science education in an urban elementary school: case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom...

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong� 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Science Education in an UrbanElementary School: Case Studiesof Teacher Beliefs and ClassroomPractices

KEN KINGDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL60115-2885, USA

LEE SHUMOW, STEPHANIE LIETZDepartment of Psychological and Educational Foundations, Northern IllinoisUniversity, DeKalb, IL 60115-2885, USA

Received 27 February 1999; revised 27 September 1999; accepted 26 October 1999

ABSTRACT: Through a case study approach, the state of science education in an urbanelementary school was examined in detail. Observations made from the perspective of ascience education specialist, an educational psychologist, and an expert elementary teacherwere triangulated to provide a set of perspectives from which elementary science instruc-tion could be examined. Findings revealed that teachers were more poorly prepared thanhad been anticipated, both in terms of science content knowledge and instructional skills,but also with respect to the quality of classroom pedagogical and management skills.Particularly significant, from a science education perspective, was the inconsistency be-tween how they perceived their teaching practice (a “hands-on,” inquiry-based approach)and the investigator-observed expository nature of the lessons. Lessons were typicallyexpository in nature, with little higher-level interaction of significance. Implications forpractice and the associated needs for staff development among urban elementary teachersis discussed within the context of these findings.� 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sci Ed85:89–110, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

Researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders recognize that urban public schools suf-fer from a myriad of problems (Kozol, 1991; Council of Great City Schools, 1994). Abun-dant statistics describe American urban public school systems as lacking adequateresources to serve the substantial number of economically disadvantaged and highlymobilestudents enrolled in these schools (Committee for Research on the Education of StudentsPlaced at Risk, 1996). The state of science education in urban public elementary schoolsis particularly unfavorable. Large differences exist among the science achievement shownby students in urban schools in comparison to students from more privileged backgrounds(Clewell, Hannaway, de Cohen, Merryman, Mitchell, & O’Brien, 1995).1 These achieve-

Correspondence to:K. King; e-mail: [email protected] Although urban students scoring at the lowest level on standardized achievement tests made small

performance gains during the decade prior to 1995, the performance gap between them and other studentsremains large.

90 KING ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textment disparities are especially apparent when advanced (higher-order thinking) skills are

measured (Jones, Mullis, Raizen, Weiss, & Weston, 1992; Lindquist, Dossey, & Mullis,1995). Furthermore, urban minority students rarely take high school electives that preparethem for science-related careers or college majors, a situation sometimes attributed to theirlimited elementary school science education (Garcia, 1988). Female students, in particular,tend to be excluded (Beane, 1988).Teachers are one of the most important resources present in schools. Teachers’ content

knowledge and pedagogical skills contribute substantially to student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Hudson, 1990). Teachers in high poverty schools serving minorities havelower test scores on teacher certification tests (Ferguson, 1991) and are more likely to beteaching science without adequate college coursework in science (NCES, 1998) than areteachers in other geographic areas. These unqualified teachers are likely to have beenassigned to teach science because elementary and science positions have high vacancyrates in urban school systems (Council of Great City Schools, 1992; NCES, 1998). Liketheir counterparts elsewhere, urban teachers of minority students report being unpreparedto teach science (Darling-Hammond & Hudson, 1990). Unfortunately, however, unliketeachers elsewhere, a long line of research indicates that urban teachers of poor minoritychildren believe that their students are incapable of learning “higher-order disciplines”such as science (Beane, 1988). This is important because teachers’ beliefs are associatedwith student attitudes and academic success in science (Beane, 1988).Surprisingly, despite these findings regarding science teachers and science achievement

in urban schools, little objective empirical data describe what science education actuallylooks like in urban public schools. The purpose of the current study is to describe whatactually happens during typical science lessons in an urban elementary school with a highpercentage of low-income minority children and to examine teachers’ beliefs about theirclassrooms and their students. As Stigler and Perry (1999) pointed out recently, we reallyknow very little about what takes place in classrooms, yet “classroom practice representsthe most direct means for affecting students’ outcomes” (p. 1). It is difficult to measureinstructional practices (Burstein, McDonnell, Van Winkle, Ormseth, Mirocha, & Guitton,1995), but it is essential to do so if we aim to understand and improve the qualityof classroom teaching. Because teachers’ perceptions of their work and their expecta-tions of students (which can be revealed through interviews), as well as their daily in-structional practices (which can be revealed through observation), are key factors thatteachers bring to the classroom (Beane, 1988), we examined both in the present study. Toaddress validity issues, observations made from the perspective of a science educationspecialist, an educational psychologist, and an expert elementary teacher were triangulatedto provide a set of perspectives from which elementary science instruction could beexamined.

Science Education in Elementary Classrooms

Educators recognize science as important subject matter for urban minority students tomaster during elementary school. Within our complex technological society, many careersrequire an understanding of science, but few racial minorities and females have beenrepresented in such careers, partly because they are tracked away from the mathematicsor science classes required to pursue preparation in science and engineering (Clewell etal., 1995). In addition, many daily routines currently demand some scientific literacy. Theelementary grades are recognized as a crucial period for developing basic scientific literacy.Although data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrates thatmany elementary students across the United States receive too little exposure to science

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN AN URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 91


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of texteducation (Siverton, 1993), children who attend elementary school in low-incomeminority

areas are especially disadvantaged when compared to their peers in attaining scientificliteracy. Another important area of development during elementary school is attitudestoward science. As noted by Siverton (1993), “the elementary grades are a critical timefor capturing children’s interest. If students are not encouraged to follow their curiosityabout the natural world in the primary grades [then it] may be too late” (p. 3). Low-incomeurban females, in particular, psychologically “drop out” of science (Jacobowitz, 1983).The goal of enacting effective science teaching in the elementary grades poses an ad-

ditional challenge—the nature and quality of the science instruction that is offered (Driver,Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Smith & Anderson, 1984). This is especiallyimportant in the economically disadvantaged urban setting where children particularlyneedand benefit from quality instruction (Waxman, Huang, Anderson, &Weinstein, 1997). Theurban elementary school that we studied claimed to focus on science and mathematicsinstruction. So, while we were prepared to observe some examples of science instructionin action, we had few expectations regarding the quality of instruction we would see.The quality of science instruction depends to a significant extent on the approach taken

to teach students, which has often been the subject of controversy. This problem was firstaddressed by Dewey (1916) who spoke of the problems associated with learningaboutscience as opposed to learning todoscience. On the one hand, the progressive movement,begun during the early part of the century and institutionalized during the 1960s, advocatedan inquiry-based model for teaching and learning bydoing science (Hurd & Gallagher,1968; Karplus & Their, 1967). Various programs, such as Elementary School Science(ESS), Science: A Process Approach (SAPA), and ScienceCurriculum ImprovementStudy(SCIS), exemplify inquiry-based science programs for students, ranging from a very flex-ible approach, such as ESS, to a more structured approach, like SAPA. On the other hand,a focus on teaching and learningaboutscience held sway during the late 1970s and early1980s—with teacher and student accountability based on scores earned on standardizedtests. A textbook-oriented curriculum predominated in many quarters at this juncture.There is some reason to believe that this latter approach, accompanied by an overemphasison memorization of “facts” and driven by standardized assessment, characterizes the cur-riculum and instruction of urban schools serving poor and minority children (Beane, 1988;Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator, & Madaus, 1995).Experts in science education currently emphasize movement toward a more inquiry-

based approach. A factor driving this approach has been the development of student learn-ing standards. Though in some sense an outgrowth of the 1980s accountabilitymovements,the current standards for science teaching recognize the clear need for students to beinvolved in an inquiry-based approach for the learning of science. In particular, theNa-tional Science Education Standards(National Research Council, 1996) delineated the in-quiry skills required of students to engage in “hands-on/minds-on” science. In the timesince these standards have been proposed, most states have adopted or revised their stan-dards for science education to reflect these roles. Since science learning standards requirethat students demonstrate their understanding of scientific inquiry, teachers and studentsboth need to seriously focus on the skills, knowledge, and attitudes associatedwith inquiry-based science instruction. Clearly, then, the need for knowledgeable andwell-trained teach-ers is crucial.Successful instructional practices in science classrooms consistent with the standards

have been identified by a number of scholars (American Association for the Advancementof Science, 1989). The idea of teaching science as a problem-solving discipline is a coretenet (Beane, 1988). Strategies associated with effective science teaching in this veininclude:

92 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of text● Reducing the emphasis on drill and memorization of information

● Increasing the emphasis on applying knowledge to the student’s environment● Using manipulatives to model scientific ideas● Fostering scientific reasoning● Using the textbook as a resource rather than as the focus of instruction● Promoting scientific literacy among all children, including girls and minorities● Tailoring instruction to student’s prior knowledge and emerging understanding

(p. 18)

These strategies represent issues in curriculum and instruction over which the individualclassroom teacher has a large measure of responsibility. Traditionally, teachers of poorand minority children have believed that reasoning and application was too challengingfor their students, but that belief has been challenged by counter example and by advancesin cognitive science (Knapp & Shields, 1990). Given the recent emphasis on implementingthe standards and providing more challenging instruction for low-income minority chil-dren, it is of interest to observe first hand the degree to which science instruction followsthis recommended model of practice in an urban elementary school serving such children.To this end, the authors conducted and analyzed classroom observations of science teach-ing practices in an urban elementary school. Researchers interviewed the teachers observedto determine their perspective on their science teaching. Actual classroom observationswere used to examine the actual nature of the practice, moving beyond teacher self-report.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Examining a teacher’s perception of his or her classroom behaviors and the implemen-tation of their practice provides the focus for this study.

1. To what extent are self-reported behaviors of science teaching practices consistentwith observed science teaching practices among science teachers in an urban ele-mentary school? This provides the key for improving instruction in school, in thatthe feedback it provides to the teacher is the foundation for self-awareness andinstructional improvements.

2. To what extent does the observed classroom practice promote higher-order thinkingskills, modeling and elaboration of science concepts, and participation by all stu-dents? If science education is to meet the standards, high levels of student engage-ment and high levels of intellectual discourse among students are essential.

METHODOLOGY

Context of the Study

The current study was conducted at an urban elementary school (K–8) in a large Mid-western industrial city. According to district records, the school specializes in mathematicsand science. Ninety percent of the teachers are female and 87% of the teachers are ethnicminorities (Black and Hispanic). Approximately 600 children attend the school; 87% ofthe students are from families whose incomes fall below the poverty level and�99% ofthe students are Black. The school is located in an area that has suffered from high un-employment since nearby industries relocated several years ago. Signs of economic andsocial distress appeared as unemployment grew within the area. For example, city records



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textdocument increased dependence on public assistance, substance abuse, and gang problems

in the neighborhood served by the school.2

Three years prior to the current study the then new principal led the effort to focus thisneighborhood school on mathematics and science. To this end, a departmentalizedstructurewas implemented for grades 4—8, and the schedule was arranged so that the fourth andfifth grade students changed classes, as the sixth, seventh, and eighth graders did. A teacherwho specialized in mathematics taught the fourth and fifth graders mathematics. Likewise,a teacher who specialized in science taught them science. A third teacher taught themlanguage arts and social studies. The middle school students changed classes for eachsubject. Two teachers taught science exclusively in the middle school. Teachers of primarystudents (K–3) received encouragement to emphasize mathematics and science education.The principal and staff worked with some success during these first 3 years toward im-proving classroom practices and student achievement in mathematics. Data was collectedfor this study just before the school leaders planned to turn their attention to integratingscience and technology education across disciplines. Mandated state achievement testsadministered during the cycle prior to this study indicated that 41% of the fourth gradestudents and 31% of the seventh grade students did not meet state goals for scienceachieve-ment.

Participants

Four teachers participated in the study. Each of the three science teachers were invitedand agreed to participate in this initial study. Two teachers were Black; two were White.One primary teacher was randomly selected to participate. Interestingly, despite the pur-ported emphasis of the school, three primary teachers were randomly drawn and asked toparticipate before a participant was found. The first two teachers who were selected statedprivately to the researchers that despite the school’s academic specialty, they did not teachscience because they needed to focus on reading and writing, and they did not want thatinformation reported to the principal.Teacher One, an elementary school teacher for over 25 years, taught second grade.

Teacher One graduated from a moderate-size urban public university with a large teacherpreparation program. According toPeterson’s Four-Year College’s Guide(1997),�85%of the students attending this institution received a composite score at or below 20 on theACT. Teacher One completed four science courses as an undergraduate at that institutionand reported taking part in numerous science education workshops and seminars sincereceiving her bachelor’s degree.Teacher Two, an elementary teacher for over 30 years, taught science to fourth and fifth

graders. She graduated from the same institution as Teacher One. To supplement herscience education skills, she reported having been involved with a number of staff devel-opment programs to support science teaching that were offered at local museums andcolleges.Teacher Three, a recent graduate of the same elementary education program attended

by Teachers One and Two, was a first-year teacher during the study. She exclusively taughtscience to sixth and seventh grade students. She stated that she “took science in college”but she could not remember which specific courses they were. She also said that sheplanned to pursue an emphasis in science teaching. At the time of this study, she wasenrolled in a district staff development program in science to further refine her skills.

2 Source of reference not disclosed to assure anonymity of teachers, school, and school district.

94 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textTeacher Four brought 10 years of teaching experience to her eighth grade classroom.

Five years of her experience were at the seventh and eighth grade level, but only one ofthese years involved teaching science. She received elementary education training in amoderate-sized institution located in the southern United States.Peterson’s Guide(1987)reports that 91% of the students attending that institution received ACT composite scoresat or below 20. During her undergraduate tenure, she enrolled in two semesters of biologycoursework. Since that time, she enrolled for 1 year in a local staff development programto enhance her science teaching skills.

Data Source

In accordance with contemporary recommendations for conducting case studies inschools, data were triangulated (Maxwell, 1996). Data were collected by interviews andfrom observing the same teachers, so as not to bias conclusions by focusing on only onedata source. We also each independently analyzed the same observations. Producing threeperspectives on the same classroom event allowed us to build a more detailed picture ofthe teaching and to validate our conclusions across the interpretation of three observers.

Teacher Interview. Each teacher participated in a semi-structured interview designed toelicit teachers’ perceptions of their students and their classrooms (see Appendix). Eachinterview lasted approximately 45 min. Teachers described the science curriculum, typicalclassroom activities, their role as a science teacher, and included what they liked mostabout their current teaching practices and what they would like to change. Teachers wereasked to comment on the impact of mandated achievement tests on their science teaching.A series of questions addressed teachers’ ideas about their current students’ knowledge,learning, and individual differences. Teachers also explained what both “inquiry in sci-ence” and “hands-on/minds-on” meant to them. In addition, teachers provided informationabout their educational background and experience. Interviews were transcribed verbatimto produce “rich” data (Becker, 1970).

Classroom Observations. Researchers videotaped one science lesson in each partici-pating teacher’s classroom. A previous 2-year relationship existed between the teachers inthe study and the educational psychologist. This increased familiarity led to a high levelof comfort between the teachers and the researchers and further reduced the potentiallydisruptive effects of the videotaping. Teachers and students were told that the researcherswere interested in observing a typical lesson. These lessons were then analyzed indepen-dently by three researchers with different perspectives—a science education specialist, aneducational psychologist, and an experienced elementary school teacher who had taughtboth second and seventh grades in a private suburban school.

Science Educator’s Observation Scheme. The science education specialist describedthe lesson and collected data with respect to teacher- and student-initiated questions andanswers. The question-and-answer data evaluated the extent to which the teacher promotedscientific literacy among all children, including girls. First, cases were counted when theteacher directed a question to either the whole class, to an individual male student, or toan individual female student. Student’s responses refer to either choral responses to theteacher’s questions or to individual answers or questions from female and male students.The information was collected in a manner advocated by Stallings, Needles, and Sparks

(1987) to gather information on classroom behaviors. In particular, patterns in teacher–



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textstudent interactions are recorded and analyzed in a graphic format. The graphic presen-

tation was developed as an aid for assisting teachers in analyzing their own teachingbehaviors. This set of observations furthermore provided an overall description as to thedistribution of questions among students, the teacher’s movement around the classroom,and any observable patterns related to teacher–student interactions.

Educational Psychologist’s Observation Scheme. The educational psychologist de-vised a coding scheme that was modified from prior observational studies of adult teachingof elementary school students within the framework of NCTMmathematics reforms (Leh-rer & Shumow, 1997; Shumow, 1998). This scheme focused on a number of the instruc-tional strategies suggested by the science reform documents and entailed coding eachstatement that the teacher made during the lesson on two dimensions. The first dimension,“involving,” characterized (yes/no) whether the teacher’s statement prompted the studentsto engage in thinking (higher-order thinking). For example, the following statementsprompt thought and would thus be coded as engaging the student in thinking about thelesson: “imagine that . . . ,” “how could we figure that out?” “There are several possiblereasons. Can you think of one?” “Show us what that would look like,” or “That shouldremind you of something,” and (in response to a student answer) “Wait a second, couldthat be right?” Statements that are not included as promoting thinking are those whichrequire the student to follow the teacher’s directions or to passively receive information,directives, explanations, or demonstrations from the teacher. For example, statements suchas “it was foggy this morning,” “put the light on it to make it move,” “that is because itis colder,” “it looks like this,” or “that’s right (or wrong)” fall into this area. Obviously,it is not practical or desirable to expect all teacher statements to promote thinking. It is,however, consistent with the science standards reviewed previously to expect teachers toactively promote a considerable amount of involvement in thinking during the lesson. Byway of comparison, adults prepared to assist children with mathematics in a manner con-sistent with the national standards in that subject, attempted to involve student’s in thinking�60% of the time (Shumow, 1998).The second dimension, called “purpose,” categorized the function the teacher’s state-

ment served in the lesson. These purposes include focusing on either 1) knowledge, givens,or problem definitions (e.g., “we know . . . ,” “that’s called a recessive trait,” or “we’retrying to figure out what will make it go faster”); 2) moving the flow of the lesson forward(e.g., “now, we will . . . ,” or “what is the next step?”); 3) elaborating, including hy-pothesizing, comparing and contrasting, explaining, or justifying (“why did . . . ?”“howdo you know that?” “these are alike in the following ways . . . ,” or “one reason couldbe”); 4) modeling, including demonstrating, creating representations, or analogizing(“watch this . . . ,” “make a diagram,” or “fog is like a cloud on the ground”); 5) man-aging student behavior (“be quiet” or “table 2 gets ten points for having their materialsout”); and 6) attending to interruptions.A graduate student in the school psychology program who was unfamiliar with the

teachers, the school, and the purpose of the project was trained to use the coding scheme.The student coded each lesson, viewing the videotape together with a typewritten transcriptof the lesson. The code developer independently coded two of the four videotapes. Agree-ment was 0.90 on the involving dimension and 0.95 on the purpose dimension. The codedeveloper resolved disagreements.

Expert Teacher’s Observation Scheme. The expert teacher viewed the videotape andtook notes. She wrote a narrative description of the teaching strategies and student re-

96 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textsponses to the lesson from the perspective of an expert practitioner. Her perspective, based

on successful teaching experience and practice informed by continued graduate education,provided agestaltview of the classroom interactions, to complement the narrower foci ofthe science educator and the educational psychologist.

RESULTS

Each teacher shared the ideas and experiences that informed their views of teaching andlearning in science during an interview. Teachers also described their teaching approachand their students. The interview results will be followed by a description of classroomobservations conducted by the science educator, the educational psychologist, and theexpert teacher.

Teacher One

Interview with Teacher One. Teacher One referred to her role as a facilitator frequentlyduring the interview. To this end, she advocated the use of inquiry-based approaches forscience learning, “I would like to consider myself a tour guide, a facilitator. I bring inthings, I bring in ideas and share facts and let the kids develop their own knowledge base.”She used the state goals and achievement tests as “one of the things that we work toward,

that helps us to direct the curriculum” and she said that she is aware of what is on the statetest. Her own description of the students’ current knowledge was sketchy at best. Shethought they knew about animals but not too much else; she did not provide any specificexamples when she was asked to select and describe students who exemplify a successful,average, and struggling student in science.Consistent with the state standards in science, she endorsed an inquiry-based approach

as the best method of teaching science. She defined inquiry as “one word, investigation”and elaborated by saying that she often “asks the kids ’why?’ ” In response to our queryabout the meaning of “hands-on/minds-on” science, she gave an example of an incidentthat had occurred earlier that day. Embedded in her description of the incident she said,“Light bulbs go on because they had someone to show them.” She added, “When theirhands are on, their minds is going to be going more.” She noted that she needed moreclassroom materials and more help from adult volunteers in order to engage in the “hands-on” investigations that she believes are most appropriate for teaching science.

Lesson Observed. Teacher One, a second grade teacher, was instructing her class ofsecond grade students on the motion of the earth around the sun in our solar system. Thelesson presented by Teacher One was expository in nature with some opportunity forstudent interaction. The teacher presented information for the students to commit to mem-ory or their class notes.

Science Educator’s Analysis. Teacher One successfully interacted with nearly all ofthe students in the class (see Table 1). The 69.2% interaction rate with the male students(compared with the teacher interacting with 100% of the females) may be attributed to thelate arrival of several boys from a special services class. In terms of gender equity, TeacherOne engaged both boys and girls almost equally. Students also responded to Teacher Onewith a high rate of frequency. Roughly the same number of boys and girls both initiatedand responded to the teacher’s questions during the lesson. Overall, the class was well

SCIENCEEDUCATIONINANURBANELEMENTARYSCHOOL

97

SCE(WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Top

ofRH

Base

ofRH

Top

oftext

Base

oftext

TABLE 1Teacher–Student Question-and-Answer Interactions during the Lesson

Teacher One

Class Male Female

Teacher Two

Class Male Female

Teacher Three

Class Male Female

Teacher Four

Class Male Female

Number of ques-tions fromteacher

50(49.5%)

27(26.7%)

24(23.8%)

27(25.2%)

50(46.7%)

30(28.0%)

27(40.9%)

20(30.3%)

19(28.8%)

3(21.4%)

7(50.0%)

4(28.6%)

Responses fromstudents toteacher

45(46.4%)

25(25.8%)

27(27.8%)

11(13.3%)

48(57.8%)

24(28.9%)

8(15.4%)

27(51.9%)

17(32.7%)

0(0.0%)

9(69.2%)

4(30.8%)

Number ofstudents ad-dressed, bygender

— 9(69.2%)

10(100%)

— 11(91.7%)

10(83.3%)

— 10(76.9%)

11(64.7%)

— 5(38.5%)

5(55.6%)

Teacher One: Class, Teacher Two: Class, Teacher Three: Class,n � 23 (n � 13, n � 10); n � 24 (n � 12, n � 12); n � 30 (n � 13,boys girls boys girls boys

Teacher Four: Class,n � 17); n � 22 (n � 13, n � 9).girls boys girls

98 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of text

TABLE 2The Instructional Functions Served by Each Teacher’s Classroom Discourse

Teacher One Teacher Two Teacher Three Teacher Four

Information focus 26.8% 26.4% 31.6% 13%Sequential flow 36.4% 30.9% 56.8% 69.6%Elaboration 11.7% 4.5% 5.8% 0Modeling 11.4% 7.3% 0 0Dealing with interrup-tion

4.1% 7.3% 1.9% 8.7%

Classroom manage-ment

9.6% 23.6% 3.9% 8.7%

N of coded utterances* 437 220 155 69Interactions per minute 4.9 2.9 2.8 1.3

Note: Teacher One’s lesson was approximately Teacher Two’s lesson was11- ⁄2 hs.75 min. Teachers Three and Four’s lessons were approximately 55 min.

engaged with the lesson, as evidenced by the observation that questions Teacher One askedof the class received answers in 45 cases out of the 50 questions answered.

Educational Psychologist’s Analysis. As noted previously, the first dimension of thecoding developed by the educational psychologist assessed the proportion of the teacher’sutterances that prompted students to be involved in actively thinking about the lesson.Teacher One prompted student’s thinking with 20.4% of her statements. Each statementthe teacher made was also coded for the function it served in the lesson. Teacher One’sdiscourse is striking for several reasons (see Table 2). First, the number of statements thatshe made, even adjusting for the differences in time spent on the lessons was far greaterthan the other teachers. Second, given the expository focus of the lesson, only about one-quarter of Teacher One’s discourse focused the students on information. Third, by col-lapsing sequential flow and classroom management, it can be seen that Teacher One spentless than half of her instruction on managing the lesson. Fourth, and most importantly interms of the current science standards, Teacher One devoted nearly one-fourth of herdiscourse to elaborating on (reasoning about) the topic or to modeling phenomenon.

Expert Teacher’s Analysis. Teacher One conducted her primary grade science classwitha relaxed and calm demeanor. She began the lesson with a brainstorming activity thatengaged the students to think of words based on her direction. She asked some interpretivelevel questions and waited an adequate amount of time for students to formulate answers.She asked knowledge level questions relative to objects she was preparing to use in theforthcoming lesson. The students attended to Teacher One throughout the lesson. Theyappeared eager to participate, raising their hands frequently. In turn, Teacher One activelymonitored the group and called on a variety of students. There was never a time that thestudents required corrective discipline. Teacher One continued the lesson with a child-centered demonstration. As the students participated in the simulation, both the participantsand the observers remained engaged. The students also appeared eager to interact withTeacher One throughout the entire lesson. Many facts were relayed as a result of the lesson.“How?” and “Why?” questions were asked. She concluded the lesson by giving the stu-dents an assignment to complete.



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textTeacher Two

Interview with Teacher Two. The intermediate grade science teacher stated that she hada “full science program.” For her fourth and fifth grade students, she described usinglectures and “hands-on” experiences as her primary instructional techniques. Throughoutthe interview she used the term “hands-on” eleven times in reference to her classroom.She elaborated that “hands-on/minds-on” science meant “students could answer their ownquestions by doing some kind of investigation.” She believed that inquiry was “more thanchildren finding out or answering a question by the ’hands-on’ process,” rather it wasneeding to “accomplish the fact that they have a hypothesis, they do an experiment, andthey come to a conclusion.” This understanding of the scientific process was the only issueshe discussed when asked to describe her student’s’ current knowledge. Her responseindicated that she expected most to know “the science process steps” when they completedher program. She was able to name two students, one who exemplified a successful sciencestudent and one who exemplified a struggling science student. She summed up the differ-ence between them as stemming from their “parents.”Teacher Two mentioned a number of factors that influence her teaching; in particular,

she mentioned that “what I really try to do is get critical thinking across to them.” Shealso mentioned that she had several textbooks to supplement “lectures” and that the stateachievement tests influenced the coverage of content matter in her classes. The barriers toachieving the science education program she advocates fall into four categories. The pri-mary barrier was described as student capabilities. She elaborated on this point in somedetail:

The lack of self-discipline within the children [is a primary concern]. There needs to bemore self-discipline and it would be nice if we had an aide. I know I’m dreaming but thatwould be nice. Indeed, it would be nice to have an assistant on the “hands-on” day espe-cially because the children are not able to handle all the departmental walking and it wouldbe nice to have a program that the teacher brought them to class and stayed with them sothere would be two teachers in the classroom at one time. That would help a lot.

More equipment for the classroom was a second priority. The third was to departmentalizethe school beginning with grade 3, so that an expert in science content could take on theresponsibility for instruction. Involving parents as lab assistants so that more “hands-on”investigations could take place was another item on her wish list.

Lesson Observed. The lesson presented by Teacher Two was also observed to be ex-pository in nature. Teacher Two, a fourth grade teacher, was instructing fourth graders onmotion. The lesson focused on reading information. She read most of the information tothe students. Some brief demonstrations were included in the presentation.

Science Educator’s Analysis. The observations reveal several issues of interest withrespect to the questions and answers shared during Teacher Two’s lesson (see Table 1).One of the striking disparities existed between the number of questions asked to the classas a whole and the number of responses received by the teacher. Twenty-seven timesTeacher Two asked for feedback to a question and directed the question to the entire class.Only 11 times did the teacher receive a response in answer to a question. In terms ofgender equity, Teacher Two was much more likely to call upon a male for the answer toa question. Fifty questions were directed toward the male students; only 30 were directed

100 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of texttoward females. This pattern emerges also in the number of students addressed overall,

with �90% of the boys engaging in an interaction with the teacher, compared with 83%of the female students.

Educational Psychologist’s Analysis. Using the same coding scheme described pre-viously, Teacher Two rarely prompted the students to think. Only 3.2% of her utteranceswere classified as attempting to involve the students in thinking. Several aspects are notableabout the function that Teacher Two’s statements served in the lesson. First, given theexpository focus of the lesson, only about one-quarter of her discourse focused the studentson information. Rather, nearly one-third of her statements focused on moving the lessonforward and about one-fourth of her statements entailed behaviormanagement. Elaboration(reasoning) and modeling were not common.

Expert Teacher’s Analysis. Teacher Two conducted her primary grade science classwith frequent corrective discipline that appeared unmerited. The interruptions due to herdisciplining stopped the flow of the lesson. Teacher Two gave clear direction for thepurpose of the lesson before she started. She challenged the children to be watching forspecific information during the lesson, and clearly explained what they should know whenthe lesson was done. Students took turns reading as Teacher Two offered occasional vo-cabulary help and asked a varied level of cognitive questions. She appeared focused onthe students’ slight movements and broke up sentences explaining lesson content with herconstant behavior corrections. For example, she interrupted focus on a concept to chastisea student for shifting in a chair. Teacher Two reiterated a great deal, but never summarizedor drew together information. As the lesson continued the noise level of the students beganto rise, but the teacher did not respond in any way. Rather, Teacher Two continued onwith the lesson, peppering the instruction with shrill corrections of individual studentmovement. The only classroom management strategy she used was reprimanding individ-ual children. Positive feedback was never given to the majority of students who were ontask. Student questions and answers were frequently interrupted and abandoned as a resultof Teacher Two’s reprimands.

Teacher Three

Interview with Teacher Three. The instructional approach Teacher Three attempted touse in science was that of a facilitator, though she recognized that much of her instructionwas quite traditional:

Well, I would like to think that I’m a facilitator . . . but it varies from time to time.Sometimes the lessons are more leaning more towards . . . thetextbook and the tradi-tional. [In the] classroom . . . we try toalternate going to the lab and then I do demon-strations so maybe I’m more—I think I’m a little—I’m not really sure but I try to letthem have more freedom to do things on their own . . . [When I’m afacilitator] thatmeans I’m not just telling them everything. I’m letting them kind of get some things ontheir own without me giving them everything and trying to pull information from themand see what their prior knowledge is and things of that nature.

Teacher Three’s understanding of the terms “inquiry” and “hands-on/minds-on” and herknowledge about her students further revealed her limited understanding. For example,she defined inquiry as “having a question or something and having research and then



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textfinding your answer to it.” She believed that “hands-on/minds-on” sciencemeant “if you’re

doing something.” When prompted to explain why that would be recommended, she said“they’re thinking about it as they’re working.” In response to being asked to describe herstudents’ knowledge in science, she admitted, “I don’t know if I can exactly describe theknowledge they have. I try to find out their prior knowledge or something like that, but Ican’t really tell you. I mean, some have more than others.” She was unable to select astudent in her seventh grade classes who exemplified a successful student, a strugglingstudent, or an average student.As with the other teachers interviewed, Teacher Three perceived a number of barriers

preventing her from teaching the class. Her own limited knowledge base in science wasone area she noted immediately. The second area of need she identified was to obtain moremanipulatives for use in teaching science in an inquiry-based manner. The final area shementioned was finding extra adult help to assist in the classroom—particularly an adultwith science content knowledge. Two of these points were connected clearly when shestated:

I feel the least comfortable with the lab activities. I know I need help in that area, exactlyhow to go about doing more lab activities and have them working in larger groups andthings of that nature I’ve found to be somewhat difficult for me.

Lesson Observed. Teacher Three conducted a lesson on viruses during which studentsread, in round-robin fashion, from the textbook. Students then were assigned to writeanswers to questions from the back of the chapter.

Science Educator’s Analysis. Table 2 presents data from observations of TeacherThree. In terms of overall interactions with the students in the classroom, far fewer studentswere engaged in interactions with the teacher than in either of the two classroomsexaminedpreviously. The level of engagement between the studentsmay be inferred from the numberof responses to the whole-class questions Teacher Three posed. Out of 27 questions askedof the entire class, the teacher received only eight responses. While Teacher Three directedapproximately the same number of questions (20 and 19, respectively) to male and femalestudents, the overall engagement of female students was observed to be less than with themale students. Male students responded to more of the questions in class and generatedmore responses than female students. This also accounts for Teacher Three not pursuingthe answers of female students in as great a depth as the male students.Consistent with the level of engagement between male and female students described,

the total number of male students engaged by the teacher is higher than the number offemale students. Over three-fourths of the male students interacted with the teacher; notquite two-thirds of the female students were involved similarly.As far as Teacher Three’s involvement of students in critical thinking, 10% of her’

utterances prompted active student thinking. In terms of functions of discourse, she focusedon information with one-third of her statements. Teacher Three also spent more than halfof the lesson directing the sequential flow (e.g., read the page, answer the question, andpass out papers).

Expert Teacher’s Analysis. Teacher Three’s seventh grade science class dependedheav-ily on the textbook. She asked knowledge level questions. She prompted students, often

102 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textfeeding them the answers to her questions. As a springboard for the lesson, a knowledge

level question was asked. When no student volunteered to answer, Teacher Three calledon specific students to define the term offered. No student’s answer was affirmed or re-directed. With no further interest-building activity or discussion, the class was directed toturn to their science texts. The students began and continued alternately reading aloud.Because Teacher Three’s complete focus was on her text as students read aloud, she wasunaware that some of the students were engaged in social activities; one student had yetto find the right page by the conclusion of the first student’s portion. Teacher Three pe-riodically stopped the reading to ask knowledge level questions. At these times, she wouldsometimes call inattentive students back on task, but once the next question was asked,she seemed unaware that students were not focused on her, the text, or learning the correctanswers from peers. Teacher Three would often remind students of knowledge they shouldknow by saying, “Remember we talked about this,” and then proceed to retell the contentshe appeared to find relevant for application. If the desired answer was not given, thestudents were directed back to the portion of the text containing the appropriate answer,then one student was asked to reread the section aloud for the class.Only one line of questioning asked near the end of the lesson was geared toward higher

levels of thinking. At this time, Teacher Three posed a series of questions leading to alife-application concept that could have been highly interesting to the African-Americanstudents. The line of questions was answered ultimately by Teacher Three; the life-appli-cation awareness lost due to the inattention of the class. Only one student was permittedto answer the single line of higher-level cognitive questions; the other students attemptingto participate ceased volunteering answers, as the discussion ended up occurring betweenthe one student and Teacher Three. While this student answered, appearing uncomfortable,Teacher Three’s focus was on her text, or the notes on her desk, as opposed to makingeye contact with the students, or generating interest. The follow-up seatwork was an as-signment to answer questions from the text. At this point, the majority of the class wasoff task. Teacher Three appeared unaware, or at the least tolerant, of the students’ noiselevel and lack of follow-through on her directions. The students’ behavior appeared, inspite of the lack of effective direction, better than this investigator would have expected;they were off task and chatted with each other, but none acted out in any other way. Atthe end of the class period, many of the students had only rewritten the first question fromthe text. Many had not even started. Teacher Three appeared stiff and disconnected, as ifshe was going through the motions of an onerous task.

Teacher Four

Interview with Teacher Four. The eighth grade science teacher described her role in theclassroom in this manner: “Well, I’m mostly a reinforcer. [I] make sure that the studentsare on task or are able to learn the material that they need to do the test so, yeah, I’m areinforcer.” As part of this effort, she reported trying to make use of various manipulativesto make the learning for her students more meaningful. She contrasted her current practiceas being more “hands-on” with the classroom behaviors she observed at the start of herteaching career, which she regarded as more textbook-driven. She also described herselfas wanting to make the experience for the students “relaxed” and “fun, not boring.” TeacherFour said that she likes to have the students have classroom discussion because “it’s veryimportant for them to laugh . . . .” In commenting about the extensive laboratory ma-terials that had been obtained when the school was devoted to science and mathematics,“most of the time, I don’t know one thing from another, you know, but we just use it all,you know.”



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textThis teacher was completely unable to define inquiry in science. She said, “I just don’t

know.” She believed that “hands-on/minds-on” meant “you not only can do it with yourhands, but you also do it with your mind.” She thought that successful in contrast tounsuccessful students “are the ones that are actually doing the work, and the ones that arenot, those are the ones that just simply are not doing anything, you know. It’s not becausewe’re not teaching them. They’re not putting forward the effort to learn it.”To achieve all that she believes can be achieved in her classroom, she noted that three

obstacles beyond her control would need to be addressed. The first barrier she commentedon was the class size (n � 22). She believed that the number of students in her class madeit difficult for the needs of individual students to be addressed. Implicit in this were thevarying levels of student abilities, which she believed were not being well-served in largeheterogeneous classrooms. A final problem to be removed in order to teach more effec-tively was classroom behavior problems. She provided a recent example of how this hascreated difficulties:

Yesterday some of the students complained about, “Why do you always do things with212 (a classroom number)?” We don’t have a lot of “hands-on,” but 212, I have them inthe morning, so they’re still a little calm. By the time I have the other ones it’s later onafter lunch and they’re so hyper so it’s a little harder to kind of deal with them than with212. It’s not that they do better, it’s just that it’s early in the morning and you can havetheir attention better in the morning.

Lesson Observed. As with the three preceding lessons, the lesson taught by TeacherFour was expository in nature. Teacher Four’s lesson examined the topic of heredity. Thestudents were called on to read aloud from the textbook in a “round-robin” fashion. Shethen distributed bags with black and white cubes in them, told the students to reach intothe bags and pull out one cube at a time. They were to record which cube they selectedon a chart that they were to copy off the board. No explanation was offered to students asto why the cube-drawing activity was connected with an understanding of heredity.

Science Educator’s Analysis. When compared with the three previous teacher’s les-sons, the level of interaction is strikingly low (see Table 1). The three questions TeacherFour posed to her students were all left unanswered. With respect to questions directed atindividual students, nearly twice as many males were spoken to than females. This pref-erence is also consistent with the number of responses generated by students, with malesgenerating more responses than the females in the class. The overall level of involvementin the class may be inferred from the number of students who received no interaction withthe teacher. Only 38% of the male students interacted with the teacher in any fashion. Ahigher number of female students (55.6%) were engaged in question-and-answer behaviorwith the teacher. Overall, less than half of the entire class (10 students out of 22 present)spoke with the teacher during the lesson.

Educational Psychologist’s Analysis. Not one of Teacher Four’s utterances attemptedto include the children in thinking about the lesson. Teacher Four, who on the surface wasdepending on a textbook and teacher’s manual for guidance, spent�15% of her discourseon the actual material (see Table 2). Teacher Four, like Teacher Three, spent more thanhalf of the lesson directing the sequential flow (e.g., read the page, answer the question,and pass out papers). Not one utterance made by Teacher Four was categorized as elabo-rating or modeling. Although her lesson contained a “hands-on” activity, the implemen-

104 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of texttation of this activity was totally procedural (e.g., take out a cube and record the color).

She did not make one bid to reflect on this activity, draw attention to the meaning, orcomment on what principle was supposed to be demonstrated by the activity.

Expert Teacher’s Analysis. Teacher Four treated her eighth grade science class with aloving rapport, but she conducted the lesson on a low cognitive level, having few academicinteractions with students. The first of many students read aloud from the science bookwhile the rest of the class kept their faces buried in their texts. After the first few studentsread, she asked a series of recall questions from the sections just read. While the studentscontinued taking turns reading aloud, Teacher Four offered occasional pronunciation help.Throughout the entire reading aloud lesson, lasting over 20 min, the teacher’s only inter-action was periodic pronunciation help. She required immediate recall from the text pas-sages being read a few times. The follow-up activity was for small student groups to recorddata from an activity they were to conduct together right then. Teacher Four passed outall of thematerials needed so slowly that the class began to show indications of restlessness.Teacher Four gave directions as the noise level rose. She did not maintain any order orexpress expectations for the students to be focused on her. The groups were free to divideup responsibilities among their members. Many of the students were off task. TeacherFour went to the front of the room and remained there, appearing not to notice that manystudents were off task. In light of the lack of expectation and direction from Teacher Four,the students for the most part behaved rather well—they remained in their chairs. TeacherFour remained disengaged from the “hands-on” activity, but the class did not degenerateinto immature behavior. Their social interactions with each other did not become inappro-priate. When the class time was nearly over, Teacher Four began to walk around the classto answer questions. She told the class that one person from each group would need toreport the group’s findings. It was then that all of the students hurried to record someinformation. Students began to report findings as the dismissal bell rang. Teacher Fourinsisted that the groups that hadn’t reported yet must do so. During the confusion of booksbeing collected and tables cleared, the remaining groups reported. The lack of studentattention and the tardiness of the class did not stop Teacher Four from asking for the mainpurpose of the activity. The answer—the point of the lesson—was given by one studentand appeared lost in the dispatch.

DISCUSSION

It should be noted here that “teacher bashing” was not the intended purpose of thisstudy. All of the teachers who participated in the study are caring, compassionate individ-uals who teach in a difficult setting. In all cases, their situation and their ability to makean impact frustrated them, yet they return each day to do the best they can. To a largeextent, the findings of this study underscore the real policy-level problems associated withteacher education programs: ill-prepared students graduate and struggle for success asteachers in settings that would challenge the most rigorously prepared individuals.

Interpretation of Findings: Teacher One

Teacher One regarded herself as a facilitator and as an advocate of “hands-on,” inquiry-based science. Based on classroom observations of her teaching practices, however, sheclearly modeled a lesson more consistent with direct instruction practices, rather than aninquiry-based approach. The modeling supplied by one student standing in the center ofthe classroom as the sun and another student moving around the “sun” to simulate the



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textmotion of the earth provided the only “hands-on” aspects to the lesson. In answer to the

first research questions posed—the self-report of Teacher One and her perceived practiceof inquiry-based teaching—is inconsistent with the observed classroom teaching practices.Though the majority of her lesson was, as mentioned, expository in nature, she engaged

students in discussion and a series of questions and answers to the topic in such a way asto involve nearly all of the classroom students. A significant number of the questionsrequired students to engage in some degree of interpretation regarding their observationsof the motion of the “sun” and the “moon.” The primary critique of this lesson revolvesaround the role of inquiry present. Most of the lesson, though with inquiry-related ques-tions, is completely teacher-driven. The role for students to gain knowledge based on theirown interaction with the material was secondary to the discussion directed by the teacher.In the end, the relationship between teacher perception of practice and observed practiceappears to find the greatest degree of disconnect with respect to the role for the studentsin the process of inquiry.With respect to the second research question, then, it is suggested that she made con-

sistent use of higher-order thinking questions, successfully engaging students at a highcognitive level.

Interpretation of Findings: Teacher Two

The self-report of Teacher Two indicated that she was an advocate of and a devotee of“hands-on,” inquiry-based science teaching. Observations suggested the contrary. The en-tire lesson observed focused on the students and teacher reading information from a text-book and completing a worksheet to achieve the “right” answer. For the sake of variety,the teacher offered a few demonstrations to confirm the information presented in the text-book, but did not use the demonstration to evoke inquiry among her students.Higher-order thinking was rarely present during the observation interval, which further

served to discourage inquiry-based activities during the class. Over half of the interactionsrelated to the classroom management and procedural needs of the students. Teacher Two’sdesire to “make students think” was rarely demonstrated during this lesson, demonstratingagain the inconsistency between her perceived practice and her observed practice.

Interpretation of Findings: Teacher Three

The position advocated by Teacher Three was that of a facilitator, though she revealedin her interview that her teaching was, to a large degree, quite traditional and teacher-directed. To this end, her self-report of her teaching and the observations made of herclassroom had a high degree of consistency.Higher-order thinking was displayed in 10% of Teacher Three’s utterances. Unfortu-

nately, over half of her utterances were directed toward classroom management and di-recting the procedural flow of the classroom. As she was focused on the content of thetextbook, the value of the existing higher-order thinking questions was further compro-mised by the social interactions between and among the students.

Interpretation of Findings: Teacher Four

Teacher Four was unable to offer a definition of what constituted “inquiry” in scienceteaching. Based on the observations made of her classroom, it was evident that merelyusing manipulatives as part of an expository lesson did not promote scientific inquiryeither. The degree of “meaningfulness” she attributed to the use of manipulatives in the

106 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textclassroom was not borne out by the observations in the classroom. The use of the manip-

ulative materials was procedural in orientation, divorced from any significant meaning.Given these observations, her desire to be a facilitator of learning was not present duringthe lesson observed.Higher-order thinking was not present to any degree. Student participationwas strikingly

low. All four questions posed by Teacher Four to the entire class went unanswered; theinteraction classification scheme reported that none of the questions posed of the studentsrequired them to think critically about the material covered during the lesson.

CONCLUSIONS

The cases examined in this study reveal a number of issues of critical importance to theimplementation of effective science teaching. First and foremost, the first research questionposed indicated that there was a disconnection between what the teachers said they did(or are trying to do) vs. what observers saw them doing in the classroom. Words such as“facilitator” and “hands-on” science are well represented in their descriptions of theirpractices and their teaching beliefs; however, none of the classroom observations indicatedthat anything remotely approaching inquiry-based science instruction is taking place.Teacher Three likely had the greatest consistency between her perceived practice and heractual classroom practice, as she realized that she was amore traditional expository teacherthan her use of vogue jargon suggested. To this end, her practice was observed to betraditional and expository in nature.This disconnection brings with it certain implications for evaluation of scienceprograms.

Given the great disparity between what teachers stated were their practice and the realityof the situation, the value of self-reported program documentation and evaluation must becalled into question. All of the teachers believed, to some extent, that they practiced aninquiry-based approach to teaching science, but this view was not evident in any of thecases observed. The “activity mania”—evident in Teacher Four—equates the manipula-tion of materials with an inquiry-based approach. Interestingly, the evaluations of theprograms they participate in tend to be teacher self-report. Judging from their use of termslike “hands-on,” “critical thinking,” and “scientific process” the teachers picked up on the“talk” about current recommendations for science teaching.Clearly, the need for more effective staff development programs has been underscored

by the fact that these teachers have taken part in programs aimed at the promotion ofinquiry-based science instruction. The key here iseffective programs,since the contentaddressed in their staff development training (usually described as helping them to makescience more “hands-on”) did not appear to have had much observable impact on theiractual practice. Certainly it did not help them change their practices from an expositoryto an inquiry-based approach to teaching science. Perhaps the short-term nature of the staffdevelopment programs was a factor. It is not likely that an occasional afternoon workshopwill have a long-term impact on classroom practice.The reliance on the textbook should not have been surprising given the teachers’ limited

educational backgrounds. The observations revealed glaring limitations in the teachers’professional and content area knowledge. This may be because the teachers were notadequately prepared academically. The strikingly low average score for ACT tests reportedat the institutions that each of the teachers attended suggests that these colleges served astudent population with low levels of academic achievement. In terms of science back-ground, the teachers took little science content in college. The recent graduate could noteven remember what area of science her coursework was in, even though she was seekingstate certification to teach science. The academic qualifications and certification of teachers



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textis subject to public policy. These cases suggest that current policy is not adequately fos-

tering programs that prepare urban teachers to teach science.Content knowledge in science is, of course, necessary in order to teach the subject; it

is not sufficient, however. Teachers also need pedagogical skills. The second researchquestion asked about the extent to which the observed classroom practice promoted higher-order thinking skills and participation by all students. Three of the four teachers did notpromote active cognitive engagement among the students, partly because their limitedmanagement skills consumed much of the class period. The inadequate professional skillsthese teachers brought to their classrooms were revealed in the poor understanding thatthey had of what their students knew and in what they believed the students were capableof learning. Not one of the teachers could describe their students’ scientific knowledge orunderstanding. This is alarming in view of the pedagogical importance of being able toidentify students’ knowledge.With such limited understanding of what their students actually know, the efforts to

effectively engage them in appropriate and cognitively engaging activities are moot. Thereare several implications of this problem. For one, teachers need to learn how to assesstheir students’ knowledge and how to use that assessment in planning instruction. Foranother, the teachers have little institutional support for making assessment a formativefactor in their instruction. Although the state achievement tests were acknowledged as afactor driving the curriculum, these test results are not returned to the schools until afterthe end of the school year. As a result, teachers do not even get a general sense of howthe individual students perform while they are still teaching the students. It seems that theextensive resources and efforts directed toward these mandated tests might be redirectedto more productive purposes, namely designing assessments that can be used by classroomteachers to inform their instruction throughout the school year.Among the individual teachers, it is clear that a number of differences exist. Teacher

One, for example, would be considered a competent teacher from a direct instructionmodel—she kept the lesson flowing quickly, engaged most students, and had firm controlof the lesson. In contrast, Teacher Four did little teaching by any definition. Teacher Two’sinteractions with students were overwhelmed by her ineffective discipline andmanagementskills. Teacher One’s stronger management skills allowed her to engage students at a highercognitive level with both greater success than Teacher Two and Teacher Four.It should also be noted that science was taught daily in this elementary school starting

from grade four and some teachers taught science in the primary grades. A majority ofelementary schools do not even teach science (Siverton, 1993). The school administrationand the teachers are at least trying to address science education, but, in addition to thelimitations we noted above, the teachers perceived several other barriers that preventedthem from being the best possible science teachers. These barriers included:

● Need for additional classroom materials● Need for extra adult help in the classroom during “hands-on” investigations● Behavior problems with students

Some barriers may be difficult for an individual teacher to change appreciably; however,intervention must necessarily take place with the teacher because, ultimately, they are theones who must find the means to teach effectively given the surrounding circumstances(Beane, 1988). Understanding the context in which the teacher operates is of critical im-portance.The desire for additional classroom materials is reasonable, given that their desire is to

approach science teaching in a “hands-on” manner. As classroom teachers, this barrier is

108 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textsomewhat at the limit of their ability to influence. In the other two frequently mentioned

problems, the issuesarewithin the ability of the teachers to control the situation. Theseconcerns are related primarily to the ability to manage a classroom in an orderly fashion.The experienced elementary teacher observer was struck by the generally good behaviorof the students in the classes visited. Several of the teachers interviewed, however, insistedthat their students’ behavior was nearly beyond control.These issues underscore the need for staff development to be focused on recognizing

what students know and what they can be expected to learn. Effective staff developmenthelp will also serve to help teachers develop their teaching practice to make it moreconsistent with the views they espouse. Their current knowledge level of the characteristicsof inquiry-based science teaching displayed a surface level understanding and a tendencyto parrot some “buzzwords.” Effective teaching will result when teachers are able to applytheir knowledge in a way that matters. Staff development probably needs to be site-based,including ample opportunities to work through and reflect on the connection of the activ-ities to science concepts.Some of the greatest challenges to accomplishing the current science education standards

lie with America’s urban schools and school districts where teachers are underprepared toteach science. These case studies are presented as a first step to understanding the issuesinvolved in addressing the science education needs of urban students. Having contributedto a baseline understanding of current practices, we hope that our future work will con-tribute knowledge about what is successful in improving science education in urbanschools.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford.

Beane, D. B. (1988). Mathematics and science: Critical filters for the future of minority students.Washington, DC: American University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 758.)

Becker, H. S. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance. New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionBooks.

Burstein, L., McDonnell, L., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Val-idating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Clewell, B. C., Hannaway, J., de Cohen, C. C., Merryman, A., Mitchell, A., & O’Brien, J. (1995).Systemic reform in mathematics and science: An urban perspective. Arlington, VA: NationalScience Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 403 346.)

Committee for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. (1996, October). Urban studentmobility disrupts education and reform efforts. CRESPAR Research and Development Report.[On-line serial]. Available: http://scov.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/urbmobil.html

Council of Great City Schools. (1994). National urban education goals: 1992–1993 indicators report.Washington, DC: Author.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Hudson, L. (1990). Precollege science and mathematics teachers: Supply,demand, & quality. Review of Research in Education, 16, 223–266.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.Driver, B., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledgein the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

Ferguson, R. (1991). Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement andearnings. Challenge: A Journal of Research on Black Men, 2, 1–35.

Garcia, J. (1988). Minority participation in elementary science and mathematics. Education andSociety, 1, 21–23.

Hurd, P. D., & Gallagher, J. J. (1968). New directions in elementary science teaching. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textIllinois State Board of Education. (1997). Illinois learning standards. Springfield, IL: Illinois State

Board of Education.Jacobowitz, T. (1983). Relationship of sex, achievement, and science self-concept to thescience career preferences of black students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 7,621–628.

Jones, L., Mullis, I., Raizen, S., Weiss, I., & Weston, E. (1992). The 1990 science report card.National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Karplus, R., & Their, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: RandMcNally.

Knapp, M., & Shields, P. (1990). Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternative to con-ventional wisdom, Vol. 2. Commissioned Papers and Literature Review. Knapp & Shields EDS.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown.Lehrer, R., & Shumow, L. (1997). Aligning the construction zones of parents and teachers formathematics reform. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 41–84.

Lindquist, M., Dossey, J., & Mullis, I. (1995). Reaching standards: A progress report on mathe-matics. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Lomax, R., West, M., Harmon, M., Viator, K., & Madaus, G. (1995). The impact of mandatedstandardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 171–185.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Using qualitative research to develop causal explanations. Working Papers.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on Schooling and Children.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Students learning science: A report on policiesand practices in U.S. schools. [On-line report]. Available: http://nces.gov/nationsreportcard/96re-port/98493.shtml [1999, July 8].

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Peterson’s guide to four-year colleges. (1997). Princeton: Peterson’s.Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to children’s mathematical reasoning throughparent education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 109–127.

Siverton, M. L. (1993). Transforming ideas for teaching and learning science. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 417.)

Smith, E., & Anderson, L. (1984). The planning and teaching intermediate science study: Finalreport. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching.

Stallings, J. A., Needles, M., & Sparks, G. M. (1987). In D. C. Berliner and B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.),Talks to teachers (pp. 129–158). New York: Random House.

Stigler, J. W., & Perry, M. (1999, April). Developing classroom process data for the improvementof teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, Montreal, Canada.

Waxman, H., Huang, S., Anderson, L., & Weinstein, T. (1997). Classroom process differences ininner-city elementary schools. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 49–59.

APPENDIX

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

1. Background informationA. Where did you go to college and when did you graduate?B. What was your degree?C. How many years have you been teaching?D. What grade are you teaching now?E. How many years have you been teaching this grade?F. Can you please tell us what science education background you have had?

2. Please describe the science program in your classroom.

110 KING ET AL.


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of text3. A. How would you describe your school’s science curriculum?

B. What is the role of your textbook in your science curriculum?C. What is the role of your textbook in the science classroom?D. How do state tests (such as IGAP) impact your science teaching?

4. How would you describe your role as a teacher of science?5. A. What do you like most about your current teaching practices in science?

B. Is there anything you would like to change?C. What three factors “beyond your control” prevent you from teaching science

the way you would like to?6. What type of activities do you think of when you think about science in your

classroom?7. A. Can you describe the knowledge your students have about science right

now?B. Can you give us some ideas about how you determine whether your students

are learning/what your students know about science?8. A. Can you give some examples of students in your classrooms to illustrate the

range of science understanding that the students have?B. What seems to be the principle difference between a student who is suc-

cessful in science and one who struggles?9. A. What is your favorite topic to teach in science? Why do you choose that

one?B. What is your least favorite topic to teach in science? Why do you choose

that one?C. How is your teaching in your “favorite” topic different from the teaching in

your “least favorite” topic?10. If you had to explain “inquiry in science” to another teacher, what would you

say that it was?11. A. Science education is often described as “hands on/minds on.” What do these

terms mean to you?B. How do you apply these ideas to your classroom teaching?C. How do these ideas help to develop student learning?D. How do you know students have learned this?

12. A. Do you use tools in your science teaching?B. Can you tell us how these tools assist student learning?

13. What do you think is the role of student discussion in science class?14. What is the most helpful source for you when teaching science?

science education in an urban elementary school: case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom...

Documents