University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

(USC Thesis Other)

Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EARLY CAREER TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF THEIR ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHING METHODS COURSES: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESERVICE PREPARATION AND THE REALITIES OF THE FIRST YEARS OF TEACHING by Holly Schaefer Henebry A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (EDUCATION) December 2004 Copyright 2004 Holly Schaefer Henebry Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3155419 Copyright 2004 by Henebry, Holly Schaefer All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3155419 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION To John For all that you are and all that you have helped me become To Connor Being your mommy will always be my greatest accomplishment All things come o f thee, O Lord, and o f thine own have we given thee. (Chronicles 29:14) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation represents more than just work on my part, but the heartfelt support and sacrifice of my family and friends. Without them, my goal would still be just a dream. There are so very many people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. Thank you to Dr. Bill McComas, my Committee Chair, for continued support and for many years of outstanding tutelage. I appreciate your patience, creativity and good humor. Thank you for years and years of wise guidance and for helping prepare me for life after the dissertation too! Thank you to my Dissertation Committee Members Dr. Sandra Kaplan and Dr. Thomas Olson for continued support and encouragement. I am grateful for your wisdom and guidance and for the amazing synergy of the whole committee that helped bring my survey into reality. Thanks to all my friends at CSU Long Beach, especially Dr. A 1 Colburn for helping me finally nail down my questions, to Dr. Laura Henriques for your encouragement and for making “The Big D” seem a lot less scary, and to Dr. Maureen McMahon for giving me my dream job long before the Ph.D. was near completion. Thanks to Sissy Shaffer for your friendship, support and intuitive talent for always being there when I needed a hand. Thank you Caitlin Szieff for your enthusiastic support and your amazing listening skills, you have eased many a burden. Thanks to “The Mommies” for your friendship and encouragement— girlfriends make all the difference. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Deep and heartfelt thanks to Yvette Ahlstrom who has been my best friend since she rescued me in junior high school. Your faith, encouragement and love have sustained me during bad times and good, and I thank God for you every day. Thanks to Jack and Laveme Henebry for your love and encouragement and for sharing your wonderful son with me. Special thanks to my sister, Heather Howell and her husband David. Heather, thank you for your love, encouragement, wickedly funny sense of humor, and your profound skill with the use of the comma. David, you have been wise counsel on numerous occasions and I am deeply grateful for your thoughtful encouragement. To my parents, Madge and Bruce Schaefer, I am forever grateful for the strong foundation of a happy childhood and your lifelong example of pursuing success and service. Mom, your loving, if unorthodox, methods of encouragement have always worked wonders! Dad, thanks for teaching me to aim high, stick to my goals and “bow my neck.” Together you have shown me what it is to lead a life well lived. Connor thank you for all the ways that you make me happy every day! I love my wonderful little guy and I love being your mommy. John, thank you for everything, no woman ever had a more supportive and loving husband than I. Words could never adequately describe how grateful I am to you for your love, support and amazing patience. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION..................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.................................................................... xiii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................... ix Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study..................................... 3 Significance of Study....................................................................... 3 Specific Research Questions.............. 4 Procedure.......................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms............................................................. * ........... 6 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................ 8 Theoretical Foundations in Science Teacher Education.................. 8 Characteristics of Ideal Elementary Science Teacher Education Programs........................................ 8 Science Content Preparation...................................................... 14 Science Teaching Methods Course Content.............................. 16 Science Teaching Field Experiences.......................................... 18 Preparation of University Teacher Education Faculty..................... 21 Becoming a Professional Educator.................................................. 22 The Structure of Elementary Science Teacher Preparation Programs.................................................................................... 22 Standard Program Structure................. 23 Block Program Structure............................................................ 24 Coordinated Program Structure.................................................. 24 Internship/Apprenticeship Program Structure............................ 25 3. METHOD............................................................................................... 27 Research Design.............................................................. * ................ 27 Research Questions.......................................................................... 27 Participants....................................................................................... 28 Internet Survey Rationale and Procedures....................................... 29 Instrument Security.................................................................... 30 Instrument........................................................................................ 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Chapter Page Areas of Inquiry............................................................................... 31 Methods Course Experiences..................................................... 31 Perceived Value of Methods Course Content............................ 32 Perceived Level of Preparedness for Teaching Science 32 Phase 1. Contacting Participants (Weeks 1-5)........................... 34 Phase 2. Data Collection (Weeks 2-8)....................................... 34 Phase 3. Data Analysis (Weeks 8-12)........................................ 34 Data Analysis Procedures................................................................ 34 Assumptions..................................................................................... 36 Limitations....................... ............................................................... 36 Delimitations.................................................................................... 36 4. RESULTS.................... 38 Intercorrelations............................................................ 40 Cross T abulations............................................................................. 41 Respondent Experiences vs. the Ideal Curriculum.......................... 45 Foundation Core Items Provided as a Measure of Preparedness 45 Respondents Perceived Value of Learning Experiences.................. 48 Value of Professional Competency Items Related to Structure.. 48 Value of Knowledge of Discipline Items Related to Structure... 49 Value of Instructional Strategy Items Related to Structure 49 Value of Assessment Items Related to Structure....................... 50 Value of and Preparedness for Foundation Core Related to Sequence.............................................................................. 50 Respondent Self-rating of Preparedness.......................................... 51 Frequency of Methods Courses........................................................ 53 General Findings.............................................................................. 53 General Findings Relating to Structure of Methods Course Experience.................................................................................. 54 Item Analysis—Frequencies................... 55 The Intersection of Frequencies and Science Methods Course Structure................................................................... 57 Themes Emerging from Open-ended Questions.............................. 59 5. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS— ............................................ 61 Overview.......................................................................................... 61 Discussion of Research Question 2.................................................. 62 Science Teaching Methods Course Structure and the Ideal Curriculum........................................................................... 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii Chapter Page Frequency and the Ideal Curriculum...................................................... 63 Sequence and the Ideal Curriculum....................................................... 64 Discussion of Research Question 3........................................................ 66 Discussion of Research Question 4........................................................ 69 Further Reflections.................................... 70 Suggestions for Future Research............................................................ 73 Further Remarks...................................................... 74 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 76 APPENDICES................................................................................................... 82 A. SCIENCE TEACHING PREPARATION SURVEY................................ 83 B. FOUNDATION CORE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN BY SURVEY ITEM............................................................................... 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table Page 1. Summary of the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education 10 2. Standards for Professional Development of Teachers of Science 13 3. Topics to be considered for Inclusion in Elementary Science Teaching Methods Courses................................................................................ 19 4. Reliabilities for Science Teaching Preparation Survey............................. 33 5. Characteristics of Participants................................................................... 39 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Pearson Product-Moment Correlations for Measured Variables................................................. 42 7. Foundation Item Categories for the Science Teaching Preparation Survey ..................................................................................... 44 8. Mean frequency and rank of Foundation Core Categories....................... 55 Figure 1. Foundation Items Comparison—Value and Preparation......................... 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix ABSTRACT This descriptive study presents the results of the Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) completed by 106 early career elementary school teachers. The STPS asked respondents about their science teaching methods course experiences and analyzed their responses in comparison to an ideal elementary science teaching methods course curriculum derived from an extensive review of the literature. The elements of the ideal curriculum were divided into four categories: (a) Professional Competencies, (b) Knowledge of the Discipline, (c) Instructional Strategies, and (d) Assessment. Respondents addressed questions about the structure, frequency and sequence of their science teaching methods course; which elements of the ideal curriculum they received; how valuable they felt the elements were; and how prepared they were for teaching science with respect to the elements listed. Findings show that these new teachers who took a science-only methods course, instead of a combined discipline methods course or no science methods course at all, composed the highest percentage of the favorably prepared group. Those in the group reporting favorable preparations received at least 20 of the 30 items in the ideal curriculum. The majority of the respondents felt that all of the ideal items were of moderate value for preparing them to teach science. Instructional time was positively correlated with the value assigned to the ideal items (r = .22, p <.05). The more respondents valued the ideal items the more confident they felt about teaching science (r =.40, p < .01). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When reporting confidence with ability to teach science 36.8% of the science only methods course respondent group rated themselves as confident or highly confident, while 18.9 % the combined methods course respondents rated themselves at these levels. Position in the sequence of credential courses was cross tabulated with preparation and increased levels of preparation were positively related to taking a science teaching methods course in the middle or at the end of the curricular sequence. The overarching conclusion is teachers who take a science only methods course are better prepared and have higher levels of confidence than teachers receiving a combined methods course or no methods course. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement o f the Problem Methods courses are a common element of credential programs for those learning to teach elementary school science and are thought to represent an effective vehicle for developing models for doing so. Those who prepare future teachers must insure that individuals who leave such programs have received strategies that work and have basic practices firmly established. High stakes student assessments and the resulting criticism of teachers have led to increased accountability for student learning (National Academy of Sciences and Mathematics, 2001). The current political climate has led to a high level of scrutiny of teacher preparation programs, particularly in California where National Assessment of Education Progress (ANEP) revealed below-average state performance (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2002a), and the challenges facing its urban schools have dominated media coverage of education. In 2000, California’s 4th graders were ranked the lowest scoring on scaled scores of the NAEP Science Assessment of any state in the nation (NAEP, 2002b). The criticism of traditional models of teacher preparation coupled with the teacher shortage has lead to the development of multiple routes to gain certification as an elementary educator in California. However, most of these options includes at least one common element; methods instruction in teaching each of the elementary subject areas. Some teacher preparation programs ensure these skills by providing a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 discrete methods course for each of the content areas; and some have integrated courses combining subject area methods instruction. Some programs require such courses prior to teaching in the field, while others are taught concurrently with the field experiences. Still others require the course or courses be taken within a certain number of years after beginning employment. In almost all cases, the desired learning outcome of methods courses is for new teachers to reach basic proficiency in pedagogical content knowledge. Science teaching methods courses provide preservice elementary teachers with various models and methods of teaching deemed effective through research and past practice. These courses are designed to give new teachers a foundation for building appropriate personal teaching skills and rationales for instruction (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1996). After satisfactory completion of classroom and field experiences in an approved program, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing grants those who complete the program a preliminary credential. In granting the credential, the State relies on the program providers to ensure that these beginning teachers have appropriate models, skills and content knowledge for effective teaching in all the core subjects of the elementary curriculum. Beginning teachers may form highly variable models of elementary science teaching depending on the nature of their methods course experiences, the expectations of their employment setting, memories of personal experiences as students, individual ability and personal desires. While only a part of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. requirements for learning to teach, the development of effective models for science teaching is a prerequisite to becoming a successful elementary science teacher. Methods courses targeting science instruction are the vehicle that provides the models that new teachers must have to succeed as competent instructors of elementary school science. What is known about the impact made by various forms of preservice training, including elementary science teaching methods courses, on early career teachers is limited. Purpose o f the Study The results of this investigation describe themes and patterns in early career teachers’ views about their preparation for elementary school science teaching. The focus areas of this study are (a) to define an ideal state of elementary science teacher education based on the literature; (b) to learn which aspects defined as elements of ideal elementary science teacher education program the participants experienced during their preservice preparation programs; (c) to determine the participants views related to the quality, resource allocation, and effectiveness of specific aspects of the elementary science teaching methods course(s) they completed; and (d) to determine the relationship between the participants methods course experiences and their perceptions of preparedness for teaching elementary science. Significance o f the Study The findings emerging from this study will inform science teacher educators about how aspects of methods instruction influence credential seekers as they form appropriate strategies and practices for effective science teaching. Such information Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 may also inform practice at the program level in response to respondents’ reflections on their experiences within their specific science teacher training program. The data may provide information as to which factors are institutionally controllable, such as the nature and content of the methods course and those which are better addressed by individuals or at the state level. These data, along with data from subsequent studies, might influence the content of future Teacher Performance Assessments. In addition, the study and its findings could be used as part of a needs assessment regarding elementary science teaching and the preparation of teachers in this discipline. Specific Research Questions The central questions of this study are: 1. What are the characteristics of the ideal elementary science teacher education program as described and recommended in the relevant literature? 2. How do early career teachers’ method course experiences including structure, frequency and sequence relate to the best practices described as ideal for elementary science teacher preparation in the areas of Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment? 3. What relationship exists between respondents’ experiences with the learning activities and instructional topics presented in their science methods course and their perceived value of those activities and topics? Are there any differences in early career teachers’ perceived value of different areas of learning activities and instructional topics (including Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) based on their method course Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 experiences (structure, frequency and sequence)? 4. What is the relationship between early career teachers’ experiences with the process activities and instructional topics of their methods course and their perceived level of preparedness for teaching? Procedure The study data was collected via an online questionnaire sent to a sample of first, second and third year elementary school teachers currently employed in full time teaching positions in urban school districts throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The participants in this study were identified from lists of first, second and third year teachers who are part of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTS A). The BTS A “provides opportunities for fully-prepared first and second year teachers to expand and deepen their teaching knowledge and skill. The BTS A Program also provides a smooth transition into the complex responsibilities of teaching, increases the retention of beginning teachers, and improves learning opportunities for their K-12 students.” (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment, 2003, p.l) Urban school districts employ hundreds of teachers and the BTS A registry provided the researcher with a population of teachers who met the requirement of the study that they be beginning teachers. By surveying only first through third year teachers’ participant reflections on credentialing program experience are less subject to forgetting. Additionally, methods course requirements Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 and preparation program demographics reflect more current credentialing requirements. The questionnaire included basic employment demographics, descriptive information about the credentialing program completed and the nature and extent of undergraduate program course and degrees. Information about current teaching assignment and setting was collected. Questions were designed to inquire about the types of experiences related to science teaching and learning respondents had during their science methods course(s), how valuable they felt these experiences were, and their level of satisfaction with their preparedness for teaching elementary school science upon completing the program. This cross-sectional data was obtained from individuals via a self administered questionnaire, which permitted access to the greatest number of teachers in a large geographical region at a realistic cost in a controlled time frame (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998, Fowler, 1993). Assumptions, limitations and delimitations of the study are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Definition o f Terms Although they encompass more widely used constructs, these terms are specific to this study and have been crafted to separate various factors of learning to be an effective science teacher into easily discussed segments. Donald (2002, p. 197) remarks that in teacher education programs learning tasks cross “several kinds of knowledge: of the institutional context, educational goals and objectives, attitudes, connecting subject matter to instructional methods and learners in schools.” For this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 reason the categories below were created as a simple tool for organization of responses. Professional Competencies- This term represents general pedagogical skills and professional orientation for teachers. These activities, skills and understandings are transferable between subject areas and represent a set of things that all teachers regardless of grade level or discipline are able to do. Bransford, Brown and Cocking (2000) remark that teachers need to develop an understanding of pedagogy as an intellectual discipline that reflects learning theories and learner characteristics as well as needing to develop models for professional development for career planning. The professional competencies fit into the overall skill set for teaching. Knowledge o f the Discipline- This is content knowledge of science, the settings in which science occurs, and organizations that support science teaching and learning. Without subject matter knowledge pedagogical knowledge had not framework in which to reside (Donald, 2002). Instructional Strategies- This category reflects what Shulman (1986) referred to as pedagogical content knowledge. These particular items include the discipline specific understandings that form the underpinnings of competent practice in science instruction. Assessment- This category represents the ability to generally assess student learning in science and to use various types of assessments. A renewed focus on accountability and the genesis of a new series of high-stakes assessments in California make the examination of this category timely. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Foundations in Science Teacher Education In 1994, Anderson and Mitchener indicated that there was “no definitive picture of science teacher education that scholars in the field can claim is the one dictated by the research literature” (p. 5). They indicated that there are many approaches to science teacher education and the aspects of programs can vary considerably. While there may be a research based rationale for what happens in teacher education programs Anderson and Mitchener assert that, “there is considerable diversity as to what constitutes an ideal program” (p. 5). Kennedy (1990) was more pointed on this matter referring to teacher education and some other professions without a consensus on theoretical perspective as “unable to agree on a requisite knowledge base or an appropriate pedagogy for their profession” (p. 819). The lack of theoretical consensus is explained by Feiman-Nemser (1990, p. 227) this way, “a plurality of orientations and approaches exists because people hold different expectations for schools and teachers.” Most critical aspects of teaching are intertwined and isolating the skills and knowledge that compose effective teaching is notably difficult (Allen, 2003; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994). Characteristics o f Ideal Elementary Science Teacher Education Programs After an analysis of research on elementary teacher education, Blosser and Howe (1969) stated, “More research needs to be done in science education at the elementary school level to show relationship between preparatory programs and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 product outcomes” (p. 59). The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS, n.d.) collaborated in describing Standards for Science Teacher Preparation (NSTA, 1998) (Table 1). This document coupled with the AETS standards for science teacher educators will be used to describe the literature on ideal characteristics of science teacher preparation. Elementary school teachers are usually considered subject area generalists. However, reports from the research indicate that to be an effective science teacher it is necessary to possess a deep understanding of science and the associated pedagogical content knowledge of the discipline (Penick, 1987). Sadly, many elementary school teachers dislike teaching science or feel ill-prepared to do so (Matthews, 1994; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994), and they generally do not choose science majors when they are required by teacher preparation programs to specialize in concentrations outside education (Anderson & Michener, 1994; National Research Council, 2001); consequently, elementary students’ learning in science suffers. Cotton, Evans, and Tseng (1978) suggest that innovative science curricula, without teacher knowledge and professional growth and training, are inadequate to insuring student learning. They also indicate that for teachers who have fewer undergraduate credits in science, courses which teach science process skills are critical. Science process skills are often part of the methods course curriculum. At issue as well is that elementary science teachers take fewer Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 Table 1. Summary of the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education 1. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Content The program will ensure that teachers of science understand the concepts and relationships of science sufficient in breadth, to support student learning as defined by state or national standards 2. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Nature of Science The program ensures that teachers of science can engage in activities defining the values, beliefs, and assumptions inherent to the creation of scientific knowledge within the scientific community, and can compare and contrast science with other ways of knowing. 3. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Inquiry The program ensures that teachers can engage students regularly and efficiently in science- related exploration and inquiry. 4. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Context of Science The program ensures that teachers can relate science and technology to the daily lives and interests of students, including, at the appropriate level, investigating and understanding science-related and technology-related societal problems, and the relationship among scientific, technological, personal, social, and cultural values. 5. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Pedagogy The program ensures teachers of science can create effective learning opportunities for students in a community of diverse learners, helping them construct meaning from course experiences, and creating a disposition for further inquiry and learning. 6. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Science Curriculum The program ensures that teachers of science engage students in a coherent, focused science curriculum that is consistent with state and national standards for science education and appropriate for the students' needs, abilities, and interests. 7. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: The Social Context The program ensures that teachers of science can make effective use of peer, family, and community members and resources to improve the education of students in science. 8. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Professional Practice The program ensures that science teachers are part of the professional community, improving practice through personal education and development, community outreach, the mentoring of new colleagues, work with preservice teachers, participation in research, and collaboration with colleagues to improve current practice. 9. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Learning Environments The program ensures that teachers of science can design and manage safe and supportive learning environments which nurture high expectations for success among all students. 10. Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science: Assessment The program will ensure that teachers of science are able to use a variety of authentic and equitable assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure continuous intellectual, social, and personal development of the learner in all aspects of science. Note. NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education. (KCETPb, n.d.). Adapted from the National Science Teachers Association, 1998. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 courses in science, have a poorer attitude toward the discipline and report high levels of anxiety in teaching it (Matthews, 1994; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994). Improving teacher preparation programs in science is logical step in improving student learning in science. Professional standards for science teacher preparation (NSTA, 1998) have been developed through a partnership with the National Science Teacher’s Association and the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. The standards encompass 10 areas of expected competence and are summarized in Chapter 4. These areas address facets of student outcomes and teacher behavior, as well as recommendations for program requirements for universities and other stakeholders, and will serve as a reference point for the general discussion of the aspects of an exemplary science teacher preparation program. Science teacher preparation is a complex multilayered process and the parent document of this summary has described the elements of teacher competencies in great detail. The AETS document will be discussed to illuminate the goals and standards that the faculty in teacher preparation programs should adhere. NSTA’s division of the standards in this manner has engendered criticism for separating content from pedagogy (Enfield, 2002.) The NSTA standards may well have separated the facets to an unnecessary degree, as in the parsing away of the social context of science from the general context of science, which perhaps implies they are not interwoven skills or that family and community should be separated from making science relevant to the daily life of students. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) describe five general characteristics that they believe must be present in science teacher education programs regardless of structure. They are: 1. Both science content and science pedagogy are taught from an inquiry- based perspective. 2. Pedagogy is studied in the context of science content. 3. Collaboration between science faculty, education faculty, and experienced elementary school teachers is integral in program design, integration and implementation 4. Elementary schools play a critical role in the teacher education process and the teaching of pedagogic content knowledge. 5. The transition from preservice to practice is smooth and consistent. (p .116) These characteristics are generally incorporated within the NSTA Standards for Teacher Education but may be criticized for not addressing the social context of science and schools. The National Research Council (1996) (Table 2), outline assumptions and standards for professional development which are generalized to be appropriate for both preservice and in-service teacher development, but offers little information about the structure of preparation programs. The criteria for what students ought to know upon receiving their initial certification has been described in both detailed and general forms, but it is the structure and faculty of credentialing programs which ultimately direct students to these goals and insure that standards are met. While most credentialing programs have a common destination, the path is left to the impulse and interests of each program. A joint venture of NSTA and AETS resulted in the 1985 Search for Excellence in Preservice Elementary Teacher Education in Science (Penick, 1987). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 Table 2. Standards for Professional Development of Teachers of Science Assumptions • Professional development for a teacher of science is a continuous lifelong process. • The traditional distinctions between “targets”, “sources”, and “supporters” of teacher development activities are artificial. • The conventional view o f professional development for teachers needs to shift from technical training for specific skills to opportunities for intellectual professional growth. • The process of transforming schools requires that professional development opportunities be clearly and appropriately connected to teachers' work in the context of the school Standards • Professional development for teachers of science requires learning essential science content through the perspectives and methods of inquiry. • Professional development for teachers of science requires integrating knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy, and students; it also requires applying that knowledge to science teaching. • Professional development for teachers of science requires building understanding and ability for lifelong learning. • Professional development programs for teachers of science must be coherent and integrated. • Teachers of science plan an inquiry based science program for their students. • Teachers of science guide and facilitate learning. • Teachers of science engage in ongoing assessment of their teaching and of student learning. • Teachers of science design and manage learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science. • Teachers of science develop communities o f science learners that reflect the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudes and social values conducive to science learning. • Teachers of science actively participate in the ongoing planning and development of the school program (KCETPa, n.d.) Adapted from the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). The 1981-1982 Teacher Education Committee of NSTA defined the Criteria for Excellence in Preservice Elementary Education in Science. The criteria includes: (a) science content preparation, (b) science content courses for elementary teachers, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 (c) science teaching methods, (d) content of methods courses, (e) field experiences, (f) faculty preparation, and (g) professional orientation (Spector, 1987). These criteria will are the basis for the discussion of exemplary program structure. Science Content Preparation Regarding science content preparation for teachers, the NSTA Teacher Education Committee recommended that students be required to complete a m inim um of 12 semester hours or roughly one course for each discipline of laboratory or field-oriented science, including biological, physical and Earth science. These courses should be tailored to meet the needs of preservice elementary teachers by providing content applicable to elementary classrooms, increasing skills in science processes, and developing positive attitudes about science and science teaching (NSTA, 1983). In their 1983 meta-analysis Druva and Anderson found that the relationship between teachers’ training in science and student learning was strengthened by the increase in number of science content courses completed. Cotton, Evans and Tseng (1978) noted that the educational guidelines were moving toward a reduction in number of science content courses completed. Corollary data collected during their study indicated a positive correlation between completion of advanced science coursework in the undergraduate program and proficiency in process skills. Based on their findings, they stated the reduction in science credits required was “arbitrary” (p. 195). They went on to state that, “If these trends are not reversed, then the need for elementary science courses to provide concise experiences promoting the acquisition Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 of process skills becomes paramount” (p. 195). A study by the Bayer Corporation (2004) found that 72% of new teachers and 84% of Deans of Schools of Education agree that “elementary teacher education programs should require their undergraduates to take more coursework both in science and in science teaching methods.” (p.2) Spector (1987) states that “since teachers teach the way they were taught, they are likely to provide an environment for children which supports curiosity, investigation, and inquiry only if they are taught in a similar environment” (p. 8). While research supports the need for inquiry-based science experiences for preservice teachers (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, & Hewson, 1996; NSTA, 1983; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994; Shroyer, 2002). Lee and Krapfl (2002) note that teachers frequently enter credential programs with “resistant views about teaching and learning.” (p. 247). These views are generated by the thousands of hours they spent as students observing teachers providing instruction that was not well aligned with current national standards for science teaching. Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) remark that in science courses for elementary teachers the changes required are not in content, but in presentation arguing that the intellectual rigor should be maintained using adult-level science content with lessons on how to design curriculum appropriate for elementary grade levels. For such changes to occur, collaboration among education and science faculty is required in designing new courses or modifying existing ones. Doing so accommodates the need for preservice teachers to acquire appropriate levels of pedagogical content knowledge in science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) observe that these collaborations among practitioners can result in preservice teachers reaching an “understanding that is larger than the sum of its parts” (p. 119), which allows them to become professional teachers who can use a variety of resources for their students. They warn that the relationships between pre- and in-service teachers must not be “pro forma” (p. 120), but exist over an extended period of time during both content and methods courses. Science Teaching Methods Course Content The second recommendation of NSTA is the requirement of a science teaching methods course. The standard suggests a minimum of one separate course of three semester hours, scheduled after the completion of content courses but before beginning student teaching fieldwork. However, Allen (2003) indicates that in an ideal program pedagogical coursework and fieldwork would probably be taken simultaneously. The methods course should help preservice teachers develop the appropriate skills to teach science content, processes, attitudes and skills. The course should offer prospective teachers the opportunity to experience activities which promote process skill development, select content appropriate for elementary school, design classroom environments that encourage positive attitudes, choose and use a range of instructional materials and strategies, and develop techniques for evaluating student progress (NSTA, 1983). Butts, Koballa, and Elliott (1997) indicate that while knowing science and knowing ways to make it meaningful are important, they represent higher levels of concern, while preservice teachers’ levels are generally centered on the level of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 personal survival. They go on to suggest that an introductory elementary science teaching methods course should focus on: (a) enhancing one’s personal knowledge base and functioning in the context of science; (b) learning explicit skills for translating science to help students construct their own knowledge and; (c) providing opportunities to generate personal beliefs about why it is important for children to learn science. With these skills in place, Butts et al. (1997) found that more mature concerns such as management, establishing learning environments and influencing student learning begin to emerge. It appears that further coursework in elementary science teaching methods would appropriately incorporate topic areas that represent these increased levels of concern and offer instruction related to them. Crowther and Cannon (1999) found that students who took a formal science methods course before fieldwork, were able to respond to questions about teaching and learning in a more in-depth manner and “seemed to get more out of the science practicum” (p. 15). However, when examining student outcomes Chaney (as cited in Allen, 2003) found no significant correlation between student achievement and teachers education coursework in math or science once differences in teaching assignments were taken into account. By amalgamating recommendations from the numerous documents from the current literature, standards documents, a brief examination of the contents of 10 elementary science teaching methods textbooks, and after reflecting on personal field experiences in elementary schools and elementary science methods courses, it was extrapolated that an exemplary course or courses in elementary science teaching Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 methods would reasonably contain the topics (Table 3). The topics are not presented in any particular order, based on concerns that sequence would eclipse substance. Science Teaching Field Experiences Field experiences are often recommended as a vital part of science teacher preparation. NSTA’s Teacher Education Committee suggests that preservice teachers have opportunities during undergraduate study to teach science to children in schools, beginning with observation and tutoring and continuing to small and large group instruction. They require student teaching to include both planning and instructional phases (Spector, 1987). Crowther and Cannon (1999) found that as the length of time spent in practicum increased, so too did effect size with relation to self-efficacy in science teaching. They examined a 1-time approximately 2 hour lesson, a once per week 45- hour program and a 3 times per week 144-hour program. The effect size increase from the 45-hour program to the 144-hour program was statistically significant but they question whether the increase warrants the additional 100 hours of fieldwork. Although the study authors question the need for additional hours they report the majority of the participants in both the 45 and 144-hour programs reported that the practicum was “just right” in terms of duration of the practicum. Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) indicate the need for enough field experience so that students gain confidence with classroom management so they can focus on and practice making connections between content and pedagogy. This aligns with the suggestion by Butts et al. (1997) that teacher concerns about survival must be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Table 3. Topics to be Considered for Inclusion in Elementary Science Teaching Methods Courses • The Nature of Science, Scientific Literacy, Science Process Skills • Using National, State or Local Elementary Science Content Standards • Inquiry Teaching - including addressing student misconceptions • Assessment - designing and using appropriate assessments for science • Special Needs Learners in Science—Including special education, second language learners, gifted learners, and multicultural considerations. Includes finding support for teachers and learners, how to make appropriate modifications, and issues of discrimination. • Integrating Science with Other Content Areas including reading and writing in science • Classroom and Materials Management—including safety, discipline, cooperative learning • Technology in the Service of Science Instruction-both high and low tech options in teaching • Content Based Activities, including review of curriculum materials, use and design of actual content based lessons from elementary school science • Professionalism in Science Teaching -including professional organizations, reflective teaching practices, continuing education, ethics and enthusiasm. • Models and Methods of Science Pedagogy—including learning cycle, questioning techniques, learning styles, cooperative learning • Microteaching Science Lessons—with children and /or peers • Field Observations- dentifying excellent practice • Informal Science Learning—using field trips and the distinctions between formal and informal settings and the types of learning they generate. addressed before more sophisticated reflection can occur. Field experiences logically begin with observation and progress to student teaching. The opportunity to connect expert practice with the theory and research presented in methods courses can help preservice teachers begin to make connections between the two. The National Science Education Standards (1996) state: The development of pedagogical content knowledge by teachers mirrors what we know about learning by students; it can be fully developed only through continuous experience. But experience is not sufficient. Teachers must also have opportunities to engage in analysis of individual components of pedagogical content knowledge-science, learning, and pedagogy- and make connections between them. (p. 63) This statement leads to critical examination of the widely used progression from methods course-to student teaching-to licensure structure of many teacher Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 education programs. If all the reflection is done prior to practice, then perhaps an opportunity for more substantial growth is lost. It seems that during the fieldwork or student teaching phase a concurrent methods course that addresses more advanced issues, fosters building connections between theory and actual practice, and helps guide reflection would be indicated. Stuessy and Thomas (1998) argue that follow- up visits would allow instructors an opportunity to mentor, but are rarely ever engaged in without outside funding. While the reality of visits during the induction year is unlikely, an additional concurrent methods class during student teaching might serve as a mentoring opportunity, albeit from a distance. One element of fieldwork that has received somewhat less discussion in the literature related to the qualifications of cooperating (master) teachers students are assigned to. Beyond exhortations that they be included in collaboration and be highly experienced, little reference is made to them meeting the AETS Professional Knowledge Standards for Science Teacher Educators (Lederman, Ramey-Gassert, Kuerbis, Loving, Roychoudhuray & Spector, n.d.). Ideally, exemplary programs screen collaborating teachers to insure that they can model effective pedagogy and providing them with in-service in current research based pedagogy in both elementary science teaching and elementary science education (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995). Cooperating teachers screened and supported in this way, have the opportunity to provide effective day-to-day on-site mentoring that the limited number of university faculty cannot physically offer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Preparation o f University Teacher Education Faculty The preparation of University faculty is the fourth area in which the NSTA Teacher Education Committee has offered standards, stating briefly that faculty should have qualifications, experience and interest to provide high quality instruction. The 1985 Search for Excellence in Preservice Elementary Teacher Education Committee (Spector, 1987) expanded on this description by indicating that faculty should have the following: (a) specific preparation in science and the teaching of it, (b) model exemplary practice, (c) keep current with science and science education literature, (d) model participation in professional associations, and (e) maintain close relationships with cooperating schools. While these standards would appear to apply just to faculty teaching science and science education courses, these standards are not unreasonably applied to faculty whose sole responsibility is the supervision of fieldwork, particularly since their evaluation is considered a high stakes component of the licensing procedure. The AETS Professional Knowledge Standards for Science Teacher Educators (2002) describes six standards in which science teacher educators should have (a) competency; (b) knowledge of science; (c)science pedagogy; (d) curriculum, instruction and assessment; (d) knowledge of learning and cognition,(e) research/scholarly activity, and (f) professional development activities. These standards are a logical tool for evaluating the quality and competency of elementary science teacher education faculty. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Becoming a Professional Educator The final area addressed by the NSTA Teacher Education Committee is Professional Orientation. The standards indicate that professional orientation experiences should include activities that instill positive attitudes about science and its teaching appreciation for the values of science in the curriculum and in students’ lives, and should develop a commitment to continue professional education including readings, in-service activities, and membership in professional organizations. Lee and Krapfl (2002) noted that students who belonged to the Student Science Teachers Association, a campus organization for those interested in teaching science, were greatly influenced by this and attended professional conferences and joined NSTA as a result of membership. Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) suggest that participation in professional organizations, helps entering teachers become part of the active community of professionals which contributes to lifelong career development. The research provides a picture of what characteristics exemplary practice in science teacher preparation programs include. While the criteria presented make specific recommendations about particular aspects of programs, they allow considerable flexibility in terms of structure and pacing. This flexibility is necessary in order to accommodate local and institutional constraints and serves to encourage creative solutions to providing the best programs possible. The Structure o f Elementary Science Teacher Preparation Programs Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) indicate that teacher preparation programs generally occur at the undergraduate level. The duration of study according to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 findings by Anderson and Mitchener (1994) includes three strands: (a) general education, (b) subject matter preparation, and (c) professional education including student teaching fieldwork. The general education portion has been criticized by those within and outside teacher education. Hawkins and Michelsohn (1995) studied 142 preservice elementary science teacher education programs and identified four types of science teacher preparation program structures: (a) Standard, (b) Block, (c) Coordinated, and (d)Internship/Apprenticeship. Standard Program Structure In this structure, courses are organized from content to pedagogy to student teaching. Explicit connections between courses are not frequently made. In addition, such programs may not have a rationale for their structure. While this structure is easily implemented, it does not encourage coordination between courses and fieldwork. Without an articulated program design, students frequently take courses at different stages in the program and bring varying degrees of background to each course (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995). The Standards for the Professional Development of Teachers (NRC, 1996), indicated that professional development for teachers of science requires integration of content and pedagogy, and based on Hawkins and Michelsohn’s findings, the Standard Structure may not be ideal for meeting this requirement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 Block Program Structure This structure differs from the standard structure only in that content pedagogy classes must be taken concurrently during a single semester. Blocks are generally composed of three courses with the most popular triad being science mathematics and social studies. This structure allows for coordination among content pedagogy courses. Although coordination is still not guaranteed by the structure it creates opportunities for integration, permits a higher level of structural innovation and allows for a meaningful fieldwork components. In this structure it is more likely that students come to courses with a common background experiences (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995). Coordinated Program Structure The coordinated structure allows content and pedagogy to be taught in the same course or separately, but coordinated courses do not involve the student teaching aspect of certification. This program structure organizes and sequences the component courses. Coordination of these courses can eliminate duplication of topics in courses and facilitate the creation of common goals by content and pedagogy instructors. This type of program is logistically difficult and requires much coordination, which allows for increased communication among instructors. This structure is no more innovative in terms of field experiences than the standard structure (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 Internship/Apprenticeship Program Structure Internship/Apprenticeship models or fifth year programs require students to spend the bulk of the course hours teaching in elementary school classrooms as the method for instruction in content pedagogy. These programs exist outside of undergraduate education. They do not have science content requirements beyond the requirements for state certification. This type of program holds a philosophy that efficient and effective teacher training includes extended periods of interaction with experienced teachers in a classroom setting. This structure is conducive to collaboration among cooperating teachers and faculty, which in turn, creates opportunities for links between pedagogy and fieldwork (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995). At the program level, “the research does not make it clear if teacher education coursework, as opposed to field experience or on the job learning, is the best for venue for acquiring important pedagogical skills. More than likely, that is a function of the structure of the particular teacher preparation program” (Allen, 2003, p. 32) this makes the gathering of data about structure and teacher preparedness useful in informing practice. “Improvement and reform of teacher preparation programs do not necessarily result from mandated program structures; instead, the quality of the programs’ component parts determine the effectiveness of preservice elementary teacher programs” (Hawkins & Michelsohn, 1995, p. 5), which makes investigation of the methods course and its content an important part of the reform Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 movement in teacher education in looking at science teacher preparation on a more detailed level. Boone (1993) found that “those activities not viewed in a favorable manner, were ones presumably considered by future science teachers as less relevant to immediate teaching needs. If it is true that future teachers remember and utilize course material they view as most appropriate while completing a course, then instructors of courses (not just methods courses), must strive to make the usefulness of topics and activities apparent to students” (p. 50). The literature review clearly indicates a need for continuing research into the science methods course and its intersection with the structure of elementary science teacher preparation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of this descriptive study was to describe early career teachers’ views about their preparation for elementary school science teaching. This chapter describes the methodology used in conducting the study and presents detailed descriptions of the: (a) research design, (b) participants, (c) instrument, (d) data collection procedures, and (e) data reduction procedures that were used to conduct this study. Research Design As the purpose of this study was to examine early career teachers’ views about their preparation for elementary school science teaching, the design of survey research was determined to be most appropriate as it allows the researcher to describe existing characteristics and facilitates comparisons between groups (Borg & Gall, 1989). Thus, this study is descriptive and nonexperimental. This online survey was designed to provide information about participants’ experiences with elementary science teaching methods courses and general aspects of teacher preparation program structure, and the value they assign to those experiences related to their perceived level of preparation for actual classroom teaching. Research Questions The central questions of this study are: 1. What are the characteristics of the ideal elementary science teacher education program, as described and recommended in the relevant literature? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 2. How do early career teachers’ science methods course experiences, including structure, frequency, and sequence relate to the best practices described as ideal for elementary science teacher preparation in the areas of Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment? 3. What relationship exists between respondents’ experiences with the learning activities and instructional topics presented in their science methods course and their perceived value of those activities and topics? Are there any differences in early career teachers’ perceived value of different areas of learning activities and instructional topics (including Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) based on their method course experiences (structure, frequency, and sequence)? 4. What is the relationship between early career teachers’ experiences with the process activities and instructional topics of their methods course and their perceived level of preparedness for teaching? Participants The participants for the full administration of the survey were identified from lists of fully-prepared first through third year teachers who are part of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA, 2001). The BTSA Program requirements provided a prescreened pool of potential respondents who met survey participation criteria. In order to be eligible for the BTSA program teachers must have a preliminary teaching credential and have been teaching with that credential Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 two or fewer years. Persons credentialed outside of California who have 3 years experience are also eligible for BTSA and as participants in this study. The study employs an interactive online survey; therefore, participant teachers were contacted via an e-mail which contained a request for participation and a link to the survey site. One hundred and twenty people participated in the study. Fourteen people were excluded because they either did not meet the criteria or they did not answer any of the questions in the survey. The final sample consisted of 106 participants. Internet Survey Rationale and Procedures The rationale for using an online versus hard copy survey included a desire for privacy, clarity of item responses, reliability of data collection, security and economy. In taking this online survey, respondents may answer the items at any time in any setting allowing internet access. This allowed respondents the opportunity to control confidentiality, eliminated time, and any social pressures associated with meetings or other settings where pencil and paper data may have been collected. The Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) was designed with an integrated informed consent page (Appendix A). The page required an active response to informed consent statements that must be answered in the affirmative before the actual items could be accessed. After demographic or identifying data were collected, the respondent was seamlessly directed to another page and identifying data was separated from survey responses to insure confidentiality. Item responses collected online are not subject to difficulty in interpretation of handwriting or other such written responses. In addition, responses can be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 required eliminating “skipped” items. If a respondent attempts to skip a question, the program gently prompted them to answer. This feature was used judiciously in order to protect participants from undue pressure, but was useful in insuring that questions that identify participants as being from the correct population were answered to avoid participation by ineligible persons. Data entry errors are minimized as data are entered by the respondents (Schmidt, 1997), and were transferred electronically for analysis. Item responses are held on a secure server and are thus not subject to loss, theft or accidental destruction, which insures that all responses are included in the data analysis. Additionally, the economy and convenience of the online survey method made it practical and timesaving. Instrument Security The web-based survey is located on “a professionally developed and maintained web presence utilizing state-of-the art technology that combines parent- level, centralized database architecture with strict security policies and procedures.” (PsychData, 2003) Security and participant confidentiality is insured by Secure Socket Layer (SSL) 128-bit encryption technology which protects survey responses and demographic data during transit from the survey web pages to the database (PsychData, 2003). Surveys are processed using client-side form validation and server-side validation for purposes of security and data integrity. The code-base offers substantial protection against attempted abuse. Additionally, Secure Survey Environment (SSE) ensures precise data integrity during survey participation, which Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 made it possible to separate identifying information from research data at the point it is submitted. (PsychData, 2003) Instrument The instrument is a researcher-created cross-sectional online survey (Popham, 1993). The questionnaire consisted of items that inquired about background information, including basic demographics, the nature and extent of undergraduate program course and degrees, and descriptive information about the credentialing program completed. Information about current teaching assignment and setting was collected. Program experiences were assessed with the researcher designed Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) (Appendix A), including participants’ perceived value of methods course activities and instructional topics, and their perceived preparedness for various aspects of science teaching. Areas o f Inquiry Methods Course Experiences Questions inquired about the structure, frequency, and sequence of the respondents methods course(s), as well as which activities described by best practices for elementary science teacher preparation respondents participated in. Methods course structure items asked about whether the course(s) were stand alone elementary science methods courses, or whether they were integrated with other content areas and if the respondents felt favorably about the structure. Frequency item asked about the number of courses required and sequence item inquired about when in the program the science methods course(s) was required. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Perceived Value o f Methods Course Content Questions asked about the types of learning activities respondents experienced during their science methods course(s) and how valuable they felt these activities were. Items included “journal article readings,” and “technology based assignments.” Participants were instructed to rate each activity on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at All Valuable” (1) to “Very Valuable” (4). Questions inquired about the course topics respondents experienced during their science methods course(s) and how valuable they felt these topics were. Items included “learning about the nature of science” and “inquiry teaching methods.” Participants were instructed to rate each instructional topic on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at All Valuable” (1) to “Very Valuable” (4). Thirty curricular areas in this survey are categorized into four areas: (a) Professional Competencies, (b) Knowledge of the Discipline, (c) Instructional Strategies, and (d) Assessment. See Appendix B for a description of the items for each category. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for these study areas with relation to perceived value of methods course content are .81, .83, .89, and .80, respectively. Perceived Level o f Preparedness for Teaching Science Participants were asked to report their perceived level of preparedness for teaching elementary school science. They reported their level of preparedness to undertake a variety of teaching behaviors such as integrating science and other content areas, assessing student learning in science, using inquiry based teaching Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 methods and using technology to enhance instruction. Participants were instructed to rate each teaching behavior on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at All Prepared” (1) to “Very Prepared” (4). The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities from the study categories of Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment in relation to perceived level of preparedness for teaching science are: .83, .85, .90, and .82, respectively. The summary of the reliability statistics is illustrated in Table 4. Additionally an open- ended question was asked where respondents indicated what areas in science education they would be interested in learning more about. The responses to this item were coded and then the coded responses were assigned to one of the four Foundation Categories: (a) Professional Competencies, (b) Knowledge of the Discipline, (c) Instructional Strategies, and (d) Assessment. Table 4. Reliabilities for Science Teaching Preparation Survey Cronbach’ s Alpha Value .95 Professional Competencies .81 Knowledge of Discipline .83 Instructional Strategies .89 Assessment .80 Preparedness .95 Professional Competencies .83 Knowledge of Discipline .85 Instructional Strategies .90 Assessment .82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 Phase 1. Contacting Participants (Weeks 1-5) The researcher contacted 54 BTSA Coordinators for districts throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties by e-mail and telephone in order to request that BTSA coordinators forward an e-mail from the researcher, which explained purpose of the study and requested their participation. The e-mail contained a link to the survey site for participant convenience. Coordinators were given a copy of the survey, a copy of the e-mail letter requesting participation of BTSA teachers, and were also offered access to the final survey results if they desired. Phase 2. Data Collection (Weeks 2-8) After participants completed the survey, they were automatically directed to a separate site, independent of survey responses in order to insure confidentiality, where they were asked to provide a mailing address if they would like to have a token of appreciation for participating in the study mailed to them. At the close of the survey period, a letter of thanks and a small gift were mailed to all BTSA Coordinators who provided information for the study. Phase 3. Data Analysis (Weeks 8-12) When the survey period ended, the data were exported to SPSS-PC 12.0 for analysis. Data Analysis Procedures The data were coded and prepared for computerized analysis using SPSS-PC 12.0. Descriptive statistics and other appropriate statistical analyses were ordered, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 including means and standard deviations of demographic variables and Pearson- Product-Moment Correlation to yield information about the intercorrelations between participants’ perceived values of the activities and instructional topics in their teacher preparation program experiences, and their perceived level of preparedness for teaching. Cross tabulations were conducted for Research Question 2 to examine the relationship between whether participants experienced different learning activities (e.g., Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) and the structure, frequency, and sequence of their methods course(s). Cross tabulations were conducted for Research Question 3, and 4 to examine the relationship between participants’ perceived value of and preparedness for different learning activities (e.g., Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) and the structure, frequency, and sequence of their method course(s). Cross tabulations were completed between selected survey responses in order to add detail to the analysis done on questions 2 through 5. Frequency tables were generated for item analysis to determine the rank of the methods course activities based on value and preparedness. A discussion of themes emerged from the coding of an open-ended question that inquires about which areas the respondents are interested in learning more about. Research Question 1 which was answered by the conclusions reached from the literature review. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 Assumptions The researcher assumed that participants were able to adequately remember and describe their experiences and conceptions, and that they were honest and complete in their responses. The study assumed that the instrument is valid and reliable, and that respondents had complete and confidential access to it during the data collection phase. Limitations The parameters of this research have been limited in the following manner: 1. Access to early career teachers has been limited by the willingness of district administrators to allow the dissemination of the institutional addresses of potential respondents so they may be solicited for participation in the study. 2. The study is limited in the number of surveys disseminated to a scope and size appropriate for the purposes of the dissertation, while taking into account statistical requirements. 3. The study is limited to respondents who have access to the internet. Delimitations The following delimitations effected constraints on the generalizability of the results of this study: 1. The data represents the views of teachers willing to participate in the survey, and may or may not represent the views of those who declined to participate. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 2. The data represents the views of teachers participating in the Beginning Teacher Support and assessment (BTSA) program, and may not represent the views of beginning teachers outside of this program. 3. Actual beliefs and practices may differ from those expressed in the survey. 4. Since actual course syllabi were not available for review by the researcher responses are based solely on the recollection of course content by the respondents and may not accurately represent actual course content. 5. The teacher preparation of survey participants varies with time and credential program, and can only represent the reported programs for the elapsed time in which the respondent was enrolled. 6. Survey data were collected from teachers within the greater metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and may not generalize to represent the views of those in areas with other demographic characteristics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This section will describe the results of the data reduction procedures outlined in the methodology section in the previous chapter, including descriptive statistics and other appropriate statistical analyses. Means and standard deviations of demographic variables, Pearson-Product Correlation and Cross tabulations, were conducted for Research Question 2 to examine the relationship between whether participants experienced different learning activities and the structure, frequency, and sequence of their methods course(s). Cross tabulations were conducted for Research Questions 3 and 4 to examine the relationship between participants’ perceived value of and preparedness for different learning activities and the structure, frequency, and sequence of their method course(s). Cross tabulations were completed between selected survey responses in order to add detail to the analysis done on the research questions and frequency tables were generated for item analysis. A discussion of themes emerging from the coding of an open-ended question was included. Research Question 1 was answered by the creation of the Science Teaching Preparation Survey instrument and by conclusions reached in the literature review. The characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 5. Fifty-two percent of the respondents had 1 year or less employment under their current credential. Thirty-three percent had 2 years experience and the remaining 15.1 % had 3 or more years, this last group represents teachers initially credentialed outside of the State of California. The most prevalent structure for the credentialing of respondents was a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Table 5. Characteristics o f Participants n % Years worked under current credential Less than 6 months 4 3.8 Less than 1 year 36 34.0 1 year 15 14.2 2 years 35 33.0 3 or more years 16 15.1 Structure o f Credential Program Integrated with BA including student teaching 24 22.9 Post BA including student teaching 68 64.8 Internship 2 1.9 Accelerated 4 3.8 District credentialing program 2 1.9 Other 5 4.8 Structure o f the Science Teaching Methods Course (s\ Science methods only 65 61.3 Combined with math methods 13 12.3 Combined with social studies methods 10 9.4 Combined with other subject area 9 8.5 No science methods course required 5 4.7 No science methods course offered 4 3.8 Time spent by program on science teaching preparation Not enough 41 38.7 Just right 65 61.3 Confidence with teaching science Not at all confident 6 5.7 Somewhat confident 36 34.0 Confident 46 43.4 Highly confident 18 17.0 post Bachelor’s degree program which included student teaching with 64.8% of total responses. Credentialing integrated with the bachelors degree was next in occurrence with 22.9% of respondents indicating this as the structure of their program. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 remaining participants (12.4%) indicated other program structures (accelerated, district, internship and others). The science-only methods course structure was reported by 61.3% of the respondents, integration with math, social studies and other subject area methods comprised 30% of the responses. No science methods course was required of 4.7% of the respondents and 3.8% of the respondent pool indicated that no science methods course was offered in their program. In rating the amount of time spent by their credentialing program, 61.3% of respondents indicated that the amount of time was “just right,” while the remaining 38.7% found the time to be “not enough.” Finally, when asked to rate their confidence with teaching science, those who felt “not at all confident” composed 5.7% of the respondents, 34% of the respondents felt they were “somewhat confident,” 43.4% of the teachers felt “confident” in their abilities and 17% felt “highly confident” (Table 5). Intercorrelations There is a significant positive relationship showing that the more the respondents valued the foundation items, the more confident they felt about themselves as science teachers, (r = 40, p < .01). A significant positive relationship also exists between feelings of preparedness for teaching using the foundation category items and teacher’s level of confidence (r = .45 ,p < .01). The overall number of foundation items provided, also offers a significant correlation with confidence in teaching science, (r = 28,p < .01). However, the amount of instructional time spent by the respondents credential program preparing them to teach science shows no significant correlation with how confident the respondents Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 feel about themselves as science teachers. This instructional time does show significant positive correlation with the respondents overall value of foundation items (r = .22, p < .05), overall feelings of preparedness (r = 23, p < .05), and overall provision of the foundation items (r =35, p < .01). A strong significant positive relationship exists between the overall items provided and the value of those items (r = .67 ,p < .01) and teachers’ reported feelings of preparedness for using the items in their teaching (r = .76,p < .01). While these correlations are encouraging it should be noted that their high value is likely an indicator of overlap in the constructs themselves (see Table 6 for complete data). Cross Tabulations The Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) is composed of specific items representing the ideal curriculum for an elementary science teaching methods course. The rationale for the inclusion of these items was discussed in chapter 2. A critical portion of the STPS is a 30-item matrix. The matrix is composed of items which represent the 30 Foundation Core items for an exemplary science teaching methods course. The items are clustered into four categories: (a) Professional Competencies, (b) Knowledge of the Discipline, (c) Instructional Strategies, and (d) Assessment. A list of the items associated with each category is found in Table 7. The Professional Competencies category is composed of seven items, the Knowledge of the Discipline category is composed of eight items, and twelve items make up the Instructional Strategies category, and the Assessment category is represented by three items. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Pearson Product-Moment Correlations for Measured Variables Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1. RSel -.041 -.24* -.18 -.51** .15 -.02 -.06 .26* .23* .31** .19 2. PrStr .1 -.010 .07 -.1 -.18 -.04 .01 -.05 -.04 -.09 3. Fav - .34** .24* .11 -.05 .03 -.36** -.33** -.31** -.16 4.Amttime -- .3** .38** .00 .20* -.36** -.52** -.49** -.46** 5. Conf -- .03 .08 .16 -.35** -.20 -.34** -.24* 6. %prep -- .02 .21* -.24* -.44** -.39** -.38** 7. #scicl - .13 .16 .02 -.02 .00 8. freq -- -.24* -.17 -.31** -.11 9. comp2 -- .6** .67** .57** 10. know2 - .75** .62** 11. stra2 -- .69** 12. asmt2 -- Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1. RSel = Self Rating as Science Learner; 2. PrStr = Structure of Credential Program; 3. Fav = How Favorable was the Structure of the Credential Program; 4. Amttime = Amount of Time Spent by Program Preparing to Teach Science; 5. Conf = Confidence with Teaching Science; 6. %prep = Percentage of Instructional Time Program Spent Preparing for Science Teaching 7. #scicl = Number of Science Content Courses Completed; 8. Freq = Number of Science Methods Courses Completed; 9. COMP2 = Number of Professional Competency Items Provided; 10. KNOW2 = Number of Knowledge of Discipline Items Provided; 11. STRA2 = Number of Instructional Strategies Items Provided; 12. ASMT2 = Number of Assessment Items Provided; 13. C_VAL = Value of Professional Competency Items Offered; 14. KVAL = Value ofKnowledge of Discipline Items Offered; 15. S VAL = Value of Instructional Strategies Offered; 16. A_VAL = Value of Assessment Items Offered; 17. C PRE = Preparedness for Using Professional Competencies Offered; 18. KPRE = Preparedness for Using Knowledge of the Discipline Offered; 19. SPRE = Preparedness for Using the Instructional Strategies Offered; 20. APRE = Preparedness for Using the Assessment Strategies Offered; 21. Owal = Overall Score of Items on Their Value; 22. Ovpre = Overall score of Preparedness. 23. Ovitm = Overall provided items * p < .05; **/>< .01; -t* t o Table 6 (Continued) 43 c o CN CN CN O CN * * * * * * * * *- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0© o V i Os oo Vi » — 1 r— ■ * o • r - ■ T f * r e t>- cn 0 4 O'- CN * CO CN CO * C O 0 0 00 OS r - V) t o Vi Vi T j- N O V O V O V O f - > * Os * * * * * * * * * * * * ♦ * * CO CN CO “ * * * * * * * ■ * OS o CN o V i o CN VO o Os r~~ CO CO CN « * CO I* V i VO t"- V i V O t - t"- V i CN < D 1 « f — * # — • O i * ^ It 'S - o c o A S CN R CO CN * * * * * * * * * * * * * « * * * « ■ * * «- «- * * Vi CN c o Vi V O V i o o o o VO C O Os Vi V) VO v> r - 00 0 0 r - r - 00 VO Os CN 00 r - Os s c o c o cn o o s o V) T l- o o VO n o o o o V O O rf v O ♦ * * * * * * * * VO VO © *-« V i CN V i vo CO 3 r o v i r - cn rf r- — £ * '* CN O - t " CN •* * « ■ * * * * * -» ■ » * * * * * « I C * * * o o T f 00 O 00 ON Os r - V i CN v > V i Vi o o VO V i vo * Os * •» * « •» * * * * •» * * * * v o * — • Vi * * * « * «- * Vi © N* rf* Vi T — . vO oo c - 00 Os C O i* * ,* vo V i VO 00 V i vo CN C O O CN CN <N r - * 1 *-4 * M V ) O C T t CO CO V O M M V O V i V i * < * O n VO T t O t* "» *-H © CN v o CN CO f-i fH ' t fJJ N O O O C O v * s o CN 00 CN 00 VO OS Os r - r - r - o * — > CN CN CN CN Os CO O h P m « O 1 C / 5 s * * t «- * * * * * * * •* * * * •rf o t - ' Os Tf m V i VO c*i V i * * * * * * * Vi * o o * * * * * * * * « — ( T — t - . o S 00 CO CO o C O r co * co v i CO c - r~ * * * * ■ * * * * « * CN OO CN o o o ■ rl- CO ’* 3 - CN V O VO o .7 4 r - o o t - o o CN .9 7 Os o s OS Tj- 9 9 o Os 00 C O CO Os vo O VO CN q V i CN C O O s 00 q CO CN CN CN CN CO C O C O CN CO • a • a 8 & £ * 5 ‘ O V S V O C - ' O O O s O C N c o P 1 1 I K g. a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 Table 7. Foundation Item Categories for the Science Teaching Preparation Survey Group I- Professional Competencies 1. Lesson and Unit Planning for Science Teaching 2. Technology Based Assignments ( i.e. PowerPoint, web quests, etc) 3. Review/Critique of Curriculum Materials 4. Learning Theories 5. Cooperative/Collaborative Structures 6. Locating Science Teaching Resources 7. Building Professional Teaching Portfolio Group 2-Knowledge of the Discipline 8. Reading from Science Methods Textbooks 9. Readings from Journal Articles Relating to Science Teaching and Learning 10. The Nature of Science 11. Technology for Science Teaching and Learning 12. Science Content Standards 13. Informal Settings for Science Learning ( i.e. Field Trips, Museums) 14. Understanding the Content of Elementary School Science 15. Science Teacher Professional Organizations Group 3-Instructional Strategies 16. Teaching Demonstration Lessons to Classmates 17. Observation of Science Teaching in Elementary School Classrooms 18. Teaching Lessons in an Elementary School Classroom 19. Laboratory Safety 20. Classroom Management for Science Teaching 21. Inquiry Based Teaching 22. Learning Cycle 23. Using Various Questioning Techniques 24. Strategies for Integrating Science with Other Content Areas 25. Participating in In-Class Hands-on Science Activities 26. Diversity and Multicultural Issues in Science 27. Science for English Language Learners Group 4-Assessment 28. Assessing Student Learning in Science 29. Activity Based Assessment 30. Using Science Journals Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Respondent Experiences vs. the Ideal Curriculum By tallying the Foundation Core items from the ideal curriculum offered and not offered to the respondents in their preservice elementary science teaching methods course a somewhat “objective” picture emerges. By looking at the self- reported frequency for each respondent it could be extrapolated that a respondent with a “high” score, that is someone who reported receiving instruction in most or all of the ideal areas, is better prepared to teach elementary school science than someone with a “low” score, or someone who received very few of the ideal items. In order to allow for differences in programs, instruction, course structure, and to accommodate factors associated with forgetting course experiences, it seemed most equitable to take simple thirds to represent the groups as less prepared (bottom third), moderately prepared (middle third), and favorably prepared (upper third). It is unlikely that experiencing only 20 of the 30 areas of an ideal elementary science teaching methods program is the goal of any preparation program. However, regardless of program quality, what early career teachers report after leaving the their programs does reflect on teacher preparation practice, particularly since 53.4% of respondents reported receiving 20 or fewer of the ideal items. Foundation Core Items Provided as a Measure o f Preparedness The Less Prepared Group (LPG) represented 14.6% (n = 15) of the sample (n = 103). Of the LPG, 20% had a science only methods course, 40% of the respondents had a methods course combining science with another content area, and 40% reported that a science methods course was not required or not offered. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 Although 40% of the LPG was not required to take a science methods course at all, 46.7% had taken a science methods course. Two or more science teaching methods courses were taken by 13.4% of the respondents. With regard to the sequence of the methods course in the program, 6.7% were required to take the course in the beginning of the credentialing program, 13.3% were required to participate during the end of the program’s course sequence, and for 46.7%, it did not matter when in the sequence they took a science methods course. The Moderately Prepared Group (MPG) represented 38.8% (n = 40) of the sample (n = 103). Of the MPG, 65% had a science only methods course structure, 32.5% had a combined methods course structure. While 7.5% of the MPG was not required to take a methods course an overwhelming 80% was required to take one methods course. Two or more courses were required of 12.5% of the respondents. Regarding sequencing of these courses, 7.5% of those surveyed reported the required sequence as the beginning of the program, 27.5% as the middle of the program, and 25% as the end of the program. Interestingly, 35% reported that sequence of the methods course did not matter. The Favorably Prepared Group (FPG) represented 46.6% (n = 48) of the sample. Of the FPG, 75% had a science only methods structure, 25% had a combined structure, and all were required to take science methods. One methods course was required of 81.3% of FPG respondents and two or more were required of 18.8% of the remainder. Sequencing of the science methods course for the FPG was 8.3% at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 the beginning, 35.4% at the middle, 29.2% at the end, and for 27.1% sequence did not matter. A finer focus on the preparation of the respondents looks at cross tabulations between the structure of their science methods course and the four foundation categories (Professional Competencies (PC), Knowledge of the Discipline (KD), Instructional Strategies (IS) and Assessment (AS)) of the ideal elementary science teacher preparation curriculum. Since the members of the foundation category groups may vary to some degree, they have a qualifier next to them indicating which foundation category they are part of. For example MPG-PC would be the Moderately Prepared Group in the Professional Competency category. The respondents indicating that Professional Competency items were provided to them (n = 96) were separated into thirds (Favorably Prepared Group (FPG-PC), Moderately Prepared Group (MPG-PC) and Less Prepared Group (LPG- PC) as with the respondents to the overall items cross-tabulation. These foundation item categories were cross-tabulated with the element of methods course structure. Of the Professional Competency respondent pool (n = 96), 61.5% was part of the FPG-PC group, 26% was in the MPG-PC and 12.5% in the LPG-PC. Of the Knowledge of Discipline respondents (n = 91), 37.4% were FPG-KD and 45.1% were in the MPG-KD and 17.6% LPG-KD. The Instructional Strategies respondents (n = 83) divided as FPG-IS, 49.4% and MPG-IS 50.6% with no respondents falling into the LPG for Instructional Strategies. For the final category, Assessment, the FPG-AS reported at 49.5%, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 MPG-AS at 38.6% and the LPG-AS as 11.9%, which trends more like the overall cross-tabs which show the FPG as being generally higher in the frequency of provided items. Of the three science methods course structure choices, (a) science only (b) combined with another subject area, and (c) not offered or not required, the science only structure represented the highest percentage of Favorably Prepared Group (FPG) respondents in all foundation categories. Respondents Perceived Value o f Learning Experiences Prior research (Boone, 1993; McEneaney & Sheridan, 1993) shows that teachers value most what they see as practical knowledge for daily teaching, however, this cross tabulation may add some additional detail to those findings. The participants overall value scores for the foundation categories showed that 59% held the foundation categories items at a moderate level of value overall, and 23% held the items at a favorable value level which was slightly more than those who found the items less valuable (20%). When viewed in detail at the level of each of the foundation categories the majority of the respondents valued the items at a moderate level. These data support the conclusions of the literature cited above. Although the respondents with a science only methods structure are the most favorably prepared group they did not find the foundation items to be more valuable. Value o f Professional Competency Items Related to Structure With regard to valuing Professional Competency (PC) items, 31.1% of the respondents (n = 103) assigned these items a low value. Of those assigning a low value, 17.5% were from a science only (SO) methods course structure, 9.7% from a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 combined (CM) structure (science methods combined with another subject area’s methods) and 3.9% were those who were not required to take or were not offered (NRNO) a science methods course. Those who assigned a moderate value to the Professional Competency items represent 55.3% of the total respondent pool. Of the moderate value group 35% were from the SO structure, 17.5% from the CM structure and 2.9% form the NRNO category. Favorable value was assigned to the PC items by 13.6% of the respondents. Of these 10.7% has an SO structure and 2.9% a CM structure. Value o f Knowledge o f Discipline Items Related to Structure When considering Knowledge of Discipline (KD) Items 24.2% of the respondents (n = 99) assigned these items low value. Of those who valued the item least, 13.1% had a science only (SO) structure for the methods course, 8.1% reported a combined structure (CM), and 3.0 indicated they were not required to take or were not offered (NRNO) a science methods course. The moderately valued group was 63.6% of the total respondents. Of the 63.6% 42.4 were from the SO group, 19.2% from the combined group, and 2% from the NRNO group. Those who valued the KD items favorably represent 12.1% of the respondent pool, of those 10.1% were SO group members and 2% were CM group members. Value o f Instructional Strategy Items Related to Structure Instructional Strategy (IS) items were ranked in value by 101 respondents. A low value was assigned by 13.9% of the respondents, 6.9% of them reporting an SO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 structure, 5% a CM structure, and 2% an NRNO structure. Moderate value assignment was made by 49.5% of the respondents with 34.2% SO, 12.9% CM and 2% NRNO. The IS items were favorably valued by 36.6% of respondents. The SO structured group composed 22.8% of the favorably valued group, 12.95% had a CM structure, and 2% were from the NRNO group. Value o f Assessment Items Related to Structure The total number of respondents in the category of Assessment (AS) was 89. Those indicating less value for the items made up 14.6% of the pool. SO respondents were 7.9%, CM were 5.6% and NRNO were 1.1% of those who valued AS items the least. Moderate value was reported by 59.6% of the total with 39.3% being SO respondents, 16.9% being from a CM structure, and 3.4% reporting that a science methods course was not required or not offered. Favorable ranking was reported by 25.8% of the total respondents, with 19.1% SO and 6.7% CM composing the favorable ranking respondent pool. Value o f and Preparedness for Foundation Core Related to Sequence The total respondent pool of the cross tabulation of respondents on value of the foundation category items on sequence of methods course was composed of 100 respondents. Of those 18% ranked the items of low value, 59% of moderate value and 23% favorably valued the core items. In the break down of the required sequence for science methods courses sample (n = 100), 6% were not required to take a science teaching methods course, 7% were to take it in the beginning of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 credential program, 28% were to take it in the middle of the credential program, 25% at the end, and for 34% it did not matter where in the sequence the science methods course was completed. When looking at the cross tabulation between the core items being provided and the sequence of coursework (n - 103) of the Less Prepared Group (14.6%) 4.9% were not required to take a methods course, 1% took the course at the beginning, none in the middle 1.9% at the end and 6.8% reported that it did not matter when in the program the course was sequenced. The moderately prepared group (MPG) represented 38.8% of the respondents, and of those 1.9% were not required to take a science methods course, 2.9% took it at the beginning, 10.7% in the middle, 9.7% at the end, and for 13.6% of the group sequence did not matter. The Favorably Prepared Group (FPG) composed 46.6% of total sample, and all respondents were required to take a science teaching methods course. A small portion (3.9%) did so at the beginning, 16.5% took courses in the middle of the program and 13.6 % at the end, leaving 12.6% for whom it did not matter when in the sequence the science methods course was completed. Respondent Self-rating o f Preparedness These data represent not a numeric tabulation of curricular items provided, but a self rating of the feelings of preparedness relating to each of the Foundation Core items. The overall preparedness score is the mean score of the rating of preparedness for each of the items from the ideal science teaching methods course. Respondents ranked their level preparation as: not at all prepared, somewhat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 unprepared, somewhat prepared, adequately prepared and very prepared. None of the respondents overall scores revealed a ranking of “very prepared.” An average score of total preparedness was calculated based on the items participants answered. Based on their average total preparedness scores, participants were then divided into mathematical thirds and labeled less, moderately, and favorably prepared groups. Those who scored between 1 and 2.33 were in the less prepared group, those scored between 2.34 and 3.67 were in the moderately prepared group, and those who scored between 3.68 and 5 were in the favorably prepared group. When cross tabulated with the structure of the science methods course (n = 103,) science only structured methods course participants represent 76.7% of the favorably prepared group, 66.7% of the moderately prepared group and 25% of the less prepared group. Combined structure methods course participants represent 20% of the favorably prepared group, 31.6% of the moderately prepared group, and 50% of the less prepared group. Those who did not take a science methods course divide as 25% less prepared, 1.8% as moderately prepared, and 3.3% as favorably prepared. The science only structure continues to have numeric dominance within the favorable categories. In order to look more closely at the participants who indicated the highest levels of feeling prepared they were rank ordered according to their average score and that score was then associated with its preparedness category. For each item respondents had the chance to rank their level preparation for teaching using the knowledge and skills gained from the item as: not at all prepared, somewhat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 unprepared, somewhat prepared, adequately prepared and very prepared. Fourteen percent (n=15) of respondents had a mean rating indicating they felt “adequately prepared” and this group is the group with the highest self-ranking for preparedness. Some shared characteristics of the “adequately prepared” group include the facts that 60% attended public universities in California for their teacher credential program, 33% attended private institutions, with the remaining 6% declining to provide the name of the institution they received their credential from. Ninety-three percent reported that the time spent by their program preparing them to teach science was “ just right.” No one in this group had an undergraduate degree in science. The majority of the group (86%) rated themselves as confident or highly confident in their ability to teach elementary school science. Frequency o f Methods Courses The frequency aspect of the study resulted in these findings (n = 103), 8.7% of respondents took no science methods course, 75.7% took one science methods course, and 15.5% took two or more science methods courses. Of those who took one methods course, 25.6% felt they were favorably prepared, 65.4% felt they were moderately prepared and 9% felt they were less prepared. Of the individuals who took just one science methods course, 66.7% felt the amount of time spent by their credential program in preparing them to teach science was “just right”. General Findings NSTA recommends at least one separate science methods course and the preparation data support this finding. Not requiring a methods course appears to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 yield lower levels of perceived preparation: no one from FPG bypassed a science methods course. Of the FPG, 81.3% took only one science methods course. Regarding sequence, more favorably prepared respondents took their methods courses later in the sequence. The literature shows that science methods taken later in the sequence may be beneficial as preservice teacher levels of concern tend to be at the level of survival (Butts et al., 1997); 29.2% of the Favorably Prepared Group (FPG) was required to take science methods at the end of the program sequence, 35.4% in the middle. General Findings Relating to Structure o f Methods Course Experience Those who favorably valued the core items had, as a majority, the science only structure for their science methods course. Those who rated the core items as less valuable overall made up 31.1% of the respondent pool, or over one-third of the respondents. When asked about the amount of time their credential programs spend preparing them to teach science, 70.8% of science only structure participants said it was “just right,” and 56.3% of combined structure participants said it was just right. Seventy-five percent of the FPG took a science only structured methods course revealing that the combined structure yielded far fewer favorably prepared teachers than the science only structure. Of those who rated the time spent by their program preparing them to teach science as “not enough,” 29.2% took a science only methods course and 43.8% took a combined methods course. Of the science only (SO) participants 36.8% rated themselves as confident or highly confident with their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 ability to teach science, 18.9% of combined structure (CM) participants rated themselves confident or highly confident with their science teaching ability. Item Analysis-Frequencies The frequencies for the 30 items that compose the Foundation Core categories, Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies and Assessment were computed (Table 8). The respondents overall perceptions of value of the items and self-reported preparedness for teaching using knowledge and skills gained from the items were compared. Frequency percentages for questions on value represent the responses “valuable” and “very valuable,” and frequency percentages for preparedness represent responses of “adequately prepared,” and “very prepared.” It should be noted that each respondent had a differing set of items which they were provided and that the percentages used in comparing value and preparedness are based on the percent of individuals reporting that they had in fact received instruction in the foundation core item. Table 8. Mean Frequency and Rank of Foundation Core Categories Foundation core category Mean value Value rank Mean preparedness Preparedness rank Professional 48.6 3 34.7 4 Competencies Knowledge of the 44.9 4 38.5 3 Discipline Instructional Strategies 63.7 2 53.3 2 Assessment 71.5 1 55.0 I For purposes of ranking the Foundation Categories (Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 Assessment), the mean frequency percentage for each category was computed for both value and preparedness. Assessment is the category respondents felt was most valuable as well as feeling most prepared for teaching using items from that category. Instructional Strategies ranked second in both value and preparedness. Knowledge of the Discipline ranked lowest in value and third out of the four categories in preparedness. Professional Competencies ranked third of four in value and last in preparedness. Figure 1 shows that of the 30 items, respondents valued 27 of them more than they felt prepared to teach using them. All but one of the items was valued lower than 80%, the exception being the completion of in-class, hands-on science activities which was valued at 81.4%. Regarding preparedness, only 10 of the 30 items had a preparedness level over 50%. The bulk of the higher scoring items were active elementary school classroom based items such as observing lessons, teaching lessons or practical methods classroom based items, as well as participating in hands on science activities or keeping science journals. Meeting science content standards was the item which respondents felt most prepared for at 69.3%. For preparation, Classroom Management for Science Teaching (65.7%), Observation of Science Teaching in Elementary School Classrooms (67.1%), Teaching Demonstration Lessons to Classmates (67.4%), and Teaching Science Lessons in an Elementary School Classroom (68.9%) completed the top five. Participation in in-class hands-on science activities was ranked most highly valued at 81.4%. For value, Observation of Science Teaching in Elementary Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 School Classrooms (72.9%), Science Content Standards (72%), Teaching Science Lessons in an Elementary School Classroom (78.1%), and Activity Based Assessment (78.7%) completed the top five. The least valued item was Science Teacher Professional Organizations (19.2%), and it was also the item respondents felt least prepared (18.9%) for using the knowledge and skills gained from it for their classroom teaching. Readings from Journal Articles Relating to Science Teaching and Learning (27.7%), Nature of Science (28.3%), Technology for Science Teaching and Learning (28.3%), and Learning Theories (29.3%) rounded out the bottom five items for feelings of preparedness. The remaining four items with the lowest scores for values were (a) Readings from Journal Articles Relating to Science Teaching and Learning (28.9%), (b) Diversity and Multicultural Issues in Science (31.3%), (c) Readings from Science Methods Textbooks (32.4%), and (d) Technology for Science Teaching and Learning (36.2%). The Intersection o f Frequencies and Science Methods Course Structure In analyzing the frequency of respondents having had instruction in the Foundation Core Items, it was revealed that respondents who had a science only (SO) methods course structure were provided a greater frequency of items than those respondents who had a combined (CM) methods course structure. For 25 of the 30 items the SO group had a greater frequency of receiving the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ Value Frequency % Preparation Frequency % cr > jtjrjrssj ^ / / / ^ S W S S j £ i J? O ' Figure 1. Foundation Items Comparison—Value and Preparation 0 0 59 items, for four items, the CM group had the greater frequency (Teaching Lessons in an Elementary School Classroom, Using Various Questioning Techniques, Strategies for Integrating Science with Other Content Areas, and Diversity and Multicultural Issues in Science). For a single item (Nature of Science) the groups tied. These data show the content strengths of each structure, particularly when it is noted that the CM group’s high scores lie solely within the Instructional Strategies Category. Themes Emerging from Open-ended Questions The final item of the STPS asked respondents to discuss the areas about which they were interested in learning more. Responses were coded into themes, tallied, and then assigned to one of the four Foundation Categories from the ideal curriculum. For example, comments about classroom management were assigned to the Instructional Strategies Group, where the item about classroom management is presented. Of the themes that emerged, ten were associated with Instructional Strategies, four with Knowledge of Discipline, three with Professional Competencies, and two with Assessment. After some deliberation the theme of lack of time for science instruction was placed with Instructional Strategies as that Foundation Core Category includes most of the issues related to effective use of time although time is an issue addressed by competency in all four Foundation Core Categories. Six respondents indicated disappointment with having had no methods course; these responses were coded into Knowledge of Discipline as those items are exclusive to science teaching and would likely only be provide in a science methods course. The frequency of remarks Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 associated with Instructional Strategies is not surprising as the items that teachers report valuing most were from the Instructional Strategies category. The Instructional Strategies category includes several of the items that teachers report feeling least prepared for and interestingly the coded comments indicate that many respondents wish to learn more in these areas. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Overview This chapter is composed of five sections, each of which includes discussion of the conclusions and implications of the key findings for each of the research questions. Research question one was addressed by the review of the literature (chapter 2) and came to fruition in the form of the Science Teaching Preparation Survey, which was the instrument created for this study (Appendix A). The first section addresses the findings for Research Question 2: How do early career teachers’ science methods course experiences, including structure, frequency, and sequence relate to the best practices described in the ideal state of elementary science teacher preparation in the areas of Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment? The second section addresses Research Question 3: What relationship exists between respondents’ experiences with the learning activities and instructional topics presented in their science methods course and their perceived value of those activities and topics? Are there any differences in early career teachers’ perceived value of different areas of learning activities and instructional topics (including Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) based on their methods course experiences (structure, frequency, and sequence)? The third section presents findings related to Research Question 4 which asks, what is the relationship between early career teachers’ experiences with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 the process activities and instructional topics of their methods course and their perceived level of preparedness for teaching? The final section is composed of concluding remarks and suggestions for future research. Discussion o f Research Question 2 Research Question 2 explores how early career teachers’ science methods course experiences, including structure, frequency, and sequence relate to the best practices described in the ideal state of elementary science teacher preparation in the areas of (a) Professional Competencies, (b) Knowledge of the Discipline, (c) Instructional Strategies, and (d) Assessment. For the purposes of question 2, the methods course experience was based on whether or not the respondent indicated having an item from the list of ideal elements, not on self-report of feelings of preparedness which is discussed in Research Question 4. Science Teaching Methods Course Structure and the Ideal Curriculum Structure appears to have been the most dominant factor in the relationship between the ideal curriculum and the structure, sequence and frequency of the respondents’ science methods courses. The structure of the science methods courses are science only (SO), science methods combined with another subject area (CM), and science methods not offered or not required (NRNO). Of the Less Prepared Group (LPG), 60% had taken a science methods course, which means these respondents had 10 or fewer of the ideal items. This data points to inequity in quality among science methods courses. Anderson and Mitchener (1994) noted a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 considerable variability among science teacher preparation programs, and this variability appears to apply to quality as well. The Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) data show that 53.4% of the teachers had 20 or fewer of the items that represent the ideal methods course curriculum. The SO group consistently reported a higher number of ideal items, and had a higher percentage of individuals than the CM (25%) and NRNO (0%) groups in the Favorably Prepared Group for all four of the foundation categories. The science only structured methods course appears to be the most beneficial structure for providing the ideal items as SO respondents represent 75% of the Favorably Prepared Group (FPG). While it may be considered intuitive that the science only structure would yield the highest number of favorably prepared participants, it is of some interest to note the 3 to 1 ratio of science only to combined methods respondents in the Favorably Prepared Group. Frequency and the Ideal Curriculum Crowther and Cannon (1999) found that students who took a formal science methods course before their student teaching, were able to respond to questions about teaching and learning in a more in-depth manner and “seemed to get more out of the science practicum” (p. 15). A large majority of the respondents to the STPS indicated that they were required to take only one science methods course (75.7 %), and of this group, 66.7% felt the amount of time their credential program spent preparing them to teach science was “just right.” The percentage required to take two or more courses was 15.5% and 8.7%— that was the percentage for which a course was not required or not offered. Forty percent of the Less Prepared Group did not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 take a science methods course. Six open-ended responses indicated that the respondent did not take a class, and four of those individuals expressed that this was a disadvantage for their teaching. Taking only one science methods course appears not to have been a detriment, as 81.3% of the Favorably Prepared Group took just one science methods course. These data reveal that, in order to be prepared, teachers need to take at least one science methods course, and those who taken a single science methods course, may be better served by one with a science only focus. Sequence and the Ideal Curriculum Butts et al. (1997) indicate that while knowing science and knowing ways to make it meaningful are important, they represent higher levels of concern while preservice teachers’ are generally centered on the level of personal survival. They go on to suggest that an introductory elementary science teaching methods course should focus on: (a) enhancing one’s personal knowledge base and functioning in the context of science; (b) learning explicit skills for translating science to help students construct their own knowledge and; (c) providing opportunities to generate personal beliefs about why it is important for children to learn science. With these skills in place Butts et al. (1997) found that more mature concerns such as management, establishing learning environments, and influencing student learning begin to emerge. It appears that further coursework in elementary science teaching methods would appropriately incorporate topic areas that represent these increased levels of concern and offer instruction related to them. Of some note, is the finding that 46.7 % of respondents indicated that it did not matter when in the program they took their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 science methods course. However, the Favorably Prepared Group (FPG), reported having science methods later in the course sequence with 35.4% reporting having the course in the middle of the sequence and 29.2% at the end, indicating that sequence may have an impact on preparation. With the literature reporting that a relationship exists between levels of concern and teacher learning, its seems that more programs would have in place a firm requirement regarding the placement of methods courses with the program sequence, particularly with respect to science, which has such a discreet pedagogical content knowledge associated with it. Perhaps creating sequence requirements for programs would be an inexpensive way to increase preparedness since later in the sequence is when preservice teachers have more general pedagogical knowledge and levels of concern are becoming more sophisticated. Is a lack of a sequence requirement an indicator of a devaluing of science methods courses by teacher preparation programs or simply of the gap between research and practice? The data for this question presents a picture that indicates that in order to increase preparedness, preservice teachers should be required to take at least one science methods course, in the middle, or even more beneficially, at the end of the program sequence. This course should be focused on science teaching methods only rather than being combined with another subject area. A course dedicated solely to science teaching methods is not a novel idea, but perhaps in a time when the demand for teachers is high and the resource allocation for teacher preparation programs is low, it is important to recognize that this structure gives preservice teachers a more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 favorable level of preparation. Cost saving measures like (a) not requiring science methods courses; (b) combining subject area methods courses; (c) giving credential students a “buffet “ of methods courses to choose from rather than providing a complete program of methods; and (d) not aligning sequence requirements to the research based findings; short change elementary teachers and their students. Discussion o f Research Question 3 In Research Question 3, the relationship that exists between respondents’ experiences with the learning activities and instructional topics presented in their science methods course and their perceived value of those activities and topics is explored. Are there any differences in early career teachers’ perceived value of different areas of learning activities and instructional topics (including Professional Competencies, Knowledge of the Discipline, Instructional Strategies, and Assessment) based on their method course experiences (structure, frequency, and sequence)? Respondents self-reported the value for each item on a 4-point Likert- type scale of “not at all valuable” to “very valuable.” Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (59%) valued the Foundation Items at a moderate level. Frequencies show that the items that were most valued were the Instructional Strategies (IS) and Assessment (AS) items, which are both highly practical in nature. These data are supported by the findings of McEneaney and Sheridan (1993) and Boone (1993) that showed that teachers value most what they see as practical knowledge for daily teaching. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 IS items were most highly valued and represent an intersection of science specific items and practical teaching items. The bulk of the responses to the open ended question asking what respondents wanted to learn more about fell into the IS category. AS items were next most highly valued, they too represent practical aspects of teaching and carry the influence of the high stakes nature of assessment. Knowledge of Discipline (KD) items were assigned low value perhaps because in addition to being science specific, they are more theoretical or research oriented. KD items were valued more highly than Professional Competencies (PC) items. PC were of lower value, likely in part because they contain high numbers of “crossover” items, that is; items that may have been part of the curriculum in other methods courses, and therefore, represent repetitive concepts or activities. Interestingly, the Science Only methods course group assigned PC items a higher value than the CM and NRNO structured groups. The least valued items were all theory and research items. Instructors need to find ways to transmit the value of research and the place of theory to methods course students, and to make the information meaningful for daily teaching practice. Some items that appeared to have particular relevance for California’s teachers ended up being of low value, which is of note, as all respondents teach in California and 98 of the 106 were credentialed in the state as well. Diversity and multicultural issues in science was a low value item, notable in a state as diverse as California where teachers encounter tremendous diversity on a day-to-day basis. Technology for science teaching and learning is a low value item, which is surprising Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 considering that technology and media are ubiquitous in California industry and today’s society in general is so media driven. Is this because of the chronic lack of technology in schools? The least valued item overall was science teacher professional organizations. It was also the item respondents were least prepared to use in their teaching. The National Science Teachers Association is an excellent national resource and Los Angeles and Orange Counties, where all the respondents teach, have several well organized and well run associations that support science teachers. Lee and Krapfl (2002) and Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) noted that participation in professional organizations helps teachers become actively involved in the professional community, contributing to their ongoing development as educators. It appears that methods instructors must craft better ways to familiarize their students withNSTA as well as local organizations for science teachers. Is the moderate value ranking of the foundation categories a reflection of respondent’s levels of concern? It would be interesting to ascertain if veteran teachers with more sophisticated levels of concern had similar or differing value rankings. The intersection between value and levels of concern might yield helpful data for science teacher preparation in terms of providing preservice teachers with the skills to move beyond “survival” in their early career years. What might early career teachers value more highly than the Foundation Category items is another query arising from these data. Value is an aspect of motivation and its role in effective teacher preparation is should not be overlooked. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 Discussion o f Research Question 4 Research Question 4 explores the relationship between early career teachers’ experiences with the process activities and instructional topics of their methods course and their perceived level of preparedness for teaching. The responses to this question differ from those of Research Question 2 in that the preparedness discussed in this section is not the objective frequency of ideal items the respondents experienced in their methods courses, but their own self-report of how prepared they feel about their ability to use the knowledge and skills gained from having those core items in their teaching. Twenty nine percent (29.1%) of respondents rate themselves as feeling favorably prepared, however, 46.6% of respondents ranked in the Favorably Prepared Group (FPG) based on the number of Foundation Core items they were provided. So it appears that just having the items as part of the methods course does not necessarily translate into feeling prepared. In addition, 60.4% of the respondents rate themselves as confident or highly confident with their ability to teach science. Confidence with science teaching did show a significant positive correlation with overall feelings of preparedness, (r = .45,/? < .01), indicating that there is a definitive relationship between the two which might be more closely examined. Respondents with a Science Only (SO) structured methods course compose a much higher percentage (76.7%) of the FPG on the self-rating of preparation than combined structure (CM) respondents (20%), which is another positive indicator for the use of a science only structure. The percentage of respondents ranked in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Favorably Prepared Group was fewer in the Knowledge of Discipline and the Instructional Strategies Categories, categories which contain less cross curricular knowledge and skills and are more specific to the discipline of science. This finding mirrors those of Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) and Matthews (1994) and suggests that teachers continue to feel less prepared for using science specific teaching skills. In examining the teachers who rank themselves highest in preparedness none of the respondents rated themselves as very prepared. Those rating themselves as “adequately prepared” represent only 14% of the total sample. Although ninety-three percent of the this small group reported that the time spent by their program preparing them to teach science was “just right” and 86% rated themselves as confident or highly confident in their ability to teach elementary school science they are still not feeling prepared at the highest level. Perhaps the missing aspect between “adequately” and “very” prepared is more science content, as no one in this group had an undergraduate degree in science. Further Reflections The research has provided guidelines for exemplary practice in science teacher education and these research findings have been crafted into Standards for Science Teacher Education (NSTA, 1988). The findings of this study reveal that the NSTA standards, when translated into specific curricular areas, are still far from being met for over half the study population. Ninety-eight of the 106 survey respondents were credentialed in California and regrettably, examination of California’s Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 Preparation Programs (CTC, 2001) yielded only two instances where preparation for teaching elementary science was mentioned specifically. Both instances were short paragraphs which essentially indicated that credential students must be taught to plan for, teach, and assess the items included in the California State Science Content Standards. While California’s common standards may overlap in many curricular areas, its documents are far less specific about what prospective elementary science teachers should experience in their preparation than is discussed in the literature, suggested inNSTA’s Standards for Science Teacher Education (NSTA, 1988) or outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NRC,1996). Ultimately, it is the job of science teacher educators to insure that science teaching methods courses meet state, national and professional standards. Science teacher educators are a critical part of the chain of accountability in insuring that children receive a quality education in science by helping prepare teachers with appropriate skills and knowledge. The Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS), The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and other organizations like it continue to encourage research and advance the practice of science teacher education. The infrastructure for supporting excellence in science teacher education exists with these professional organizations, and at present, they are the most likely vehicle for improving the quality of elementary science teaching methods courses. Discussion about how to promote vigilant use of a highly detailed set of guidelines Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 for what every elementary science teaching methods course should include is critical to improving outcomes in elementary science teaching methods courses. Based on the study results, it is my recommendation that the best foundation for teachers of elementary science, comes from receiving all the ideal elements described in the Science Teaching Preparation Survey delivered in a science-only structured methods course completed at the end of the credential program. Although implementing these recommendations requires allocation of resources, these suggestions I believe are quite feasible, shifting a course to the end of sequence could be managed with minimal resource impact, and curricular changes while requiring time, energy, creativity and willingness to change on the part of program faculty are a relatively small drain on financial resources. Teaching using a science only structure is the most resource intensive recommendation for programs without an elementary science teaching methods course or for those programs using a combined structure. While a combined structure offers advantages in a few limited areas, the advantages of the science only structure outweigh them and are a strong rationale for investing in the concentrated structure. At the elementary level, no methods course exists in a vacuum because necessity requires that teachers integrate and that good practice from one discipline informs practice in others. If the goal of credential programs is fully prepared teachers, then science teacher educators have a mandate to insure that science specific skills and strategies are taught in a complete and focused manner in every science teaching methods course. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Suggestions for Future Research Continuing research into the influence and utility of science teaching methods courses is certainly suggested. Expanding this survey’s sample size to reach teachers throughout California may corroborate the data provided by the Los Angeles and Orange county teachers from this administration of the survey, thus enhancing the generalizability of the findings. It would also be useful to compare groups of teachers from different states to see if teachers’ views change by geographical location. Manipulation of the sample based on the type of institution proving the credential program (i.e., private, public, liberal arts, etc.) could be beneficial for comparing structure and defining any possible trends among institution types with regard to science teacher preparation. Other research might take the form of combining the Science Teaching Preparation Survey (STPS) with a syllabus analysis of the science teaching methods courses that the respondents were enrolled in. Case studies of student and professor pairs could shed light on the dichotomy between what instructional topics methods course student’s value and what topics methods course faculty value. This same data might be examined on a larger scale by having participants describe just the relative value of the foundation items and administering the questions to large groups of new teachers and science methods course faculty. In this way, commonalities and disconnects in how each group values the items could be explored. Action research in this area might be structured as a collaboration of new teachers and science education faculty working together to craft a syllabus that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 incorporates elements deemed “ideal” for both groups. Research into the induction of new science teacher educators and the professional development habits of veteran science teacher educators, would likely yield data pertinent to improving science teacher education practice. A greater understanding of obstacles to effectiveness for science teacher educators would allow researchers to pinpoint areas of need for the profession. Further Remarks The genesis of this study was my own personal desire to know whether my science methods course students felt prepared and valued what they had learned in my course once they were teaching in their own classrooms. This desire was fueled by opportunities to participate in elementary science teaching methods course reform discussions, and to work on course designs to maintain compliance with state reforms that were in near constant flux. It was my belief that the way we structured elementary science teaching methods courses would have a noticeable impact on how students perceived the course topics and themselves as science teachers. The STPS represents the ideal curriculum from a “faculty” point of view, and I had hoped that it would show that preservice teachers completed science methods courses feeling prepared and believing that the instructional topics were of value to them in their daily teaching. What I learned was that the teachers surveyed continue to feel under prepared, and they feel many of the ideal topics are of low value. The items they did place at least moderate value on were the highly practical and high stakes topics such as assessment, state standards, and classroom management. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 Theory and research were not well valued; it is likely teachers view these aspects as less than relevant to their daily work. As science educators, we understand the importance of a research-based, theoretical underpinning for all teaching activities, so it seems that the next step indicated by the study results would be to create ways to help teachers recognize the value of these items to both their practice and their professional growth. As part of my personal teaching practice agenda, I look forward to finding a satisfying, relevant, and motivating variety of activities to support the ideal curriculum topics I have described in my research. With collaboration among faculty, students, and early career teachers, I believe this can be done in an inclusive and creative way. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 REFERENCES Allen, M. B. ( 2003) Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado. Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In Dorothy L. Gabel (Ed.). The handbook o f research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. (n.d.). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators. Retrieved November 21,2002, from http://aets. chem.pitt. edu Bayer Corporation (2004, May 11). The Bayer facts of science education X: Are the nation’s colleges and universities adequately preparing elementary schoolteachers of tomorrow to teach science? Retrieved September 29,2004 from http://www.bayerus.com/msms/news/facts/pdl704051 l_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment. (2001, August 14). Retrieved April 2, 2003, from http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html Blosser, P. & Howe, R. (1969). An analysis of research on elementary teacher education related to the teaching of science. Science and Children 6, 50-60. Boone, W. (1993). Preservice elementary teachers’ views toward a science methods curriculum. Journal o f Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 37-51. Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. New York: Longman. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Butts, D., Koballa, T., & Elliott, T. (1997). Does participating in an undergraduate elementary science methods course make a difference? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 1-17. Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1996). Subject matter preparation programs for elementary school teachers: Standards o f program quality and effectiveness : A handbookfor teacher educators and program reviewers. Sacramento, CA: State of California. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001, September 6). Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs. Retrieved July 16,2004, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educatorstandards/ AdoptedPreparationStandards.pdf Cotton, J., Evans, J., & Tseng, M. (1978). Relating Skill Acquisition to Science Classroom Teaching Behavior. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching, 75(3), 187-195. Crowther, D. & Cannon, J. (1999). How much is enough? Preparing elementary science teachers through science practicums. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 671) Donald, J.G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Druva, C. A. & Anderson, R. D. (1983) Science teachers’ characteristics by teacher behavior by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 467-479. Enfield, M. (n.d.). Content and pedagogy: Intersection in the NSTA standards for science teacher education. Retrieved November 21, 2002, from http://www. msu.Edu/~dugganha/PCK. htm Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook o f research on teacher education (pp. 212-233). New York: Macmillan. Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step-by step guide. (2n d Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fo\Vler, F. (1993). Survey research methods (2n d Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Studying the education of educators: From conception to findings. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(9), 678-701. Hawkins, S. & Michelsohn, A. (1995). The preparation of elementary school teachers in science: Reporting on 142 preservice programs. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Kansas Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (KCETPa). (n.d.). National Science Education Standards Retrieved November 18,2002, from http://www.kcetporg/administration/standards/SCIENCE%20ED%20STAND ARDS.pdf Kansas Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (KCETPb). (n.d.). National Science Teachers Association Standards for Science Teacher Education Retrieved November 18,2002, from http://www.kcept.org/ administration/'standards/NATIONAL%20SCIENCE%20TEACHERS%20ASS OCIATION.pdf. Kennedy, M. M. (1990). Choosing a goal for professional education. In W.R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook o f research on teacher education, (pp. 813-825). New York: Macmillan. Lederman, N. G., Ramey-Gassert, L., Kuerbis, P., Loving, C., Roychoudhuray, A., Spector, B. (no date). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators, (AETS Position Paper). Retrieved on November 1, 2002 http://science. cc. imfedu/AETS/standards. htm Lee, C. & Krapfl, L. (2002). Teaching as you would have them teach: An effective elementary science teacher preparation program. Journal o f Science Teacher Education, 13(3): 247-265. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K„ & Hewson, P. (1996, May). Principles o f effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis o f standards (NISE Brief Vol. 1, No. 1). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role o f history and philosophy o f science. New York: Routledge. McEneaney, J. & Sheridan, E. (1993). Evaluating the Effectiveness o f an Undergraduate Teacher Education Program (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 358 062) National Center for Education Statistics. (2001a, November 19). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): Cross-state comparisons of average science scale scores, grade 4 (public schools only): 2000. Retrieved April 30,2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/scierice/results /stateachieve-g4. dsp Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 National Center for Education Statistics. (2001b, November 19). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The nation’s report card, cross state comparison map, average scale scores. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 30 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/states/svgmap.asp National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2001b, November 19). The nations report card, cross-state comparison map, average scale scores. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 30 2003, from http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/svgmap. asp National Researph Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1983). Recommended standards for the preparation o f and certification o f teachers o f science at the elementary and middle/junior high school levels. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1998). Program for the Initial Preparation of Teachers of Science or Science Specialists. Retrieved January 13.2003, from http://www.ncate.org/standard/new%20program %20standardsProgram%20Report%20Templates%20(2004)/NSTA/NSTA%2 Ostandards .doc. Penick, J. (ed.). (1987). Focus on excellence: Preservice elementary teacher education in science. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Psych Data, LLC. (2003, November 13). Security Statement. Retrieved November 13.2003, from http://www.psychdata.net/content/Security.asp Raizen, S. & Michelsohn, A. (1994). The future o f science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Schmidt, W. C. (1997). Behavior research methods. Instruments & Computers, 29(2), 274-279. Shroyer, G. (n.d.). Recommendations for learning to teach science. Retrieved November 18,2002, from http:// www.kcept.org/administration/standards/ RECOMMENDTIONS.pdf Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and Research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Whitrock, (ed.). Handbook o f Research and Teaching, 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan. Spector, B. (1987). Excellence in preservice elementary teacher education in science. In Penick, J. (ed.). Focus on excellence: Preservice elementary teacher education in science (pp. 5-8). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Stuessy, C. L. & Thomas, J. A. (1998). Elementary teachers do science: Guidelines for teacher preparation programs. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 APPENDICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 APPENDIX A SCIENCE TEACHING PREPARATION SURVEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Note: For items with pull-down menus the possible responses appear below. Item 1- Preliminary Multiple Subject, Clear Multiple Subject, Other Item 2- Respondents select a year from 1999 to 2004 Item 3- Less than 6 months, Less than 1 year, 1 year, 2 years, 3 or more years Item 5- Respondents choose one from grades 1-6 or respond to other Item 9- none, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8,9-10,10 or more Item 12 - less than 1 year, lyear, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, more than 5 years Item 17 - 5% or less, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%, 21-25%, more than 25% Items 22-51 - are a three column matrix The menu for column 1 is: provided, not provided, don’t know The menu for column 2 is: not at all valuable, somewhat valuable, valuable, and very valuable The menu for column 3 is: not at all prepared, somewhat unprepared, somewhat prepared, adequately prepared, and very prepared Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 ( S f r PsychData" C O N H O i N C e IN RESE A RCH Friday, August 06, 2004 5 Science Teaching Preparation Survey Information Sheet use UNIVERSITY o F s o u t h e r n CALIFORNIA University o f Southern California Rossier School O f Education INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH Early Career Teachers Views of Elementary Science Teaching Methods Courses: The Relationship Between Preservice Preparation and the Realities of the First Years of Teaching You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by W illiam F. McComas, Principal Investigator and Holly S. Henebry, Co-Investigator, from the Rossier School o f Education at the University o f Southern California. The results o f this study will contribute to the dissertation o f Co-Investigator Holly S. Henebry. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a participant in the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) and have been teaching for two or fewer years. Your participation is voluntary. A total o f approximately 300 subjects will be selected from the BTSA Program to participate. Your participation is voluntary. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY W e are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about your science teaching methods course experiences and how valuable you felt they were as well as how prepared you feel for teaching science to elementary school students since taking your science methods courses. Completion and return o f die questionnair e will constitute consent to participate in this research project. PROCEDURES You will be asked to take an online survey using any internet connected computer available to you. The survey takes approximately 15-20 minutes to complete and must be completed in a single session. Items will ask you about your preparation for teaching science to elementary school students, your science methods course experiences, how valuable you felt the methods course experiences were and how prepared you feel for teaching various aspects o f elementary school science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS There are no reasonable foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. Some items ask about your level o f preparedness which may cause you discomfort, but your answers are not associated with your identity and you may take the survey using any internet-connected computer in any setting where you feel comfortable. Your name cannot be linked to your responses in any way. You may choose not to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable or choose not tocomplete the survey at any time. POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY You will not directly benefit from participation in this study. Your responses will add to what is known about preparing teachers to teach science to elementary students. PAYMENT/COMPENSATIONFOR PARTICIPATION As a token o f appreciate for your participation you will receive a $5.00 gift card for Starbuck’s Coffee approximately 1 week after you indicate you completed the survey. If you change your mind and decide not to finish the survey you are still entitled to this gift. CONFIDENTIALITY Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. This online survey and your responses are held on a secure server that uses the same state-of-the-art data encryption used for internet credit card transactions. Access to the survey data is password protected. Any data removed transferred from the database is password protected and held only on the computer o f the co investigator, which is not accessible to any other person. Any printed materials related to the study will be kept in a locked file cabinet to prevent access by unauthorized persons. Persons authorized to view study data are the Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator and Yuying V. Tsong, statistical consultant. Ms. Tsong’s access is limited to survey responses only; mailing addresses o f participants who opt to receive a gift card will be viewed only by the Co- Investigator. Once the data have been analyzed the surveys will be destroyed no later than December 31, 2005. W hen the results o f the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your identity. PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences o f any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator m ay withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact: Dr. William F. McComas, Principal Investigator University o f Southern California Rossier School o f Education W PH1001E Los Angeles, C A 90089-0031 Telephone 213-740-3470 Holly S. Henebry, Co-Investigator c/o Dr. W illiam F. McComas University o f Southern California Rossier School o f Education WPH 1001E Los Angeles, C A 90089-0031 Telephone 310-567-6628 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because o f your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office o f the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821- 5272 or upirb@usc.edu. Date o f Preparation 2/22/04 USC UPIRB# 04-02-058 *1) 1 have read the statement above and I freely consent to participate in this study. I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time for any reason with no consequences. Placing a m ark in the box below indicates your agreement to accept the terms described in the information sheet. If you DO NOT consent please close your browser at this time. Please note: only persons credentialed for and teaching at the elementary level are eligible to participate in this study and receive the Starbuck's gift. I Yes, I agree. *2) For verification o f your informed consent please enter your e-mail address. This information is stored separately and is not connected with your survey responses._____________ Please click on "Submit" powered by www.psychdata.com Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © PsychData” C O N F I D E N C E I N RESE ARCH Friday. August 06. 2004 Science Teaching Preparation Survey These questions ask about your academic and career information. 1) W hat type o f California Teaching Credential do you currently hold? Note: Single Subject Credential holders and those teaching grades 7-12 are NOT eligible for this study._________________________________ J -Select- w j Other: I 2) W hat year was your credential issued? | -Select- Other: I 3) How many years have you worked under your current credential? Include all assignments. -Select- ■ * ) By which School District are you currently employed? (Please limit abbreviations to avoid confusion) 00 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5) Which grade level are you currently teaching? Note: Those teaching grades 7-12 are not eligible for this study. -Select- Other: 6) From which college or university did you receive your bachelor's degree? (Please limit abbreviations to avoid confusion) 7) In what year was your bachelor's degree granted? 8) W hat was the major field o f your bachelor's degree? (i.e. Biology, Liberal Studies, English) 9) Approximately how many science courses did you take while completing your bachelor's degree? (Do not include psychology or other social science courses) j -Select- jrj 10) Based on your experiences, knowledge, and feelings (rather than on actual course grades) how would you grade yourself as a science learner? -Select- t | oo SO Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12) The next section asks questions about the teacher credentialing program from which you received your credential. Answer all the questions based on the requirements in place during the time you were enrolled. Which college, university or alternative program granted your credential? (Please limit abbreviations to avoid confusion) Which o f these most closely describes the structure o f the teacher credentialing program you completed? r Integrated with Bachelor's Degree including Student Teaching r Post Bachelor's Program including Student Teaching r Internship r Accelerated (i.e. weekend or intensive courses) r District (non-university) sponsored r Alternative (i.e. Teach for America) r ^ Other (Please Specify)__________ How long did it take you to complete your credential program? -Select 'd © Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As you think about the structure of the teaching credential program you completed, how favorable for optimal learning do you feel it was? 15) 16) 1 7 ) Not at all favorable r Somewhat unfavorable c Favorable r Very Favorable The amount o f time spent by m y credential program preparing me to teach science was: r Not enough r Just right Too much How confident do you feel about teaching elementary' school science? What percentage o f the total instructional time o f your credential program was spent on preparing you to teach science? Select- Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The following questions ask about the science content and science teaching methods course(s) required by the teaching credential program you completed. 18) How many science content (not methods) classes were you required to take as part o f the credential program? r c r r c r c Just the courses required for my bachelor's degree None 1 2 3 More than 3 Don't know- 19) Some programs require stand-alone elementary science teaching methods courses while others combine science with various subject areas for methods courses. Which describes the science teaching methods course(s) required by your credential program ? r Science only m ethods course(s) r Combined with Mathematics Teaching Methods r ■ Combined with Social Studies Teaching Methods C Combined with other subject area methods course r I was not required to take an elementary' science teaching methods course c No science teaching methods course was offered r Other (Please Specify)__________ VO K J How many science teaching methods courses (combined or stand-alone) were you required to take? r e r r None i 2 3 or more When in the sequence o f required courses were the science teaching methods course(s) required? r No science teaching methods course required Beginning r Middle r End r During student teaching r It didn't matter when I took them r Don't know Think about the learning activities and instructional topics provided by your science teaching methods course. Please indicate the following three answers for each activity or instructional topic. 1. Was the item provided? 2. How valuable was the item for preparing you to teach elementary school science? 3. How prepared do you feel to teach elementary school science using the knowledge and experience gained from the item? Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Each Item should have 3 responses unless It was not provided, in which case you should indicate it was not provided in column 1 and move on to the next numbered item. Item Provided? How valuable was this item for preparing you to teach science? How prepared do you fed to teach science using the knowledge and experience gained from this item? 22) Lesson and Unit Planning for Science Teaching | -Select- 3 | -Setect- 3 J -Select- zi 23) Technology-based Assignmnets(i.e. PowerPoint, Webquests, etc.) J -Select- 3 J -Select- z j j -Select- zi 24) Review/Critique Science Curriculum Materials | -Select- 3 J -Select- zi j -Setect- zi 25) Learning Theories -Select- V -Select- w -Select- W 26) Cooperative/Collaborative Learning Structures J -Select- zi j -Select- zi J -Select- 3 27) Locating Science Teaching Resources | -Select- zi J -Select- 3 j -Select- 3 28) Building a Professional Teaching Portfolio | -Select - zi J -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 29) Readings from Science Methods Textbooks j -Select- j J -Select- 3 | -Setect- 3 30) Readings from Journal Articles Related to Science Teaching and Learning | -Select- z l j -Select- 3 j -Select- 3 31) Nature o f Science -Select- V -Select- ▼ -Select- * 32) Technology for Science Teaching and Learning | -Select- zi | -Select- 3 J -Select- 3 33) Science Content Standards -Select- zi -Select- w -Select- ▼ 4 * . Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34) Informal Settings for Science Learning (i.e. Field Trips, Museums, etc.) | -Select- e d j -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 35) Understanding the Content o f Elementary School Science | -Select- 3 j -Select- 3 | -Select- 31 36) Science Teacher Professional Organizations j -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 j -Select- 31 37) Teaching Demonstration Lessons to Classmates j -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 38) Observation o f Science Teaching in Elementary School Classrooms j -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 | -Select- “ " 3 " 1 39) Teaching Science Lessons in an Elementary School Classroom j -Select- 3 | -Select- | J -Select- 3 40) Laboratory Safety -Select- •* -Select- ▼ -Select- ▼ 41) Classroom Management for Science Teaching j -Select- 3 j -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 42) | Inquiry-based Teaching 1 -Select- p-Select- •w -Select- ▼ 43) i Learning Cvcle I -Select- 3 | -Select- -Select- ▼ 44) Using Various Questioning Techniques -Select- ^ 1 J -Select- 3 | -Select- zi 45) Strategies for Integrating Science with Other Content Areas j -Select- 3 J -Select- 3 J -Select- zi 46) Participating in In-class Hands-on Science Activities -Select- 3 j -Select- 3 | -Select- — 3 47) Diversity and Multicultural Issues in Science -Select- 3 | -Select- 3 | -Select- zi 48) Science for English Language Learners | -Select 3 j -Select- 3 J -Select- 3 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49) Assesing Student Learning in Science I -Select- z i j -Select- jrj | -Select- jrj 50) Activity-based Assessment -Select- ▼ -Select- » -Select- ▼ 51) Using Science Journals -Select- ▼ -Select- ▼ -Select- ▼ 52) As you reflect on your methods course experiences, items covered by this survey and your needs as a teacher o f science which areas are you interested in learning more about? jd j J Please click on "Submit" powered by www.psychdata.com N O On APPENDIX B FOUNDATION CORE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN BY SURVEY ITEM Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 Item Categories for the Science Teaching Preparation Survey Group 1-Professional Competencies 22. Lesson and Unit Planning for Science Teaching 23. Technology Based Assignments ( i.e. PowerPoint, web quests, etc) 24. Review/Critique of Curriculum Materials 25. Learning Theories 26. Cooperative/Collaborative Structures 27. Locating Science Teaching Resources 28. Building Professional Teaching Portfolio Group 2-Knowledge of the Discipline 29. Reading from Science Methods Textbooks 30. Readings from Journal Articles Relating to Science Teaching and Learning 31. The Nature of Science 32. Technology for Science Teaching and Learning 33. Science Content Standards 34. Informal Settings for Science Learning ( i.e. Field Trips, Museums) 35. Understanding the Content of Elementary School Science 36. Science Teacher Professional Organizations Group 3-Instructional Strategies 37. Teaching Demonstration Lessons to Classmates 38. Observation of Science Teaching in Elementary School Classrooms 39. Teaching Lesson in an Elementary School Classroom 40. Laboratory Safety 41. Classroom Management for Science Teaching 42. Inquiry Based Teaching 43. Learning Cycle 44. Using Various Questioning Techniques 45. Strategies for Integrating Science with Other Content Areas 46. Participating in In-Class Hands-on Science Activities 47. Diversity and Multicultural Issues in Science 48. Science for English Language Learners Group 4-Assessment 49. Assessing Student Learning in Science 50. Activity Based Assessment 51. Using Science Joum Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors contributing to the academic achievements of Hispanic gifted children

PDF

A history of the development of the California Science Content Standards: 1990--2005

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' and administrators' identification of diverse students for gifted programs in Title I schools

PDF

An analysis of program planning in schools with emerging excellence in science instructional design

PDF

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

PDF

Environmental education in community -based coastal resource management: A case study of Olango Island, Philippines

PDF

An investigation of the impact of selected prereading activities on student content learning through laboratory activities

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

A comparative study of American, Australian, British, and Canadian museum visitors' understanding of the nature of evolutionary theory

PDF

The relationship between attending science and math academies and students' college course taking patterns

PDF

How has the requirement to implement content standards affected the instructional program in schools and classrooms?

PDF

An evaluation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory instruction on middle school students' concept attainment and attitudes towards computer -based instruction

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

Examining the differences in family functioning and meaning in life between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish families

PDF

Analysis of Saudi Arabian middle and high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science

PDF

Effects of an integrated content and methods course on preservice teachers' beliefs and efficacy toward mathematics

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

Early reading predictors of literacy achievement for English learners: A longitudinal study from first through third grade

Asset Metadata

Creator Henebry, Holly Schaefer (author)

Core Title Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag Economics, Agricultural,education, elementary,education, sciences,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor McComas, William (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member), Olson, Thomas (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-571099

Unique identifier UC11340816

Identifier 3155419.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-571099 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155419.pdf

Dmrecord 571099

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Henebry, Holly Schaefer

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA