role models and mentors to support them and
provide private, timely feedback to the work they are doing to help them gain mastery (Bandura,
1993). Lacking such mentorship opportunities, it is of no surprise that underrepresented
populations are among the highest group to depart from STEM disciplines in college and
beyond. Self-efficacy is a major determinant in how effective a teacher is in a classroom setting.
Teachers with high self-efficacy end up seeing the best results from their students. In a study
of middle-school students performance in science, Bolshakova, Johnson and Czerniak (2011)
found that the teachers that had the highest self-efficacy provided the best instruction, and in turn
saw the best results out of their students. They note that those teachers that possess the highest
self-efficacy also frequently have the strongest command of the subject matter as well as superior
classroom management abilities, resulting in the educator feeling more comfortable utilizing a
wider variety of instructional techniques. Similarly, Dembo and Gibson (1985) also identified a
connection between teacher self-efficacy and student performance, then examined different
pedagogical practices implemented by high self-efficacy instructors to determine those that
might be contributing to the higher student results. One of their findings was that high self-
efficacy teachers tended to be more patient with students as they struggled to find the answers to
questions, giving them more time to think issues through as well as providing better scaffolding
to help struggling students find their way to a correct answer. Furthermore, in a study by Guo,
Connor, Yang, Roehrig and Morrison (2012), the researchers examined how teacher self-efficacy
(among other variables) affected the literacy skills of 5th-grade students. While many of the
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 52

variables were found to have a positive effect on literacy outcomes indirectly - that is, that they
affected instructional choices, which in turn affected student results - their analysis showed a
direct effect of teacher self-efficacy on student achievement.
Research supports that one manner in which individuals acquire problem-solving skills is
through their personal experiences. One acquires certain skills as a result of constantly working
to solve the problems they face in their daily environments (Berg & Strough, 2011). Problem-
solving has a variety of definitions which range from more exact methods to methods with less
structure that can yield more than one “right” answer (Berg et al., 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013).
Therefore, one’s life experiences present opportunities for learners to apply the problem-solving
strategies they have learned in one context to a novel context, which is known as transfer.
Teachers have the capacity to transfer skills, knowledge, and expertise from one discipline
into another discipline when motivated to do so. The motivation to transfer learning is defined
as “the direction, intensity, and persistence of effort towards utilizing skills and knowledge
learned in training” (Chen, Holton, & Bates, 2005, p. 3). In exploring the three dimensions of
this definition—direction, intensity, and persistence of effort—research supports how a teacher
can be motivated to transfer what they have learned in one setting to a new setting and achieve
success. In a study with 132 sixth grade public school students that were placed into three
different groups, the students were given different amounts of direction, and the group that
received intermediate amounts of direction demonstrated the greatest retention and the greatest
amount of transfer of principles (Kittell, 1957). Intensity relates to the degree that one’s affect
and emotions impacts their engagement in a task. According to researchers Pekrun and Stephens
(2012), emotions influence availability of attentional resources and influence one’s motivation to
learn. Teachers, when placed in a novel setting, are learners; therefore, they need to ensure that
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 53

they are not cognitively overloaded when engaging in new experiences in which they are
expected to transfer old learning into a new context. In short, if a teacher is to transfer their
skills from their discipline of comfort to a new environment, they have to be adequately
motivated to do so.
With the implementation of science education reform via the Next Generation Science
Standards on the shoulders of K-12 science educators, recruiting and retaining high-quality
science teachers has become more of a pressing matter than ever before. Science teachers have
been charged with the responsibility of building students’ interest and aptitude in science in an
effort to prepare students to not only be scientifically literate, but to be strong competitors in the
global workforce of the 21st century. In short, there is a need to develop interest and literacy in
science among American students through highly qualified teachers. This literature review
provided the foundation for this study that focused on the Next Generation Science Standards
and their promotion of science literacy, the characteristics of high-quality science teachers, and
the impact of high-quality science teachers on student learning. The goal of this case study was
to explore the characteristics and pedagogy of science teachers without natural science degrees.
A secondary purpose was to see how these science teachers utilize their non-natural science
experience in their science classrooms.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 54

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Introduction
Because the United States is falling behind in producing a STEM-literate workforce, the
nation’s status as a global contender in STEM efforts is now in compromise. Science literacy is
defined as having the ability, knowledge, and skill to address personal, social, and global
science-related issues (Bybee, 2010; California Department of Education, 2014). Many national
efforts have been focused on improving K-12 STEM education, including the recruitment and
retention of high-quality science educators.
Educating science teachers to meet the demands of rapidly-changing legislation is a
cumbersome and, at times, unrealistic task, which leads to low science teacher self-efficacy.
Furthermore, education research argues that more than any other institution, schools necessitate
high rates of consistency among teachers and staff to support student success due to the
progressive and developmental nature of education (Patterson, Roehrig, & Luft, 2003).
Unfortunately, science classrooms are the content areas most impacted by teacher attrition and
teacher shortage (Darling-Hammond, 2000), which leads to a declined interest in science, which
begins as early as elementary school (Potvin & Hasni, 2014).
The demand of new STEM educators has reached approximately 25,000 per year (ACT
Research & Policy, 2013) in an attempt to meet the demands of an increasing student population
coupled with an increase in teacher retirement (Ingersoll & May, 2012). Unfortunately, these
positions are not being filled at K-12 institutions because too many applicants are not satisfying
the established requirements to be placed as an educator in a science classroom. In order for
students to have access to high-quality STEM education, it is imperative that alternative paths to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 55

teaching science are explored, including the invaluable resource of utilizing a non-science
degree-holding professional to teach science subjects. Science degrees are not the sole indicator
to proficiency in a science discipline. According to the research of Yens and Stimmel (1982),
premedical students from non-science backgrounds fared just as well in medical school, if not
better than, their colleagues from science backgrounds on almost all performance measures.
Such research has been used to revise medical schools admissions policies over the past several
decades. If physicians are faring well in a STEM occupation with a non-STEM background, the
same may be applicable to educators in this nation’s time of crisis; an appropriate science
background in no way guarantees teacher preparedness (Luft & Patterson, 2002).
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the pedagogy of individuals
who choose to teach K-12 secondary science with non-science degrees and to gain insight into
why these individuals choose this path as well as how these individuals believe they use their
experiences outside of science to inform their science instruction. Science educators from non-
science backgrounds bring in valuable skills and perspectives outside of science content, which
will help meet the demands of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Qualified
science educators are one of the greatest variables in meeting the aforementioned national
demands to improve K-12 science instruction and, ultimately, generate competitive STEM talent.
Research Questions
In essence, research questions are the epicenter of a research design, and all other
components of the design are linked to the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore,
research questions imply that the study is worth doing because they encompass a body of
knowledge and goals that justify the significance of one’s study (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, the
following research questions guided this study:
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 56

1. What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without
natural science degrees are teaching?
2. How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees believe their prior
experiences inform their instruction?
Research Design
This investigation of science teacher characteristics from non-science backgrounds was a
qualitative collective case study design. A strength of qualitative research is the provision of an
opportunity for a researcher, who is the primary instrument of data collection, to make meaning
of certain experiences with descriptions rather than with numbers (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Furthermore, the researcher can then depict an understanding of how certain experiences
influence one’s behavior (Maxwell, 2013). A case study is one method in which qualitative
research is conducted (Bogdan & Biklen 2007). A case study is an in-depth description and
analysis of a case over time through in-depth data collection that has multiple sources of
information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Creswell, 2014). A case study focuses on a single entity
that is the case, or the unit of study (Merriam, 2009). The unit of study, or the case, can vary
from being an institution, an event, a curriculum, or even a bounded system, such as a group of
science instructors (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009).
It is important to note the strengths and limitations of case studies. A major strength of
qualitative research is that the research problem is addressed from the voice of the participant
and not the researcher because the research occurs in the natural environment (Merriam, 2009).
However, the limitation of a case study is that the findings are specific to the context of that case
study, which makes it difficult for them to be generalizable (Merriam, 2009). Additionally,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 57

because the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection, research bias should be
considered as a limitation as well.
Criteria
The targeted population for this study was current science teachers who possess a
bachelor’s degree, but the earned degree is not in a natural science. Or the sake of this study,
teachers who met this criterion are teachers who do not have a bachelor’s degree in a natural
science, and have fulfilled, or are working to fulfill, the State of California’s requirements to
hold a preliminary or clear teaching credential. Examples of natural science include earth
science, biology, chemistry, and physics. Furthermore, high-quality teachers that were identified
by their administrators as such have been selected because Maxwell (2013) notes that there is an
advantage to selecting high-performing teachers as participants—they are less prone to being
defensive when asked about their pedagogical practices, and they are more forthcoming about
their instructional challenges. Additionally, members of the high-performing teacher population
may be less inclined to compartmentalize natural science content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge into two distinctive categories.
Sample and Population
The research conducted was a qualitative collective case study. As such, data was
collected from four different science teachers who do not hold natural science bachelor’s
degrees, and the data was analyzed, representing separated bounded systems, or cases (Merriam,
2009). The method used to identify participants was purposeful, convenience sampling because
this method of sampling allows for the researcher to gain insight into the type of individuals that
choose to enter the teaching profession as science teachers but do not come from a natural
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 58

science background (Merriam, 2009). A convenience sample was fitting for this study because
of the time constraints and the types of participants to whom the researcher had access.
Instrumentation
The purpose of this study was to explore the pedagogy of individuals who choose to
teach K-12 secondary science without natural science degrees and to gain insight into why these
individuals choose this path as well as how these individuals believe they use their experiences
outside of natural science to inform their science instruction. A collective case study was
conducted in order to gain this insight (Bogdan & Bicklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Two research questions were developed for this study, which led themselves to the use of
interviews, observations, and document reviews as a means of data collection. The methods
used to gather qualitative data vary from interviews, document analysis, and observations
(Creswell, 2013), and each method has its own strength. A researcher can utilize interview data,
observation data, and document analysis in order to create an all-inclusive explanation of their
study (Merriam, 2009).
Interviews
Weiss (1994) states that when we conduct interviews as a source of data collection, “We
can learn what people perceived and how they interpreted their perceptions and how events
affected their thoughts and feelings” (p. 1). In other words, interviewing gives way for a depth
of content, details, and descriptions that might otherwise be lost (Weiss, 1994). The semi-
structured interview format gives the interviewer a protocol to utilize, which will support
uniform data collection, yet removes rigidity and makes room for flexibility in the interview
process (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, the semi-structured interview protocol provides data to
answer the research questions while still allowing the perspectives, beliefs, understandings, and
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 59

experiences of the participants to be explored in depth. The semi-structured interview can yield
specific data that will be meaningful when attempting to answer the research question.
According to Maxwell (2013), the research questions are designed to convey what the
researcher is trying to study; therefore, the researcher must be strategic in generating interview
questions that will yield data that answer the research questions. Merriam’s (2009) description
of the six types of qualitative interview questions assisted in the formulation of interview
questions. Merriam defines six types of interview questions utilized in qualitative studies: 1)
experience and behavior, 2) opinion and values, 3) feeling, 4) knowledge, 5) sensory, and 6)
background and demographic. For example, one of the research questions explores how science
teachers without natural science degrees believe they use their experiences outside of natural
science to inform their instruction. An experience and behavior question, which is designed to
elicit information about a person’s activity, would be an appropriate fit to obtain information
about a teacher’s beliefs and experiences.
Observations
In addition to interviews, observations provide a firsthand account of behavior in that
environment (Merriam, 2009). When utilizing observations as a source of data collection, a
researcher is able to document behavior in a natural setting (Merriam, 2009). This is greatly
beneficial to a qualitative researcher for purposes of triangulation, or even in cases of omission:
certain participants may not disclose certain information during interviews, but an observation
may provide insight into that phenomenon (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Observations were
scheduled during lessons where the teacher identified to the researcher that exemplary teaching
is likely to occur. Observations occurred first, then interviews, then another observation.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 60

Document Review
Document review was used in the study to supplement data collected from the
participants through interviews and observations. Merriam (2009) identifies documents as a
wide range of material that can range from written, visual, digital, and physical material, which
are relevant to the study at hand. The documents can range from personal to easily accessible
documents, and can also include official documents (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Utilizing multiple sources of data is known as triangulation. According to McEwan and
McEwan (2003), using numerous data collection methods, minimizes the likelihood that findings
will be inaccurate and unreliable due to insufficient evidence to support certain claims. It is
through triangulation the findings allow for a more detailed and all-inclusive case study, and
increases the accuracy and credibility of the findings (Patton, 2002).
The structure of data collection was that participants engaged in an hour-long interview
initially, then the researcher conducted one hour-long observation, and then a second observation
occurred followed by a brief, informal interview with follow-up questions from the initial
interview and observation. This occurred twice for each participant.
Data Analysis
In order to identify the characteristics and pedagogy of science teachers who have non-
science backgrounds, three approaches were used: interviews, observations, and document
review.
Research Question 1 asks: What does science instruction look like in classrooms where
science teachers without natural science degrees are teaching?
Research Question 2 asks: How do these natural science teachers without natural science
degrees believe their prior experiences inform their instruction?
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 61

A digital recorder was utilized in order to capture accurate responses from the
participants. Interview questions and observation data for this study were selected and
considered based on their contribution toward gathering data that would address the research
question regarding the pedagogical practices of science teachers from science versus non-
science backgrounds. According to Lichtman (2014), with the exception of grounded theory,
most of the other research approaches are vague with respect to analysis. The open-ended
nature of analyzing qualitative research further emphasizes the significance of triangulation.
When a researcher is analyzing data, the researcher adapts this data to make it
comprehendible to the audience (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Coding is an essential component to
making data meaningful to a reader. Coding is the process of assigning labels to the collected
data, which leads to category development and refinement (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Interviews
were transcribed and analyzed for emergent themes. Open-ended responses from interviews
were be coded for emergent themes. Documents were reviewed for emergent themes by
identifying patterns and frequency of specific responses. Observations were analyzed for
emergent themes to triangulate the data collected.
Validity and Reliability
Two final issues that were taken into consideration during data analysis were validity and
reliability. According to Merriam (2009), “validity and reliability are concerns that can be
approached through careful attention to a study’s conceptualization and the way in which the
data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted” (p. 210). Therefore, while collecting data during
this case study, special consideration was given to collecting rich data which would provide a
complete and detailed picture of what was occurring (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, the strategy
of “adequate engagement in data collection” was employed by remaining in the setting for
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 62

frequent and extended periods of time to check if what was being observed was repetitive
(Merriam, 2009). Triangulation, or crystallization of the data, confirmed findings from multiple
sources which increases credibility (Maxwell, 2013). Lastly, results were reviewed through a
critical lens to determine if they were corroborated by the previously collected data (Merriam,
2009). In all, several strategies were employed to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of
the collected data.
Summary of Conclusions
Chapter Three discusses the methodology utilized to explore the pedagogical practices of
science teachers from STEM backgrounds and non-STEM backgrounds alike. By using the case
study method described by Creswell (2014), Merriam (2009), and Patton (2002), data was
collected using a systematic process that was then further checked to ensure validity and
reliability. The research was collected using interviews, observations, and document analysis.
The collected data was then be coded to identify emergent themes. Data was also triangulated to
ensure validity. The findings of this case study will be further explored in Chapter Four.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 63

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the pedagogy of individuals who choose to
teach K-12 secondary science without natural science degrees and to gain insight into why these
individuals choose this path as well as how these individuals believe they use their experiences
outside of natural science to inform their science instruction. This study emerged from the
researcher’s concern for the lack of high-quality science educators within K-12 education. While
there is research and legislation in place that spans more than four decades that has the intention
of meeting this need, lacking from the research was the official consideration of individuals with
a passion to teach K-12 education yet do not hold a formal natural science degree, which is a
more traditional means of recruiting K-12 secondary science teachers. This chapter presents
findings that emerged from data collection and analysis of the data. The data collected for the
current qualitative collective case study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without
natural science degrees are teaching?
2. How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees believe their prior
experiences inform their instruction?
Data for four secondary science teachers was collected. Interviews and observations were
the two primary methods of data collection (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009; Weiss, 1994). Document analysis of teacher-provided resources, for example, was also
used, when applicable. The teachers were the only individuals interviewed because the intent of
the study was to gain insight to the character and perspectives of these individuals who choose to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 64

teach secondary science without a natural science degree, such as a degree in biology, chemistry,
physics, earth science, and the like.
Because such is characteristic of a qualitative case study, each teacher was treated as a
separate case in the process of data analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Each
case was analyzed separately using the descriptive framework known as the “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques provided by expert educator Doug Lemov (2010) to create a common
perspective and list of techniques used by each educator in the study. Additionally, findings of
each case are presented through the lenses of the conceptual framework of Social Cognitive
Theory and Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997) and problem-solving and transfer
(Berg & Strough, 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013). For each case, background information is
presented first, which includes information that is relevant to the conceptual framework, and the
background information will be followed by analysis. In the final section of this chapter, a
comparative case analysis is presented, and it addresses the findings related to each research
question. In order to protect the anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms have been used for
each teacher, school, and school district.
Descriptive Framework
In the present study, a comparative analysis was performed among secondary science
teachers who do not hold natural science degrees using Doug Lemov’s (2010) “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques. The “Teach Like a Champion” techniques have been selected as a
common tool for analysis because each teacher comes from a different district, and each
district/educational organization utilizes a different protocol to evaluate each instructor. Prior to
the comparative analysis, the four individual cases were analyzed using this descriptive
framework to provide a basis for the discussion of commonalities and differences in pedagogical
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 65

approach. The framework identifies an arsenal of 49 different teaching strategies that can and
should be employed by all teachers, without regard for the content taught, to address the
achievement gaps created by inequitable learning opportunities within K-12 education in general.
Lemov attributes this compilation of teaching tools to the work he has done as a K-12 educator,
coach, trainer, consultant, and administrator (Lemov, 2010).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is based on Social Cognitive Theory and Self-
Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997) and problem-solving and transfer (Berg & Strough,
2011; van Merrienboer, 2013). Self-efficacious teachers believe in their capacity to guide
students to achieve certain learning objectives, which impacts the extent to which they will
persist when faced with challenges along that path (Bandura, 1997; Milner, 2002; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Research supports that one manner in which individuals
acquire problem-solving skills is through their personal experiences. One acquires certain skills
as a result of constantly working to solve the problems they face in their daily environments
(Berg & Strough, 2011). Problem-solving has a variety of definitions which range from more
exact methods to methods with less structure that can yield more than one “right” answer (Berg
et al., 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013). Therefore, one’s life experiences present opportunities for
learners to apply the problem-solving strategies they have learned in one context to a novel
context, which is known as transfer. In the current study, the targeted population was secondary
science teachers from non-science backgrounds, meaning that these individuals were teaching
middle school and high school life science, physical science, and earth science material yet did
not have a formal postsecondary education in these domains. The pedagogical characteristics of
these individuals, as aligned with the “Teach Like a Champion” techniques, as well as the way
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 66

they believe their formal, non-science training transfers into their science teaching, is of
particular importance to this study.
The “Teach Like a Champion” techniques are categorized in nine essential domains:
setting high academic expectations, planning that ensures academic achievement, structuring and
delivering lessons, engaging students during the lesson, creating strong classroom culture, setting
and maintaining high behavioral expectations, building character and trust, improving pacing,
and challenging students to think critically (Lemov, 2010). These nine domains of teacher
techniques, when operationalized, embody the characteristics of high-quality teachers as
discussed in the review of literature in Chapter 2.
Findings for Research Questions
Research Question #1: What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science
teachers without natural science degrees are teaching?
Case Study: Science Teacher Participant A, “Carol”-Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
Private, Religious High School
Overview
Teacher Participant A is a second-year physical science teacher at a private, religious
high school in Los Angeles, California, which will be referred to as DV High Schoo. Teacher A,
who shall be referred to as Carol, has a Bachelor’s of Arts degree in Psychology, and is currently
in her second year of a Master’s of Arts in Secondary Science Education Program. DV High
School is an all-male, 9
th
-12
th
grade institution that prides itself in being a rigorous college-
preparatory high school with a 100% college acceptance rate among the graduating seniors.
Current enrollment at DV High School is 307 students, with 102 being in the freshmen class,
which is the group of young that Carol teaches. The students begin their high school career with
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 67

physical science, more commonly referred to as physics, because this level of physics is more
conceptual in nature than mathematical.
The accomplishments of this institution are rather impressive: for the past six years,
100% of graduating seniors have been accepted into postsecondary institutions. This data is
noteworthy because the student body is comprised of 46.6% African American, 51.6% Latino,
and 1.8% other, and a vast percentage of the students come from low-income families. The
demographics of this site reflected the large number of students who typically achieve lower on
assessments in science and who are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary study of and
careers in STEM domains (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE &
NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010). Therefore, ensuring access to high-quality science education is of
paramount importance as identified in Chapters 1 and 2 of the current study.
Following is an analysis of Carol’s pedagogical practices using the “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques (Lemov, 2010), data from an interview of the participant, classroom
observations, and a review of documents related to the lesson(s) observed. The analysis is also
reflected in Table 4-2.
“Teach Like a Champion” Domains
Setting high expectations. During her lesson on projectiles, Carol begins her class by
having students reflect on prior knowledge. She plays a video from the computer through the
LCD projection in the classroom, and she pauses the video before it has concluded. She states,
“I’m pausing it again. When you apply a force to your catapult, is that an internal or an external
force? Raise your hand if you can tell me if that is an internal or external force.” A student
responds, “External.” She continues, “And then second question: when your paper clip…hold
your paper clip up in front of you, press it down…when it’s like this, what kind of energy does it
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 68

have?” A random student shouts, “None,” followed by another student voice who says,
“Potential.” Carol continues, “We’ve focused on two types of energy this semester: kinetic and
potential. So when you release it…so, take your finger off of it…I’ve already heard it echoed, it
turns into kinetic energy.”
Carol is employing a technique that “Teach Like a Champion” refers to as “Stretch It.” This
technique rewards the right answer with follow up questions that range in rigor, relevance,
application, and, generally speaking, higher domains of knowledge (Lemov, 2010). As Carol
asks questions about prior learning, she is asking students to apply what they have learned from
semester one about forces in this novel setting, which promotes transfer (Berg & Strough, 2011;
van Merrienboer, 2013). Based on what is expected of Carol’s students according to the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS), after a year in her class, Carol’s students should be
proficient in physics content, general science and engineering practices, as well as crosscutting
concepts that are transferrable across different academic disciplines (National Research Council,
2012). Carol utilizes this level of academic questioning in order to engage her students in higher
depths of knowledge levels, also known as DOK levels. There are four Depths of Knowledge
levels: Level 1 is based on recall and reproduction, Level 2 is based on skills and concepts, Level
3 is based on strategic thinking, and Level 4 is based on extended thinking (Webb, 2002). Table
4.2 provides a summary of the varying Depth-of-Knowledge Levels for science.
Table 4-1 Depth-of-Knowledge Levels for Science and Associated Activities
Level 1
Recall &
Reproduction
a. Recall facts, definitions, concepts, and/or simple procedures
b. Use a simple formula
c. Perform a basic procedure, such as keep time
d. Perform clearly-defined steps
e. Identify, measure, or calculate
Level 2
Skills & Concepts
a. Explain relationships between facts, vocabulary, and concepts
b. Describe and explain examples of concepts
c. Select a procedure that is appropriate for a specific criteria and
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 69

perform it with high levels of mastery
d. Organize, represent, and analyze data (i.e. compare and contrast)
e. Interpret data presented by a single graph
f. Collect data and display collected data
Level 3
Strategic Thinking
a. Aggregate data from a complex graph
b. Use reasoning, planning, and evidence to solve multi-step problems or
justify a course of action
c. Design an investigation to answer a scientific problem
d. Use concepts and prior knowledge to solve a non-standard problem
e. Form conclusions from experimental and observational data
Level 4
Extended Thinking
a. Use concepts and prior knowledge to solve a novel problem
b. Plan and execute a task that requires perspective-taking and
collaboration with more than oneself
c. Create an action plan to address a real-world issue
d. Develop generalizations of results obtained and apply them to new
situations

Increased DOK levels promote the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) and
crosscutting concepts presented in the Next Generation Science Standards. The SEPs for the
NGSS promote tasks that are cognitively demanding and very complex, which reflect the true
nature of scientific inquiry (NRC, 2012; NRC, 2013). For example, one of the SEPs is that, by
the end of a student’s K-12 science career, they should be able to plan and execute
investigations. In Carol’s lesson on paper clip projectiles, she is creating an opportunity for her
students to design a device to launch an object as far as possible. Students must not only
consider the DOK Level 1 vocabulary such as potential energy, kinetic energy, projectile, and
applied force, but learners must also consider the relationship among such terms. In asking
students to “build and test a catapult” and “make a claim about the relationship between the
external forces and total mechanical energy,” Carol is posing a DOK Level 3 task and
simultaneously addressing a SEP, as stated by the NGSS.
Planning that ensures academic achievement. Outcome-driven lesson planning sets the
expectation that the learning that occurs is measurable, which gives teachers an opportunity to be
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 70

reflective about what how effective their lesson was in supporting a student’s mastery of that
objective (Lemov, 2010). Furthermore, outcome-driven lesson planning promotes the type of
three-pronged learning expected of the NGSS: mastery of content, science and engineering
practices (SEPs), and crosscutting concepts. Carol presents her lessons with clear objectives, or
tasks, as she refers to them on her whiteboard, her handouts, and her PowerPoint presentations.
During one lesson observation, Carol has a portable whiteboard on the left side of the
room that states the task: “Make a device that will shoot a projectile as far as possible.” This
same task is listed in different terms on the worksheet that students were given at the door:
“Task: Build and test a catapult that will throw a projectile as far as possible. Using the designed
system, make a claim about the relationship between external forces and total mechanical
energy.” Because Carol’s planned activity is not merely focused on what students do, Carol is
able to engage students in a DOK Level 3 task which requires students to engage in strategic
thinking using reasoning, planning, evidence, and there are multiple pathways for students to
answer the question and complete the task.
Structuring and delivering lessons. One strategy that Lemov (2010) refers to as “Board =
Paper,” he encourages the teacher to use the board to model what is expected for students to
write on their papers. By providing a model, students begin to adopt practices that promote self-
reliant learning as well as gain knowledge about content, concepts, and skills that are
transferrable across disciplines.
As Carol reviewed the “Do Now” activity with students, she wrote a list on the board as a
model of what students should be doing in their notebooks. She utilized her ELMO overhead
projector and took notes on the lab handout that was provided to each student as she modeled a
method to make sense of the directions: “We have this word “design system” twice. The design
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 71

system is what? What are we creating? My design system is the actual catapult. You guys
should be writing along with me on the handout you just received.”
Lemov (2010) also presents the technique of “Circulate,” which is a technique employed
during lesson delivery. This technique advises that the instructor should move around the room
frequently to promote 100% engagement and 100% accountability. Carol demonstrates this
technique when she walks around the room to check in with students, answer specific questions
posed by individual students as it relates to their task, pose questions, differentiate instruction for
those who may be ahead or behind the task.
Engaging students during the lesson. “Teach Like a Champion” author Doug Lemov
(2010) discusses how teachers can engage students so they feel as if they are an integral part of
the lesson. Lemov (2010) makes sure to note the difference between engaging students in the
work of the class and not simply in the intricacies of the class. In reviewing the “Do Now,” or
the warm-up activity in which students were engaged at the beginning of class, Carol asked
students to list out what forces they remember from semester 1. When Carol realizes that some
of the forces that students learned were not shared out, Carol asks the class, “Raise your hand if
you have a clicking pen with you [clicks her pen several times]. So, what kind of force would
that be?” The students unanimously respond, “Spring force!” Carol takes an opportunity to not
only model what the students should have on their list, but she draws in on relevant examples
that will help with recollection of this type of force. Based on the unanimous response of the
student participants, this was an example that may have been implemented before when spring
forces were initially introduced. Another technique observed by Carol is “Cold Call.” Cold call
is a system that teachers implement when they want to avoid having only one student participant
that answers every question. Carol frequently called on students to answer questions posed.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 72

Over several hours of classroom observations, no student name was used more than once.
Carol’s system of cold calling makes engagement and participation the norm and the expectation
for all students. Hand-raising is not the only means of participation in her classroom—students
are expected to be prepared to answer any given question with a 100% correct answer.
Creating strong classroom culture. Lemov (2010) identifies five key principles for
classroom culture: discipline, management, control, influence, and engagement. Three
techniques that Carol demonstrated that promote a strong classroom culture are her “Do Now” or
warm-up protocols, the fact that she greets students at the door at the beginning of every class,
and she gives “Props” to the students who are on task and doing what they should be doing. At
the door, Carol reminds students of the expectation that is already being projected from the LCD
projector at the front of the class: “Find your warm-up log when you get in the classroom!”
Students first find their warm-up logs at a designated place in the classroom before they
take their seat. Lemov states that students should start class with a pencil and paper in hand. He
also states that Do Now activities should consist of students having to write something down.
Carol’s warm-up activity covers all of these bases. Although Carol is restating the expectations
at the door, these directions are not needed because a clear protocol for how to start class has
been established: Students know they should be taking out their warm-up logs and responding in
writing to the prompt provided on the screen. At approximately three minutes into the class,
most of the students are seated and engaged in the task, and Carol goes around the room and
reminds those who are not 100% on task to stop talking and independently respond to the prompt
on the board on their warm-up logs.
Setting and maintaining high behavioral expectations. Lemov (2010) presents “non-
negotiables” (p. 167) in creating and maintaining a behavioral environment that is conducive to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 73

learning. During one observation of Carol’s classes, there were two students who were talking to
one another at a low volume, while the rest of students have their hands raised to answer a
question that Carol has asked the class. Carol walks by the desk where the two students are
talking at a low volume, she shakes her head and puts her index finger to her lips, and she walks
off. In terms of correction, non-verbal intervention is at the apex of the list as a “least-invasive
form of intervention” (Lemov, 2010, p. 172).
In terms of a more invasive, yet necessary, form of intervention, Lemov (2010) discusses
the “lightning-quick public correction” (p. 173). After a student engaged in side conversation
with this back turned to Carol while she gave explicit instructions for the next activity, Carol
states, “[Student name] if you’re going to keep talking, you’re going to need to turn your chair
forward.” Carol states what the next steps will be to address the student’s unwanted behavior,
and does so in a way that is no loss of instructional time. In a follow-up interview, Carol later
communicated to me that that particular class period is more “chatty,” which is why I saw the
implementation and enforcement of more behavioral expectations during that particular class
period.
Building character and trust. One technique that Carol demonstrates in building
character and trust is that of emotional constancy. Carol, as Lemov describes, earns the respect
of her students because they know she is always in control because her tone and behavior are
consistent. Carol also employs the “Explain Everything” technique, in which she explains the
behavioral expectation that holds all students accountable.
Improving pacing. In changing the pace of the class, Lemov (2010) promotes that no
activity should exceed ten minutes because brain research suggests that people tend to lose focus
after ten minutes and need to be re-engaged. An effective way to create a sense of re-
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 74

engagement is by using clear transitions (Lemov, 2010). Carol makes clear transitions between
activities by the use of her timer, which Lemov refers to as “Work the Clock.” When the timer
goes off at the front of the room, Carol goes to turn off the timer, and she checks in with her
students to see if they have completed the task at hand. If students request more time, Carol adds
more time to the timer. The presence and consistent use of the timer holds students accountable
for producing work within a given time period, and it also demonstrates a value for student voice
and input, which contributes to a healthy classroom culture.
Carol also has the agenda written on the board and on her PowerPoint presentation during
one of the classroom observations, which helps students to “Look Forward” to the varying
activities that they will have throughout that class to support them in meeting the objective. At
one point in the observation, Carol instructs students to put away their warm-up logs and take out
their notebooks to take some notes on a video that she was preparing on the screen. By stating
that the warm-up activity has ended, students should put away their warm-up logs and take out a
different medium on which to take notes about the video, Carol employs the technique of
“Brighten Lines,” in which she draws distinctive lines between the beginning and end of
activities, which support students in re-engaging in the learning process.
Challenging students to think critically. Lemov (2010) states, “the building process is
essentially the same whether there are three steps or three hundred. A bigger goal means not
bigger steps but more of the same steady, manageable steps” (p. 235). Therefore, planning
sequenced questions support students in taking manageable steps. Carol utilizes this technique
when she pauses the brief video clip that she is using to model a type of device that changes
energy from one form to another. Carol’s purpose in pausing the video is to ask students to draw
on the prior knowledge of forces that was discussed at the beginning of class. Carol stated that
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 75

wanted students to apply that information to this new situation to consider what type of device
they would make. Asking the students scaffolded questions served as manageable steps helped
the students to make generalizations, a DOK Level 4 task, about their devices and the design
they select.
Carol additionally supports critical thinking from her students when she shifts “The
Ratio.” Lemov (2010) defines “The Ratio” as the percentage of time the teacher is doing the
cognitive work versus the student. The more teachers increase this ratio to where the students
are engaged in the heavy lifting, the more ownership students are taking of that learned
information. Students will then, therefore, be more inclined to commit the information to
memory to be later accessed.
As was discussed above, Carol displayed techniques in all nine domains of “Teach Like a
Champion.” Carol is an example of a high-quality teacher that has a love for science and is able
to prove her competency of science knowledge in more ways than in earning a formal degree in a
natural science. Carol admits that her path to teach science chose her; she did not choose it.
When she applied for her first teaching job, she applied to be a math teacher. However, based on
the need for the site, she was asked to teach ninth grade physical science, and she obliged. Due
to her vested interest in teaching, her background and history in coaching swim, and her love for
math and science, she has remained in the physics classroom for almost two years.
Carol’s commitment to teaching outside of her formal education can be attributed to her
self-efficacy as a teacher and the transfer of her skills from being a swim coach to being a
classroom science teacher. Carol found success in coaching swim; she states,
“Through teaching swim lessons and coaching, I realized that I really enjoy
helping others achieve their goals. In swimming, the children are forced to go to swim
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 76

class by their parents, and we have a set swim goal of swimming. But it’s just, I like the
idea of having so many different kids in one swim class, and they are all at different
levels and they all need different things, and you’re trying to get them to the same end
goal, and the coaching as well… you have a group of kids and your goal is for them to
become a better swimmer, to improve their technique, to become faster, and you might
have a kid in the same group that can’t swim as the kid that can swim and knows all four
strokes, and yet you have to make it work with all the different kids in the same time…30
of them at the same time. I enjoyed doing that, even though it was a challenge. It just
made me realize, hey, that’s the same thing as being a teacher!”
Table 4-2 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques Displayed by Carol, Teacher Participant A
Domain Technique Domain Technique
Setting high
expectations
 Stretch It
 No Opt Out
Creating strong
classroom culture
 Greet students at
the door
 “Do Now” on
screen
 Clear classroom
protocol
 Props
Planning that
ensures academic
achievement
 Begin with the
End
Setting and
maintaining high
behavioral
expectations
 Non-verbal
correction
 Lightning-quick
public correction
 Restate the
behavior that is
wanted not the
unwanted
behavior
 Threshold-there’s
an activity to
complete at the
door so the
expectation is set
high at the very
onset of the class
Structuring and
delivering lessons
 Board = Paper
 Circulate
 Break It Down
Building character
and trust
 Emotional
constancy
 Explain
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 77

everything
 Normalize error
Engaging students
during the lesson
 Temperature
Reading
 Cold Call
 Posted Objective
 Makes lesson
relevant
Improving pacing  Clear Transitions
 Work the Clock
 Brighten Lines
Challenging
students to think
critically
 Check for
Understanding
 Increase the Ratio

Case Study: Science Teacher Participant B, “Nikki”-Bachelor of Science in Anthropology,
Master of Arts in Education
Reformative Charter High School in Inner City
Overview
Teacher Participant B is a life science teacher in her tenth year at a public charter high
school in Los Angeles, California. Teacher B, who shall be referred to as Nikki, has a Bachelor
of Science degree in Anthropology, and also has her Master of Arts in Education. Nikki works
for a public, transformative charter high school in Los Angeles, California, which will be
referred to as ABC High School. ABC High School is a co-ed, 9
th
-12
th
grade institution that
prides itself in being a non-profit organization whose mission is to help transform public
education so that all students can graduate being prepared for college, leadership, and life.
Current enrollment at ABC High School is 1684 students. There is a slightly larger male
population at 55.5% of the enrollment. 27% of the student body is African American, 70.7%
comprises the Latino student body, and 96.1% of the population is classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged. To add, almost 30% of the student body is classified as
English Language Learners (ELLs), and almost 20% of the student body is classified as a student
with disabilities. There are 477 students in the senior class, which is the group of students that
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 78

Nikki teaches. The students enrolled in Nikki’s senior anatomy and physiology class are there
because they have elected to take a fourth year of science in order to become a more rigorous
college applicant.
This site has some impressive statistics: since 2013, the graduation rate has risen from
30.6% to more than 82%. However, there are a disproportionate number of African American
and Latino students that are not meeting the graduation requirements in comparison to the district
and the state. To add, only 48% of students are meeting the state standards in English Language
Arts, and only 36% of students are meeting the state standards in mathematics. Out of 84
teachers, 14 teachers are without a full credential at this site. This site also only offers one AP
science course. All of this data is another reflection of how the students in urban schools are not
getting equitable educational opportunities (Payne, 2008; Wright, 2013).
Following is an analysis of Nikki’s pedagogical practices using the “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques (Lemov, 2010), data from an interview of the participant, classroom
observations, and a review of documents related to the lesson(s) observed. The analysis is also
reflected in Table 4-3.
“Teach Like a Champion” Domains
Setting high expectations. A student asks Nikki a question that was inaudible. Nikki
responds, “And where’s the hypothalamus?” The student responds inaudibly again. Nikki says,
“What organ?” The student says, “Brain.” Nikki concludes, “Yes!” and she walks to support
other students. As students are looking up vocabulary, Nikki reminds them to not rely solely on
the glossary: “You would not get [the location of the hypothalamus] from the glossary! [The
glossary’s definition] just tells you what [the hypothalamus] does.”
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 79

Nikki is employing a technique that “Teach Like a Champion” refers to as “Right is Right.”
This technique emphasizes 100% right answers versus praising students for partial answers
(Lemov, 2010). Nikki wants students to make deeper connections with the content versus just
defining terms, which is a DOK Level 1 expectation. Based on what is expected of Nikki’s
students according to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), after a year in her class,
Nikki’s students should be proficient in life science content, general science and engineering
practices, as well as crosscutting concepts that are transferrable across different academic
disciplines (National Research Council, 2012). Another instance of this level of rigor was seen
in observation. As students are working on their vocabulary foldables, Nikki is circulating the
room, answering questions and supporting students. Nikki walks over to a young man who asks
an inaudible question, she asks for the class’s attention, and she states, “Don’t go into the
glossary! When you go to the page numbers, they have pictures and more concepts!” Here, Nikki
is “sweating the details” so that students are defining vocabulary in context, which takes
students’ use of vocabulary from a DOK Level 1 to a DOK Level 2 activity.
Because Nikki values the development of academic vocabulary, when students share out and
use incomplete sentences, they are prompted with gentle reminders from Nikki: “I want you to
articulate yourself well, so full sentences, please.” In another instance, while students are
engaged in analyzing data on a graph, she reminds them, “The evidence you’re pulling from the
graph should be specific.” Nikki values 100% accurate formats using in verbal and non-verbal
ways of communicating ideas. This consistent push for 100% accurate use of vocabulary,
complete sentences, and evidence-based reasoning further prepares the next generation of
scientists. Furthermore, when future scientists push back about data and the interpretation of
data, Nikki reminds students that although a task may not be “fun,” the task is a necessary
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 80

element in communicating scientifically, and in order to be effective, one must master these
skills. In other words, Nikki practices what Lemov (2010) calls “Make No Apologies.” During
the lesson, a student states, “I hate graphs!” Nikki responds, “Don’t hate ‘em, because they’re
powerful!”
Planning that ensures academic achievement. Just as Carol utilized the technique of
“Beginning with the End,” which promotes the creation and implementation of outcome-driven
lesson plans, Nikki utilized this form of planning, which was evident in the observations. Nikki
presents her lesson with a clear objective that is posted on the whiteboard at the front of the
room: “I will use evidence from hormone models and graphs to explain the medical procedure
for female to male treatment.”
To further promote academic achievement, in Nikki’s class, the agenda for the day is posted
and coincides with the objective. Students reviewed prior knowledge on the reproductive system
by collectively reviewing answers for their previous class’s homework. Then, students watch a
brief video of a female’s transition to a male, during which students are asked to analyze a graph
that displays data regarding the relationship between the endocrine and reproductive system.
Because Nikki’s planned activity is not merely focused on what students do, Nikki is able to
engage students in a DOK Level 3 task which requires students to engage in strategic thinking
using reasoning, planning, evidence, and there are multiple pathways for students to answer the
question and complete the task.
Structuring and delivering lessons. Providing students with models of what is expected of
them to do creates consistency and sets students up for success because the expectations are
clearly written and executed (Lemov, 2010). During the assignment, Nikki models for the
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 81

students what she expects them to do on the handout provided by writing notes on the same
handout using the ELMO overhead projector at the center of the classroom.
Lemov (2010) also presents the technique of “Circulate,” which is a technique employed
during lesson delivery. This technique advises that the instructor should move around the room
frequently to promote 100% engagement and 100% accountability. Nikki constantly circulates
the classroom, posing questions to students, answering student questions, and addressing
concerns, such as when students are on personal technology instead of working on the
assignment at hand. In observation of another technique, “Break it Down,” Nikki plans lessons
with anticipated misconceptions. In this lesson, because Nikki anticipates student
misconceptions when planning lessons, she states, “You may encounter things and words you
don’t know yet, and that’s okay. We will learn those words later. Please still write down those
words on your foldable…Building this vocabulary is power, y’all!” It is noteworthy that Nikki
encourages her students to still be accountable for vocabulary and content that has not been
explicitly taught to them.
During another observed technique, “Ratio,” a student asks Nikki a question that was
inaudible. Nikki responds, “And where’s the hypothalamus?” The student responds inaudibly
again. Nikki says, “What organ?” The student says, “Brain.” Nikki concludes, “Yes!” and she
walks to support other students. Versus giving the student the answer, Nikki shifts the load of
the cognitive demand back to the student by prompting questions that lead the student to find the
answer for himself.
Engaging students during the lesson. Lemov (2010) makes sure to note the difference
between engaging students in the work of the class and not simply in the intricacies of the class.
During the lesson, Nikki wants her students to recite vocabulary so that they are not only aware
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 82

of the definition, they are also aware of the pronunciation: Nikki says, “Before we get started,
repeat after me: hypothalamus!” Class gives an unenthusiastic response: “Hypothalamus.” Nikki
states, “No, everybody has to say it! Building this vocabulary is power, y’all! My mom just got
out of the hospital all of last semester because she had a tumor in her pituitary gland. Do you
know how many people get a tumor in their pituitary gland, and they can’t even say the word
‘pituitary,’ so they’re sitting there in the doctor’s office, and the doctor’s saying ‘pituitary’ and
the family’s saying, ‘I don’t even know what he’s talking about because I can’t even say the
word.’ Words…vocabulary has power…power in spaces that we don’t necessarily go to all the
time. So I’m going to say it again, and I need everybody to say it…hypothalamus!” Class
response (with more enthusiasm): “Hypothalamus!”
At the start of class, students are asked to answer one question about four different diagrams
by writing their response on a piece of paper. This technique is known as “Everybody Writes.”
This activity is a review activity of prior knowledge relating to male and female organs. Before
students are asked to share their responses, every student is asked to write as the teacher
circulates the room. This way, when Nikki chooses to call on a student, the expectation is that
they have an answer because they have been given an opportunity to write that answer down.
For example, one slide has a diagram and a prompt which states, “Describe the menstrual cycle.”
Students are given approximately two minutes to write down a response to this question, and the
diagram is provided as an aid to refresh students’ memory.
Creating strong classroom culture. Lemov identifies five key principles for classroom
culture: discipline, management, control, influence, and engagement. Two techniques that Nikki
demonstrated that promote a strong classroom culture are her “Do Now” expectations and the
fact that she greets students at the door at the beginning of every class, On the LCD projection
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 83

screen, Nikki has the seating chart posted as well as the “Do Now” assignment, which requires
students to read a rubric. There is a picture of the rubric on the screen as well to support tight
transitions. The copies of the rubric are on a table right by the front door.
Setting and maintaining high behavioral expectations. Lemov (2010) presents the
technique of “100 percent” in creating and maintaining a behavioral environment that is
conducive to learning: “There’s one acceptable percentage of students following an direction:
100 percent. Less, and your authority is subject to interpretation, situation, and motivation” (p.
168). During the foldable activity, Nikki’s 24 students were 100% on task. This is evident that
Nikki has established a classroom culture where high behavioral expectations are maintained.
Observations revealed the use of the technique “What To Do.” This technique is based on
the assumption that student noncompliance is not due to defiance but incompetence. Therefore,
the teacher should assume best intentions with all students, and the students should be given an
opportunity to self-correct their noncompliance after the teacher reminds students of the
expectation by modeling that expectation. Students are given a “Life Science Work Habits &
Participation Rubric” to read and review as their “Do Now” activity. This rubric is broken down
into three major components: focus, respect/cooperation, and responsibility. Students are then
asked to self-rate at the end of the class. The rubric provides a specific expectation for all
students, gives students the opportunity to self-assess behavior, and gives Nikki the opportunity
to make corrections in the least-invasive way possible. Nikki “sweats the details” in providing
this rubric because she has a system in place in advance that make accomplishing the goals more
feasible. In providing this rubric to students upon entering the class, she sets the tone at the
threshold. Students are expected to get their behavior right at the onset of each class.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 84

Building character and trust. One technique that Nikki demonstrates to build character
and trust is that of positive framing. Lemov (2010) suggests that corrections should be made
positively and consistently. This principle is guided by six rules, one of which is that the teacher
is to assume the best intentions with their students. At one point in the lesson, there was a young
man who was seated in the back of the room, and he was not writing on his paper. He had folded
up his paper in the foldable just as Nikki had modeled for the students. However, when Nikki
went to check on his group, he was not writing. In this instance, Nikki assumed best intentions
and asked the student if he was able to see. The student responded, “No.” Nikki then says, “Ok,
let me write the words for you.” She then proceeds to write out the words on another “foldable”
worksheet and gives the student the paper she created. The student immediately begins to copy
the words on his paper while she assisted the other people at his group and even after she walked
away. She assumed that the student could not see the words to write which was why he was not
working, and this positive assumption proved to be correct because after the student finished
copying down the words as she had modeled for him, he opened his textbook and began looking
at the back of the book to locate the words in the glossary and index. Because Nikki did not
assume that this student was off-task due to defiance but due to incompetence, she supported his
area of need and helped him to achieve success.
Nikki also uses the technique of “Precise Praise” in order to positively reinforce the
behaviors that she wants to see in her class. Nikki acknowledges on-task behavior. In a class of
high school seniors, Nikki uses a simple stamp on the papers for the students who are actively
engaged in the assignment. Nikki states, “It’s just a stamp. It doesn’t mean anything except for
‘You’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, and I see you.’ ” Nikki also “normalizes error”
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 85

in her classroom: During an observation, a question was posed to the class. A student asks, “are
we supposed to guess?” Teacher responds, “Please guess! We love guesses!”
Improving pacing. Lemov (2010) promotes that no activity should exceed ten minutes
because brain research suggests that people tend to lose focus after ten minutes and need to be
re-engaged. An effective way to create a sense of re-engagement is by using clear transitions
(Lemov, 2010). Nikki makes clear transitions between activities by the use of her timer, which
Lemov refers to as “Work the Clock.” When the timer goes off at the front of the room, Nikki
goes to turn off the timer, and she checks in with her students to see if they have completed the
task at hand. If students request more time, Nikki adds more time to the timer. The presence and
consistent use of the timer holds students accountable for producing work within a given time
period, and it also demonstrates a value for student voice and input, which contributes to a
healthy classroom culture. Nikki employs the technique of “Brighten Lines,” in which she draws
distinctive lines between the beginning and end of activities, which support students in re-
engaging in the learning process. When it is time for students to change from the warm-up
activity of reviewing male and female genitalia, Nikki changes her PowerPoint slide which
simply states, “Take out a sheet of lined paper.” This is a clear indication that the activity is
about to change and that transitioning behaviors are expected.
Nikki also has the agenda written on the board and on her PowerPoint presentation during
one of the classroom observations, which helps students to “Look Forward” to the varying
activities that they will have throughout that class to support them in meeting the objective. At
one point in the observation, Nikki instructs students to put away their Do Now papers and take
out their homework from the night before so that the class could review the assignment before
watching a short video.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 86

Challenging students to think critically. Planning sequenced questions support
students in taking manageable steps. Nikki challenges her students to think critically when she
engages them in the technique of “Simple to Complex.” This technique suggests that the teacher
ask questions to their students with increasing complexity. This process allows students to think
about what has been learned in more concrete ways and then push students to shift their thinking
to be more deeply engaged, which supports NGSS. As students are shifted to process new
information in more complex ways, the DOK level of the questions shift as well.
During a classroom observation, Nikki models this technique: “Hello! What is
testosterone? They were using the word like we knew what it was. When we started this unit, I
led by saying, ‘What makes a male and a female?’ “At this point, students are asking more
complex questions based on the scaffolds that Nikki creates that support deeper student learning.
After watching a video about a female’s transition to a male over a year, Nikki allows students to
ask any questions that have come to mind. One student asks, “Is Ty more aggressive than he was
before [considering that Ty was once female and is now male]?” Nikki repeats this question and
states, “Excellent question!” Nikki further states that this type of question is more cognitive
demanding because it is now making connections between prior learning (i.e. What makes a
male and a female?) and current learning (How does testosterone affect males and females?),
which helped students to meet the objective in analyzing a graph about testosterone versus
estrogen in men and women.
Nikki additionally supports critical thinking from her students when she shifts “The
Ratio.” Lemov (2010) defines “The Ratio” as the percentage of time the teacher is doing the
cognitive work versus the student. The more teachers increase this ratio to where the students
are engaged in the heavy lifting, the more ownership students are taking of that learned
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 87

information. Students will then, therefore, be more inclined to commit the information to
memory to be later accessed.
Table 4-3 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques Displayed by Nikki, Teacher Participant B
Domain Technique Domain Technique
Setting high
expectations
 No Opt Out
 Right is Right
 Stretch It
 Format Matters
 Without Apology
Creating strong
classroom culture
 Greet students at
the door
 “Do Now” on
screen
 Clear classroom
protocol
Planning that
ensures academic
achievement
 Begin with the
End
 Post It
Setting and
maintaining high
behavioral
expectations
 100 Percent
 What to Do
Structuring and
delivering lessons
 Board = Paper
 Circulate
 Break It Down
 Ratio
Building character
and trust
 Positive Framing
 Precise Praise
 Normalize error
Engaging students
during the lesson
 Call and
Response
 Posted Objective
 Makes lesson
relevant
 Everybody Writes
Improving pacing  Clear Transitions
 Work the Clock
 Brighten Lines
Challenging
students to think
critically
 Simple to
Complex
 Increase the Ratio

Case Study: Science Teacher Participant C, “Marsha"-Bachelor of Arts in Psychology,
Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instruction
Public, Large-District High School Academy
Overview
Teacher Participant C is a life science teacher in her first year at a public, large-district
high school academy in Los Angeles, California. Teacher C, who shall be referred to as Marsha,
has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology, and also has her Master of Arts in Curriculum and
Instruction.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 88

Marsha works for a public, large-district high school academy in Los Angeles, California
which will be referred to as CTSA. CTSA is a co-ed, 9
th
-12
th
grade, Title I, media literacy
institution that is one of four small schools that share one campus. The school was established to
relieve overcrowding at a local high school that enrolled between 4,000 to 5,000 students. The
surrounding community has experienced an influx of people of Latino origin, raising the Latino
population to approximately 88%. Of those remaining, approximately 10% of the population is
African American. One of CSTA’s driving forces is to transform the statistic of over 20,000
residents in the surrounding area have less than a high school education. Current enrollment at
CSTA is 542 students, with 88% of the students being classified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged, 70% of students qualify for free lunch, 28% of the students are English Language
Learners, 95% of students are Latino, and more than 4% are African American, which is
reflective of the surrounding community. The freshmen class, totaling approximately 210
students, is the largest grade level, which is why Marsha’s classes have approximately 34-40
students.
The demographics of this site reflected the large number of students who typically
achieve lower on assessments in science and who are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary study of and careers in STEM domains (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM,
2013; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010). Therefore, ensuring access to high-
quality science education is of paramount importance as identified in Chapters 1 and 2 of the
current study.
Following is an analysis of Marsha’s pedagogical practices using the “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques (Lemov, 2010), data from an interview of the participant, classroom
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 89

observations, and a review of documents related to the lesson(s) observed. The analysis is also
reflected in Table 4-4.
“Teach Like a Champion” Domains
Setting high expectations. During a review of the warm up, Marsha calls on a student to
share out her answer to the prompt. After calling on several participants to contribute to a 100%
right answer, Marsha states, “I want to make sure you clarify that [light-dependent reactions and
photosynthesis] are different. How are they different, [student name]? Marsha is not allowing
any student to “opt out” of having the 100% right answer, as Lemov (2010) suggests teachers do
in order to maintain high expectations. In another instance, while reviewing the warm up,
Marsha asks her class, “What is the name of the process where ATP is being changed to
glucose?” Several students say “photosynthesis, but Marsha only acknowledges one student:
[Student name], yes, thank you for raising your hand. Go ahead.” The student responds,
“photosynthesis.” Marsha responds, “Photosynthesis is not the name of the process where ATP is
converted into glucose.” Marsha did not praise this student for his participation solely. She is
looking for the right answer, and she has created an environment in her classroom where only the
right answer is praised. She continues to call on other students who have their hands raised.
The students begin class reading a brief prompt about light-dependent and light-
independent reactions. In a full-class share out, Marsha poses the question, what is the
difference between light-dependent and light-independent reactions? Versus asking just that
question, which is a DOK Level 2 question, Marsha scaffolds the process to get to that answer by
asking other questions such as: What is photosynthesis?, What is the name of the process where
ATP is being changed to glucose? Furthermore, Lemov’s (2010) technique of “format matters”
was evident in the observation. Marsha emphasizes the use of academic language in the
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 90

presentation of answers: “Use your academic language. What is captured and what is
converted?”
Planning that ensures academic achievement. Much like her secondary science
colleagues, Marsha utilized the technique of “Beginning with the End,” which promotes the
creation and implementation of outcome-driven lesson plans, evident in the observations.
Marsha plans her class with a focus on what students should be able to do with what they learn.
This approach in lesson planning is in contrast to a teacher’s plan that is based on what activities
students should do. Marsha presents her lesson with a clear objective that is posted on the
whiteboard at the front of the room: “Students will explore the how and why of photosynthesis
and differentiate between light and dark reactions.”
Lemov (2010) suggests that teachers should design their classroom layout in a way that
should support student’s meeting the objective. To coincide with Marsha’s lesson design,
Marsha has students in six small groups that are positioned 90 degrees away from the front of the
board. Each student is, for the most part, seated next to one or two other students, and that same
student is seated across from two or three other students. This shows that cooperative group
structures are high priority in Marsha’s lesson plans. Therefore, it makes sense when Marsha
states, “Turn to your elbow partner” or “Turn and talk with your neighbor” or “discuss this with
your group.”
Structuring and delivering lessons. During the assignment, Marsha models for the students
what she expects them to write as notes by writing notes on the whiteboard as students respond
collectively to the prompt. Marsha also practices the technique of “naming the steps” to her
lesson so that students are aware of how what they are currently doing connects to what is
planned for them to do. To start the lesson, Marsha tells the students, “So, what I’m going to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 91

have you do right now is we left off talking about light and dark reactions. So, I want you to
take a minute and a half and silently read the paragraph on light and dark reactions, and then I’m
going to have you turn to your elbow partner and share out the difference between light and dark
reactions.” During the portion of the activity where students are sharing their responses to the
warm-up with one another, Marsha reminds students, “I should hear talking now because
everyone should be sharing.” In explicitly stating that students should be talking and sharing out
answers, Marsha increases the accountability for participation and production.
Lemov (2010) also presents the technique of “Circulate,” which is a technique employed
during lesson delivery. This technique advises that the instructor should move around the room
frequently to promote 100% engagement and 100% accountability. Marsha constantly circulates
the classroom from the beginning of the lesson when she is checking to make sure students are
logged in to Nearpod, are writing when they are required, posing questions to students,
answering student questions, and addressing concerns, such as when students are engaged in off-
topic conversations versus working on the assignment at hand. During another observed
technique, “Break it Down,” in order to assist students with memorization strategies for
important information for this unit, Marsha tells her students, “I want you to remember that ATP
comes before glucose because A is the first letter of the alphabet, and G comes after A.” Marsha
activates prior knowledge by reminding students of alphabetical order and she connects this prior
knowledge to the learning she expects to take place in her class that day. Lastly, Marsha checks
for understanding in her lessons. Marsha states, “I want to check your understanding, so I want
you to answer two questions about light and dark reactions. So, you’re going to answer these
two questions, and then we are going to share out.” These checks for understanding were
embedded within Marsha’s instruction because they are a part of her Nearpod presentation.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 92

Engaging students during the lesson. Lemov (2010) makes sure to note the difference
between engaging students in the work of the class and not simply in the intricacies of the class.
During the lesson, Marsha asks, “What is one of the words I should be looking for in the answer
that lets me know that this is a light dependent reaction? [Student name]?” When Marsha utilizes
cold call, she has information, which she refers to as “data”, that is presented to all students
through Nearpod, which tells her that every student has answered the questions posed, therefore,
every student is “on the hook” and subject to being called on to justify their answer choice.
Marsha gives students time to process answers to questions, which Lemov (2010) refers to as
“wait time.” She asks questions like, “Does anyone need more time to answer?” Furthermore,
when she poses questions from a planned question sequence, she gives time for students to raise
their hands and contribute the answer. She also states phrases such as, “Alright, let’s take a
minute to reflect.”
Creating strong classroom culture. Two techniques that Marsha demonstrated that
promote a strong classroom culture are her tight transitions and the fact that she gives props to
students for being on task—she narrates the positive that she wants to see within a 100%
compliant class. In addition to greeting students at the door and providing students with a Do
Now that requires them to write, as Lemov (2010) suggests, Marsha has transitions that are very
clear. When Marsha is attempting to transition the students from group conversations to a full-
class conversation, she holds up her right hand and she states, “I’ll have your attention in
5…4…3…2…1…0…thank you!” During this countdown, students are returning to their seats
and turning their bodies and attention toward their teacher. At another point during the lesson,
groups of students are asked to read a text from the iPad, and then they are expected to answer
several questions that follow. After Marsha explains this expectation and sets the timer for
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 93

students to begin this activity, there were still some groups that did not immediately engage in
the reading. Marsha gives “props” to the groups that are doing exactly what she asked: “I like
the way Team 2 is excitedly reading the text!”
Setting and maintaining high behavioral expectations. Lemov (2010) presents the
technique of “What To Do.” This technique is based on the assumption that student
noncompliance is not due to defiance but incompetence. Therefore, the teacher should assume
best intentions with all students, and the students should be given an opportunity to self-correct
their noncompliance after the teacher reminds students of the expectation by modeling that
expectation.
During one classroom observation, Marsha’s biology students are watching a brief video.
Marsha tells her students, “We’re using the same circle core guidelines. We are listening with
respect even though we are watching a video.” Later in a follow up interview, Marsha is asked
about the circle core guidelines, and Marsha points the researcher’s attention to a poster hanging
at the front of the room. “Circle Core Guidelines” are a set of seven expectations that promote
restorative justice and community building circles. These seven principles are promoted among
the school community. The principles include: (1) Respect the talking piece. (2) Speak from
your heart. (3) Listen with your heart. (4) Speak with respect. (5) Listen with respect. (6)
Remain in the circle. And (7) Honor privacy.
Building character and trust. One technique that Marsha demonstrates to build character
and trust is that of positive framing. Lemov (2010) suggests that corrections should be made
positively and consistently. This principle is guided by six rules, one of which is that the teacher
is to assume the best intentions with their students. At one point in the lesson, Marsha tells a
group: “Group 3, please listen with respect.” In reminding group 3 to listen with respect, she is
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 94

telling the group what she wants them to do instead of what she does not want them to do. She
reminds group 3 to “listen with respect, please” with no change in her tone or demeanor. She
makes what Lemov (2010) calls “lightning-quick public correction” in which she reminds the
group of the expectation but takes nothing away from instructional time.
In classrooms that build character and trust, teachers normalize error. In addition to
promoting the circle core guidelines, Marsha addresses a student asking who made errors on the
Check for Understanding questions. During the review of answers from Nearpod, students look
at the data on the screen. One student says, “Who got it wrong?” Marsha responds, “It doesn’t
matter who got it wrong. It’s for learning, not pointing out people’s flaws.” Errors are expected
in this class, and the correction of errors for the sake of learning is the message conveyed from
teacher to student.
Marsha also gives precise praise to students that are going above and beyond the expectation.
At one point in her circulating the classroom, Marsha notices that a student is drawing a diagram
to answer the question versus using words. She responds, “I love that (student) is using a
diagram! The question asks you to explain. It doesn't specify that you must only use words to
explain. We all think differently and process differently so we can give explanations
differently.”
Improving pacing. An effective way to create a sense of re-engagement is by using clear
transitions (Lemov, 2010). Marsha makes clear transitions between activities by the use of her
timer, which Lemov refers to as “Work the Clock.” When the timer goes off at the front of the
room, Marsha goes to turn off the timer, and she checks in with her students to see if they have
completed the task at hand. If students request more time, Marsha adds more time to the timer.
The presence and consistent use of the timer holds students accountable for producing work
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 95

within a given time period, and it also demonstrates a value for student voice and input, which
contributes to a healthy classroom culture. Marsha employs the technique of “Brighten Lines,”
in which she draws distinctive lines between the beginning and end of activities, which support
students in re-engaging in the learning process. Marsha enters the class after greeting every
student at the door and ensuring that every student was picking up an iPad from the iPad cart and
says, “Alright class! Good afternoon! How are you guys doing? Good? Alright, so please log in
to Nearpod.com, and we are going to continue the lesson we were on yesterday.” Marsha’s
verbal explanation of the activity that was posted on the board via the LCD projector was one of
many ways that Marsha distinguishes that passing period has ended and class time has begun.
Marsha also has the agenda written on the board and on her PowerPoint presentation during one
of the classroom observations, which helps students to “Look Forward” to the varying activities
that they will have throughout that class to support them in meeting the objective.
Challenging students to think critically. The technique “hit rate” suggests that when a
teacher is engaged in questioning, students should not be getting 100% of the questions correct.
If this is the case, then the questions being asked are too low-level. Marsha challenges her
students to think critically when she engages them in the technique of “Simple to Complex.”
This technique suggests that the teacher ask questions to their students with increasing
complexity. This process allows students to think about what has been learned in more concrete
ways and then push students to shift their thinking to be more deeply engaged, which supports
NGSS. Shifting students to process new information in more complex ways changes the DOK
levels of questions from 1 to level 2 and beyond.
During a classroom observation, Marsha models this technique and the cold call
technique simultaneously: “I'm going to call on team 4, and I want [student’s name] to explain
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 96

the process of photosynthesis. Everyone please be prepared to share something because she
won't be the only student I call on to help explain this process.” The student says,
“[Photosynthesis] is the process of changing solar energy into chemical energy.” Marsha
responds, “Good! We have photosynthesis. We have solar energy. We have it being changed
into chemical energy. What can we add to that?” Marsha then waits a few seconds before she
says, “[Student’s name], ok, so what happens? Now we are on question 2. It happens in the
chloroplast.” Marsha uses the students to quickly transition to a complete answer. She also shifts
the work load from herself to the students by setting the expectation that anyone can be selected
to share out and it is everyone’s responsibility to contribute to a 100% correct response.
Table 4-4 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques Displayed by Marsha, Teacher Participant C
Domain Technique Domain Technique
Setting high
expectations
 No Opt Out
 Right is Right
 Stretch It
 Format Matters
Creating strong
classroom culture
 Tight transitions
 Props
Planning that
ensures academic
achievement
 Begin with the
End
 Post It
 Draw the Map
Setting and
maintaining high
behavioral
expectations
 What to Do
Structuring and
delivering lessons
 Name the Steps
 Board = Paper
 Circulate
 Break it Down
 Check for
Understanding
Building character
and trust
 Positive Framing
 Precise Praise
 Emotional
Constancy
 Normalize Error
Engaging students
during the lesson.
 Cold Call
 Wait Time
Improving pacing  Brighten Lines
 Work the Clock
Challenging
students to think
critically
 Simple to
Complex
 Hit Rate

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 97

Case Study: Science Teacher Participant D, “Shanna”-Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies,
Master of Arts in Education, Curriculum, and Instruction with emphasis in Science
Public Middle School Academy
Overview
Teacher Participant D is a 6
th
grade math and science core teacher in her 8
th
year of
teaching. Her current site is a public, middle school academy in a city approximately 15 miles
from Los Angeles, California. Teacher D, who shall be referred to as Shanna, has a Bachelor of
Arts degree in Liberal Studies, and also has her Master of Arts in Education, Curriculum, and
Instruction with an emphasis in ScienceShanna works for a public, middle school academy,
which will be referred to as RJA. RJA is a co-ed, 9
th
-12
th
grade institution that prides itself in
being an intimate, inclusive, student-centered learning community. RJA has a diverse student
population: 66% of students are Latino, 19% of students are African-American, 4% of students
are Filipino, 3% of students are Pacific Islander, 1% of students are Anglo, 3% of students are
Asian, and 1% of students are American Indian and other ethnicities. The student enrollment is
approximately 950 students, of which 105 students are Grade 6, which is who Shanna teaches.
JRA was named after a great American athlete, and the school strives to embody the values
promoted by this athlete’s legacy. JRA boasts of many accomplishments over its 13 years of
service. First, the Academic Performance Index scores, as of 2012, are almost 800, giving them
a state rank of 4. This school has high parental and community involvement with over 25,000
service hours per year documented, and all 40 teachers employed have a full credential.
Following is an analysis of Shanna’s pedagogical practices using the “Teach Like a
Champion” techniques (Lemov, 2010), data from an interview of the participant, classroom
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 98

observations, and a review of documents related to the lesson(s) observed. The analysis is also
reflected in Table 4-5.
“Teach Like a Champion” Domains
Setting high expectations. Just as her colleagues have done, Shanna stretches what her
students know by asking frequent, targeted, and rigorous questions with the intention of
engaging her students in deeper forms of mastery of the content. During a review of the warm
up, Shanna calls on a student to share out her answer to the prompt. After introducing this new
topic about wet biomes, Shanna reminds her students of prior learning: “The last couple of days
we’ve talked about biomes that didn’t have a lot of water [interrupted…went to talk to a group of
three boys; she leans in to the group and speaks low, then returns to the front of the room] What
are some differences we see between the wet biomes like the rainforest and the other biomes
we’ve talked about?” A student responds inaudibly. Shanna responds, “I like what [student’s
name] said! Most animals are in the trees [in wet biomes].” This is an example of Shanna
pushing students past DOK Level 1 questions. Students are asked to compare the two different
biomes, which is a DOK Level 2 task and pushes beyond the anticipated objective. At another
point in the lesson, she asks the class, “Have we seen another biome yet with such colorful
animals? Why do you think these animals are so colorful?” She’s asking students to make
comparisons between biomes that they have previously learned and the current biome, which is
another DOK level 2 question. One student responds, “there are a lot more opportunities for
camouflage.” Shanna responds, “Yes, a lot more opportunities for camouflage! Thank you!” She
then adds, “What other biomes have we talked about that…allow for some opportunity for
camouflage? [Student’s name], can you think of another example of…another biome…where
animals look like their environment to be protected?” Shanna engages her students in a series of
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 99

questions that calls them to make clear comparisons and contrasts between biomes, which further
contextualizes their knowledge.
Planning that ensures academic achievement. Much like her secondary science
colleagues, Shanna utilized the technique of “Beginning with the End,” which promotes the
creation and implementation of outcome-driven lesson plans, evident in the observations.
Shanna plans her class with a focus on what students should be able to do with what they learn.
This approach in lesson planning is in contrast to a teacher’s plan that is based on what activities
students should do. Shanna presents her lesson with a clear objective that is posted on the
PowerPoint slide on the screen when students walk into the class: “Students will learn the
characteristics of wet biomes. Furthermore, it is an expectation for students to enter class and
write down the objective for the day in their warm up journals, which Shanna reminds students
of at the start of class.
In analyzing the handout provided to students at the beginning of class, the activity
matches the objective. The objective is that students learn the characteristics of wet biomes. The
handout is divided into two major parts: tropical rainforest and temperate deciduous forest, and
these are the two types of wet biomes. The notes provide fill-in-the-blanks for students to write
down key details about these two types of wet biomes. Furthermore, the handout provided to
students has a space for students to draw and color certain details about each biome, which
supports English language learners and students who may prefer visual inputs versus auditory
inputs.
Shanna’s classroom layout also supports student’s meeting the objective. To coincide with
Shanna’s lesson design, Shanna has students in groups throughout the room. Shanna makes the
best of a small space and large class sizes of approximately 30 or more students each. Each
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 100

student is, for the most part, seated next to one or two other students. This shows that
cooperative group structures are high priority in Shanna’s lesson plans. Therefore, it makes
sense when Shanna states, “Turn and talk with your neighbor” or “discuss this with your group.”
Structuring and delivering lessons. Shanna structures and delivers her lessons that
gradually release the responsibility for the learning target from the teacher and place ownership
on the student. One strategy that Lemov (2010) refers to as “Board = Paper,” he encourages the
teacher to use the board to model what is expected for students to write on their papers.
Providing students with models of what is expected of them to do creates consistency and sets
students up for success because the expectations are clearly written and executed. During the
assignment, In Shanna’s case, when students take CLOZE notes, which are fill-in-the-blank
notes, Shanna has prepared the PowerPoint slides with the blanks underlined so students know
exactly what words to fill in on their worksheets. She planned this lesson with modeling what
she wants the students to accomplish in mind.
Lemov (2010) also presents the technique of “Circulate,” which is a technique employed
during lesson delivery. This technique advises that the instructor should move around the room
frequently to promote 100% engagement and 100% accountability. During the entire lesson,
Shanna circulates the room, providing private correction to students off task and listening to
students who are engaged in conversation about what they are learning.
During another observed technique, “Break it Down,” Shanna makes the content she is
teaching relevant to her students. When Shanna introduces the characteristics of wet biomes, she
talks about how wet biomes are near countries near the equator, which is where a lot of Central
American countries are located. With her student population being primarily Latino, she asks
students if they have ever been to countries like Guatemala or Honduras, because they are
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 101

surrounded by rainforests. She asks students if they can make a cultural connection between the
description she is providing of humidity and the different climates of Central American
countries. Shanna also adds that California is a unique location for biomes: “You guys always
ask me, ‘Ms. [Shanna], where did you grow up? Where did you go to high school?’ I went to
high school way up north, eight hours from here. Where I lived, I lived very close, almost in a
temperate deciduous forest biome. As I told you before, California is so lucky because we have
so many biomes within our state!”
After approximately 4 minutes of copying down notes, students are given several minutes to
color and draw pictures on their notes to help them remember certain characteristics and
animal/plant life present in that biome. While students are engaging in this part of the lesson,
Shanna states, “I’m going to ask some questions while you’re coloring. Please raise your hand if
you’d like to contribute. Let’s refrain from shouting out.” In another effort to make the learning
relevant to students, Shanna gives her sixth graders an opportunity to be just that: sixth graders.
She places high cognitive expectations on her students, but because she understands that they are
just 11 years old, and they need opportunities for socialization and energy expenditure, she
builds in those opportunities within her lessons. The coloring also supports students being able
to demonstrate mastery in more than one way.
Lastly, Lemov (2010) encourages teachers to utilize the Exit Ticket strategy as a way to
check for understanding in a way that provides strong data to the teacher which can influence
future lesson planning based on the insights gained. As the class period comes to a close,
Shanna asks students to reflect on prior knowledge and make connections to the knowledge
learned during that lesson, and work together in small groups to create a food chain using the
following organisms: spider monkey, sun, fig tree, jaguar, slime mold. Students are asked to add
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 102

color to their food chain if time permits. Shanna can use that data to inform her next day’s
instruction based on how well her students were able to integrate their new learning into their old
learning about the different biomes covered.
Engaging students during the lesson. At one point in the lesson, Shanna cold calls on a
student to ask him to provide information about prior learning in order to set the stage for
anticipated learning for that class: “[Student’s name], can you recall what types of biomes we
talked about on Tuesday?” Shanna, later in the lesson, cold calls on another student while
students are engaged in drawing and coloring on their handouts: “What biome receives the most
rainfall? That may have just been a guess on your part. [Student’s name]?” The student
responds, “The tropical rainforest.” Shanna responds, “Yes! That’s correct! The tropical
rainforest!” Shanna creates informal opportunities for students to have a voice throughout the
lesson, and she constantly keeps students on their toes because anyone is a potential participant
in the lesson.
Shanna also practices the technique of “Everybody Writes,” which, as it states, promotes that
all students are writing and using their academic voice. In providing every student with
scaffolded notes, Shanna is making sure that every student is writing about what they are
learning while creating a pace that keeps most students on the same playing field; if each student
needs to fill in three words per slide, the transition time between activities can be more frequent.
Creating strong classroom culture. Just like her science colleagues, Shanna engages her
students in the five key principles for classroom culture: discipline, management, control,
influence, and engagement. There is a clear entry routine, of which Shanna reminds her
students: “Shhhh….everyone in here should be writing down the objective and their bell work.
We do this every day.” After Shanna gives this reminder, more students have stopped talking,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 103

and more students are beginning to copy down the information from the LCD screen. At the
start of class, Shanna instructs students to turn in their polar bear homework to [student’s name.]
After two minutes, Shanna begins a countdown: “Okay, after 15 seconds, everyone should be
finished turning in their homework to [student’s name]…okay, another 10
seconds…5…4…3...2…1… alright, we are done collecting assignments, thank you!”
Building character and trust. Shanna, like all “Teach Like a Champion” teachers, is
dedicated to creating and maintaining appropriate and consistent communication between herself
and her students. In one particular instance with a young man who was exhibiting less-than-ideal
behavior, such as using profanity in talking to his two peers on his left and right, and talking and
not writing notes when he should have been paying attention to the video at the front of the
room, Shanna addressed this behavioral concern using many of the techniques that “Teach Like a
Champion” teachers use. First, in order to get the student to be a part of the class and be 100%
compliant, Shanna recognized that she would have to provide this student with some form of
correction in order to stop the behaviors that were noncompliant. Shanna goes to this student at
one point in the class and utilizes “positive framing,” during which she walks over to the student,
bends down to provide the student with as much privacy as possible, and reminds the student of
the behavior she wants to see: “[Student’s name], turn around, sit completely in your chair, and
pay attention.” After this behavior continued, when the video began, Shanna tapped this young
man on his shoulder, and asked him to come to the back of the room by her. During this time,
she bent down eye-level with the student, said something to him that was inaudible, and the
student returned to his chair. After he returned to his chair, his behaviors and decisions seemed
more compliant with what Shanna expected of all students. In giving the student what Lemov
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 104

(2010) calls private individual correction, Shanna was able to redirect the student without
spending any instructional time doing so.
Shanna also displayed emotional constancy in which her tone, attitude, or body language did
not change in having to address the same student multiple times in order to correct unwanted
behaviors. Shanna also displayed the “warm/strict” paradigm in her correction of students. At
one point, students were talking over her, and she stated, “We have had two days of very
talkative behavior. This is why we were given the extra homework assignment last night. I am
not going to talk over you. I need you to listen and stop talking to the people next to you.
[Shanna waits]. Thank you.” Her tone was not one of frustration. She still expressed the same
compassion and warmth while providing correction that she expresses when she is teaching.
However, she is unrelenting in her desire for 100% compliance, and she will not accept anything
less from her students. Observations continued to show Shanna’s warm/strict demeanor. In her
circulating the classroom, one student asked her what animal he should draw on his handout, and
she joked with the student and said, “Draw a monkey! I think monkeys are pretty easy to draw
[giggles]!”
Improving pacing. Shanna directs the pacing of her class by employing techniques such as
Work the Clock and Look Forward. Shanna has her students look forward to future learning and
make connections between current learning and prior learning when she explains to them why
they are learning about biomes: “We are learning little bits of each biome because we are setting
ourselves up for a project on biomes. So, you’re kind of becoming mini-experts in each
biome…so let’s say [students names] decide they love rainforest biomes! They will take the little
bit of knowledge they have on the rainforest biome and make it bigger in their project.” Shanna
makes connections between prior learning, current learning, and future learning. Furthermore,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 105

Shanna uses the timer during her lesson to transition between activities. She states, “Based on
what I’m seeing, I’m going to give you one more minute. We have some incredibly amazing
artists who need more time for their details.”
Challenging students to think critically. Shanna, as all “Teach Like a Champion” teachers,
strives to establish a process for students to learn new information. Shanna pushes her students
beyond the obvious by asking them questions in a simple to complex fashion. She builds upon
prior knowledge and pushes students to DOK Level 2 and 3 questions within her lesson. Lemov
(2010) states that when a teacher is engaged in questioning, students should not be getting 100%
of the questions correct. If this is the case, then the questions being asked are too low-level.
Shanna challenges her students to think critically when she engages them in the technique of
“Simple to Complex” as she allows students to think about what has been learned in more
concrete ways and then push students to shift their thinking to be more deeply engaged, which
supports NGSS. During a classroom observation, Shanna models this technique: After Shanna
meets the objective of the lesson, she pushes the students farther. She shows a brief video clip
about the Gombe forest, and she asks students to answer four questions about this wet biome.
She tells the groups to assign one question per person in the group. She then tells students to
write down notes about their particular question. She then states that after the video, the groups
will be able to share out their ideas from the video and they can work together to write their 5-7
sentence paragraph.
Table 4-5 “Teach Like a Champion” Techniques Displayed by Shanna, Teacher Participant D
Domain Technique Domain Technique
Setting high
expectations
 Stretch It Creating strong
classroom culture.
 Entry Routine
 Tight Transitions
Planning that
ensures academic
achievement
 Begin with the
End
 Post It
Setting and
maintaining high
behavioral
expectations
 What to Do
 Strong Voice
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 106

Structuring and
delivering lessons
 Board = paper
 Circulate
 Break it Down
 Exit Ticket
Building character
and trust
 Positive Framing
 Warm/Strict
 Private, individual
correction
 Emotional
Constancy
Engaging students
during the lesson.
 Everybody Writes Improving pacing  Look Forward
 Work the Clock
Challenging
students to think
critically.
 Simple to
Complex

Comparative Analysis
After analyzing data for four secondary science educators independently and using a
common descriptive framework to classify each teacher as a “Champion” Teacher, there are
notable comparisons. First, each teacher displayed at least one technique in each of the nine
domains from “Teach Like a Champion.” This is significant because each teacher demonstrated
how meet the characteristics of high-quality science teachers that are provided in Chapter 2.
Each of the participants demonstrated strong pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) that
they worked to attain outside of formal education. As discussed in Chapter 2, each of the
participants in this study are self-efficacious as science educators, and their beliefs in their
abilities have ultimately influenced how much effort each teacher employs in pursuing their
teaching objectives as well as the extent to which they will persist in the face of challenges with
the curriculum. Carol shares that she studies in preparation for her lessons. She researches
information, reviews textbooks, watches videos, does the assignment for herself first in order to
anticipate any potential misconceptions the students may have, and she takes that role very
seriously. When Carol feels as if she needs additional support outside of her own studying, she
reaches out to colleagues or attends professional development in order to develop in that domain.
Nikki takes advantage of professional development opportunities that allow her to conduct
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 107

scientific research, such as the research project in Canada on climate change that she participated
in last year. Although this opportunity was not life-science based, it allowed Nikki to re-engage
in the scientific process as a learner versus as a teacher, and it gave her an opportunity to
research content with which she does not specialize, which better prepared her to teach the Next
Generation Science Standards content which, she admits, is new terrain for her since she comes
from the “CST era.” During Nikki’s research project, she engaged in scientific problem-solving
strategies that she applied to teaching rigorous life science content through a new lens, and has
transferred those problem-solving skills into this novel context.
Marsha participates in professional development opportunities to support her acquisition
of pedagogical content knowledge. Furthermore, when Marsha feels as if she is teaching content
with which she is uncomfortable, she goes back to textbooks and other study resources in order
to refresh herself with the more nuanced details of the content. Lastly, Shanna says that she is
relentless in finding resources that support her understanding as well as support her students’
understanding of science content. She creates assignments and resources that give the students
ownership over how to answer more challenging tasks because such an approach coincides with
NGSS expectations as well as accesses higher DOK levels. All of the participants demonstrate
high self-efficacy in teaching science through the manner in which they persist in learning
content in order to teach their students accurately as well as to provide rich, meaningful learning
opportunities for their students as well.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 108

Table 4-6 Summary of Comparative Analysis
Carol Nikki Marsha Shanna
• Bachelor’s in
Psychology
• Swim coach
since high
school
• Saw a
connection
between
coaching and
teaching
• Asked to teach
physics after
applying for a
math position
• Bachelor’s of
Anthropology
• Participated in
a graduate
research
program
• Participated in
summer
research
opportunities
• Bachelor’s in
Psychology
• Wanted to
impact high-
needs areas
and promote
social justice
• Wanted to
share her
struggles in
math and
science with
students of
color
• Bachelor’s in
Liberal Arts
• Wanted job
security

Although each participant’s approach varied, each of the participants created a
stimulating classroom environment by setting high academic expectations on their students, and
by improving the pacing of their instruction. Carol, Nikki, Marsha, and Shanna frequently
utilized techniques such as “Right is Right” and “Stretch It” in order to hold students accountable
to these high academic expectations. Such techniques do not simply praise students for effort,
but set the continual expectation that mastery is the goal. In order to improve pacing, all four
participants consistently use language and timers that let students know that activities are
changing. The participants also have classroom protocols in place that support the transitions
between procedures.
Each of the participants also structures their lessons and their classrooms in a way that
promotes opportunities for interactive learning and collaboration which increases student
engagement and classroom management. All four participants used their boards as a space to
model expectations for students, which supported clear expectations. In providing multiple
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 109

opportunities for students to work interactively with the teacher and among each other, the
teachers were lessening the cognitive load of themselves as the teacher and transferring that
cognitive load on to the students. Furthermore, the teachers made their lessons interactive by
asking students questions that ranged in Depth of Knowledge (DOK) level. Each participant has
their students grouped together so students can have frequent opportunities to discuss their
thoughts, share ideas, and work collaboratively to solve problems and complete tasks. The
participants’ classrooms are also structured in a way that they, as the teacher, can frequently
collect formative data from the students in order gauge their levels of mastery throughout the
lesson and in between lessons as well. For example, Carol uses “temperature readings,” where
students point their thumbs up, in the middle or down, to check in and allow a student to gauge
their own level of confusion on a topic, direction, problem, or strategy. As seen in Nikki’s Do
Now assignment, she asked the students to provide peer feedback to their classmates’ responses
to the Do Now as a form of informal assessment. Nikki provided sentence frames to promote the
use of academic language as well as promote on-target behavior in this activity. Marsha
embedded Check for Understanding (CFU) questions within her lecture presentation in order to
collect real-time data on what percentage of students were engaged, participatory, and had
mastered the content she had presented. Shanna had her students complete an exit ticket at the
end of class to check for mastery of the material she had presented in that day’s lesson.
Although there is a shift to overcome this, science practice is often done in isolation due to the
competition among scientists for funding, prestige, and positions (Anderson, Ronning, De Vries,
& Martinson, 2007). Therefore, one of the benefits of having science teachers from non-science
backgrounds is that they transfer their experiences from collaborative environments in order to
create collaborative environments in their classrooms.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 110

Each of the participants creates opportunities for students to think critically in a way that
integrates skills and knowledge across different content areas and across the differing
experiences of the students. Each of the participants engaged students in frequent questioning.
Questions began at DOK Level 1 and progressed to DOK 2 and 3 all within one class period.
Furthermore, each of the participants had positive attitudes within their classrooms which
permeate beyond their strict, unwavering high behavioral expectations. Each teacher gave
correction to students in the least invasive way when possible. When circumstances required the
participant to use a more invasive behavioral correction technique, the participant did so
privately or publicly with a consistent tone, diction, and body language, and they did so quickly
as to not take away from any instructional time.
Lastly, each teacher comes from a school with a high population of African American
and Latino students, and each are committed to providing equitable science instruction to their
student population, which combats current concerns in science education in urban schools. Each
teacher shared their commitment to serve underserved communities and students, and to do so
while maintaining high expectations of students, regardless of any student’s ability,
socioeconomic status, language, gender, or any other variable that may be seen as a potential
impediment.
Research Question #2: How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees
believe their prior experiences inform their instruction?
Carol’s Path to the Science Classroom
Carol’s love and passion for swimming prompted her journey to initially become a swim
teacher and coach for six years before she became a classroom teacher. She states that she
realized that she really enjoyed helping people reach their goals, and she liked the challenge of
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 111

serving the kids who came into her swim classes at different levels and with different swim
goals, which, in retrospect, she now sees the same need for differentiation in her classrooms.
Carol entered the teaching profession with the intention to teach math because math, as she
states, was a challenge for her throughout high school and college, and she enjoyed the process
of breaking down the content into formats that were manageable to her. She found her pursuit to
be very fulfilling, and she was able to support her college friends throughout college-level math
courses with the skills she honed in on for herself and for her own academic success.
Carol entered the science classroom very self-efficacious; she believed she already
possessed integral skills to teach students, such as the ability to differentiate instruction, and how
to support different types of learners to the same end goal. Her self-efficacy has helped her to
persist in times when she was not confident of the end goal herself. When asked how she dealt
with situations when she was not confident in or comfortable with material, she shares, “The first
thing I do when I plan a lesson is I try to make sure I understand further than what they need to
know…I’m an adult—I can teach myself what my content is…I don’t think my major has to do
with how well I teach my content.” Carol’s self-efficacy is the result of skills she transferred
from her swim coaching experiences as well as the result of the success she has found in
applying her skills and knowledge from her Bachelor’s in Psychology, in her classroom.
When Carol was asked what skills from her degree she thinks she implements within her
teaching, she shared that she uses the techniques learned in psychology to create and increase
motivation for her students. She shares,
“So I think the biggest thing is figuring out how to motivate my students and how
to get the buy in that what I'm teaching you is worthwhile and is valuable. So how to
motivate them and how to create value in what I'm teaching them so that they want to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 112

learn that they want to. And I think the psych aspect of it is just also the coaching aspect
of it which I tie hand in hand because I had to do a lot of sports psychology. It's just how
do you motivate students? In psychology I learned a lot of techniques about how to create
motivation in just a general sense because it wasn’t about teaching. It was just about
motivation especially a lot of child and adolescent classes.”
Carol goes on to share that she also implements her knowledge of physiological, mental,
emotional, and psychological adolescent development when planning lessons that are accessible
to students:
“Also it's just how does the brain work and how long can a student actually focus
before they literally have met their threshold. How do I present material in a way that is
memorable and that they can actually store in their memory and be able to bring it back
when prompted? What are ways that I can give the students this material to make it
valuable and then also create ways for them to access it when needed? And I think psych,
especially bio psych, and just child and adolescent classes, understanding how the brain
works really helped me realize you can't just lecture straight at them for 40 minutes
because they're not going to get it. The brain doesn't work that way. You can't teach
only one type of way because there are just so many different types of learners. And
even though we talked about learners and education, we talked about it in psychology,
kinesthetic learners -- I probably talked about this earlier but just the different types of
learners and how to create something that'll reach all of them.”

Nikki’s Path to the Science Classroom
During Nikki’s senior year at UCLA, she was enrolled in a program that supported
minorities in science. These types of experiences revealed to Nikki the lack of the presence of
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 113

minorities and women in STEM fields. Therefore, her love for science prompted her to
potentially pursue graduate studies in biology. After she graduated with her Bachelor of Science
in Anthropology, she worked an additional two years in a biology research lab through this
program. However, after those two years, she decided to transition into the classroom, and she
immediately enrolled into a master’s and credentialing program. Nikki knew she wanted to be a
science educator when she became aware of the educational inequities prevalent in urban
education. Nikki shares her perspective about what kind of people can teach science:
“I feel like that was a foundation for me to teach science in terms of knowing how
it works like in a research lab at the graduate level because there's one thing to
understand like the content and even the content itself can be difficult because the
misconceptions can pop up if you don't know the content that well. But I think
with the right supports, professional development and training and experiences,
anybody can teach science but you need those experiences beyond your
credentialing program. There are so many to. Like last year, last summer, not the
summer that just passed but the year before that, I went to Canada on a science
PD thing, and we did some climate change stuff. I don't think it's mandatory like
you would need to major in a science undergrad to become a science teacher, but I
think training and experiences like professional development need to happen.
There needs to be some type of resources carved out especially with NGSS
coming. I feel like all of us are like, what? It's really hard to even change. It's not
just information in the book, then we test in multiple choice questions, which
that's what I grew up in CST world. It was straightforward. I feel like now with
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 114

the change, the move in towards NGSS, it is here. We need more professional
development even just in that.
You don't necessarily have to major, but you definitely need supports and
trainings to experience what a STEM looked like as a career, in the research and
also and in business and in practice. That's something that needs to be developed
all the time because stuff is changing all the time.”
Nikki has stayed in the science classroom for ten years because she has a love for science
and experiences with science research beyond a formal education. Her science experiences make
her self-efficacious in terms of teaching science at the secondary level. She feels well-equipped
to teach science based on her two years in the laboratory and her continuing desire to participate
in professional development opportunities which keep her science practice relevant for her.
Nikki has a Bachelor’s degree in Anthropology, and when asked what skills from her
degree she thinks she implements within her teaching, she shared that her degree taught her how
to conduct scientific research in terms of how to formulate a hypothesis, how to practice the
scientific method, as well as how to ask students to look a science phenomenon using a
social/political/cultural/historical lens. She shares, “Science is not in a vacuum.” She wants
students to be more that passive recipients of scientific knowledge; instead, she wants her
students to engage with scientific theories in a way that challenges what is accepted as fact. She
transfers her experience with life science situated in a cultural/societal context, which is what the
study of anthropology is, into her classroom so students are more active in their acquisition of
life science content. Her studies also exposed her to elements of life science such as comparative
anatomy, biological anthropology, paleopathology, bones, teeth, bipedalism, evolution, language
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 115

and the brain, and ancient medicine and medical procedures such as trepanation and skull
deformation. Such topics are covered in anatomy and physiology.
Marsha’s Path to the Science Classroom
Marsha shares how she came about to be teaching biology with a psychology
degree:
Despite having a 4.33 GPA and taking 4 AP classes, I still felt like I was not
“smart enough” whenever I was in my science class. My intelligence seemed to
constantly be questioned and to add to that, I never observed people or women
who looked like me in science. I thought I could never learn science! Nonetheless
I went on to college and suffered through my science classes there as well.
After an unpleasant experience in a physics course, Marsha persevered to earn a B in this
course, which is when, she states, she began to believe that people of color and women were
capable of making great contributions in science. Because psychology is her “first love,” she
completed a Psychology Bachelor’s degree, but she was still determined to teach natural science.
She found a Masters and credential program that accepted her Psychology degree to teach
Biology, and she is currently in her first official year teaching what she loves.
As a first-generation college student, Marsha learned, while in pursuit of her bachelor’s
degree, that urban schools tend to service a disproportionate number of students who are low-
income and lack access to qualified and culturally-competent teachers. She shares that upon
discovering this, it profoundly affected her and motivated her to complete her higher education
pursuits so that she could one day use her education to impact the lives of students:
“I'm really into critical pedagogy and social justice and the root cause of things. I
always imagine how that affects my kids in the classroom and how bringing those
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 116

experiences into [my classroom]… A lot of the classes I [took in college
challenged me] to be critical of… things [such as social justice] in the systems
and all these things, I think I also bring that into the classroom and see how that
affects my daily instruction and just the school and what things I should advocate
for or students should advocate for and things like that… I think this is a lot of
Vygotsky's work -- our experiences completely shape how we are and how we
think and the things we choose to learn more readily and easily. And I think all
those things really are important in the way I teach and the way I interact with my
kids.”
Marsha’s desire for social justice in education keeps her connected not only to teaching,
but to serving urban school systems as well. Marsha also attributes her desire to teach to the
presence of, as she describes, “culturally competent teachers and great high school mentors.” She
shares, “I experienced the benefits of education that led to my success as a young African
American woman, but I have also seen firsthand the effects of the school-to-prison pipeline that
has become so pervasive among students attending urban schools…including my own siblings.”
Marsha shares her heartbreaking story of her brother who, in third grade, was told that he should
go home and hang himself because he would never amount to anything. This traumatic
experience permanently turned her brother off of education. He spent the rest of his short-lived
life in and out of incarceration until he was killed at 21. She says that her brother’s life made it
clear to her that education was “life or death,” and she “chose life.” She states, “I chose to
provide life to young, innocent minds that were desperate to be captivated and intrigued. My
calling became clear as ever. I knew that I wanted to be an educator in order to save as many
lives as possible.”
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 117

Marsha’s self-efficacy is based on a shared identity with her students. She feels
confident that she can implement the rigors of science because she experienced the rigors of
science in pursuit of her Bachelor’s degree. She shares her experience of a college physics
professor telling her that if she did not get the material at that point, then she would never get it.
Broken and defeated, she dropped the course, but re-enrolled and hired a private tutor who
supported her to pass the course with a B.
Marsha has a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology, just as Carol does. When Marsha was
asked what skills from her degree she thinks she implements within her teaching, she
emphasized the importance of meeting student’s basic needs before trying to educate them,
which is a prominent theory in psychology from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow & Lewis,
1987). She shares,
“For instance, if a kid comes in and they're having a bad day, I know my content
is going to roll over their head. It's not even maybe that they don’t know it but their
mental state right now is not allowing them to access something else. They've already
reached the limit of what they can take that day. They're not going to be able to access it.
So for those kids I usually go back and review it with them or I'll go back like, "Hey, how
are you feeling today? Are you ready to review?" I feel like if kids are not in the right
state of mind or even if they've experienced something or upset or they're mad or a
trauma happened or sometimes they just woke up at the wrong side of the bed, those are
the kids that don’t function well in the class. Those are the kids that can't pay attention.
They want to go to the bathroom. They just can't physically and mentally be there in my
class. I think having the psychology background, I get that. It's like Maslow's hierarchy
of needs. If they're not feeling who they are they're not going to even be thinking about
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 118

anything that I'm talking about or even just accessing it. I take a lot of that into account.
I really get in tune with my kids' behaviors and their moods and stuff like that because I
know that affects their ability to learn in that moment -- not learn at all but to learn in that
moment. And so I put that a lot into account.”
Marsha goes on to share the role of affective filters when giving positive reinforcement:
“I think just knowing the affective filters of different kids. Some kids, they will do less work if
you praise them in front of other people. They'll be like, "Oh, shut up. Don’t say that. That's
going to do worse." Other kids like the positive praises. They like the attention. And some kids
don’t.” Her background in psychology helps her to make equitable choices for students that
impact more than just their ability to learn. She makes choices to support their emotional well-
being so that the student is able to learn when they are in a better space to do so. She adds,
“I think coming from a psychology background, sometimes I will put my kids' social
and emotional wellbeing above their academic wellbeing because we can always
catch up or we can always get through there but I need to know that you're okay. If
your social and emotional needs are not being met, then your academic needs are also
not going to be met. I think I wouldn't take that much in consideration if I didn't
come from that mental health background.”

Shanna’s Path to the Science Classroom
Shanna received a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies, and when she graduated, she was
not sure what she wanted to do with her degree. Shortly after graduating, she relocated from
northern California to Long Beach with her brother. Shanna thought that while she strategized a
life plan, she would teach in the interim. This prompted her to enroll at a local university to
obtain a teaching credential, and while she was in pursuit of this credential, she took on a
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 119

position as a college aide. Her position placed her at her current site, RJA, where, she shares,
she “loved the teachers, loved the school, loved the kids, and [she] met [her] husband there!” At
the point in her credentialing program where she began student teaching, she had to leave this
RJA, and from there she taught kindergarten and fifth grade. When she first knew she wanted to
teach, she planned to become an elementary school teacher. She was invited to come back to
RJA to take on a long-term substitute position because a 7
th
grade teacher was going on
maternity leave. Shanna finished out the rest of the academic year and continued in this position
for the next year because the teacher did not return after maternity leave. Due to budget cuts,
Shanna found herself teaching 6
th
grade at a charter school for five years, but gladly took a
position back at RJA teaching 6
th
grade math and science, which was exactly where she wanted
to be.
When asked what has kept her in a position outside of her bachelor’s degree, Shanna
responded,
“Although I initially wanted to teach elementary school, there was so much competition!
After being at RJA for so long, I’ve fallen in love with this age group…with this site…I
mean, I met my husband here! [chuckles] One day I just said to myself, ‘I can make this
work with the math and science.’ And I have! I have made it my own, and I teach it with
my own style.”
Shanna also shared her negative experiences with math and science in school and how it
influenced her commitment to her students to never replicate that experience for them:
“Growing up, I was literally terrible in math!...We found my old report cards…’D’ in
math! And I hated it on top of that! The teachers I had didn’t make it fun!...I’m going to relate to
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 120

these kids…I’m gonna start out and say, ‘I had terrible teachers in math and science, but I’m not
going to be that for you.’ ”
Shanna’s self-efficacy as a science teacher comes from her commitment to her
students. She shared that she enjoys science, but her experiences in the classroom were not
enjoyable. Because of these experiences, she wants to enrich science experiences for students.
She also feels self-efficacious as a science teacher because she feels as if she can create lessons
that are relatable to students; her lack of familiarity with the science content makes it easier for
her to address misconceptions as well as simply challenging material for the students because, as
she describes, she just stays “a step ahead of the kids.”
Shanna has a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts. When Shanna was asked what skills
from her degree she thinks she implements within her teaching, she shared that her studies
required her to do a substantial amount of writing. Therefore, she incorporates lots of writing
tasks in her classroom. These writing tasks range from activities such as having students create
graphic organizers to make sense of how ideas relate within and among different units of study,
as well as having students make claims about content they are studying and support those claims
with evidence and rationale. During Shanna’s lesson on wet biomes, Shanna asked her students
to watch a video about a wet biome known as the Gombe Forest. She then asked students to
work collaboratively to answer the following questions: “Why do you think the forests of the
Gombe are worth preserving? What are they currently doing to preserve the forests? Why is their
program working? How have surrounding communities responded to the preservation?” In her
classroom, Shanna’s students have a “Thinking Tug-of-War” Wall, in which she has the
following statement posted: “People have a positive impact on animals and their habitats.” The
wall is divided into two sides which have the following sentence starters: “I agree because…”
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 121

and “I disagree because…” This activity creates a space for students to use evidence-based
reasoning and take a stance on widely-debated topics as early as the 6
th
grade. In pursuit of a
Bachelor’s degree, Shanna found value in dissecting academic texts, so she transfers that value
and problem-solving approach into her classroom, in which incorporates writing skills and
critical reading skills within her course. She implements article reading, vocabulary dissection,
and other tasks that promote literacy. Shanna’s push for academic literacy in the sciences
coincides with the Science and Engineering Practices of the Next Generation Science Standards.
Conclusion
Based on the data collected by the participants, each participant would be classified as a
high-quality science teacher because they do what is expected of high-quality science teachers.
Furthermore, all the participants became teachers because they wanted to be teachers.
Additionally, in the cases of Carol and Shanna, although the subject matter or grade level may be
different from what they originally intended, they have found success teaching science because
they have a passion for teaching, love working with their students, want to provide equitable
learning opportunities for their students, believe that their students can be successful despite the
odds, have demonstrated science knowledge competency outside of a formal degree, have
training and pursue training opportunities to become better science educators, and create lessons
that are culturally relevant to the students.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 122

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The state of secondary science education in the United States is considered to be in a state
of crisis and has been in this state for decades (Astin, 1982; Cuban, 1993; Goodlad, 1983). The
growth of jobs in the STEM domains have been projected to continually increase (Beede, Julian,
Langdon, McKittrick, Khan, & Doms, 2011), and the United States is not confidently going to
fill those positions. Former President Barack Obama approved legislative efforts that have led to
major reform efforts in K-12 education across the nation with the intention of filling those
deficits. The ongoing concern about the United States’ position as a global contributor to STEM
efforts has been combined with the lackluster performance of U.S. students on state, national,
and international assessments in math and science and the seeming disinterest of individuals
pursuing secondary and postsecondary studies as well as careers in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) domains. All of the aforementioned concerns have ignited
continuous efforts to reform K-12 STEM education. One major area of interest has been that of
getting high-quality science educators into K-12 secondary science classrooms, yet this issue has
proven to be a challenge because this deficit still exists decades later.
With the introduction and implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards, the
accountability that schools and teachers face have augmented the need for high-quality science
teachers. The increased rigor in curriculum and testing has made it integral that educational
institutions recruit and retain exceptional science teachers to meet these higher expectations. The
approach to recruit and retain such teachers has not explicitly included individuals interested in
teaching science but do not have a Bachelor’s degree in a natural science.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 123

The purpose of this study was to explore the pedagogy of individuals who choose to
teach K-12 secondary science with non-science degrees and to gain insight into why these
individuals choose this path as well as how these individuals believe they use their experiences
outside of science to inform their science instruction. The study was guided by the following
questions:
1. What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without natural
science degrees are teaching?
2. How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees believe their prior
experiences inform their instruction?
Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997) and problem-
solving and transfer (Berg & Strough, 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013) served as the conceptual
framework for this study. Teacher self-efficacy, broadly defined, is a situation-specific
expectation that teachers can influence learning (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1977;
Cantrell, 2003). Self-efficacy expectations influence a teacher’s feelings, thoughts, choices for
their student’s learning activities, the amount of effort they are willing to invest, and their
persistence in the face of difficulty. Teachers with high self-efficacy are more effective, and
their students perform better on learning tasks (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Ashton
&Webb, 1986; Cantrell, 2003; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy & Hoy, 1998).
The motivation to transfer learning is defined as “the direction, intensity, and persistence of
effort towards utilizing skills and knowledge learned in training” (Chen, Holton, & Bates, 2005,
p. 3). In exploring the three dimensions of this definition—direction, intensity, and persistence
of effort—research supports how a teacher can be motivated to transfer what they have learned
in one setting to a new setting and achieve success.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 124

A qualitative case study was used to collect data on four secondary science teachers who
do not hold natural science degrees. Interviews with the secondary science teachers,
observations of their classrooms, and document analyses were used to collect data. Each
secondary science teacher was treated as a separate case in the data analysis as a means of
answering research question 1. A comparative analysis was performed which contributed to
identifying the elements of the conceptual framework as well as answering the research
questions. The following section will discuss the findings that emerged from the data analysis.
Discussion of Findings
There are several derived themes from the findings of this study. They are as follows:
This study intended to reveal the characteristics of the individuals who choose to teach
science without a formal degree in a natural science. Science teachers without natural science
degrees are high-quality teachers because they display pedagogical techniques that reflect strong
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), create a stimulating classroom environment by setting
high academic expectations, create opportunities for interactive and collaborative learning,
promote critical thinking, and build character and trust between student and educator. Every
participant for this study displayed techniques in each of the nine “Teach Like a Champion”
domains. A notable observation was that some of the participants had a robust use of techniques
in several domains, but in other domains, they may have only utilized one or two techniques.
Second, the self-efficacy beliefs of these participants lead them to invest much effort into
lesson planning and lesson execution. Each participant’s strength lay in their clear objectives,
agendas, multiple inputs for instruction, consistent circulation of the classroom during lessons,
the use of technology, the consistent and engaging use of questioning strategies.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 125

Another theme that emerged from the data was that the participants value collaboration
and interactive learning, which is a transferred skill from their non-science degrees. Science
practice is often done in isolation due to the competition among scientists for funding, prestige,
and positions (Anderson, Ronning, De Vries, & Martinson, 2007). The value of collaboration,
which was embedded in each lesson from each classroom observation, is a skill that was
cultivated outside of science. Additionally, science teachers from non-science backgrounds
value student achievement overall, and not just from those who choose to achieve, which is a
more traditional approach from such a competitive field. Another materialized theme was the
significance of behavior and classroom management embedded within science instruction to
create and promote a culture of normalized error. Each participant utilized classroom
management techniques in order to create and enforce 100% compliance and high academic
expectations. These findings are important because they indicate intersectionality between
classroom culture and academic expectation that promotes risk-taking in a science classroom.
Implications for Practice
There is potentially an untapped pool of secondary science educators: those who do not
possess a formal degree in a natural science. These educators can be considered “high-quality
educators” because they teach students using the same techniques as would be expected of a
science educator with a natural science degree. Science content competency can be measured
beyond formal education in natural science fields.
Recommendations for Future Research
Researchers can build upon the findings in this study by incorporating the process of
how these teachers plan their lessons. Furthermore, future research should include male
participants from non-science backgrounds. Additionally, future research should consider
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 126

adding a quantitative component to the research, such as a survey given to teacher participants to
ask how they think their non-science background influences their science instruction. Lastly,
future research efforts should incorporate administrative voice to share how the participant
would fare during an evaluation with the same formal tool used to evaluate teachers.
Conclusion
This research study revealed that K-12 science teachers who do not possess formal
degrees in natural sciences can be classified as high-quality teachers because their pedagogical
practices reflect strong pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), create a stimulating classroom
environment by setting high academic expectations, create opportunities for interactive and
collaborative learning, promote critical thinking, and build character and trust between student
and educator. The factors that contribute to these characteristics that these high-quality teachers
have include their experiences outside of science, their passion for and interest in science, and
their overall desire to serve their students.
The Next Generation Science Standards expect for all K-12 teachers of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to implement science and engineering
practices within their coursework. In 2006, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and
the National Research Council Center for Education established the Committee on K-12
Engineering Education to create general principles on how engineering should be taught within
national K-12 education (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). The consensus resulted in three
general principles: (1) K-12 engineering education should emphasize engineering design, (2)
engineering education should incorporate important and developmentally-appropriate
mathematics, science, and technology knowledge and skills, and (3) engineering education
should promote engineering “habits of mind” (Katehi et al., 2009). Professional development
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 127

sessions have been created to support tens of thousands of educators in learning how to teach
engineering-related coursework because most K-12 educators have minimal, if any, engineering
background, (Katehi et al., 2009). If it is believed that non-engineer educators can learn how to
not only engineer, but to teach engineering, this belief encompasses the notion that educators
with non-science degrees can learn science and can even teach science in a way that supports the
mission and purpose of the NGSS and national STEM efforts.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 128

References
100Kin10. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from https://100kin10.org/
Abd ‐El ‐Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact
of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional
planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
Act, E. S. S. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act, S. 1177.
Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding the disparities and the inequitable
distribution of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 20(37). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1053/1024
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1.
Allgood, S., & Walstad, W. B. (1999). The longitudinal effects of economic education on
teachers and their students. The Journal of Economic Education, 30(2), 99-111.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational
psychology, 84(3), 261.
Ames, R. T. (2014). A Review of Science Standard History Culminating With Next Generation
Science Standards. Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 48-57.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse
effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and engineering
ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and
students' thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 129

Andrew, M. D., Cobb, C. D., & Giampietro, P. J. (2005). Verbal ability and teacher
effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 343-354.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and
student achievement. Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement, 125-144.
Astin, A. S. (1982). Excellence and equity in American education. Paper prepared for the
National Commission on Excellence. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
Inc., University of California, Los Angeles.
Atkinson, R. D. & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U. S. Innovation Economy: Fresh
Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Washington, D.C.: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Retrieved
from http://itiff.org/publications/refueling-us-innovation-economy-fresh-approaches-
stem-education
Au, E. W. (2015). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and the mediating effect of outcome control:
predicting course-level and global outcomes in an academic context. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping, 28(4), 425-444.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes
it special?. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 130

Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and
perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?. Computers &
Education, 39(4), 395-414.
Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. Economics and
Statistics Administration,(2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation, 04-11.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a
science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of
science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.
Berg, C. A., & Strough, J. (2011). Problem-solving across the life span. In K. Fingerman, C.
A. Berg, T. Antonnuci, & J. Smith. (Eds.), Handbook of life-span development (pp.
239-260). New York: Springer.
Board, A. F. S. (2010). Examination of the US Air Force's Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce Needs in the Future and Its Strategy to Meet Those
Needs. National Academies Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolshakova, V. L., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011). “It depends on what science
teacher you got”: urban science self-efficacy from teacher and student voices. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 6(4), 961-997.
Borjas, George J. 2005. “The Labor-Market Impact of High-Skill Immigration.” American
Economic Review 95 (2):56-60.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 131

Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives
of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471-485.
Brown, C. A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.).
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.
Brown, C. W., Peters, K. A., & Nyarko, K. A. (2014). Cases on research and knowledge
discovery: Homeland security centers of excellence. IGI Global.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to
teach elementary science. Journal of research in science teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 711-
733.
Cantrell, P. (2003). Traditional vs. retrospective pretests for measuring science teaching
efficacy beliefs in preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103(4), 177-
185.
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge.
Educational psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
Carlsen, W. S. (1987). Why Do You Ask? The Effects of Science Teacher Subject-Matter
Knowledge on Teacher Questioning and Classroom Discourse.
Center for Public Education. (2005a). Teacher quality and student achievement: Key lessons
learned. Policy Studies Associates. Washington D.C. Retrieved from:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of
efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority
students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469-491.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 132

Chen, H. C., Holton III, E. F., & Bates, R. (2005). Development and validation of the
learning transfer system inventory in Taiwan. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 16(1), 55-84.
Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: college students’ paths into and out of STEM
fields statistical analysis report. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
September 14, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Chowdhary, B., Liu, X., Yerrick, R., Smith, E., & Grant, B. (2014). Examining Science
Teachers’ Development of Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry Pedagogical Knowledge
and Practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(8), 865-884.
Cochran, K. F. (1991). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Tentative Model for Teacher
Preparation.
Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),
Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84).
Berkeley, CA: Scotchman.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine
(2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and
technology talent at the crossroads. National Academies Press, Washington, D. C.
Committee on STEM Education (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: National
Science and Technology Council.
Content Standards (2010, August). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 133

Cooney, S., & Bottoms, G. (1998). What works to improve student achievement in the middle
grades. Retrieved from Atlanta, GA, Southern Regional Education Board:
http://publications.sreb.org/2002/02V47_AchievementReview.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 75(2), 182-185.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55(5), 6-11. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb98/vol55/num05/Teacher-
Learning-That-Supports-StudentLearning.aspx
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy
analysis archives, 8, 1.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child.
Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and Classic Readings in Education, 264.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining" highly qualified teachers": What does"
scientifically-based research" actually tell us?. Educational researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Davidson, L. K. (2011). A 3-year experience implementing blended TBL: Active instructional
methods can shift student attitudes to learning. Medical Teacher, 33(9), 750-753.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 134

Dawkins, K. R., Dickerson, D. L., McKinney, S. E., & Butler, S. (2008). Teaching density to
middle school students: Preservice science teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical
practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 82(1), 21-26.
DC: National Academy Press.
Deboer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary
meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of research in science
teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal,86(2), 173-184.
Dibapile, W. T. S. (2012). Teacher efficacy and classroom management among Botswana
junior secondary school teachers.
Economics and Statistics Administration. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future.
United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Educational Policy Improvement Center (2007). Redefining college readiness.
Elster, D. (2007). Student interests-the German and Austrian ROSE survey. Journal of
Biological Education, 42(1), 5-11.
Encouraging minority students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math careers a
briefing before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, held in Washington, DC.
(2010). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 135

Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of
automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123-137.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465.
Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Flores, B. B., Hernández, A., García, C. T., & Claeys, L. (2011). Teacher academy induction
learning community: Guiding teachers through their zone of proximal development.
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(3), 365-389.
Gallimore, R., Tharp, R., & Rueda, R. (1989). The social context of cognitive functioning in the
lives of mildly handicapped persons. Cognitive approaches in special education, 51-82.
Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject ‐matter knowledge: the role of pedagogical content
knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 15(6), 673-683.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers' and students' verbal behaviours during cooperative and small ‐
group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271-287.
Gloeckner, G. W. (1992). The integration of science, technology, and mathematics: Myth or
dream? Journal of Technology Education, 2(2), 107
Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher
certification and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
22(2), 129-145. doi:10.3102/01623737022002129
Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., & Williams, T.
(2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), 2003. NCES 2005-005. US Department of Education.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 136

González, G., & DeJarnette, A. F. (2015). Teachers’ and students’ negotiation moves when
teachers scaffold group work. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 1-45.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress.
Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject
matter knowledge for teaching. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del
Profesorado, 9(2), 1-25.
Grove, C. M., Dixon, P. J., & Pop, M. M. (2009). Research experiences for teachers:
Influences related to expectancy and value of changes to practice in the American
classroom. Professional development in education, 35(2), 247-260.
Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Yang, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). The effects of
teacher qualification, teacher self-efficacy, and classroom practices on fifth graders'
literacy outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 3-24.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard educational review, 72(3), 330-367.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on
motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331.
Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships Among Academic Performance, Basic Skills,
Subject Matter Knowledge, and Teaching Skills of Teacher Education Graduates.
Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 37-42.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 137

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. CAST: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum: Effective classroom practices report.
Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of political
economy, 84-117.
Hernandez, P. R., Schultz, P. W., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Chance, R. C. (2013).
Sustaining optimal motivation: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden
participation of underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(1), 89-107.
Heylin, M. (2008). Over two decades, women and noncitizens have been eroding the male
domination of U.S. science. Chemical & Engineering News, 86(10), 67-71
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2), 371-
406.
Holdren, J. P., Marrett, C., & Suresh, S. (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Plan. National Science and
Technology Council: Committee on STEM Education.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and teacher education, 21(4), 343-
356.
Immordino ‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance
of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and education, 1(1), 3-
10.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 138

Educational Researcher 28(2), 26-37. doi:10.3102/0013189x028002026
Ingersoll, R., & Perda, D. (2009). The mathematics and science teacher shortage: Fact and
myth.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about
teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education
review, 27(6), 615-631.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K-12 engineering
education in the United States. The Bridge, 39(3), 5-10.
Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content
knowledge of preservice science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion ‘as an example.
International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961-988.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker,
S., Barmer, A. and Velez, E.D.V. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015. NCES
2015-144. National Center for Education Statistics.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kittell, J. E. (1957). An experimental study of the effect of external direction during learning
on transfer and retention of principles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(7), 391.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education:
Background, federal policy, and legislative action.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 139

Kutner, M., Greenburg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The Health Literacy of America's
Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006-483.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers'
attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3-
31.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to
College (K-12). John Wiley & Sons.
Lowery Bretz, S. (2008). Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards.
Lumpkin, A., & Multon, K. D. (2013, July). Perceptions of teaching effectiveness. In The
Educational Forum (Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 288-299). Taylor & Francis Group.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining pedagogical content
knowledge (pp. 95-132). Springer Netherlands.
Maslow, A., & Lewis, K. J. (1987). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated, 14.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2012). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective
differentiated instruction. Pearson Higher Ed.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 140

Meece, J. L., Herman, P., & McCombs, B. L. (2003). Relations of learner-centered teaching
practices to adolescents’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39(4), 457-475.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student
achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of
Development Economics, 99(2), 486-496.
Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student
achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of
Development Economics, 99(2), 486-496.
Milner, H. (2002). A case study of an experienced teacher’s self-efficacy and persistence
through crisis situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. High School Journal,
86, 28-35.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry ‐based science instruction—what is it
and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of
research in science teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers
and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125 145.
doi:10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 141

Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992). Teacher Efficacy, Empowerment, and a Focused
Instructional Climate: Does Student Achievement Benefit?.
Moss, D. M., & Abrams, E., Robb, D. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of
science: International Journal Of Science Education, 23, 771-790.
Mullock, B. (2003). What makes a good teacher? The perceptions of postgraduate TESOL
students.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (2014). STEM Integration in K-
12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2005).
Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter
economic future. Retrieved March 12, 2017 from
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/nac/documents/Gathering_Storm.pdf
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. National
Academy Press.
National Research Council (US). Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-
12 STEM Education. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science
in Grades K-8.Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade.
Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds). Board on Science
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 142

Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National research council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Core
Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington VA:
National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (US). (2010). Preparing the next generation of stem innovators:
Identifying and developing our nation's human capital. National Science Foundation.
National Science Teachers Association. (2012). Next generation science standards. Retrieved
on, 30, 12.
National Science Teachers Association. (2004). NSTA position statement: Science teacher
preparation. Retrieved March 12, 2017.
Oakes, J. (1990). Chapter 3: Opportunities, achievement, and choice: women and minority
students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16(1), 153-222.
Obama, B. (2011). Remarks by the Former President in State of the Union Address. White
House transcript. January, 25.
Obama, B. (2013). The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.(2013).Remarks by the
Former President at white house science fair.
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 143

Merrill Publishing Company.
Osborne, J. & Collins, C. (2001). Pupils‟ views of the role and value of the science curriculum:
a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
Partee, G. L. (2014). Attaining Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers in Public Schools.
Center for American Progress.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban
schools. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions.
Peterson, S. E. & Schreiber, J. B. (2006). An attributional analysis of personal and
interpersonal motivation for collaborative projects. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(4), 777-787. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.777
Peterson, S. E., & Schreiber, J. B. (2006). An attributional analysis of personal and
interpersonal motivation for collaborative projects. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(4), 777.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12
Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future.
Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning?. Educational researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 144

Reeve, E. M. (2015). STEM Thinking!. Technology and Engineering Teacher,75(4), 8-16.
Retrieved March 12, 2017 from http://www.epiconline.org/redefining-college-readiness/
Richardson, A.F. (2008). An examination of teacher qualifications and student achievement in
mathematics (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.
(Publication No. 3333147)
Roth, M.W. (2014). Personal health-Personalized science: A new driver for science education?
International Journal of Science Education, 36 (9), p. 1434-1456.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science For All Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2014). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research and Applications. Fourth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It's the nature of the beast”: The influence of
knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science*. Journal of
Research in science teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
Seed, A. H. (2008). Redirecting the teaching profession: In the wake of A Nation At Risk and
NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 586-589.
Settlage, J. & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences:
Implications for science education within America’s urban schools. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 145

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Skandera, H., & Sousa, R. (2003). What makes a good teacher. Hoover Institution, 2, 1-2.
Retrieved from http://www.hoover.org/research/what-makes-good-teacher
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational
psychology, 85(4), 571.
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Single subject teaching credential
requirements for teachers prepared in California, (2015), PDF file.
Stevens, D., & Kitchenham, A. (2011). An analysis of mobile learning in education, business
and medicine. Models for interdisciplinary mobile learning: Delivering information to
students, 1-25.
Stiggins, R. (2004). New Assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan
(86)1, 22-27.
Strong, M. (2011). The Highly Qualified Teacher: What Is Teacher Quality and How Do We
Measure It?. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-
case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education,62(4), 339-355.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 146

Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. F. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the
challenge of preparing young Americans. Cambridge, MA: Pathways to Prosperity
Project at Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated Instruction in the Regular Classroom: What Does It
Mean? How Does It Look?. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3-6.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tuckman, B. W. & Monetti, D. M. (2011). Educational psychology. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Cengage Learning
Tuckman, B. W., & Monetti, D. M. (2011). Education psychology. Cengage Learning.
United States Department of Education (2016). Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics: Education for global leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2016.
United States Department of Education (US DOE) (2015). Every student succeeds act (ESSA).
(n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2016.
Van Driel, J. H., Jong, O. D., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590.
van Merrienboer, J. J. (2013). Perspectives on problem-solving and instruction. Computers
and Education, 64, 153-160.
Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. In Abstracts
International (Vol. 20, pp. 1830-1831).
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 147

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language-Revised edition.
Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Language Arts.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Sage.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of
inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science education, 65(1),
33-50.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.
Review of research in education, 24, 173-209.
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Gruner, A., Sable, J., Tobin, R., Bae, Y., Sexton, J., Stennett, J., Watanable,
S., Zill, N., & West, J. (2000). The Condition of Education, 2000.
Workosky, C., & Willard, T. (2015). Next Generation Science Standards.
Wright, W. (2013). The Disparities between Urban and Suburban American Education
Systems: A Comparative Analysis Using Social Closure Theory. 2012 NCUR.
Xie, Y., & Achen, A. (2009). Science on the decline? Educational outcomes of three cohorts of
young Americans. Population Studies Center Research Report, 9, 684.
Yager, R. (2000). The history and future of science education reform. Clearing House,
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 148

Yerrick, R., Grant, B., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Smith, E. L. (2013). Examining Science
Teachers’ Development of Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry Pedagogical Knowledge and
Practices.
Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional ecology: The intersection of emotional knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4),
355-367.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 149

Appendix A: IRB Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
1150 S. Olive Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Pedagogy of Science Teachers from Non-Science Backgrounds
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Shaneka Woods at the University
of Southern California because you are a secondary science teacher. Research studies include
only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this
study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. You can keep this form
for your records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics of the people who choose to teach
secondary science and do not hold science degrees. This study intends to discover how science
teachers with non-science degrees believe they use their experience to inform their science
instruction.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview,
which is anticipated
 Be available for a one hour, face-to-face interview at a time of your choosing in your
classroom or a location of your choice between February and March 2017.
 Consent to being observed for two one-hour sessions at times of your choosing in your
classroom between February and March 2017.
 Be available for a fifteen minute, face-to-face follow-up interview at a time of your
choosing in your classroom or a location of your choice between February and March
2017.
 Consent to the interviews being audio-recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, only
notes will be taken.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 150

There are no alternatives to participation. You are being asked to participate in this study as per
the stipulations provided above.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The findings of this study may be published; however, no information will be included that can
identify you. Your records for this study will be kept confidential as far as permitted by law. The
data will be securely stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the researcher, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the researcher, please contact Dr. Anthony Maddox at 213-740-0224 or via email
at: amaddox@rossier.usc.edu.

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 151

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO-RECORDED/PHOTOGRAPHED:
□ I agree to be audio-recorded.

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 152

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):

First and foremost, thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate your support of
my endeavors. The interview should take about an hour. Does that work for you?

Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating. I am currently conducting a study to complete my
dissertation at USC. The primary purpose of this study is to converse with science teachers from non-
science backgrounds. You were purposely selected because you are an expert in this domain, and I want
to capture your voice and your experience.

I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you are
performing as a teacher. None of the data I collect will be shared with other teachers, the principal, or
anyone else associated with this institution. Also, I want to remind you that you can decide not to answer
any question you wish not to answer.

I am happy to provide you with a copy of my dissertation if you are interested. Do you have any
questions about the study before we get started?

If you don’t have any (more) questions we can get started. I have brought a recorder with me
today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is solely for my purposes
and will not be shared with anyone else. May I also have your permission to record our conversation?

II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of interest
(e.g. position, role, etc.)

Let’s start by talking about your class this year.
 What is your official title?
 How long have you been teaching?
 What is your bachelor’s degree in?
 Do you have a master’s degree?
 If “yes” to master’s degree: What is your master’s degree in?
 What are you teaching this year?

III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to your Research Questions)
(Minimum of 2 questions from Strauss, et. al. typology: Hypothetical, Devil’s Advocate, Ideal
Position, Interpretive (done in the moment)):
1. How did you become a teacher? Tell me about your path to get where you are right now.
2. How did you get in a position to teach content outside of your major?
3. What motivates you to continue to teach content outside of your major (and, quite possibly, your
comfort zone)?
4. What are the benefits of teaching outside of your major?
5. What challenges do you face in teaching outside of your major?
6. What are some characteristics that, you believe, all teachers share?
7. If I followed you through a typical day teaching, what would I see you doing?
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 153

8. Suppose I was observing a “good” science teacher’s teaching methods. What would I be looking
for?
9. What is the most difficult part about teaching science at the high school level?
10. You’ve just been asked to be a master teacher for an incoming student teacher in their
credentialing program. What are some non-negotiables that you would share with this pre-service
teacher about teaching science?
11. As we all know, students are completely obsessed with technology! How do you incorporate
technology within your classroom?
a. Probe: Form of engagement
12. How do you modify lessons to meet the needs of underperforming students/students with special
needs? GATE students/high-performing students?
13. Let’s say that all of your students seem to be just not getting the content in your lesson that day.
What could you do to change the course of that lesson?
14. (follow up to #9) How would you modify your plans for the next class?
15. How do you feel when your students do not understand your lesson?
16. (Presupposition question; Patton Ch. 7) How did you feel in situations where you had to teach
science content with which you were uncertain and/or uncomfortable?
17. Some people say science teachers must have been science majors in order to teach well. What are
your thoughts on this?
18. When conducting observations, some administrators that see students struggling through difficult
content make the assumption that the teacher did not do a good job teaching the content. What
would you tell them?
19. In what ways do you use your anthropology degree to teach science?
20. Research supports inquiry-based instruction as an effective method to teach science. How
do you implement inquiry-based instruction in your classroom?
21. What types of problem-solving skills do you implement within your teaching, and where
do you believe you learned these skills?

IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not
have covered?

V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):

Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find myself
with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if so, if email is ok?
Again, thank you for participating in my study.

VII. Special Considerations and Probing

i. Transitions (notice the sections in your protocol where you transition from one topic to
the next… pre-manufacture a transitional statement that will help make the switch more
natural and insert where appropriate) (Patton p. 371):

So, we have spent most of our time talking about …. Now I would like to change gears a
little bit and ask about…. (Is there anything else you would like to add before we
transition?)

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 154

ii. Probing Statements/Questions (it is a good idea to pre-manufacture some potentially
helpful probing statements/questions):

That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about…
I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean by…
I am wondering how you were feeling in that moment?
It would be great if you could walk me though…

Item 2 on Major Assignment 2: Research and Interview Questions Table

NEW Research Question #1

Who are the people who
are teaching science with
non-science degrees, and
why do they choose this
path?
Research Question #2

How do science
teachers from non-
science majors think
they utilize their
experience to inform
their science
instruction?
Conceptual Framework

 Self-efficacy
 ZPD
 Problem-solving &
transfer
Interview
Question
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 2, 11, 12 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14

OLD Research Question #1

What is the nature of
science pedagogy
implemented by science
teachers from non-
science backgrounds?

Research Question #2

How do science
teachers from non-
science majors at
MHS utilize their
non-science
background to deliver
their instruction?

Conceptual Framework

 Self-efficacy
 ZPD
 Problem-solving &
transfer
Interview
Question
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 2, 11, 12 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 155

Appendix C: Observation Protocol
Observation Protocol
Location:
Date:
Time:

Meeting place description: detail and description, e.g. size and accessibility, and how this could affect the lesson;
interruptions during the lesson

Participants: how many students, description of demographics if not formally collecting this data

Seating diagram:

Group dynamics: general description – level of participation, dominant and passive participants, interest level,
boredom, anxiety – and how these relate to the different topics discussed

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 156

Impressions and observations:

Teaching Strategies:

Running notes (detailed notes following the discussion, as near verbatim as possible, including identification of all
contributors):

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 157

Appendix D: Document Analysis Protocol
Document Analysis Protocol
Type of
Document

Date of
Document

Description of
Document

Purpose of
Document

Author/Creator
of Document

Analysis of the
Material

Interpretation
of the Material

SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 158

Appendix E: Recruitment Email

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
1150 S. Olive Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015

RECRUITMENT EMAIL FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
The Pedagogy of Science Teachers from Non-Science Backgrounds

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Shaneka Woods at the University
of Southern California because you are a secondary science teacher. Research studies include
only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This email explains information about this
study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign a consent form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics of the people who choose to teach
secondary science and do not hold science degrees. This study intends to discover how science
teachers with non-science degrees believe they use their experience to inform their science
instruction.

CRITERIA TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY
You have been selected as a participant in this study because you meet the following criteria:
 You possess a bachelor’s degree that is not in a natural science
 You have fulfilled the State of California’s requirements to hold a preliminary or clear
teaching credential
 Your administrator has identified you as a “high-quality teacher”

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to:
 Be available for a one hour, face-to-face interview at a time of your choosing in your
classroom or a location of your choice between February and March 2017.
 Consent to being observed for one hour at a time of your choosing in your classroom
between February and March 2017.
 Be available for a fifteen minute, face-to-face follow-up interview at a time of your
choosing in your classroom or a location of your choice between February and March
2017.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGY 159

 Consent to the interviews being audio-recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, only
notes will be taken.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
There are no alternatives to participation. You are being asked to participate in this study as per
the stipulations provided above.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The findings of this study may be published; however, no information will be included that can
identify you. Your records for this study will be kept confidential as far as permitted by law. The
data will be securely stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the researcher, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the researcher, please contact Dr. Anthony Maddox at 213-740-0224 or via email
at: amaddox@rossier.usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This is a descriptive, exploratory, qualitative, collective case study that explores the pedagogical practices of science teachers who do not hold natural science degrees. The intent of this study is to support the creation of alternative pathways for recruiting and retaining high-quality secondary science teachers in K-12 education. The conceptual framework is based on Social Cognitive Theory & Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Female teacher’s implementation of NGSS through Science2Minds

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

STEM + design thinking training: investigation of perceived changes in self‐efficacy, pedagogy, and conceptual development at the K-5 level

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

The purpose of teaching AP U.S. history: teacher perspective, background, and expressed instructional choices

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

PDF

An examination of K-12 STEM integration by combining science inquiry with engineering design

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

Asset Metadata

Creator Woods, Shaneka A. R. (author)

Core Title The pedagogy of science teachers from non-natural science backgrounds

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/26/2017

Defense Date 03/27/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative learning environment,content knowledge,Engineering,high-quality science teachers,interactive learning,mathematics,natural science,Next Generation Science Standards,NGSS,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical content knowledge,pedagogy,problem solving,Science,science teachers,self efficacy,social cognitive theory,STEM,stimulating classroom environment,Teach Like A Champion,teacher quality,teacher quality and student learning,Teachers,Technology,transfer

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony B. (committee chair), Freking, Frederick (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email shanekaw@usc.edu,woods.shaneka@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-391307

Unique identifier UC11265784

Identifier etd-WoodsShane-5454.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-391307 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WoodsShane-5454.pdf

Dmrecord 391307

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Woods, Shaneka A. R.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA