Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment

Cory T. Forbes Michaela Zint

School of Natural Resources & Environment

School of Education, University of Michigan

Contact: ctforbes@umich.edu

Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April, 2009, Garden Grove, CA.

1

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment

In this study, we explore elementary teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities for, and reported use of scientific inquiry to promote students’ learning about environmental issues and for environmental decision-making. We developed and administered a survey to a randomly-selected sample of elementary teachers (n=250). Findings show that elementary teachers do not differentiate between inquiry practices that promote student learning about and for the environment. Teachers’ beliefs were most consistent with teaching about and for the environment, followed by their perceived capacities and, finally, their reported classroom practices. These findings have important implications for supporting teachers to engage in effective, inquiry-based science teaching about and for the environment at points along the teacher professional continuum.

Introduction

Education about the environment is crucial to promoting sustainability in society.

However, due to the interdisciplinary nature of environmental education and its somewhat

devalued status in the American school curriculum, it has historically struggled not only to

define itself as a field, but, more importantly, to find a niche in classrooms through which to

engage students in environmental issues. Of the commonly-taught subjects in U.S. schools, the

science curriculum has often been the most welcoming to teaching and learning about the

environment because environmental issues inherently possess substantial scientific dimensions

(i.e., DeBoer, 1991). An explicit focus on human relations with the environment remains a

cornerstone of perspectives within the field of science education (DeBoer, 1991; Turner &

Sullenger, 1999), such as those that emphasize science-technology-society (Aikenhead, 1994;

Hodson, 2003) and socioscientific issues (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Kolstø, Bungum, & Ulvik,

2006; Sadler, 2006; Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006; Sadler, Barab, &

Scott, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

In both environmental education and science education, there are contemporary trends

that increasingly recognize the social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions of science

2

and environmental issues. For environmental education, there has been a move towards

education for sustainable development (ESD) as a more holistic context for environmental

education (Gonzalez-Gaudiano, 2005; Hopkins & McKeown, 1999; McKeown & Hopkins,

2005). Environmental education and ESD share many similar characteristics. Both are

multidisciplinary, emphasize behavior change, often address controversial issues, and wrestle

with the same challenges associated with their inclusion in the school curriculum. However,

while a clear compatibility exists between environmental education and ESD, the trend towards

ESD represents an explicit shift in focus from particular environmental issues to the broader

context in which they exist, as well as the ultimate goals of their resolution. Exploring the often

subtle difference environmental education and ESD is not the purpose of the study here.

However, this defining discourse within the field of environmental education does show that

there is growing recognition that it is critical to not only emphasize the environmental

dimensions of a given issue, but social, cultural, economic, and political ones as well.

Similar trends can be seen within science education, both historically and in recent years.

Current science education reform efforts are heavily oriented towards promoting students’

understanding of scientific concepts and content by providing them with opportunities to engage

in scientific inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National

Research Council, 1996, 2000). Scientific inquiry and its constituent practices are grounded in

the same epistemological commitments as those of science. These practices include engaging in

scientifically-oriented questions, making predictions, designing and conducting investigations,

collecting and analyzing data and evidence, making evidence-based explanations, and comparing

explanations. Knowledge developed through inquiry can also be used to engage in relevant

problem-solving, such as those of technological design, through another related but distinct set of

3

inquiry practices. These practices include identifying problems, proposing, implementing, and

evaluating solutions, and communicating proposed solutions.

These inquiry practices support students to construct knowledge through classroom

practice and use that knowledge effectively in real-world contexts. The latter of these two goals,

using scientific knowledge in everyday life, is important for students’ participation in an

increasingly scientific and technological world, and alludes to the notion of scientific literacy

articulated in science education reform. In the National Science Education Standards, scientific

literacy is defined as follows:

Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to

questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a

person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena.

Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about

science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the

validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify

scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that

are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to

evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the

methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose

and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such

arguments appropriately. (NRC, 1996, pg. 22)

This definition illustrates the priority placed on students’ abilities to not only learn science, but

also how to apply knowledge of scientific concepts and practices to social, cultural, political, and

economic facets of life outside of school. This goal is very similar to that advocated in education

4

for sustainable development. What is required, then, is a comprehensive science- and

environmental education program that involves 1) learning the discipline’s core knowledge (i.e.,

scientific concepts), 2) learning the epistemological practices within the discipline (i.e., scientific

practices) 3) engaging in those practices, and 4) learning to use knowledge and practices in

everyday life (Hodson, 2003; NRC, 2009).

Current science education reform largely prioritizes and emphasizes the first three of

these principles. It is often implicitly assumed that once students have gained proficiency with a

particular disciplinary knowledge base, they will be able to apply that knowledge to novel

situations where it is relevant. For example, it is assumed that by engaging in inquiry practices

in the classroom to construct knowledge about science, students will be able to apply their

scientific understandings and epistemological practices to real-world problems. Unfortunately, it

is a false assumption that student learning about environmental issues, or about science in the

context of environmental issues, inherently leads to students’ development of environmental and

scientific literacy, even if grounded in effective teaching and learning practices. This issue of

transfer remains one of, if not the greatest challenges facing science educators and science

education researchers (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The fundamental challenge of

transfer is evidenced by the fact that, despite decades of reform in science and environmental

education, classroom teaching and learning looks much as it did thirty years ago (Duschl, 1994;

Grandy & Duschl, 2007) and little headway has been made in leading the world to a more

environmentally-responsible and sustainable future.

Teachers play a crucial role in the treatment of environmental issues and other

socioscientific issues, including in school science (Oulton, Dillon, & Grace, 2004). They must

engage students in inquiry practices to not only support their learning about environmental

5

issues, or about science in the context of environmental issues, but also for environmental

decision-making and action. In many ways, the elementary classroom is particularly well-suited

for teaching and learning about and for the environment. Elementary teachers, for example,

have the capacity to more easily teach across subjects, which capitalizes on the interdisciplinary

nature of environmental issues. Engaging students in these issues is, however, difficult for

teachers precisely because of their multidisciplinary and often controversial nature (Gayford,

2002; Tal & Argaman, 2005). Elementary teachers already face many additional challenges,

such as limited subject-matter knowledge, a lack of effective curriculum materials, and an

institutional context in which science is largely deprioritized as a subject (Abell, 2007; Davis,

Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Marx & Harris, 2006; Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita,

2001).

Teachers’ beliefs about supporting student learning about and for the environment

through scientific inquiry remain relatively unexplored. Specifically, there is no existing

research that examines how elementary teachers differentiate between the use of inquiry to

support student learning about environmental issues, or about science in the context of

environmental issues, and for decision-making and action about environmental issues. More

research is needed to understand the goals teachers articulate for environmental education, the

ways in which they pursue those goals through instruction, and the factors influencing their

teaching practice. In this study, we investigate both how practicing elementary teachers

differentiate between using scientific inquiry to promote student learning about the environment

and environmental issues and for environmental decision-making and action (referred to as

‘learning about and for the environment’ in the remainder of this paper). We also describe

teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported engagement in these inquiry-based

6

instructional strategies. This study, which builds upon existing research in both science

education and environmental education, is an important contribution that further informs the

efforts of teacher educators and curriculum developers in supporting elementary teachers’

science teaching practice.

Literature Review

Rickinson’s (2001) recent review of students’ learning through environmental education

summarizes research relevant to students’ learning about and for the environment. To support

students’ learning about and for the environment, as well as their development of scientific and

environmental literacy, the fields of science education and environmental education must also

synthesize and summarize relevant research on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and teaching

practices. This is an effort that demands consideration of research across disciplines and

professional fields, in this case science education and environmental education. These two

fields, while maintaining separate identities, conferences, and professional publications, also

share a great deal in common. If we are to advocate changes in the way teachers and students

engage in teaching and learning about and for the environment in the context of science, such

positions need to be informed by the work in which both science educators and environmental

have engaged.

Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Orientations toward Teaching

There is a long history of educational research focused on science teachers’ knowledge,

beliefs, attitudes, and general orientations as related to teaching (Abell, 2007; Pajares, 1992;

Richardson, 1996). In terms of knowledge, teachers must possess sufficient subject-matter

knowledge, or knowledge of the content to be taught, as well as pedagogical knowledge, or

knowledge of general instructional strategies and methods. However, as has now become a

7

paradigmatic perspective in the field of educational research, it is the fusion of these forms of

knowledge, referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), that is the essential

knowledge base that defines teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is essentially

teachers’ understanding of how to teach particular content so as to maximize student learning.

This perspective on PCK implies that it is a specialized knowledge form unique to teachers in

light of the subjects they teach. Consistent with this perspective, science teachers possess a form

of PCK unique to science teaching (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999).

There remains ongoing debate as to the distinction between knowledge and beliefs and

implications of this epistemological and ontological discussion for teaching and learning.

Whatever their inherent differences may be, both knowledge and beliefs are reified truth

statements about the material world, symbolic encapsulations of lived experience (Barab & Roth,

2006; Greeno et al., 1998). More broadly defined as personal characteristics, teachers’

knowledge, beliefs, and orientations are important parts of science teachers’ PCK and teachers’

capacity for instruction and pedagogical design (Brown, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,

1999). As such, and most importantly, they serve as symbolic tools that actually can mediate

teachers’ classroom practice (Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007). Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs

are also important influences on their environmental education-related practices, as shown in this

review. In the three sections that follow, we first discuss teachers’ beliefs about and attitudes

toward environmental education, their subject matter knowledge and environmental education

practice, and, finally, teachers’ perceived barriers to engaging in environmental education

practices.

Teachers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward environmental education practice. Previous

research shows that teachers generally want to incorporate environmental education and teaching

8

about socioscientific issues into science instruction (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Kim & Fortner,

2006; Plevyak, Bendixen-Noe, Henderson, Roth, & Wilke, 2001; Sadler et al., 2006). In

addition, teachers recognize that engaging in teaching and learning about the environment

requires that they assume many roles similar to those described by highly effective science

teachers in inquiry-oriented, project-based classrooms (Crawford, 2000; Dresner, 2002; May,

2000). Teachers at different stages of their careers support inquiry-based investigations about

environmental issues differently (Tal & Argaman, 2005). In addition, given the current policy

environment of schools, teachers often feel they are better able to teach about environmental

issues than to provide students opportunity to engage in resolving them (Kim & Fortner, 2006).

Teachers with higher degrees of confidence in implementing environmental education

practices are more likely to do so and their attitudes toward environmental education influence

whether or not they engage in teaching and learning about the environment (Plevyak et al.,

2001). Teachers who report being interested in environmental education-related teaching

practices report engaging in these practices more (Zint & Peyton, 2001). Existing research

suggests teachers do not lack an interest in environmental education and their interests are not a

barrier to their environmental education-related practices (Kim & Fortner, 2006). This interest in

environmental education, and infusion of environmental education practices into science

teaching, is based on numerous different factors (Gayford, 1998; Sadler et al., 2006). Positive

attitudes toward environmental education, however, may not be best predictor of current teaching

practice but rather of a teacher’s interest in going beyond current practice (Kim & Fortner,

2006). The most significant predictor of teachers’ environmental education practices are an

intent to engage in these practices and a self-perceived capacity to do so (Hsu & Roth, 1999).

9

Because environmental issues are situated within social, cultural, and economic concerns,

these too must be addressed. However, teachers often shy away from value- and ethics-laden

dimensions of science in their teaching (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Gayford, 2002; Sadler et al.,

2006) and express a relative lack of interest in social and philosophical dimensions of scientific

research (Kyburz-Graber, 1999). Their orientations are often mediated by identities constructed

around scientific disciplines and through which perceived integrity of various disciplines are to

be maintained in classrooms (Gayford, 2002). For example, Zint and Peyton (2001) found that

health teachers, who teach about science in a more pragmatic context, are most interested in

environmental education-related teaching practices while physics teachers, with strong ties to a

particular scientific discipline, are often the least interested. Even when teachers ground science

instruction in environmental issues that are of importance to the community, they often rely on

‘far away’ issues when discussing controversy (Christenson, 2004). Despite these limitations,

teachers can come to view the benefits of exploring multiple viewpoints as outweighing possible

drawbacks/controversy (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Sadler et al., 2006).

Subject matter knowledge and environmental education practice. For elementary

teachers, insufficient subject-matter knowledge and a lack of confidence in their subject-matter

knowledge is an often-cited and well-researched issue (Abell, 2007; Anderson & Mitchener,

1994). Similarly, teachers report being concerned about their subject matter knowledge

impacting their ability to engage in environmental education-related practices. Just as teachers

who find environmental issues interesting and relevant are more likely to engage in such

instruction, so too are teachers with more substantial subject matter knowledge (Littledyke,

1997; Sadler et al., 2006). In fact, teachers with particularly strong subject-matter knowledge for

particular topics and concepts will emphasize them in teaching and learning about the

10

environment (Fortner & Meyer, 2000). Preservice teachers with more limited subject-matter

knowledge, especially preservice elementary teachers, may not apply conceptual understanding

of science concepts to environmental issues in practice (Ekborg, 2003; Forbes & Davis, 2008).

Subject-matter knowledge about science and scientific inquiry is also related to teachers

environmental education-related instructional practice. As Littledyke (1997) found in his study

of elementary teachers in the UK, perspectives on science, science teaching, and environmental

education were fundamentally intertwined. Teachers who viewed science as primarily a body of

facts and scientific knowledge as static also tended to be those who possessed a less child-

centered and more process-oriented view of science teaching, as well as having little interest in

environmental issues and viewing them as unrelated to science. Teachers who were confident in

their science subject-matter knowledge and valued scientific practice as a means of knowledge

construction tended to be interested in environmental issues and teaching about the environment.

Perceived barriers to environmental education. While teachers generally express a

relatively high interest in environmental-based science instruction, they acknowledge that

environmental education is not prioritized in school curricula and is therefore more difficult to

teach. This presents a number of challenges for teachers seeking to engage in environmental

education, particularly within science (Gayford, 2002; Kim & Fortner, 2006; Meichtry & Harrell,

2002; Zint & Peyton, 2001).

As is argued by many science educators, science curricula in the U.S. have often focused

too heavily on addressing a wide variety of topics superficially rather than targeting a more

limited number more substantially. While teachers can learn to draw on science standards to

support environmental education (Christenson, 2004) rather than view them as a barrier, the

‘breadth vs. depth’ issue is one that persists, especially at the secondary level (Sadler et al.,

11

2006). Due to the already packed science curricula, as well as increasing measures aimed at

increasing accountability and improving standardized test scores, there is often little time left for

teaching and learning about the environment.

Elementary teachers often face a different challenge than a prescriptive science

curriculum. While flexibility in elementary science curricula can more readily facilitate

environmental education in contrast to secondary science curricula, it is increasingly apparent

that science has become deemphasized at the elementary level in recent years (Marx & Harris,

2006; Spillane et al., 2001). If environmental education goals are prioritized at the elementary

level, this could serve to reopen doors in the elementary curriculum for science. However, while

certain environmentally-related topics are often taught at the elementary level (e.g., recycling,

habitats, etc.) it is often the case that environmental education is not a fundamental dimension of

the elementary curriculum either. Here, then, both science and the environment are somewhat

deprioritized, neither providing a rich context for the teaching of the other.

In addition to time and curriculum limitations, teachers cite other challenges related to

engaging in environmental education practices. First, instructional materials specifically geared

towards environmental education are rarely available to teachers. Curriculum materials can be

an important support in this regard. Science curriculum materials often deprioritize

socioscientific issues and the ethical, moral, and cultural dimensions of science, even in STS-

based science curricula (Hughes, 2000). Because of this, flexibly-adaptive curriculum materials

are crucial in integrating environmental education in science (May, 2000). Teachers are more

likely to transition to environmental education-related practices if curriculum materials are

designed to supplement existing curricula (Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003).

12

Second, while teachers often cite an interest in teaching about the environment, they

often express concerns related to their limited understanding of environmental education

practices. These concerns often trace back to perceived inadequacies in their own preparation

and ongoing preparation. Third, the availability of funding can serve to limit teachers’ abilities

to engage in environmental education-oriented instruction. Finally, in an acknowledgement of

the importance of informal and nonformal learning environments in supporting environmental

education teaching and learning in formal education environments, they often note their limited

access to off-site resources (Dresner, 2002).

Summary. Previous research suggests that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about, as well as

interests in, the environment and environmental education have important implications for their

likely and actual environmental education-related practices in the classroom. Engaging in

environmental education-related practices is largely dependent on two broad factors: their beliefs

about these practices and perceived capacity to engage in them. Existing research suggests and

many teachers do want to support student learning about and for the environment. In order to do

so, however, they require requisite pedagogical content knowledge for environmental education,

subject-matter knowledge, effective curriculum materials, and a school context in which

environmental education is valued and supported.

Environmental Education through Teacher Education and Professional Development

While the discussion thus far has focused on teachers’ environmental education-related

orientations, practices, and factors influencing both, another body of research has also focused on

the role of environmental education in teacher education and professional development. Results

from this research indicate that environmental education-focused teacher education and relevant

13

inservice/professional development are important factors in teachers’ implementation of

environmental education (Plevyak et al., 2001).

Teacher education. Traditional 4-5 year undergraduate teacher education programs

remain a primary means through which individuals enter the U.S. teaching corps. An explicit

focus on environmental education in teacher education can help promote teachers’ environmental

education-related orientations and practice (Alvarez, de la Fuente, Perales, & Garcia, 2002;

Plevyak et al., 2001). In various studies on teacher educators (Heimlich, Braus, Olivolo,

McKeown-Ice, & Barringer-Smith, 2004; Powers, 2004), researchers found that teacher

educators generally want to incorporate environmental education into their teacher education

courses and programs. They also show awareness of the relationship between environmental

education and environmental literacy and the importance of the latter as a learning goal for

students. Teachers have acknowledged the importance of teacher education and professional

development in learning how to engage in environmental education-related practices. Rather

than being an explicit focus of teacher education, however, environmental education is most

often incorporated into existing programmatic elements. The two most often utilized integration

points for environmental education are methods courses, particularly science methods courses,

and associated content courses that preservice teachers take (Heimlich et al., 2004).

One particularly important dimension of science teacher education is a focus on learning

to teach science as inquiry. As such, formal teacher education programs often focus on various

inquiry practices, such as asking questions, making predictions, using evidence, and, most

importantly, constructing explanations. Argumentation is a crucial feature of scientific sense-

making as well as decision-making about related issues, is often promoted as a foundational

element of teacher education (Sadler, 2006). However environmental education and

14

environmental education -related practices factor in to formal teacher education, it is clear that

one-shot learning experiences may not do much to promote preservice teachers’ environmental

education learning. To truly support preservice teachers to develop the confidence and capacity

to engage in environmental education -related practices, a sustained focus is required (Moseley,

Reinke, & Bookout, 2002).

Focusing on environmental education in teacher education, however, is a challenging

task. Many of the barriers teachers describe in implementing environmental education practices

in the classroom are mirrored in teacher educators’ descriptions of their courses and programs.

These include an already crowded curriculum, the impact of state and national content standards

and teacher education mandates, among others (Powers, 2004). Even when environmental

education-related practices are prioritized, they may result in perceived incongruence between

teacher education experiences and actual classroom practice. For example, a predominant

culture of teaching may promote preservice teachers’ need for consensus rather than challenging

one another’s ideas (Ekborg, 2003) as required by scientific inquiry. Most teacher educators

acknowledge that they are not well-preparing teachers to teach environmental education

(McKeown-Ice, 2000).

Professional development. Professional development has also emerged as an important

context for promoting teachers’ learning about environmental education and the implementation

of environmental education in science classrooms. Unlike teacher education programs, inservice

professional development is often focused more specifically on particular pedagogical and

content domains. As a result, such programs can be designed explicitly around environmental

education -related topics and practices. Examples of such programs include ENVISION (Bell,

Shepardson, Harbor, Klagges, Burgess, Meyer, & Leuenberger, 2003; Shepardson, Harbon, Bell,

15

Meyer, Leuenberger, Klagges, & Burgess, 2003; Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007),

Students as Scientists: Pollution Prevention through Education (Comeaux & Huber, 2001), and

Teachers in the Woods (Dresner, 2002).

Environmental education focused professional development experiences are also

uniquely suited to simultaneously support teachers’ learning about authentic scientific inquiry

and their implementation of inquiry practices in their classrooms (Bell et al., 2003). This is

important, since many studies have shown that teachers struggle to translate ideas about inquiry

into classroom practice (Bryan & Abell, 1999; Crawford, 1999; Southerland & Gess-Newsome,

1999; Zembal-Saul, Blumenfeld, & Krajcik, 2000). Through participation in authentic scientific

investigations, teachers develop both better understandings about the nature of scientific research

and capacity to support their students in undertaking such investigations (Haefner & Zembal-

Saul, 2004; Windschitl, 2003). These findings are supported by environmental education

research reviewed here.

What, then, are important features of such professional development programs? First,

authentic scientific investigations, often designed, planned, and undertaken by teachers, helps

them develop more robust knowledge of relevant scientific concepts and content. Second,

modeling inquiry pedagogy in environmental education context, and providing teachers with an

opportunity to develop these abilities on their own, helps promote transfer of these methods into

classrooms with students (Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003). Finally, as many studies in

science education and other areas have indicated, teachers benefit greatly from collaboration

with their peers. In learning environmental education-related subject matter and to engage in

environmental education practices, teacher community matters (Christenson, 2004; Kenney,

16

Militana, & Donohue, 2003; Pruneau, Dayon, Langis, Vasseur, Ouellet, McLaughlin, Boudreau,

& Martin, 2006).

Summary. Previous research suggests that environmental education can be effectively

promoted in teacher learning contexts such as formal teacher education and professional

development. Promoting teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for scientific inquiry is

already a primary goal of science teacher education and professional development. These same

skills are also crucial for teachers in supporting students’ engagement in project-based

environmental education. As such, promoting teacher learning for teaching science as inquiry in

formal teacher education is already indirectly supporting teachers’ learning to address

environmental and sustainability issues through inquiry-oriented science instruction. However, a

more explicit focus on environmental education presents many challenges to science teacher

educators. Professional development remains the most direct route to providing teachers

opportunities to engage in inquiry-oriented, project-based investigations about environmental

issues and to develop their capacity to engage students in similar learning experiences.

Study Design and Methods

The goal of this study is to investigate how elementary teachers support student learning

about and for the environment through scientific inquiry. Toward that end, we asked the

following questions in this study:

1. How do elementary teachers differentiate between inquiry practices designed to

support student learning about and for the environment?

2. How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and

use of scientific inquiry to support student learning about and for the environment?

17

3. What relationships exist between elementary teachers’ professional experiences (e.g.,

teacher education, professional development, and classroom experience) and their

beliefs about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to support student

learning about and for the environment?

Understanding how teachers learn to teach environmental science and engage in

environmentally-oriented teaching practices, as well as relevant mediating factors, will help

science teacher educators and environmental educators better support them to do so.

To address these questions, we developed a survey instrument and administered it to a

random sample of elementary teachers in the university community school district and

surrounding school districts. In the sections that follow, we first describe the survey instrument,

the sampling methods used to administer it, and the quantitative methods used to analyze the

resulting data.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument (Appendices A and B), which was developed specifically for this

study, was designed around three sets of 10 parallel questions (30 items total). These 10

questions are explicitly aligned with scientific inquiry practices articulated in current science

education reform (NRC, 1996, 2000). First, five of the 10 questions represented the five

essential features of inquiry articulated in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards

(NRC, 2000). These include engaging students in scientifically-oriented questions, gathering

and organizing data and evidence, making evidence-based explanations, evaluating explanations,

and communicating explanations. These five questions were meant to provide a measure of

teachers’ use of inquiry to support student learning about environmental issues. Second, we

included 5 additional questions to represent the five features of design in science (NRC, 1996).

18

These included identifying and describing environmental issues, as well as proposing,

implementing, evaluating, and communicating proposed solutions to environmental issues.

These five questions were meant to provide a measure of teaching for environmental decision-

making. These two sets of survey items are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Survey Items for Inquiry Practices to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment

Learning About Learning For 1. …ask questions and make predictions

about environmental issues. …identify and describe environmental issues.

2. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues.

…propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues.

3. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues.

…implement proposed solutions to environmental issues.

4. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their own or those in the wider community.

…evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues.

5. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them.

…communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues.

Together, these two sets of questions provide a measure of inquiry practices to promote student

learning both about and for the environment and were the primary focus of research question #1.

The survey was also designed to measure teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities,

and actual practices related to the use of inquiry to engage students in learning about and for the

environment. Previous education research has shown teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities

to be important factors in their classroom practices (Hsu & Roth, 1999; Pajares, 1992;

Richardson, 1996; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007; Tal & Argaman, 2005). Additionally, more

broadly defined, they are constituent elements of teachers’ capacity for pedagogical design

(Brown, 2008), or teachers’ capacities to mobilize requisite resources (knowledge, beliefs,

19

curriculum materials, etc.) in light of context dependent affordances and constraints to

effectively promote student learning. .

Teachers were asked to respond to the same 10 survey items from Table 1 separately in

regard to their beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices. First, respondents were

asked to respond to the statement, “As part of my science teaching, I should support my students

to…”, which was included as a measure of teachers’ beliefs. Second, they were asked to respond

to the statement, “I have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to support my students

to…”, which was included as a measure of perceived instructional capacity. Finally, in the third

set of 10 questions, they were asked to respond to the statement “As part of my science teaching,

I currently support my students to…”, which was included as a measure of self-reported

classroom practice. These three sets of these 10 survey items provide a measure of teachers’

beliefs about the use of these practices, perceived capacities to engage students in them, and

frequencies with which they report engaging students in them. These constructs are the primary

focus of research question #2.

In addition to these three sets of 10 questions, the survey also included a series of general

questions related to teaching about and for the environment. Specifically, it contained

demographic questions to characterize the grade levels respondents teach, their years of teaching

experience, how much time they devote to teaching about the environment and environmental

issues in the context of science, as well as others. The survey items about teachers’ professional

preparation, teaching experience, and professional development opportunities provide a series of

independent variables through which to investigate relationships with the other two sets of

constructs (research questions 1 and 2). These relationships are the primary focus of research

question #3.

20

Once developed and made available online, we invited five elementary teachers to test

the survey and provide feedback on the content and organization of the survey. These five

teachers were randomly selected from members of the population who were not selected to be in

the survey sample. They were each contacted via email and asked to record their feedback and

comments on the survey. In addition to more general feedback, they were specifically asked to

document any technical problems they experienced with the online survey and highlight any

survey items that were confusing, unclear, or otherwise problematic. These three teachers

reported finding the content, wording, and organization of the survey items to be effective.

However, they identified a number of technical problems with the online survey that were

subsequently resolved. These five teachers were provided a small stipend for their assistance.

Data Collection

In this study, the survey population was defined as all elementary teachers (k-5) in the

university school district and those school districts immediately adjacent to it. In order to create

the population from which to draw a sample, we referred to publicly-available faculty listings in

the summer of 2007. First, we identified all elementary schools in the school districts of interest.

Second, we visited individual websites for these schools and, in most cases, was able to obtain

faculty lists and other relevant information. In cases where faculty information was not included

on school websites, searchable directories on school district websites were used to identify

elementary teachers in particular schools. We also contacted building administrators to obtain

this information and confirm faculty listings. As a result, we were able to create a sampling

frame of all elementary teachers in the population (N=752), thereby minimizing errors due to

noncoverage (Couper, 2000; Dillman, 1991).

21

Using simple random sampling, we selected 250 teachers from the sampling frame who

were invited to complete the survey. On three separate occasions, these teachers were sent an

invitation email and letter. These invitation attempts occurred in October and November of

2007, and then in February of 2008. Mailings were sent to their school addresses and emails

were sent to their school email addresses. As an incentive for completing the survey, teachers

were entered into a drawing. From the survey respondents, six teachers were randomly selected

to receive $50. These teachers were selected and mailed checks to their school addresses in May

of 2008.

The teachers were able to complete the survey online or in hard copy form and return it in

the mail. In the first and second invitation, the teachers were asked to complete the survey

online. In the third and final invitation, teachers were given the opportunity to complete a paper

version of the survey and return it using a self-addressed, stamped envelope. In effect, this

approach became a mixed-mode design with choice of completion method (Couper, 2000),

meaning the survey was available in multiple formats and respondents were given a choice of

which they preferred to complete. The content and design of both surveys were identical, though

there were some aesthetic differences simply due to affordances and constraints of the two

modes used. Both version of the survey are included in Appendices A and B.

Of the initial 250 teachers in the sample, 13 had moved out of the sample population.

These teachers were identified by undeliverable email and mail and responses from colleagues,

school staff, or administrators. Of the remaining 237 teachers, we received 121 responses for a

52% response rate. Of these 121 responses, 72% of teachers completed the survey online while

28% completed the paper version. Of the 121 teachers who completed the survey, 10 chose not

to have their responses included in the dataset. An additional 25 teachers reported not teaching

22

science in their particular school and curricular contexts. The data for this study is therefore

drawn from 86 elementary teachers from the sample population who completed the survey and

reported teaching science.

Data Analysis

To analyze the survey data, we first performed factor analysis to confirm the theoretical

foundations of the constructs around which the survey was designed. Next, we obtained

reliability coefficients that to assess the unidimensionality or multidimensionality of the data.

Finally, we performed statistical analyses on the survey data to answer my research questions.

Specifically, we addressed my research questions by examining differences in means between

constructs of interest using independent- and paired-samples t-tests, as well as ANOVA.

Factor Analysis. We performed a factor analysis on the 30 survey items to assess the

degree to which the three sets of questions measured teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and

reported use of inquiry to promote students’ learning about and for the environment. The factor

analysis method used was principal axis factoring with varimax rotation. A high Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.863) confirmed that observed correlations between pairs

of variables could be explained by the other variables. The null hypothesis in factor analysis is

that there is no correlation between variables of interest. Bartlett's test of sphericity is used to

test the null hypothesis. Here, Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), suggesting

that the relationship between the variables is strong and factor analysis is appropriate given the

survey data.

Results from the factor analysis of these 30 items identified three distinct factors of 10

items each, consistent with the survey’s design of three unique sets of 10 questions each

designed to measure teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacity, and class practice. The rotated factor

23

matrix for these questions, which illustrates survey item loading on individual factors, is shown

in Table 2.

24

Table 2

Rotated Factor Matrix for 3 Sets of 10 Questions

Factor 1 2 3 As part of my science teaching, I should support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .701 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .665 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .871 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .888 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their

own or those in the wider community. .821

6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .782

7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .664 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .702 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .746 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .856 I have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .693 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .742 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .763 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .792 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their

own or those in the wider community. .776

6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .700

7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .740 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .766 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .833 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .641 As part of my science teaching, I currently support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .7062. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .7673. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .7054. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .8285. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their

own or those in the wider community. .773

6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .769

7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .8318. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .7779. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .77710. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .636

Rotation converged in 7 iterations. Values < 0.5 have been suppressed

25

Together, these three factors accounted for 68.85% of the variance in the survey results, as

shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained

Factor Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 6.928 23.093 23.0932 6.894 22.979 46.0723 6.834 22.778 68.8504 1.248 4.160 73.0105 1.085 3.616 76.626

Two additional factors are shown in Table 3 with Eigenvalues greater than 1 (factors 4 and 5).

These account for only an additional 8% of variance. In addition, these two factors were found

not to be significant to the findings. First, as shown in the scree plot in Figure 1, the fourth

factor forms the elbow of the plot, suggesting the first three factors are the only significant

factors.

26

Factor Number302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321

Eige

nval

ue

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 1. Scree Plot for Factor Analysis of 30 Survey Items (3 Sets of 10 questions)

Second, we performed Monte Carlo simulation to calculate Eigenvalues for 1000

randomly generated samples (30 items, 86 respondents). Random Eigenvalues and actual

Eigenvalues from the sample are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Comparison of Eigenvalues from Factor Analysis and Parallel Analysis

Factor Actual Eigenvalue Randomly-generated Eigenvalue Decision 1 6.928 2.3191 accept 2 6.894 2.1062 accept 3 6.834 1.9531 accept 4 1.248 1.8250 reject

27

For the first, second, and third factors, actual Eiganvalues from the survey sample were higher

than randomly generated ones, confirming these first three factors should be retained for

analysis. The fourth randomly generated Eigenvalue was greater than the fourth actual

Eigenvalue from the sample, suggesting it and all subsequent factors should not be included.

This analysis confirms the presence of three unique factors that correspond to the three sets of 10

questions around which the survey instrument was designed.

Reliability analysis. Reliability analyses were also performed to assess internal reliability

of the three sets of 10 questions. We obtained Cronbach’s alpha values for each of the three sets

of 10 individually. In each of these four cases, the Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.95 or above.

We also performed reliability analyses for each of the 10 individual questions about inquiry

practices across the three sets in which they were used. Cronbach’s α values for these items are

shown in Table 5.

Table 5

α Values for Inquiry Practices Survey Items

Survey Item α 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. 0.737 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. 0.761 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. 0.682 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. 0.682 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental

issues, whether their own or those in the wider community. 0.714

6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them.

0.695

7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. 0.711 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.756 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.698 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.626

These values provide a measure of how reliable each of the inquiry practices were across the

three dimensions for which they were used (teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and

28

classroom practice). Although five of the ten values for individual inquiry items are below 0.70,

these reliability statistics suggest that these constructs were internally-consistent and reasonably

reliable measures of the constructs of interest (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994).

Finally, in the survey, the term ‘environmental issues’ was defined as “problems such as

pollution (air, water, and soil), biodiversity loss and endangered species, resource depletion, and

habitat loss”. In the survey, teachers were asked the degree to which they agreed with this

definition (item 3a.) and, if they so chose, to describe any differences in this and their own

definition of environmental issues (item 3b.). A majority, 89.9%, indicated they ‘strongly agree’

or ‘agree’ with this definition. Only 3 teachers utilized question 3b to further describe how their

own definitions of the term ‘environmental issues’ differed from that provided in the survey. In

short, the teachers’ responses to items 3a and 3b. indicate a strong agreement on the fundamental

construct of interest in this research.

Results

In the sections that follow, we first provide an overview of the characteristics of teachers

who completed the survey and then present findings by research question.

Characteristics of Teachers in the Study Sample

The elementary teachers who completed the survey were from 37 schools spread across 8

school districts in and around a university community. The teachers were asked to report which

grade(s) they taught. The most commonly taught grade-level was fourth grade (47%), while

kindergarten (14%) and fifth-grade (10%) were least commonly taught. Additionally,

approximately 20% of the teachers reported teaching more than one grade.

The teachers were asked to report the number of years that they had been teaching. The

mean number of years teaching experience was 15.8 (SD=9.12) with a range from three to 38

years. However, the median number of years teaching experience was 13 and the mode was 8.

29

This indicates that the sample of teachers was skewed toward the lower end of the distribution.

In short, respondents tended to be less experienced teachers, though no teachers in the sample

were first- or second-year teachers.

Teachers were also asked to approximate how many hours each year they teach about

environmental issues in the context of science. The mean number of hours reported was 15.1

(SD=15.2) though this value ranged from one hour to 80 hours. The median number of hours

was 10 and the mode was 20 hours, again suggesting that the distribution was skewed towards

the lower end of the range. Over half of the respondents therefore reported teaching about the

environment in the context of science less than 10 hours per year (55%) while 79% reported

doing so 20 hours or less per year.

Teachers were also asked to report whether or not they had taken an environmental

education methods course, how many environmental science/studies courses they had taken, and

how many environmental education professional development experiences they had participated

in. Many teachers reported having taken at least one environmental science course as part of

their postsecondary education and/or teacher education (60%). Relatively fewer teachers,

however, reported completing a course on environmental education teaching methods (20%) or

participating in a professional development experience focused on environmental education

(40%).

These descriptive statistics provide important insight into the respondents’ professional

contexts and experiences. Also, as shown in subsequent sections, they proved important for

identifying trends in the teachers’ reported beliefs about, perceived capacities, and actual use of

scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.

30

Research Question 1 – Differentiating Between Promoting Student Learning About and For the

Environment

A primary purpose of this study was to ascertain the degree to which elementary teachers

emphasized using scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.

In research question 1, we asked ‘How do elementary teachers differentiate between inquiry

practices designed to support student learning about and for the environment?’.

First, in survey item #4, the teachers were asked to respond to the statement “It is

important for elementary students to not only learn about environmental issues but also how to

act on and attempt to solve them”. Over half of the teachers (57%) indicated they strongly

agreed with this statement. An additional 35% indicated they ‘agree’ while an additional 7%

indicated they ‘somewhat agree’. Together, these responses accounted for all but one of the

teachers who completed the survey. This finding suggests that the elementary teachers in this

study overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for students to not only learn about

environmental issues, but also to learn how to act on and attempt to solve them.

Further analyses for research question 1 involved comparing responses to the 10 survey

items for inquiry practices that were consistent across the 3 dimensional question sets that

measured teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported use of scientific inquiry to

promote student learning about and for the environment. One set of these 10 inquiry practices

focused on learning about the environment (5 items) while the other emphasized learning for

decision-making and acting upon environmental issues (5 items), as shown previously in Table

5. We compare findings from these two sets of five inquiry practices in the aggregate (across

measures of teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practice), as well as within

31

each of the three sets of 10 questions for teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual

practices. Statistics from these analyses are shown in Table 6.

32

Table 6

Results from Paired-Samples T-tests Comparing Elementary Teachers’ Inquiry Practices to

Support Student Learning About and For the Environment

xabout xfor t p d Aggregate 5.35 5.32 0.646 0.52 0.034 Dimension 1 - Teachers’ Beliefs 5.97 5.88 1.69 0.09 0.102 Dimension 2 - Perceived Capacity 5.26 5.28 -0.36 0.72 0.023 Dimension 3 - Classroom Practice 4.80 4.79 0.61 0.95 0.019

As shown in Table 6, there were no significant differences between the teachers’ responses to the

set of inquiry practices focused on supporting student learning about and for the environment

through scientific inquiry. This finding was consistent for teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities,

and reported classroom practices, as well as an aggregate measure across these three categories.

This suggests that the elementary teachers in this study did not draw a fundamental distinction

between, on one hand, inquiry practices to support students’ learning about environmental issues

and scientific concepts and, on the other, for decision-making about environmental issues.

Additionally, there were statistically-significant relationships observed between the

teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities for, and reported use of inquiry to support student

learning about and for the environment. First, there was a strong correlation between the

teachers’ responses to the two sets of 5 items focused on supporting student learning about

(xabout) and for (xfor) the environment through scientific inquiry in the aggregate findings as well

as each of the dimensional scores. These correlations are shown in Table 7.

33

Table 7

Correlations between Elementary Teachers’ Inquiry Practices to Support Student Learning

About and For the Environment

Aggregate Beliefs Perceived Capacities Reported Practice Pearson Correlation 0.876 0.840 0.875 0.863 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001 N 86 86 85 85

Second, recall that in survey item #4, the teachers were asked to respond to the statement “It is

important for elementary students to not only learn about environmental issues but also how to

act on and attempt to solve them”. Teachers who reported agreeing more strongly with item #4

also reported beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices that were more oriented

toward the use of inquiry to promote student learning about environmental issues, F(3,84) = 4.6,

p = 0.005, ω2 = 0.13, and for decision-making and action F(3,84) = 4.3, p = 0.007, ω2 = 0.12. In

short, elementary teachers who reported more strongly agreeing that students should learn about

and for the environment also reported beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices that

were more aligned with these goals.

In sum, these results suggest that teachers did not fundamentally distinguish between

engaging students in scientific inquiry to promote learning about and for the environment.

Additionally, there were positive, significant relationships between these variables. Teachers

who prioritized engaging in inquiry to promote student learning about the environment tended to

similarly prioritize engaging in inquiry to promote student learning for environmental decision-

making.

Research Question 2 –Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of

Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning About and For the Environment

34

We also sought to investigate the degree to which elementary teachers believe they

should support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry, their

perceived capacity to do so, and how often they reported engaging in these practices. In research

question 2, we asked, ‘How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs about, perceived

capacities, and actual classroom practices for the use of inquiry practices to support student

learning about and for the environment?’. To answer research question 2, we drew upon the

combined scores for the 10 inquiry practices within each of the three dimensions measuring

teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual classroom practice.

Scores for teachers’ beliefs were highest, followed by teachers’ perceived capacities and,

finally, teachers’ actual classroom practices. The mean scores were 5.94 (SD=0.90), 5.26

(SD=1.08), and 4.8 (SD=1.31), respectively. Differences between these three scores were

significant. Scores for teachers’ beliefs were significantly higher than scores for their perceived

capacities, t(86) = 6.45, p < .001, d = 0.31, and their reported actual classroom practices, t(85) =

8.36, p < .001, d = 0.92. Similarly, scores for perceived capacity were significantly higher than

for their reported teaching practices, t(86) = 4.07, p < .001, d = 0.70.

These findings suggest that teachers most strongly believe that they should engage in

scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment. However, they also

felt less capable of doing so (perceived capacities), suggesting a mismatch between the practices

in which they felt they should engage and their perceived capacities to engage in them. Finally,

the teachers’ actual reported classroom practice was lower than both their beliefs and perceived

capacities. This finding suggests that the degree to which they report engaging students in these

inquiry practices is significantly less than their perceived capacities and beliefs.

35

Research Question 3 - Relationships between Teacher Characteristics and Teachers’ Beliefs

About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student

Learning About and For the Environment

Last, we also investigated relationships between specific teacher characteristics and their

beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices as discussed in the previous sections. In

research question 3, we asked, ‘What relationships exist between elementary teachers’

professional characteristics (e.g., teacher education, professional development, and classroom

experience) and their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and actual classroom practices for the

use of inquiry practices to support student learning about and for the environment?’. To answer

research question 3, we again drew upon the combined scores for the 10 inquiry practices within

each of the three dimensions measuring teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported

classroom practice. We then analyzed differences in these scores based on teachers’ responses to

demographic questions. Before discussing findings in detail, we present a brief summary of

statistically-significant relationships in Table 8.

36

Table 8

Summary of Statistically-significant Relationships (x) Between Demographic Variables and

Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and Reported Use of Inquiry to Promote Students’

Learning About and For the Environment.

Beliefs Perceived Capacities

Reported Practice

# hours/year teaching about environmental issues x x x # years teaching experience x x Environmental education teaching methods course x # environmental science/studies courses # professional development focused on environmental issues.

x

As shown in the table, statistically-significant relationships were observed in four of the five

demographic variables measured in the survey.

Recall that teachers were asked to estimate how many hours each year they teach about

environmental issues in the context of science. Results suggest strong relationships between

teachers’ experience in the classroom and their beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual

classroom practice, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Correlations Between Time Spent Teaching About Environmental Issues in the Context of

Science and Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and Reported Classroom Practice

Beliefs Perceived Capacities

Reported Practice

Pearson Correlation .302(**) .411(**) .506(**)Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000 .000N 85 85 85

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Not surprisingly, teachers who reported spending more time teaching about and for the

environment through scientific inquiry also reported more often engaging students in the 10

37

inquiry practices as part of their instruction (reported practice). However, this trend was also

consistent for teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities, though these correlations were less

strong than for teachers’ reported practice. In short, then, elementary teachers who reported

more time spent teaching about and for the environment tended to a) believe doing so was more

important, b) perceive themselves to be more capable of doing so, and c) more often reported

engaging students in inquiry practices as part of their teaching.

Teachers were also asked to report how many years of teaching experience they had.

Results from the survey suggest relationships between general teaching experience and perceived

capacities and actual classroom practice, though not for their beliefs, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10

Correlations Between Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and

Reported Classroom Practice

Beliefs Perceived Capacities

Reported Practice

Pearson Correlation .064 .251(*) .253(*)Sig. (2-tailed) .559 .021 .020N 86 85 85

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). As shown in Table 10, there was not a statistically-significant correlation between years teaching

experience and teachers’ beliefs about engaging students in inquiry practices to promote learning

about environmental issues and scientific concepts or for decision-making and action. However,

there was a relatively weak, albeit significant relationship between, on the one hand, teaching

experience and, on the other, teachers’ perceived capacities and actual classroom practices. In

short, more experienced teachers felt they were more capable of engaging in inquiry to promote

student learning about and for the environment. They also reported engaging students in these

practices more often.

38

There were important observed relationships between teachers’ opportunities for

learning, both preservice and inservice, and their beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported

engagement in inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment. First,

elementary teachers were asked to report whether or not they had taken an environmental

education methods course. One out of five (20%) teachers reported having taken such a course.

For elementary teachers who reported taking an environmental education methods course, there

was no statistically-significant relationship between their perceived capacities, t(83) = 1.56, p =

0.12, d = 0.21, or reported classroom practices, t(83) = 1.18, p = 0.24, d = 0.19. However, those

who reported taking an environmental education methods course believed more strongly that

they should support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry

than respondents who had not taken such a course, t(83) = 2.22, p = 0.03, d = 0.49.

Teachers were also asked how many professional development experiences they had

participated in which had focused on environmental education. The teachers reported having

taken anywhere from 1 to 5 such courses (M=1.85, SD=1.35). There were no significant

relationships between the number of such professional development experiences the elementary

teachers reported and either their beliefs, F(4,80) = 1.55, p = 0.20, ω2 < 0.01, or reported

classroom practice, F(4,81) = 2.42, p = 0.055, ω2 = 0.06. However, elementary teachers who

reported having more professional development experiences focused on environmental education

(M=1.85, SD =.15) reported a greater perceived capacity to engage students in inquiry practices

to learn about the environment and for environmental decision-making, F(4,81) = 3.24, p =

0.016, ω2 = 0.10. This finding suggests that the more professional development experiences

teachers participate in that are specifically focused on environmental education, the more capable

they reported feeling in their knowledge, skills, and resources to engage students in inquiry

39

practices to promote learning about environmental issues and scientific concepts, as well as for

decision-making and action.

Teachers were also asked to report the number of environmental science and/or studies

course they had taken. The teachers reported having taken anywhere from 1 to 5 such courses

(M=2.34, SD=1.4). However, there were no significant relationships between the number of

environmental science and/or studies courses elementary teachers had taken and either their

beliefs, F(4,80) = 1.11, p = 0.36, ω2 = 0.06, perceived capacities, F(4,80) = 2.48, p = 0.051, ω2 =

0.09, or classroom practices, F(4,80) = 2.33, p = 0.063, ω2 = 0.02. These findings suggest that

there were no significant differences in teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported

engagement of students in inquiry practices to promote learning about environmental issues and

scientific concepts, as well as for decision-making and action, based on the number of

environmental science and/or studies courses they had taken.

Summary of Results

Findings from this study are threefold. First, the elementary teachers in this study did not

articulate a statistically-significant difference between, on the one hand, engaging students in

scientific inquiry to promote their learning about the environment and, on the other, for

environmental decision-making and action. However, second, their beliefs, perceived capacities,

and degree to which they reported engaging students in inquiry to promote student learning about

and for the environment did differ. Scores for the elementary teachers’ beliefs were highest,

followed by their perceived capacities and, finally, their reported classroom practices. Finally,

third, important, statistically-significant relationships were observed between demographic

variables and the elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported use of inquiry

to promote students’ learning about and for the environment. Both teaching experience and the

40

number of hours spent teaching about the environment were positively related to teachers’

beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practice. Results also showed that environmental

education methods courses were positively-related to elementary teachers’ beliefs and that

professional development focused on environmental education were positively-related to

elementary teachers’ perceived capacities.

Discussion

Teachers play a crucial role in supporting students’ development of scientific and

environmental literacy. In science, they must engage students in inquiry practices to not only

support their learning about environmental issues, or about science in the context of

environmental issues, but also for decision-making and action about environmental issues in the

context of science. However, this is a challenging task for elementary teachers who, particularly

if they are inexperienced, may not possess requisite beliefs and/or capacities to engage in

effective and substantive science teaching practice (Abell, 2007; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006;

Morton & Dalton, 2007). The specific purpose of this study was to further investigate

elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported classroom practice about and for

the environment, as well as observed relationships between these and other important factors. In

the following sections, we revisit main findings from this study, discuss recommendations for

supporting teachers to engage in inquiry-oriented science teaching to support student learning

about and for the environment, and articulate questions for future research.

Research Question 1 – Differentiating Between Promoting Student Learning About and For the

Environment

In research question 1, we asked ‘How do elementary teachers differentiate between

inquiry practices designed to support student learning about and for the environment?’.

Findings suggest that the elementary teachers in this study considered both to be important and

41

did not differentiate between the two goals in terms of their beliefs, perceived capacities, or

reported teaching practices. On the one hand, this finding supports previous research, which has

shown that teachers want to teach about the environment (Kim & Fortner, 2006; Plevyak et al.,

2001; Sadler et al., 2006). However, previous studies have also shown that teachers often feel

less able to engage students in decision-making and action about environmental issues than they

do to support students’ learning of science content. Findings here extend existing research on

teachers and environmental education by illustrating the compatible goals teachers hold for not

only supporting student learning about environmental issues and their underlying scientific

dimensions, but also for supporting the development of students’ decision-making capacities.

Research Question 2 –Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities For, and Reported Use of

Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning About and For the Environment

In research question 2, we asked, ‘How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs

about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to support student learning about and

for the environment?’. Significant differences existed between teachers’ beliefs, perceived

capacities, and reported classroom practice. Scores for teachers’ beliefs were highest, followed

by perceived capacities and, finally, classroom practices. These findings suggest that elementary

teachers do not report possessing the knowledge, skills, and resources to engage students in

inquiry practices to learn about and for the environment in the ways that they believe they

should. Furthermore, they report actually engaging students in these inquiry practices less often

then they believe they have the capacity to do so. We next discuss teachers’ perceived capacities

and classroom practice.

Teachers’ perceived capacities. Hsu and Roth (1999) found that the most significant

predictors of teachers’ environmentally-oriented teaching practices were, on one hand, teachers’

42

intentions to engage in such practices and, on the other, their perceived capacity to do so. As

previously discussed in research question #1 regarding promoting student learning about and for

the environment, the elementary teachers in this study reported beliefs and intentions to engage

in inquiry to promote student learning. However, they reported perceived capacities to engage in

these practices that were lower than their desired practices. These findings illuminate a

disconnect between the teaching practices these teachers believe they should be engaging in and

their perceived capacities to actually engage in those practices.

Previous research provides some evidence as to what limitations teachers perceive in

their capacities to engage in environmental education practices. Even if teachers believe strongly

that they should support student learning about and for the environment, they view

environmental education as a deprioritized component of school curricula (Christenson, 2004).

As such, they of often also report lacking effective curriculum materials to support student

learning about and for the environment (Hughes, 2000; Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003;

May, 2000). Finally, even if teachers are expected to teach about and for the environment, and

have curriculum materials that enable them to do so, they often report a lack of confidence in

their subject-matter knowledge (Ekborg, 2003; Fortner & Meyer, 2000; Littledyke, 1997) or

abilities to use effective instructional strategies to support student learning about the

environment. For teachers’ perceived capacities to be brought into alignment with their beliefs,

they need to be supported with relevant goals for student learning, effective curriculum

materials, as well as opportunities to develop appropriate knowledge of content and an

understanding of how to engage students in inquiry to promote their learning about and for the

environment.

43

Teachers’ reported practice. Finally, teachers’ reported actual use of inquiry practices to

promote student learning about and for the environment were lower than both their beliefs and

perceived capacities. In short, they reported engaging students in these practices far less than

they believed they should and than they reported feeling capable of. Specifically, the teachers in

this study reported teaching about the environment an average of 15.11 hours each year. Recent

research (Morton & Dalton, 2007) suggests that k-4 teachers devote approximately 2.3 hours per

week to science, or around 82.8 hours of science per year. This is approximately 7.1% of the

average school week and suggests that 18% of instructional time these teachers devoted to

science each year involves teaching about the environment. This number represents

approximately 1.3% of elementary students’ total time in school - a miniscule percentage of total

school time being devoted to students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy.

More recent elementary-focused research has shown that a disproportionate amount of

instructional time and resources being allocated to certain subjects, such as mathematics and

literacy, while science is increasingly deprioritized (Marx & Harris, 2006; Spillane et al., 2001).

The statistics provided here illustrate how this trend is influencing the amount of instructional

time being devoted to students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy.

Research Question 3 - Relationships between Teacher Characteristics and Teachers’ Beliefs

About, Perceived Capacities For, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student

Learning About and For the Environment

Finally, in research question 3, we asked, ‘What relationships exist between elementary

teachers’ professional characteristics (e.g., teacher education, professional development, and

classroom experience) and their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry

to support student learning about and for the environment?’. Teachers who reported a greater

44

number of years teaching experience and number of hours each year teaching about

environmental issues in science also reported feeling more strongly that teachers should engage

students in these inquiry practices, reported a greater perceived capacity to do so, and also

reported doing so more often. Teachers who reported taking an environmental education

methods course believed more strongly that inquiry practices should be used to teach about

environmental issues than respondents who had not taken such a course. Finally, respondents

who reported having more professional development experiences focused on environmental

education reported a greater perceived capacity to engage students in inquiry practices to learn

about environmental issues. These findings have important implications for how elementary

teachers may best be supported to engage in inquiry to promote student learning about and for

the environment.

Implications

Based on the findings for each of my research questions, we next provide

recommendations for fostering elementary teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities to engage in

inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.

Fostering Beliefs and Intent

Teachers’ beliefs are an important mediating influence on their classroom practice

(Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007). To support student learning

about and for the environment through scientific inquiry, teachers need to believe these are

important goals. Findings from this study, as well as previous research, show that teachers do

want to teach about the environment (Kim & Fortner, 2006; Plevyak et al., 2001; Sadler et al.,

2006). Based on this evidence, it appears that teachers’ beliefs and intent are not significant

barriers to engaging in instruction about and for the environment.

45

Moreover, this study’s findings illustrate how teachers might be further supported to

develop beliefs and intent that are consistent with engaging students in inquiry practices to

support their learning about and for the environment. Our findings suggest, first, that actually

engaging in classroom teaching about and for the environment is positively related to teachers’

beliefs about doing so. Second, methods courses for preservice teachers specifically focused on

environmental education are positively related to teachers’ beliefs about using inquiry practices

to engage students in learning about the environment. Further research should be carried out to

establish causal relationships between these experiences and teachers’ beliefs about, perceived

capacities, and actual use of inquiry practices to engage students in learning about and for the

environment.

There are important implications of these findings. First, the more experience teachers

have teaching about and for the environment in the context of science, they more they prioritize

these practices. Especially for practicing teachers, the frequency with which they teach about the

environment is largely determined by local standards, available curriculum materials, access to

on- and off-site settings, and available instructional time (Gayford, 2002; Hughes, 2000; Kim &

Fortner, 2006; May, 2000; Meichtry & Harrell, 2002; Zint & Peyton, 2001). For preservice

teachers, however, gaining teaching experience is problematic as many teacher education

programs do not provide such opportunities and, even when they do, they are limited.

Additionally, adding required environmental education methods courses to teacher education

programs further crowds an already crowded curriculum (Heimlich et al., 2004). For formal

teacher education to place greater emphasis on environmental education, and for practicing

teachers to support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry,

46

students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy must be reprioritized alongside

goals for their subject-matter learning.

Fostering Capacity

In addition to supporting teachers to develop beliefs and intentions that support teaching

about and for the environment, they must also be supported to develop the capacity to do so.

Teachers’ capacities for pedagogical design (Brown, 2008) are a function of their own personal

resources (knowledge, skills, etc.), the physical tools at their disposal, and features of the

contexts in which they work. To develop their subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical

content knowledge, as well as learn how to mobilize knowledge resources, curricular resources,

and activity settings, teachers need long-term, sustained, coherent opportunities for learning

through teacher education and ongoing professional development.

To effectively support student learning about and for the environment through inquiry,

teachers must not only develop knowledge and skills, have access to effective curriculum

materials, and be supported by the teaching contexts, but also learn how to use these resources

effectively in light of context to accomplish particular instructional goals. As such, this is a

highly situated process, meaning these elements of any given teacher’s pedagogical design

capacity will be unique. Therefore, teachers’ learning to effectively mobilize these resources in

light of their unique school and classroom contexts will also be highly dependent on how

contextualized opportunities for learning are.

Findings from this study reinforce this perspective. First, as with teachers’ beliefs, actual

experience using inquiry in the classroom to support students’ learning about and for the

environment was related to teachers’ perceived capacity to do so. In short, the more time

teachers spend engaging in these practices, they more confident they reported feeling in their

47

capacity to do so. Additionally, professional development opportunities focused on teaching

about and for environmental issues was positively related to teachers’ perceived capacities, or

their requisite knowledge, skills, and resources, to engage students in relevant inquiry practices.

Unlike many teacher education experiences, inservice professional development is often focused

more specifically on particular pedagogical and content domains. As such, they are often

designed to explicitly address issues and practices relevant to a subset of teachers with similar

needs (Dresner, 2002; Wee et al., 2007). It is encouraging, then, that these experiences can

increase teachers’ perceived capacities to support student learning about and for the environment

through scientific inquiry.

Interestingly, however, these results do not indicate a relationship between the number of

environmental science courses teachers reported having taken and their beliefs about engaging

students in inquiry to learn about environmental issues, their perceived capacities to do so, or

their reported teaching practice. While robust subject-matter knowledge is important for

teachers to effectively engage in teaching about the environment (Ekborg, 2003; Fortner &

Meyer, 2000; Littledyke, 1997; Sadler et al., 2006), this finding suggests that traditional science

content courses may not be the most effective method for supporting teachers’ subject-matter

learning.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study contributes to our understanding of teachers’ beliefs, perceived

capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the

environment, it has limitations and lead to additional questions for investigation. First, the

survey data upon which these findings are self-report. Such data is widely used and appropriate

as a measure of teachers’ expressed knowledge, beliefs, orientations, self-efficacy, and other

48

personal characteristics. However, it is more problematic for characterizations of the teachers’

practice, in this case environmentally-oriented teaching practice, as it does not allow for data

triangulation through observation. Future research exploring teachers’ use of scientific inquiry

to promote student learning about and for the environment should draw upon observations of

classroom activity. Such observations should be carried out extended periods of times in an

effort to further illuminate how and to what extent teachers are engaging in these teaching

practices. This is especially crucial for establishing links between personal teacher

characteristics and what they actually do in their classrooms.

Second, this study is limited by the 52% response rate achieved in the survey

administration. This response rate is acceptable given typical response rates on mail-

administered surveys (Dillman, 1991). It is also not surprising given the downward trend in

survey response rates that has been discussed at length by survey researchers (Curtin, Presser, &

Singer, 2005). Nonetheless, it is possible that non-respondents in this study exhibited

significantly different beliefs and characteristics than did respondents. Every attempt was made

to maximize teacher response rates until funds for this study were exhausted. To maximize

survey response rates, researchers need to, first, draw upon previous survey research with

teachers to identify effective administration techniques and incentives. Second, survey research

needs to be sufficiently funded so that appropriate funds can be allocated so as to maximize

response rates. More research is needed to investigate how to best employ research resources in

survey research with teachers to as to maximize coverage and minimize response error.

Findings from this study yield many more questions that merit further investigation.

Overall, results from the survey suggest that teaching experience, specifically experience

teaching about and for the environment, is significantly related to beliefs about and perceived

49

capacities to promote student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry.

However, more research is needed to better understand how to bring teachers’ beliefs, perceived

capacities, and actual teaching practice into alignment. For example, because taking an

environmental methods course was positively related to teachers’ beliefs, additional research

should explore how environmental education methods can be integrated into existing science

teaching methods courses. However, since environmental science courses were not significantly

related to teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, or teaching practices, more research is needed

to explore how preservice and inservice teachers’ subject-matter learning can be optimally-

supported. Professional development was also shown to be positively related to teachers’

perceived capacities. Further research should explore how to leverage these experiences to not

only increase teachers’ beliefs about and perceived capacities for inquiry-based teaching about

environmental issues, but also their actual engagement in these classroom practices.

Conclusion

Current reform in both science education and environmental education call for students’

development of scientific literacy and environmental literacy (NAAEE, 2000; NRC, 1996,

2009). To become scientifically- and environmentally-literate, students need to engage in

scientific inquiry to learn about environmental issues, or about science in the context of

environmental issues, and for decision-making and action about environmental issues. One way

for this to occur is through integrated, substantive, project-based approaches to science education

that are already being argued for (Grandy & Duschl, 2007). Many contemporary science

curriculum development projects have designed science curricula around this driving principle

(Barab & Luehmann, 2003; Crawford, 2000; Polman, 2004; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, &

Soloway, 2001) in hopes of maximizing student motivation and engagement and making more

50

explicit the connections between often abstract science ‘content’ and the real-world in which

scientific concepts are constructed and used. This illustrates a congruence between current trends

in science education and goals of environmental education. It also suggests that environmental

education can, essentially, find increasingly open avenues into the science curriculum by

piggybacking onto current trends in science education reform.

Unfortunately, existing research highlights the challenges faced not only by

environmental educators, but also science educators promoting inquiry-oriented, project-based

approaches to science teaching and learning. As institutions, schools are highly resilient and

resistant to change. Despite science education reform initiatives over the last 20 years, much

classroom science teaching and learning remains traditional in nature (Duschl, 1994). Grandy

and Duschl (2007) note that the crucial question is whether we try to fit research findings into the

current structures and culture of schools or advocate institutional change such that reformed

schools come to reflect what research says is best practice. This suggests that while further

research on teachers’ beliefs, capacities, and practice can further illuminate these issues, there is

also a need to advocate for a policy and institutional context in which students’ development of

scientific and environmental literacy through scientific inquiry is explicitly prioritized in

curriculum standards and valued as an outcome for student learning.

51

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy,

Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Abell, S.K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman

(Eds). Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective’.

In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds). STS education: International perspectives on

reform. (pp. 169-186). New York: Teachers College Press.

Alvarez, P., de la Fuente, E.I., Perales, F.J., & Garcia, J. (2002). Analysis of a quasi-

experimental design based on environmental problem solving for the initial training of

future teachers of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2),

19-21.

Anderson, R.D. & Mitchener, C.P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D.L. Gabel

(Eds). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. (pp. 3-44). New York:

Macmillan.

Barab, S.A. & Luehmann, A.L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging

and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.

Barab, S.A. & Roth, W-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an

ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.

Bell, C., Shepardson, D., Harbor, J., Klagges, H., Burgess, W., Meyer, J., & Leuenberger, T.

(2003). Enhancing teachers' knowledge and use of inquiry through environmental science

education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 49-71.

52

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Brown, M. (2008). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-

tool relationship. In B. Herbel-Eisenman, J. Remillard, and G. Lloyd (Eds). Mathematics

teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. (pp. 17-

37). New York: Routledge.

Bryan, L.A. & Abell, S.K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach

elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.

Christenson, M.A. (2004). Teaching multiple perspectives on environmental issues in elementary

classrooms: A story of teacher inquiry. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 3-16.

Comeaux, P. & Huber, R. (2001). Students as Scientists: Using interactive technologies and

collaborative inquiry in an environmental science project for teachers and their students.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(4), 235-252.

Couper, M.P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 64, 464-494.

Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based

classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.

Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.

Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the

past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 87-98.

Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of

Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.

53

DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Dillman, D. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology,

17, 225-249.

Dresner, M. (2002). Teachers in the woods: Monitoring forest biodiversity. Journal of

Environmental Education, 34(1), 26-31.

Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Eds).

Handbook of research in science teaching. (pp. 443-465). New York: Macmillan.

Ekborg, M. (2003). How student teachers use scientific conceptions to discuss a complex

environmental issue. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 126-132.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen

and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Forbes, C.T. & Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and

adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science &

Education, 17(8-9), 829-854.

Fortner, R.W. & Meyer, R.L. (2000). Discrepancies among teachers' priorities for and

knowledge of freshwater topics. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 51-53.

Gayford, C. (1998). The perspectives of science teachers in relation to current thinking about

environmental education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(2), 101-

113.

Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional

development of teachers. International Journal of Science Education,(24), 11.

54

Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E. (2005). Education for sustainable development: Configuration and

meaning. Policy Futures in Education, 3(3).

Grandy, R. & Duschl, R.A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school

science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141-166.

Greeno, J. and the Middle School Mathematics Through Application Project Group. (1998). The

situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.

Haefner, L.A. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers'

developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning.

International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.

Heimlich, J.E., Braus, J., Olivolo, B., McKeown-Ice, R., & Barringer-Smith, L. (2004).

Environmental education and preservice teacher preparation: A national study. Journal of

Environmental Education, 35(2).

Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International

Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.

Hopkins, C. & McKeown, R. (1999). Education for sustainable development. Forum for Applied

Research and Public Policy, 14(4), 25-29.

Hsu, S-J & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting Taiwanese secondary teachers' responsible

environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. Journal of

Environmental Education, 30(4), 11-18.

Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society

science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426-440.

55

Kenney, J.L., Militana, H.P., & Donohue, M.H. (2003). Helping teachers to use their school's

backyard as an outdoor classroom: A report on the watershed learning center program.

Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 18-26.

Kim, C. & Fortner, R.W. (2006). Issue-specific barriers to addressing environmental issues in the

classroom: An exploratory study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 15-22.

Kolstø, S., Bungum, B., & Ulvik, Erik Arnesen Anders Isnes Terje Kristensen Ketil Mathiassen

Idar Mestad Andreas Quale Anne Sissel Vedvik Tonning Marit. (2006). Science students'

critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science

Education, 90(4), 632-655.

Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education as critical education: How teachers and

students handle the challenge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 415-432.

Littledyke, M. (1997). Science education for environmental education? Primary teacher

perspectives and practices. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 641-659.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of

pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In In J. Gess-Newsome & N.

Lederman (Eds). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its

implications for science education. (pp. 95-132). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Marx, R. & Harris, C. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities,

challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477.

May, T.S. (2000). Elements of success in environmental education through practitioner eyes.

Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 4-11.

56

McKeown-Ice, R. (2000). Environmental education in the United States: A survey of preservice

teacher education programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 4-11.

McKeown, R. & Hopkins, C. (2005). EE and ESD: Two paradigms, one crucial goal. Applied

Environmental Education and Communication, 4, 221-224.

Meichtry, Y. & Harrell, L. (2002). An environmental education needs assessment of k-12

teachers in Kentucky. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(3), 21-26.

Morton, B.A. & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hour in four subjects by public

school teachers in grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved August 21,

2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007305.

Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor environmental

education on preservice teachers' attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.

Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9-15.

North American Association for Environmental Education (2000). Excellence in environmental

education: Guidelines for learning (k-12). Rock Spring, GA: North American

Association for Environmental Education.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.:

National Research Council.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A

guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places,

and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B.

57

Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, & M.A. Feder (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

Nunnaly, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oulton, D., Dillon, J., & Grace, M.M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial

issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322.

Plevyak, L.H., Bendixen-Noe, M., Henderson, J., Roth, R.E., & Wilke, R. (2001). Level of

teacher preparation and implementation of EE: Mandated and non-mandated EE teacher

preparation states. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 28-36.

Polman, J.L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments.

Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431-466.

Powers, A.L. (2004). Teacher preparation for environmental education: Faculty perspectives on

the infusion of environmental education into preservice methods courses. Journal of

Environmental Education, 35(3), 3-11.

Pruneau, D., Dayon, A., Langis, J., Vasseur, L., Ouellet, E., McLaughlin, E., Boudreau, G., &

Martin, G. (2006). When teachers adopt environmental behaviors in the aim of protecting

the climate. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 3-12.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T.

Buttery, &E. Guyton (Eds). Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 102-119).

New York: Macmillan.

Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the

evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208-320.

58

Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their

influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7),

883-907.

Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.

Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K.M. (2006). Socioscience and

ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376.

Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2006). What do students gain by engaging in

socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.

Sadler, T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of

socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-

138.

Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2001). Performance of students in

project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.

Shepardson, D.P., Harbon, J., Bell, C., Meyer, J., Leuenberger, T., Klagges, H., & Burgess, W.

(2003). ENVISION: Teachers as environmental scientists. Journal of Environmental

Education, 34(2), 8-11.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

59

Southerland, S.A. & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers' views of inclusive science

teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Science Education,

83, 131-150.

Spillane, J.P., Diamond, J.B., Walker, L.J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school

leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an

undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918-940.

Tal, R. & Argaman, S. (2005). Characteristics and difficulties of teachers who mentor

environmental inquiry projects. Research in Science Education, 35, 363-394.

Turner, S. & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakotas in the lab: Science educators

confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 24(1), 5-

30.

Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry:

Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 18(1), 63-89.

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative

experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science

Education, 87(1), 112-143.

Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning,

teaching and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content

representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.

Zint, M. & Peyton, R.B. (2001). Improving risk education in grades 6-12: A needs assessment of

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin science teachers. Journal of Environmental Education,

32(2), 46-54.

60

Appendix A Survey Instrument (Hard Copy)

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Appendix B Survey Instrument (Online Version)

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77