JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 31, NO. I , PP. 77-90 (1994)

Constructing Science Teaching in the Elementary School: The Socialization of a Science Enthusiast Student Teacher*

Sandra K. Abell

School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue UniversiQ, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1 442

Marie Roth

Tippecanoe School Corporation, Lafayette, Indiana 47905

Abstract

We undertook this case study to examine the transition from university student to student teacher of an elementary science teaching enthusiast, Marie. The purpose of the study was to understand how Marie coped with constraints to her science teaching that she perceived within the school culture. We analyzed the data: (a) field notes taken during classroom observations, (b) transcripts of interviews with Marie, her cooperating teachers, students, and the principal, and (c) documents including lesson plans, handouts, tests, and methods course products, by using analytic induction to develop categories. We also generated assertions and tested their viability by triangulating the data sources. From the data we induced a number of patterns that Marie knowingly and unknowingly used to address perceived constraints such as supervisor expectations and inadequacy of equipment and curriculum. In coping with these constraints, Marie tried to saturate the curriculum with science, even finding additional time in the school week to conduct science lessons. At times she complied with perceived expectations, but typically she modified the constraining factor to produce a suitable result. Furthermore she served as a catalyst for science among her fellow teachers. Her strategies are somewhat unique for a beginner, but may be influenced by her position as science enthusiast and by the traditionally low status of science in the elementary school curriculum.

It is the last day of an elementary science methods course in a large midwestern university. Students are turning in papers that describe their beliefs about teaching science in the elementary school. As I read their papers, I find they are typically positive, enthusiastic, and “politically correct.” They focus on science learning as thinking and doing rather than as reading and memorizing.

I must transform myself from information giver to question asker, facilitator, and guide. I must encourage, lead, and help students by asking questions, making alternative sugges- tions, and providing additional materials. (Excerpt from methods student paper)

*This is a version of a paper that was presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 1991, Fontana, Wisconsin.

0 1994 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/94/010077- 14

ABELL AND ROTH

In keeping with my goals as I teach, I will encourage investigation and critical thinking by providing materials and asking a variety of stimulating questions. I will provide oppor- tunities for students to apply new concepts to life situations. (Excerpt from methods student paper)

In contrast with this optimism, science educators have been alerted to a bleaker picture of the current state of elementary school science. Science is, in fact, the most neglected academic subject in U.S. elementary schools (Goodlad, 1984). Students rarely, if ever, perform experi- ments in science class (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988) where the textbook is the primary curriculum (Weiss, 1987).

What happens to the idealistic visions of methods students once they arrive in the culture of public schools? One framework for examining the socialization of student teachers has been developed by Lacey (1987) based on his study of secondary student teachers in England (Lacey, 1977). Lacey asserted that student teachers use three strategies to cope with constraints. The first, internalized adjustment, occurs when the individual complies with constraints and believes they are for the best. The second and most frequently observed strategy, strategic compliance, occurs when individuals comply yet retain personal reservations about their actions. A final strategy, strategic redefinition, occurs when students face constraining situations with new knowledge, skills, and values to bring a new solution to bear on the problem.

Others have also studied the socialization of student teachers (e.g., Etheridge, 1989; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). These studies describe the abandonment of university teachings when student teachers are placed within the school culture. The conflict between school and university cultures, although longstanding, is not productive in the develop- ment of new teachers. Yet before we can effectively address this conflict, we must more thoroughly understand the socialization of student teachers. We need a rich case literature that can help us see the socialization process through the eyes of the student teacher. Thus, we need to observe student teachers throughout their field experience and listen to their perspectives. In addition, a rich case literature can communicate with classroom teachers who play such a large role in the socialization of new teachers (Haberman, 1983). Easley (1982) claimed that such naturalistic studies would be more meaningful to teachers who “need to understand what is happening in their classrooms so they can change their role in the social interaction to get better results” (p. 192).

The present study adds to the currently scant case literature on student teachers. The purpose of this study was to understand, from an emic or insider’s perspective, how a student teacher copes with perceived constraints within the school culture. In particular, we examine the case of one student teacher, Marie, as she teaches science in a fourth-grade classroom. Our research was guided by the following question: How does a student teacher, who is enthusiastic about teaching science in the elementary school, cope with conflicts between her beliefs about science teaching and learning and the constraints she perceives to her teaching?

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

In a naturalistic study the researcher’s theoretical position affects the questions asked and the observations made as well as the interpretations generated (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Wolcott, 1975). This study is guided by a symbolic interactionist framework (Blumer, 1969; Jacob, 1987), which is based on the following three premises:

1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them.

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 19

2. The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that

3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by one has with one’s fellows.

the person in dealing with the things he encounters. (Blumer, 1969, p. 2).

This framework leads us to assert that our research is a process of interpreting meaning con- structed by community members, rather than of reporting an objective reality. We discuss the constraints Marie perceived and actions she took based on her perceptions.

The holistic case study is a methodology through which the symbolic interactionist perspec- tive can be applied. The case study allows for interpretation of events within a real-life context (Yin, 1989). Thus we can interpret meanings constructed by participants within a bounded system (the case). This holistic case study of one student teacher’s experiences with science teaching provides a way to understand the complexity of teacher socialization.

Participant Selection

According to Ellen (1984) a “telling” case may be more fruitful in developing meanings than a “typical” case. Patton (1990) labels the selection of such a telling case, one type of purposeful sampling, as “extreme or deviant case” sampling:

This approach focuses on cases that are rich in information because they are unusual or special in some way. Unusual or special cases may be particularly troublesome or espe- cially enlightening (p. 169).

Marie was purposefully selected as a participant in this study for several reasons. She was known among science education instructors as a “science enthusiast,” a term we coined to describe elementary teachers who are excited about teaching science and go out of their way to pursue new science teaching and learning opportunities. Mane also exhibited a personal maturi- ty unique among student teachers. Due to changing majors early in her college career, she was older than her peers. Furthermore, since high school she had taught in Saturday and summer gifted programs, which had given her an air of confidence unusual for a beginner. Her qualities of science enthusiasm and maturity would help me to understand a telling case of science teacher socialization not present in the literature. Her openness and ability to reflect on her actions would allow me to collect a rich data set.

Researcher Role In the semester this study took place, Marie was enrolled in a 7-week science methods

course prior to her 9-week student teaching experience. I was the course coordinator, but not Marie’s instructor. During the study itself I assumed the role of participant observer by coming to science class each day, sitting with a group of students, interacting, and taking field notes. Through the course of the 9 weeks the relationship between Marie and myself progressed through various stages. Although tentative at first about participating, Marie decided to become involved, hoping that my presence would aid her professional development. In the beginning she wanted my evaluation of her teaching: “How did it go?” she would ask at lesson’s end. Typically I dodged this evaluator role by returning her question: “What do you think?’ Eventu- ally our relationship became that of confider/confidante. Marie would tell me about school and personal problems and I would listen. Patton (1990) refers to this researcher stance as “empathic neutrality. ”

80 ABELLANDROTH

Empathy communicates interest in and caring about people, while neutrality means being nonjudgmental about what people say and do during data collection (p. 58).

What effect my presence had on Marie’s actions is impossible to determine. Yet I did monitor my effect by comparing data from a preobservation interview to later actions, by looking for recurrent patterns in the data, and by triangulating the various data sources (see below). These data analysis techniques validate the generalizations herein. However, that is not to claim that the researcher had no effect. My constant presence in the classroom and continuing conversations with Marie allowed her many opportunities for reflection and led her to later tell me: “You were kind of like another side of me” (Meeting 10114). It is likely that this reflection aided Marie’s professional development.

Data Collection

The data sources for this project were (a) field notes, (b) interview transcripts, and (c) documents including lesson plans, handouts, tests, and products from the science methods course. During the 9-week student teaching event I was a participant observer in the fourth- grade classroom of a largely rural county school system near a midsized university and manu- facturing city. I observed during the 45-minute science period that took place four mornings a week. This observation schedule was interrupted twice, once by standardized testing and once by my own travel. In addition, during week 7, I spent one entire day in the class, attending all classes, lunch, and recess with the students. In total I observed 20 science lessons. I elaborated upon each day’s field notes by reviewing audiotapes of the lesson.

I constructed structured and informal interviews following guidelines from Patton (1990). After most science periods, while students were at recess, Marie and I discussed the lesson. We also arranged for several structured interviews away from the school site. In addition, I con- ducted interviews with Marie’s cooperating teacher, the class science teacher, the principal, and several students. All interviews were transcribed from audiotape recordings. Interviews with Marie were essential in interpreting classroom actions and thus became the primary data source for analysis, triangulated with the other interviews, field notes, and documents.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted collaboratively (Dillon, O’Brien, & Ruhl, 1989) by the researcher and the student teacher. We employed inductive analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) in which repeated examination of field notes, interview transcripts, and documents led to the development of categories for organizing the data. This process was initiated by the researcher during the data collection period, and continued collaboratively by researcher and teacher during the following summer. (During student teaching Marie was occupied with her teaching duties and did not ask to see field notes or interview transcripts until two thirds of the experience was over, although these had been made available to her.) Concur- rently we generated assertions and tested their validity by seeking confirming and disconfirming evidence from multiple data sources (Erickson, 1986; Yin, 1989).

Findings

Marie was not a typical student teacher: She was a science enthusiast who had many science teaching experiences prior to student teaching including teaching at special science days in local

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 81

schools and with the National Energy Education Development Project. When she arrived for student teaching at Lincoln Elementary School’, her cooperating teacher, Mrs. Marsh, also described her as atypical: “Marie is definitely an exception to most student teachers. She came in with a lot of confidence” (Marsh, Interview, 4/19). Likewise, Mr. Dawson, who was the science teacher for Mrs. Marsh’s class, commented on Marie’s exceptionality:

Overall I’ve worked with any number of student teachers while I’ve been here at Lincoln. And watching Marie, although I did not watch her through an entire day by any means, she just seemed to be a much more independent thinker and much more motivated, self- motivated, self-starter type of person than most other student teachers I’ve had. She seems to be much more mature in her position with the kids. She’s not the least bit intimidated and not the least bit nervous about jumping right in and going, where that has not always been the case with student teachers. She started her science lessons from the very first day she took over. There was no phasing in, phasing out and she plans to teach right up until Friday when she leaves (Dawson, Interview, 94) .

Enthusiastic about teaching science, Marie had many plans for her science teaching, even before student teaching began.

I’m real excited to get out. I guess now I’m at the point that it’s, Can 1 take all of this and put it in a classroom and how am 1 gonna do that? (Interview, 2 / 2 3 )

She was ready to try out some of the ideas she had learned in her science and science methods courses, but not totally sure how that would look. In our pre-student teaching interview Marie told me that she planned to create a terrariumiaquarium community in the class, modeled after an activity done in a college biology course. She also discussed using class “optional” times for this and other science activities, in addition to the regularly scheduled science period. She also offered her opinion about the interdisciplinary possibilities for science.

I’d like to be able to pull language arts and health and spelling and all of that out of science (Interview, 2 /23) .

She had thought about the upcoming weeks at Lincoln and was already constructing instruction- al scenarios.

Marie had strongly held beliefs about science teaching upon commencing her student teaching. The values of hands-on and personally relevant experiences emphasizing the science process skills in a small group setting formed the core of Marie’s beliefs about science teaching and learning, as stated in her final methods course paper. These beliefs had been constructed from Marie’s own school science experiences and during her science methods course, and were reflected in many of her student teaching science lessons (within two textbook units-rocks and oceans). These beliefs, however, were threatened during student teaching by constraints Marie perceived to her science teaching. She felt limited by the inadequacy of the equipment and the text, by perceived expectations of her supervisors and the other fourth-grade teachers, and by her personal accountability for student learning traditionally demonstrated on textbook tests. Her teaching was also at times limited by her limited content and pedagogical content knowl- edge (Abell & Roth, 1992).

How did this science enthusiast student teacher deal with the conflicts she perceived between her desire to teach hands-on science and the constraints she perceived to her teaching? Marie did not simply comply with the situation in which she found herself. She could have been

82 ABELL AND ROTH

regarded as successful by her supervising teachers by teaching her two science units as whole- class and textbook-based instruction during the 4-day per week scheduled science period, and by assessing students with the end-of-the-unit test. This was the status quo within the Lincoln fourth grade for science as well as for other subjects, and would have been readily accepted. Yet Marie did not exhibit such compliance.

Instead of complying, Marie constructed her own world of science teaching at Lincoln. She began by saturating the curriculum with science, doing hands-on activities outside of regular science periods. Within science period itself, she used the textbook and its tests as resources rather than strict guides, blending ideas from her college courses and prior teaching experiences into the cumculum. Finally, instead of adapting to the expectations she perceived from the other fourth-grade teachers, she catalyzed these teachers to change some of their own science teaching beliefs and practices. In these ways Mane consciously and subconsciously addressed the con- straints she perceived. Her patterns of action, induced from the data, are explicated below.

Coping With the Limits of Science Teaching by Saturating the Schedule with Science

Even before Marie took over teaching the science class in week 3 of her student teaching, she had plans to saturate the curriculum with science. Her first move was to set up an aquari- umkerrarium in the class, an activity she had participated in during her university biology courses for elementary school teachers. On the first day of student teaching she organized groups to draw a plan for the aquarium and she set up a chart on which students had already started to record observations about the organisms in the aquarium side of the tank. Several weeks later field notes indicate that student interest in the tank was still high:

New items are in the tank today-a zebra fish and a frog--859 Neil notices more fish in the tank-9: 15 Neil and Carl draw others’ attention to the frog in the fish tank. Most of the class run up to see while Marie passes out math worksheets (Field notes, 4/17).

Even though the fish tank was used informally, outside of science class proper, it became an important science activity. According to one student, Ken:

I think what I like about science is that she brought in that fish tank, aquarium, and that we spreaded it out and we put in some seed and all that. And then she got some tadpoles and some goldfish. And then she told us that we could observe, observe what we see in there like, I saw we added two little pond snails and when you look at it real good you can see the pond snails ’cause they blend in with the color (Ken, Interview, 3/20).

Marie was adding science to the curriculum and students were responding positively. Within science class proper she felt constrained by content and assessment considerations. Yet because the aquarium operated outside of the formal science time, she saw it as a way around the accountability of worksheets and exams-a way to teach science as she believed it should be taught.

Like with this aquarium, this aquarium has nothing to do with the content. Nothing to do with the worksheets, and all the other stuff. But the kids have done more investigations and have learned more process skills, they’ve done more science experimenting with that ten gallon tank in the comer of the room than anything else (Interview, 4/17).

Marie believed that the aquarium activity represented how she wanted to teach science. Yet in

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 83

order to implement it she needed to create a route around the existing constraints; thus she offered the experience outside of the designated science period.

Marie also tried to saturate the curriculum with other informal science opportunities. One day she hung prisms in the window and waited to see how the students would react when little rainbows appeared all around the room. For the class treasure chest, where students chose nine activities to complete sometime during a given month, she changed the activities from language arts to science. She planned that April would center on Earth Week celebrations, and that bulletin boards, learning centers, and the treasure chest would be “revolving around different science things” (Interview, 3/ 1). She even planned to integrate science into physical education: “I teach gym once a week . . . So I was gonna do a lot of Project WILD during those times” (Interview, 312).

Not only did Marie try to infuse science throughout the day in informal ways, she actually tried to relegate more time for science. Once a week the students had computer class. The group was split in half and 15 students went with Mrs. Marsh to the computer lab and 15 stayed in the room completing seat-work with a parent aide; then the groups switched. Marie asked Mrs. Marsh if she could use that seat-work time to do science.

And then I’ll do science with the fifteen kids. And that way I can do a lot more outdoor things, and a lot more hands-on and the groups will be more manageable (Interview, 3/1).

Marie used the saturation strategy to infuse science at more times throughout the school day. With the aquarium activity and the seat-work changed to science time, she seemed to consciously respond to the content and assessment constraints she felt were imposed by the textbook-based curriculum. Other activities, such as the prisms and Earth Week celebration, seem to have been added simply to satisfy the science enthusiast in Marie. In each of these instances, however, Marie tried, within her cooperating teacher’s classroom, to actuate her own world of science teaching that better fit her beliefs.

Coping with the Existing Curriculum by Modifying Text and Test

Marie felt constrained by expectations from her cooperating teachers that she use the textbook, including the accompanying worksheets and tests, to teach science. For example, the morning of her first science lesson she found on her desk a set of copied worksheets from the text’s rock chapter. She complied with these perceived expectations, using the textbook to plan and teach the rocks and minerals unit and the oceans unit. Yet her brand of compliance was not without a twist; Marie attempted to modify the textbook to accommodate her beliefs.

In the rocks and minerals unit, Marie used the text as a guide for planning her instruction, and asked students to read only select portions of the chapter. She believed that in this way the textbook would be more of a resource book than a literature book (Interview, 3/ 12). Furthermore in two lessons in which the textbook was a primary instructional tool, students had materials to manipulate as they read. For example, before reading a section on igneous rocks with the class, Marie passed out samples of granite, obsidian, and pumice to each group. These were compared to pictures and descriptions in the text. Marie believed this would make the text more meaning- ful and relevant to the students.

In the oceans unit, Marie also used the textbook as a resource. To introduce the unit and develop an anticipatory set, Marie asked the students to skim the pages of the chapter. As they looked, she asked, “What does it look like we’re gonna learn?” (Field notes, 4/17). The next day she employed cooperative learning techniques in which each group was assigned a segment

84 ABELL AND ROTH

of the chapter, given questions to answer, and asked to present their part of the chapter to the rest of the class. In this way Marie could move rapidly through the textbook, thus fulfilling her obligation to cover the chapter, and still having time to implement her plans for Earth Week activities and a whale mini-unit.

So I wanted to cover this material because I know I’ve gotta cover it. I’ve been told that I’ve gotta cover it. So I didn’t want to spend a week on it (Interview, 4/19).

Thus she operated within the perceived constraints by creating her own version of textbook use. Accompanying the textbook were chapter tests and worksheet pages. Marie was unhappy

with the rocks unit test, feeling that it did not correspond with the type of teaching she was doing. “I’ve looked at it and it’s very knowledge level . . . I don’t even know that that’s reflective of my teaching” (Interview, 3/16). For both science units that she taught Marie felt obliged to give a test. Yet for each unit she modified the test by including performance and attitude assessments along with content items. She also attempted to evade what she considered an overuse of worksheets, in science and other subjects.

I’m working real hard to get away from worksheets . . . I’m still working through that. How to be accountable and yet without the purple passion (Interview, 3/16).

In spelling she developed a spelling club and a class game that cut down on the worksheet load. In science she avoided using worksheets except during the first lesson she taught (when the worksheet had been place upon her desk the morning of the lesson by her cooperating teacher). Toward the end of the student teaching experience Marie discussed curricular obligations that she and a fellow student teacher felt:

This is our baseline, I mean doing all the worksheets and everything. This is where we started, where we came in. And so, we’re trying to work through that as we can. (Lowering her voice to a whisper) I mean a lot of what I’m doing, I’m doing until I’m told I can’t do it (Interview, 4/17).

Marie’s response to worksheets, the science textbook, and its tests resulted in blended products that combined what she perceived as expected with her own beliefs. She continued to establish her own science teaching world within the confines of someone else’s classroom.

Coping with the School Culture by Catalyzing Other Teachers into Action

Marie served as a catalyst for science at Lincoln School, often unknowingly. The first indication of this catalysis was in reference to her desire to use group work. Although warned by the three other fourth-grade teachers that group work in science would be a disaster, Marie persevered. Her belief in the value of group work was too strong to sway, and her cooperating teacher was willing to allow the experiment. From the day she took over science teaching until the end of her student teaching tenure, Marie organized her science teaching with small group work. Toward the end of her 9 weeks at Lincoln, Marie noticed that other teachers down the hall had switched their student desks from rows to groups:

While kids work, Marie tells me that Mr. Dawson now has his class organized in groups of five and the teacher next door has three large groups. Marie says, “And they said this isn’t done here. It wouldn’t work.” Marie seems gleeful about this (Field notes, 4/17).

Marie’s willingness to try group work had paid off by convincing others to try as well.

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 85

Several people at Lincoln found Marie’s enthusiasm for science to be motivating. The school principal described what he perceived as Marie’s effect on the staff:

To have somebody like Marie come in who is real excited about science education has stimulated the whole 4th grade and I suspect probably the 5th grade to some extent. . . . Certainly Marie brings some things to 4th grade or 5th grade that are real unique. And certainly her interest in science is one of those. And with her enthusiasm, it’s been infectious. And so we have people down there who are really thinking science now (Principal, Interview, 5/4).

One example of this catalysis took place toward the middle of student teaching. Marie’s students had made tornadoes in plastic bottles. These were sitting on their desks when another class came to her room to hear a guest speaker. The visiting students noticed the tornado bottles and were envious. Mane remarked that some of the fourth-grade teachers came in later to find out more about the activity. Rather than comply with the culture of limited science teaching that she found at Lincoln, Marie’s actions and the effects on the students showed others that science teaching could be fun.

Marie’s cooperating teacher, Mrs. Marsh, was also influenced by Mane. Mrs. Marsh did not feel comfortable with science and did not teach it. Instead she teamed with Mr. Dawson, who taught science while she taught social studies. Toward the end of Marie’s student teaching, Mrs. Marsh spent many hours photocopying her science files. According to Marie, “I leave things on her desk and they come back in duplicate” (Interview, 4/12). Furthermore as Mrs. Marsh began to contemplate teaming with another teacher, Debbie, in the upcoming year, she reconsidered her position about science.

Debbie said, in the middle of what we were talking about, “I’m certainly not going back to teaching science.” And I said, “Well, I might even try it!” She said, “Really?’ I said, “Marie has given me inspiration.” And so . . . I told Debbie, I said, “I might go ahead and consider it.” And she looked at me. And I said, “Really, you teach social studies and I’ll teach science.” I said, “I think I’ve learned enough from Marie. . .” (Marsh, Inter- view, 4/19).

Mrs. Marsh saw science teaching in a new light after working with Marie; Marie’s enthusiasm for science was indeed infectious. Marie also influenced another student teacher in the building: after witnessing Marie’s success with the aquarium activity, she decided to ask for a tank for a graduation gift.

Marie’s effect on Mr. Dawson, the class science teacher, was more ambiguous. When she first started to teach science, he would come to class to observe and take notes on ideas that he felt were useful. Soon he stopped coming to class and Marie was on her own in science. Although he appreciated Marie’s efforts in science, Mr. Dawson felt he could only re-envision his own science teaching if the school would change to a more departmentalized situation where he had a room specially equipped for science, instead of being expected to teach all subject areas. “I just think it could be as Marie has done. I think it could be made into something completely different than it is now” (Dawson, Interview, 5/4). Yet, within the existing situation, Mr. Dawson felt constrained to change. Furthermore he attributed Marie’s success in part to her university connection (for the equipment she could obtain) and in part to the quality of her students. He saw his own classroom situation as a hindrance to science teaching.

1 think she also had the advantage of that was a good group to try it on. I really think that’s a good group of students to try it out on. I think she might have gotten a totally different

86 ABELL AND ROTH

reaction had she worked with this group in particular. . . . As I watched her teach science compared to my reaction that I was getting in here, I just assumed, kind of looked at the fact that I don’t think it would have worked as well (Dawson, Interview, 5/4).

instead of succumbing to the constraints she perceived, as Mr. Dawson had, Mane became a catalyst within the system. She energized others to think about science teaching in a new way. In planning her future career, this energy for motivating others was raised to a conscious level. Marie perceived the textbook-based curriculum as a major impediment to her science teaching, and wanted to take action to influence the system.

I’d really like to get on the science adoption committee wherever I end up when they start adopting their new curriculum. . . . You know, you’ve got to go even further than the adoption, you’ve got to go to your funding, and how is the budgeting being done. And what I would spend the money on. I would spend $600 on textbooks for science?? I mean there is a whole education of administration that’s gotta happen too. And I want to find a district where I can do that (Interview, 4/20).

Marie saw possibilities for change and recognized her potential as a change agent. Not willing to accept the status quo, she would act to affect the system. These actions would help ensure that her brand of science teaching could survive inside the school culture.

Discussion

Marie had strongly held beliefs and desires for her science teaching. As a student teacher, she was able to construct a world of science teaching for herself that did not previously exist in Lincoln’s fourth grades. This construction included modifying the textbook during regular science periods as well as abandoning it completely to do science in other time slots. As Mane acted within her science teaching world, she was able to motivate the experienced teachers at her grade level to reconsider their own science teaching.

Why was Marie able to act in ways unlike many beginning teachers? We believe that both internal and external factors facilitated her actions. Her personal attributes (internal) and the setting (external) interacted to create an environment where taking risks was possible.

First, Marie’s enthusiasm for science teaching committed her to trying new ideas. She had not particularly enjoyed science in high school or college until she took a geoscience course designed for elementary education majors. “My whole feeling of science changed at that point” (Interview, 2/23). She became excited about teaching science and even began to interview for elementary science specialist positions.

That really lit a fire under me and I was real excited to get involved in anything science education that I could find out about (Interview 2/23).

Marie had a drive to make science meaningful for her students like the instructor of the geoscience course had done for her.

Added to Marie’s enthusiasm for science was her confidence about teaching in general. Through a plethora of teaching experiences from high school until student teaching, Marie had grown comfortable with the idea of herself as teacher. When she arrived at Lincoln she was ready to teach, and had little need for the gradual acclimation typically practiced in her student teaching program.

Yet these personal characteristics alone could not enable Marie to take the actions she did. We believe that two external factors were also critical. The first was the openness of Marie’s

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 87

cooperating teacher. Mrs. Marsh was willing to let Marie try new ideas in her class. In a phone conversation prior to Marie’s first day of student teaching, Mrs. Marsh was positive about having a student teacher, excited about getting ideas from Marie for her own teaching, and hopeful that Marie would develop her own teaching style. Marie felt free to try new scheduling and seating arrangements in this class, but still felt pressured to satisfy curricular expectations within the textbook-based science program.

The second external factor that enabled Marie to modify the science curriculum was the subject itself. Because science was a threatening subject for Mrs. Marsh (as it is for many elementary teachers), she was happy to turn the subject over totally to Marie. During planning sessions the two would discuss language arts, reading, and math plans. Then, without discus- sion, Mrs. Marsh would leave science planning to Marie. Thus Marie felt more ownership of the science curriculum and more freedom to construct her brand of teaching. Science was an enabling subject that allowed her to do things that did not appear possible in other subjects. About math problem-solving activities, for example, she said:

Well, I always thought I’d do them like on a Friday. Ya know, in the afternoon stick it in. We would just do a problem-solving activity. I didn’t know how that would work in this structure because there just isn’t any time. You can’t add anything (Interview, 3/1).

Although Marie perceived constraints to her science teaching, she felt some freedom to address them. She was able to reconstruct her world of science teaching to better fit her beliefs. In math, on the other hand, she felt powerless to change the status quo. In science her personal enthusi- asm, maturity, and confidence, her cooperating teacher’s openness, as well as the enabling characteristic of science allowed her to take action.

Lacey (1987) described the active role that student teachers play in their socialization by using the mechanisms of strategic compliance and strategic redefinition in addition to that of internalized adjustment. He argued that the traditional notion of socialization as the process by which individuals change to fit the structure was inadequate to describe teacher change. Feiman- Nemser and Floden (1986) echo this sentiment, portraying beginning teachers as active agents in their own socialization. Our findings support and extend these ideas.

During student teaching, Marie did not appear to be a passive bystander, buffeted by the forces of cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and the cumculum. She seldom, if ever, demonstrated the strategy of internalized adjustment or strategic compliance. Instead she cre- ated strategies for coping appropriate to her situation.

Lacey’s examples involved student teachers introducing small innovations in the classroom or small deviations to teacher expectations. Marie’s innovations were on a larger scale. She challenged not only the science class structure by emphasizing group work, but also the overall structure of the school day and week by saturating the curriculum with science. Her motivation of others illustrated that she was not simply fitting in with the established norms, but was influencing those norms as well.

The extent of Marie’s strategies for coping with constraints seems surprising when com- pared with other accounts of beginners, both student teachers and first year teachers (see Etheridge, 1989), who more commonly display internalized adjustment and strategic compli- ance. Furthermore, Marie’s experience does not seem to fit any of the three scenarios suggested by Zeichner and Tabachnick (198 1) to explain the traditional teaching perspectives adopted by beginning teachers. Marie did not begin student teaching with a traditional view of science teaching and was not overwhelmed by school constraints to adopt such a view. In some ways Marie appears more like the case, described by Tobin, Briscoe, and Holman (1990), of an experienced teacher facing constraints to science teaching who had a commitment to change, a vision of what science teaching could be, and an ability to personalize that vision.

88 ABELL AND ROTH

The case of Marie illustrates how elementary science might be considered an enabling subject for a beginning teacher who is enthusiastic and confident. Elementary school teachers, for a variety of reasons, often feel uncomfortable with science and avoid teaching it (see Abell, 1990). A beginner, who is also a science enthusiast, may be able to implement innovations in science more easily than in any other part of the curriculum, simply because the cooperating teacher feels threatened by science. In Marie’s case, her cooperating teacher did not teach science, and the class science teacher stopped observing Marie after her first week of teaching. That left Marie on her own to implement her own brand of science. She did not have to come in direct conflict with her supervising teachers, and in the eyes of some, was actually seen as a savior to the science program.

Implications

What can we learn from this telling case of a science enthusiast student teacher? Marie’s experience in student teaching was representative of the experience of many elementary student teachers, yet her actions are somewhat unique. Marie’s case illustrates that beginning teachers do not necessarily comply with the cultural norms of the school in which they teach. On the contrary, a science enthusiast may even be able to affect significant changes. The student teacher, far from taking a passive role in socialization, may actively resist compliance and may influence experienced teachers in the process.

How then can we develop enthusiasm and confidence for science teaching among preser- vice elementary teachers? Marie’s science history suggests that science teachers can have a major impact on student attitudes. According to Marie, one college instructor completely changed her opinion about science and science teaching. His hands-on instructional approach and the direct links he provided to teaching through course readings and optional field experi- ences were pivotal in her development. Thus the nature of science content experiences is critical in encouraging science enthusiasm. Science educators, working with science colleagues, must design courses that are meaningful and motivating to future teachers. For future elementary teachers one critical element may be the direct connection between science content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.

Beyond enthusiasm, Marie had confidence. Her confidence was built through years of teaching experiences in various settings. Even though her teacher preparation program offered limited field experiences, Marie sought additional opportunities for teaching. Unlike her peers, she was comfortable managing groups of youngsters prior to student teaching. Teacher educa- tors may need to rethink the purpose of student teaching and early field experiences and then design teaching opportunities appropriate for these different purposes. For example, early field experiences could involve shorter time frames and small groups of children to develop confi- dence in specific management skills. Student teaching might then be regarded as a forum to experiment with teaching in order to clarify one’s beliefs.

Marie’s case also has implications for the placement of student teachers. Having a cooperat- ing teacher who was open to new ideas was vital to Marie. She was able to experiment to some extent because her teacher allowed the experimentation, hoping it would help Marie define her personal style. Yet Marie felt she could have benefitted from more guidance in her science teaching, rather than inventing the science curriculum on her own. Perhaps the traditional student teaching placement with one cooperating teacher needs to be reexamined. How can student teaching experiences be designed to allow for mentoring by several teachers, each with their own area of expertise?

The presence of the researcher allowed Marie the opportunity to reflect on her own teaching

SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST 89

on a continual basis. The value of reflection on teaching has lately been the subject of numerous reports (e.g., Schon, 1991; Zeichner, 1991). Science educators must consider ways to integrate reflection as a strategy for understanding and improving teaching, in preservice coursework, in field experiences, and during inservice workshops.

Marie’s case implies that it is reasonable to envision beginning teachers as change agents in schools. Therefore, in teacher preparation programs, in addition to helping preservice teachers construct a viable philosophy of science teaching and learning, learn effective instructional strategies, and reflect on their beliefs and practices, perhaps we should engage them in thinking about the process of change in schools. They can become aware of current science education reform efforts, of leadership for change strategies, and of how to develop collegial support and coaching for their practice. Cases of student teacher socialization, such as Marie’s, could be instructionally valuable in preservice settings.

Reform in science education will only be effective if classroom teachers support and understand the innovations. Science educators, therefore, must come to understand what hap- pens to teachers, enthusiastic about science teaching, when they encounter the culture of the public schools. Data from cases such as this one can help us understand change in science education from the teacher’s perspective, thus allowing reform efforts to be directly tied to teacher needs and concerns.

Notes

1 All names, except Marie’s, are pseudonyms for purposes of confidentiality

References

Abell, S.K. (1990). A case for the elementary science specialist. School Science and

Abell, S.K. , & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study

Blumer, H. ( 1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Rentice-Hall. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dillon, D.R., O’Brien, D.G., & Ruhl, J.D. (1989). The evolution of research: From

ethnography to collaboration. In J. Goetz & J.B. Allen (Eds.), Teaching and learning qualitative tradition. The international qualitative research in education yearbook (pp. 1-20). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Easley, J. A., Jr. (1982). Naturalistic case studies exploring social-cognitive mechanisms, and some methodological issues in research on problems of teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 191-203.

Ellen, R.F. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. New York: Aca- demic Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Etheridge, C.P. (1989). Acquiring the teaching culture: How beginners embrace practices different from university teachings. Qualitative Studies in Education, 2 , 299-3 13.

Feiman-Nemser, S . , & Floden, R.E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan.

Mathematics, 90, 291-301.

of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.

90 ABELL AND ROTH

Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in education- al research. San Diego: Academic Press.

Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Haberman, M. (1983). Research on preservice laboratory and clinical experiences: lmplica- tions for teacher education. In K.R. Howey & W. Gardner (Eds.), The education of teachers: A look ahead (pp. 98-1 17). New York: Longman.

Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 27, 279-300.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Re- search, 57, 1-50.

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen. Lacey, C. (1987). Professional socialization of teachers. In M.J. Dunkin (Ed.), The interna-

tional encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 634-645). Oxford: Pergamon. Mullis, I.V.S., & Jenkins, L.B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and

recoveiy. Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Schon, D.A. (Ed.). (1991). The rejective turn: Case studies in and on educational prac- tice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J.R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74, 409-420.

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

Wolcott, H.F. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. Human Organization, 34, 11 1-127.

Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Zeichner, K.M. (199 1, April). Conceptions of rejective teaching in contemporary U.S. teacher education program reforms. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher educa- tion “washed out” by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7- 11.

Manuscript accepted January 29, 1993.