a case for the elementary science specialist

291

A Case for the Elementary ScienceSpecialistSandra K. AbellSchool Mathematics and Science CenterPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907

Introduction

The past decade was a time of fact-gathering and goal-setting in scienceeducation. The National Science Foundation commissioned major studies toexamine the state of affairs in K-12 science (Helgeson, Blosser, & Howe, 1977;Stake & Easley, 1978; Weiss, 1978, 1987). The National Assessment ofEducational Progress released the findings of its assessments of science(Hueftle, Rakow, & Welch, 1983; Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; NAEP, 1978). Thepicture they painted of elementary science was bleak indeed:

Most often science is taught at the end of the day, if there is time, by ateacher who has little interest, experience or training to teach science. . . .

The lesson will probably come from a textbook . . . or from teacher-prepared worksheets. It will consist of reading and memorizing somescience facts . . . too abstract to be well understood by the student.(Harms & Yager, 1981, pp. 73-74)

Concurrently, calls were heard for general educational reform (e.g.,National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) culminating in thereports of two task forces on the status of the teaching profession itself(Carnegie Task Force. 1986; The Holmes Group, 1986). One of the mostcontroversial recommendations of these two groups is an undergraduate majorin an academic area for preservice elementary teachers. The implementation ofthis recommendation by colleges and universities might lead to theemployment of subject area specialists in the elementary schools. What are theimplications of the specialist concept for elementary science education? Thepurpose of this article is to examine the possible advantages of subject areaspecialists for elementary science and to analyze four different implementationmodels.

Why Science Specialists?

In the United States and Canada, one of the most disturbing trends inscience education is the neglect of science teaching in the elementary schools(Hurd, 1984; Science Council of Canada, 1984). U.S. schools average 18minutes per day K-3 and 29 minutes per day in grades 4-6 for scienceinstruction (Weiss, 1987). When compared with other subject areas, science

School Science and MathematicsVolume 90 (4) April 1990

292 Elementary Science Specialist

suffers. The time spent on K-6 science averages 10% of the total instructionaltime available (where only three-fourths of the total class time is consideredinstructional time), while language arts musters 34%, math 20%, and socialstudies 12% of the instructional day (Goodlad, 1984).Even when science is taught, the quality of instruction is questionable.

Considering the elementary science curriculum reform efforts of the 1960s(with products such as ESS, SAPA, and SC1S), it is disappointing to discoverthat "stated objectives for elementary school science have not changedsignificantly since 1955" (Helgeson et aL, 1977, p. 190). Activities havechanged somewhat, with more use of hands-on experiences. Yet in the 1986National Assessment, 40% of third graders reported that they had conductedno experiments in the previous month. Furthermore, 19% reported neverperforming experiments in science class (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). Theemphasis on science textbooks is overwhelming (Science Council of Canada,1984), with reports that 90-95% of teachers use textbooks 90% of the time intheir science classes (Stake & Easley, 1978). Almost 90% of the elementaryteachers in the Weiss study (1987) reported covering over 75% of the textbookin science class. This finding is more disheartening when we realize that themost frequently used textbooks fare poorly against the Project Synthesisdesired state goals for elementary science (Harms & Yager, 1981).With little time devoted to science and poor instructional quality, we cannot

expect students to reach goals in the areas of personal needs, societal issues,academic preparation, and career awareness (National Science Teachers ofAmerica, 1986). Given the demands on the elementary generalist to teachupwards of five subjects a day to a wide population of students ranging fromthe mainstreamed handicapped to the academically gifted, it is no wonderteachers often report a lack of time to plan, prepare, teach, and clean upscience lessons (Stake & Easley, 1978; Weiss, 1978). The presence of a scienceteaching specialist would alleviate part of the generalises burden and ensurethat science be a regular part of every elementary students day.

Other barriers to teaching science are recounted by elementary schoolteachers. Although adequacy of science facilities and availability of funds forpurchasing equipment and supplies are perceived as two of the most importantconditions necessary to a good science program, most elementary programsare woefully lacking in both (Helgeson et aL, 1977; Weiss, 1987). Aboutone-half of elementary teachers sampled by Weiss (1978) indicated thatimprovement was needed in facilities, equipment, and supplies. This is notsurprising when one considers that in 1977 only 20% of these schools had aspecific budget for science and then at an average of only $1.56 per studenteach year. In 1985, 42% of K-3 teachers and 33% of teachers in grades 4-6reported that no science facilities were available (Weiss, 1987). The situationin Canada is no better, where elementary teachers list lack of resources andpoor working conditions as two of the top reasons for avoiding scienceteaching. Nearly 80% have classrooms with no special facilities for science and


Elementary Science Specialist 293

only 15% feel they have ample equipment for student use (Orpwood & Alam,1984).Employing a specialist science teacher and outfitting him or her with a

science lab could help to ease the equipment/facilities predicamentencountered in most elementary schools. Instead of supplying every room withspecial equipment, only one expenditure per school or per grade level wouldneed to be made; many different students could use the same facilities andequipment throughout the school day.Lack of time, facilities, and equipment to teach science are variables that

could readily be altered by a concerned and cognizant administration;however, personal attitudes are not so easily changed. Many elementaryteachers, for whatever reasons, do not enjoy science and do not feelcomfortable teaching it (Helgeson et al., 1977; Richards & Holford, 1983).Only 12% of Weiss’s (1987) K-6 teachers considered themselves master scienceteachers. In a Canadian study (Orpwood & Alam, 1984), 20% of the teacherrespondents said they disliked science and, if given a choice, would avoidteaching it altogether.

In addition, elementary teachers often believe that science is less importantthan other subject areas (Fulton, Gates, & Krockover, 1980; Science Councilof Canada, 1985; Weiss, 1978). It is apparent that teachers’ instructionalbehaviors are influenced by their attitudes toward science (Spooner, Szabo, &Simpson, 1982). Furthermore, attitudes not only influence how much and inwhat ways teachers teach science but also affect the attitudes and performanceof their students (Ormerod & Duckworth, 1975; US General AccountingOffice, 1984). As Stake and Easley (1978) noted,

What science education will be for any one child for any one year is mostdependent on what that child’s teacher believes, knows, and does�anddoesn’t believe, doesn’t know, and doesn’t do. For essentially all of thescience learned in school, the teacher is the enabler, the inspiration, andthe constraint, (p. 19:2)

So what can be done to change elementary teacher attitudes toward science?Inservice programs aimed at adopting new science curricula such as SCIIS andISCS have typically failed at changing teacher attitudes toward science (Howe& Stanback, 1985; Kyle, Bonnstetter, & Gadsden, 1988). Perhaps we shouldadopt a proactive stance�recruit science attentive preservice teachers (Miller,Suchner, & Voelker, 1980) to receive extended training in elementary scienceteaching.

Enter the elementary science specialist�a person who has chosen to majorin science at the undergraduate level and has received the concomitantprofessional training for teaching elementary science. The specialist isconfident and knowledgeable about teaching science and can communicatepositive feelings about the subject to students. Furthermore, the teacher whoenjoys science should be more apt to include regularly scheduled time for the



subject in the curriculum.Enjoyment of science is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for

teaching. Understanding science is also essential for future science teachers atany level.

Knowledge of the discipline is central to effective pedagogy, for teacherscannot help students recognize flaws in intuitive thinking or introduceconcepts without deep understanding of the topics they are asked toteach. (Linn, 1987, p. 205)

It may be that knowing more science content makes it easier to focus oninstructional concerns. In three different studies, teachers with high amountsof subject-matter knowledge planned and implemented effective strategies,such as asking higher cognitive level questions and allowing for more studenttalk, more often than teachers with less subject-matter expertise (Carlsen,1987; Dobey & Schafer, 1984; Hashweh, 1985). There is also evidence that anexemplary teacher in one discipline may not be exemplary when asked to teachoutside that field (Happs, 1987; Treagust, 1986).The learning of basic concepts is cited as a major objective of science

teaching by elementary teachers (Weiss, 1987). But do these teachers possessthe necessary conceptual understanding to help their students learn science?On the contrary, preservice teachers possess many of the same misconceptionsas elementary students (Lawrenz, 1986; Stepans, Dyche, & Beiswenger, 1988).Effective teaching for conceptual change depends on topic-specific knowledgeof three types of knowledge: (a) content organized by important principles, (b)student prior ideas and misconceptions, and (c) teaching strategies which willhelp students change their conceptions. (Anderson & Smith, 1985; Osborne &Freyberg, 1985). Can we legitimately expect every elementary education majorto reach this level of understanding in science as well as achieving similarunderstanding in other disciplines? Training of science specialists in theseknowledge areas seems a more realistic pursuit.

Implications for Teacher Education

It is apparent that the success of specialist teachers will depend, to someextent, on the quality of their preservice and inservice training. Yet currently,a minority of elementary teachers feels well-qualified to teach science. In herlatest report, Weiss (1987) found 27% of elementary teachers surveyed feltwell-qualified to teach life science, but only 16% felt well-qualified to teachphysical or earth science. Other studies corroborate these data (Donnellan,1982; Goodlad, 1984). The Canadian figures are even more startling�almostone-half of elementary teachers called their science education programunsatisfactory (Orpwood & Alam, 1984). Continuing teacher education is alsoproblematic. Among practicing teachers only 16% have taken a college sciencecourse in the last five years, and 50% have not experienced a science teaching



inservice during the previous 12 months (Weiss, 1987). Would it not makemore sense to concentrate teacher education efforts on a select group ofattentives rather than continually trying (however unsuccessfully) to affectevery teacher?To be effective, specialist preparation will need to be attacked on several

fronts�preparation in science content, science teaching methods, and fieldexperiences (NSTA, 1983). The science content preparation of elementaryteachers in this country and others is limited (Ormerod & Duckworth, 1975;Orpwood & Alam, 1984; Raizen & Jones, 1985). Even when science coursesare required, preservice teachers will find insufficient offerings pertinent totheir nonscientist career plans (National Research Council, 1982; NationalScience Foundation, 1980). Yet accumulating more science credits does notguarantee better science understanding or improved pedagogy. Science contentcourses must be designed specifically with the elementary teacher in mind�involving the concepts and laboratory skills encountered in elementary science,while modeling appropriate teaching methods. Guidelines for such courseshave been established (AAAS, 1970) and innovative courses have evolved inresponse (Arons, 1972), but more work is needed.

Pedagogical preparation must also be designed to meet the needs of thescience specialist. Besides being exposed to science-specific instructionalmaterials and strategies, the elementary science specialist will need to becomea competent diagnostician. (The calls for elementary teaching specialists inother subject areas�math, reading, language arts�have been for just thisreason [Anderson, 1981; Brook, 1977; Sopis, 1969].) By learning aboutchildren’s views of the world through readings, discussions, and interviewswith children, preservice teachers can gain an appreciation of children’s ideasand develop appropriate instructional skills (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983).Specialist training will, of necessity, involve students in field experiences whichallow them to transform scientific knowledge into appropriate instruction, andthen to evaluate students and reflect on their own practice (Wilson &Shulman, 1987). It may be more reasonable to provide such in-depth trainingfor future elementary teachers in one discipline rather than in five.

Organizational Alternatives

Although few elementary schools presently employ science specialists (Good,1974; Raizen & Jones, 1985), models do exist in other disciplines for usingspecialists. Additionally, we can look beyond the elementary school andbeyond the schools we presently have, to conjure up other specialist models.These models will be examined below, their relative advantages anddisadvantages discussed.Examining plans already in use for other elementary specialists, two

possibilities emerge: (a) the Physical Education Teacher Model and (b) theMedia Center Model. In the Physical Education Teacher Model, classes wouldbe assigned to the science laboratory on a rotating basis, as is typical for



physical education instruction in elementary schools. In a small school, thiswould require one additional teacher who would teach only science. Classescould meet 3-5 times per week for an average science time per day of 30minutes for kindergarten, 36 minutes for grades 1-3, and 45 minutes in grades4-6�a discernible increase over the current state. Other advantages of thismodel include guaranteed science instruction for all students and laboratoryfacility/equipment expenditures for only one room. The model is limited,however, in scheduling flexibility (once the period is over, activity must ceaseand all students must leave) and lacks opportunities for interdisciplinarylearning that might be available in a self-contained setting. The large numberof students seen by the teacher in a given day limits the amount ofindividualized pupil-teacher interaction that can take place. One finaldisadvantage of this model is the requirement of hiring an additional facultymember to coordinate the program (see Table 1).

In the Media Center Model, the science laboratory operates like a schoollibrary�classes are scheduled once or twice per week and the remainder of thetime the lab is open for individual or class use and for equipment check-out.The science specialist works directly with children one-half of the time; for theremainder, he or she serves as a consultant who helps teachers plan, prepare,implement, evaluate, and perhaps team teach science lessons. Students thusreceive 30 (kindergarten) to 60 minutes (grades 4-6) per week in science labplus science time in the regular classroom. This system is a bit more flexiblethan the first model, but still requires the hiring of an extra faculty memberwho must interact with many different students and teachers in a school day.In addition, the dependence on generalists for part of the science instructionraises problems associated with attitudes and preparation addressed earlier.Another traditional organization mode comes from the secondary school

arrangement�the Departmentalized Model. Within one grade level (or two insmaller schools), one of the teachers would be designated as the scienceteacher but may have another teaching responsibility (e.g. reading) as well.Thus, this model does not require the hiring of additional faculty members.Students would spend 45 minutes per day in science class with this teacher.Like the previous models, this plan has advantages over the generalist modelin terms of centralized facilities and guaranteed science time for every student;however, as in the other two scenarios, the limits on individualization,interdisciplinary studies, and scheduling flexibility may outweigh theadvantages of this model.A fourth model looks beyond the schools we have today. It is called the

SchooI-Within-a-School Model, adapted from Goodlad (1984). It is perhapsharder to envision than the other three models because few of us have seensuch a system in action. Picture a team of four teachers (or perhaps acombination of full- and part-time faculty), each with a different subject areaspecialization, responsible for a multi-aged group of 80-100 students (thehouse). Teachers plan and work together to provide skill and problem-



Table 1

Analysis of Four Models/or the Science Specialist

ModelAdvantagesDisadvantages

Physical � only one science lab must beEducation equippedTeacher � guaranteed science timesModel � increased science time per

student

� added staff required� limited scheduling flexibility� limited opportunities for inter-disciplinary learning

� limited opportunities for individ-ualizing because many studentsseen by 1 teacher

� children see > 1 teacher in theirday

Media � consultant to teachers avail-Center ableModel � guaranteed science times

� centralized facility and equip-ment

> limited scheduling flexibility> limited opportunities for individ-ualizing because many studentsseen by 1 teacher

� depends on regular classroomteacher for part of instruction

> added staff required

Depart- � no added staff requiredmentalized � guaranteed science times

Model « increased science time perstudent

� facilities and equipment shared

� limited opportunities forinterdisciplinary learning

> limited scheduling flexibility� children see > 1 teacher eachday

� limited opportunities for individ-ualizing

School- � no added staff requiredWithin- � increased science time pera-School student

Model � flexible scheduling� opportunities for individual-izing

� interdisciplinary learning op-portunities

� extra time needed for teamplanning

� hard to envision and imple-ment new organizational model

centered learning experiences for each student. Since students remain in thehouse for three years, teachers are better able to diagnose and provide forindividual needs, and peer-peer interaction increases as older students assistyounger ones. In this model, the science specialist works with individualstudents, small groups, and large classes at various times of the day in aspecially equipped science laboratory. Opportunities for independent and smallgroup projects allow students up to three hours per day for science instruction



and investigations. The science specialist also plans with teaching teammembers to design activities that integrate language and math skills withscientific investigations and societal understandings. This model combines thestrengths of the specialist concept with the advantages of a self-containedclassroom to provide a quality educational program for elementary students.

Conclusion

The success of the science specialist concept in the elementary school willdepend on the school’s organizational pattern and the quality of thespecialist’s training. Envision a teacher, specially trained in science contentand pedagogy (including diagnosis of student cognitive development andmisconceptions) developing appropriate learning experiences in science for allchildren. This teacher would be able to concentrate teaching efforts and timeon science, while applying facilities and budget specifically toward that end.The specialist would communicate his or her chosen interest in and enthusiasmfor science to students. This adds up to a strong case for the utilization ofscience specialists�a move that could drastically improve the quality ofscience education in our elementary schools.

References

AAAS Commission on Science Education. (1970). Preservice science education

of elementary school teachers. Washington, DC: American Association forthe Advancement of Science.

Anderson, A. L. (1981). The need for fully trained mathematics diagnosticiansin the elementary school. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(9), 32-33.

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators* handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84-111).New York: Longman.

Arons, A. B. (1972). Anatomy of an introductory course in physical science.Journal of College Science Teaching, 7(4), 30-34.

Brook, D. (1977). Language consultancy�The role of the "specialist" inprimary/middle schools. Education 3-13, 5(2), 18-22.

Carlsen, W. S. (1987, April). Why do you ask? The effects of science teachersubject-matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Washington, DC.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986). A nation prepared:Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Educationand the Economy.

Dobey, D. C., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). The effects of knowledge onelementary science inquiry teaching. Science Education, 68(\), 39-51.

Donnellan, K. M. (1982). NSTA elementary teacher survey on preservicepreparation of teachers of science at the elementary, middle, and juniorhigh school levels. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.



Fulton, H., Gates, R., & Krockover, G. (1980). An analysis of the teaching ofscience in the elementary school at this point in time: 1978-1979. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 80(S), 691-702.

Good, R. G. (1974). The science-mathematics specialist concept at theelementary school level: A survey of state departments of education. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 74(4) 303-306.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects/or the future. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Happs. J. C. (1987). "Good" teaching of invalid information: Exemplaryjunior secondary science teachers outside their field of experience. In K.Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Exemplary practice in science and mathematicseducation. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin Institute of Technology.

Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (Eds.). (1981). What research says to thescience teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science TeachersAssociation.

Hashweh, M. Z. (1985). An exploratory study of teacher knowledge andteaching: The effects of science teachers9 knowledge of subject-matter andtheir conceptions of learning on their teaching. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Stanford University.

Helgeson, S. L., Blosser, P. E., & Howe. R. W. (1977). The status ofpre-college science, mathematics, and social science education: 1955-1975.Vol I: Science education. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Center forScience and Mathematics Education.

The Holmes Group’s Executive Board. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A reportof The Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Howe, A. C., & Stanback. B. (1985). ISCS in review. Science Education,69(\), 25-38.

Hueftle, S. J.. Rakow. S. J., & Welch, W. W. (1983). Images of science: Asummary of results from the 1981-1982 National Assessment in Science.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Hurd, P. D. (1984). Reforming science education: The search for a new vision(Occasional Paper 33). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. (ED242515).

Kyle, W. C.. Bonnstetter, R. J., & Gadsden, T. (1988). An implementationstudy: An analysis of elementary students* and teachers’ attitudes towardscience in process-approach vs. traditional science classes. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 25(2), 103-120.

Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts amongelementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86(S), 654-660.

Linn, M. C. (1987). Establishing a research base for science education:Challenges, trends, and recommendations. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 24(3), 191-216.



Miller, J. D., Suchner, R. W., & Voelker, A. M. (1980). Citizenship in an ageof science changing: Attitudes among young adults. New York: PergamonPress.

Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The science report card: Elements ofrisk and recovery. Trends and achievement based on the 1986 NationalAssessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). The third assessment ofscience, 1976-1977 (Released Exercise Set). Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US GovernmentPrinting Office.

National Research Council. (1982). Science for non-specialists: The collegeyears. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation and the Department of Education. (1980).Science & engineering education for the 1980’s & beyond. Washington, DC:US Government Printing Office.

National Science Teachers Association. (1983). An NSTA position statement.Recommended standards for the preparation and certification of teachers ofscience at the elementary and middle/junior high school levels. Sciencepreparation for preservice elementary teachers. Science and Children, 27(1),65-68.

National Science Teachers Association. (1986). NSTA position statement onpreschool and elementary level science education. Science and Children,24{1), 44-45.

Ormerod, M. B., & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils’ attitudes to science: Areview of research. Windsor, UK: NFER Publishing Company.

Orpwood, G. W. F., & Alam, I. (1984). Science education in Canadianschools. Vol. II: Statistical database for Canadian science education(Background Study 52). Ottawa, Ontario: Science Council of Canada.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications ofchildren’s science. Auckland: Heinemann.

Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generativeprocess. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.

Raizen, S. A., & Jones, L. V. (Eds.). (1985). Indicators of precollegeeducation in science and mathematics: A preliminary review. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Richards, C., & Holford, D. (1983). The teaching of primary science: Policy& practice. London: The Falmer Press.

Science Council of Canada. (1984). Science for every student: EducatingCanadians for tomorrow’s world (Report 36). Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

Sopis, J. (1969). The reading specialist. New York: The Macmillan Company.Spooner, W., Szabo, S., & Simpson, R. (1982). The influence of a five-day



teacher workshop on attitudes of elementary school teachers toward scienceand science teaching. Part II. School Science and Mathematics, 82(S),629-636.

Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. G. (1978). Case studies in science education.Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research andCurriculum Evaluation.

Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effect of twoinstructional models in bringing about a conceptual change in theunderstanding of science concepts by prospective elementary teachers.Science Education, 72(2) 185-195.

Treagust, D. F. (1986, December). Exemplary teaching in high school biologyclasses in Western Australia. Seminar presented at The University of IowaScience Education Center, Iowa City.

US General Accounting Office. (1984). New directions for federal programs toaid mathematics and science teaching. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science,mathematics^ and social studies education. Research Triangle Park, NC:Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.

Weiss, I. R. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 national survey of science andmathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research TriangleInstitute.

Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1987). "150 different ways" of knowing:Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.).Exploring teacher thinking. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.


a case for the elementary science specialist

Documents