elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: an examination of...

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Scienceand Classroom Practice: An Examination of Pre/PostNCLB Testing in Science

Andrea R. Milner • Toni A. Sondergeld •

Abdulkadir Demir • Carla C. Johnson •

Charlene M. Czerniak

Published online: 25 March 2011

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Abstract The impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandated state science

assessment on elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and their class-

room practice is relatively unknown. For many years, the teaching of science has

been minimized in elementary schools in favor of more emphasis on reading and

mathematics. This study examines the dynamics of bringing science to the forefront

of assessment in elementary schools and the resulting teacher belief and instruc-

tional shifts that take place in response to NCLB. Results indicated that teachers’

beliefs about teaching science remained unchanged despite policy changes man-

dated in NCLB. Teacher beliefs related to their perceptions of what their admin-

istrators and peer groups’ think they should be doing influenced their practice the

most. Most teachers reported positive feelings and attitudes about science and

reported that their students had positive feelings and attitudes about science;

A. R. Milner (&)

Adrian College, Adrian, MI 49221, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

T. A. Sondergeld

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA


A. Demir

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA


C. C. Johnson

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA


C. M. Czerniak

University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA


123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2012) 23:111–132

DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9230-7

however, teachers reported teaching science less as a result of NCLB. Implications

for elementary science education reform and policy are discussed.

Restructuring Science Education Nationally

In response to the realization that other nations have surpassed the U.S. in inno-

vative scientific and technological discovery and potentially economic prosperity,

public decision-makers have lobbied to make science and mathematics education a

top priority (The Obama-Biden Plan 2009). Paralleling the suggestions put forth in

Rising Above the Gathering Storm (CSEPP 2007), national leaders in education and

government have developed priorities for science education. Over the last decade,

these national priorities have evolved from influential policy reports demanding

comprehensive changes in science teaching and learning. Several of these reports

include Project 2061 developed by the American Association for the Advancement

of Science (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989), the National Science Education

Standards developed by the National Research Council and Academy of Science

(NAP 1996), and America 2000 (1991) developed by a committee of the nation’s

governors. Together, the recommendations aim to prepare a scientifically literate

national work force that is prepared to compete in an increasingly scientifically and

technologically oriented global economy.

More recently, the Carnegie Foundation report entitled Opportunity Equation(2009) recommends focusing on four priority areas: (1) higher levels of

mathematics and science learning for all American students; (2) common standards

in mathematics and science that are fewer, clearer, and higher coupled with aligned

assessments; (3) improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better

school and system management; and (4) new designs for schools and systems to

deliver mathematics and science learning more effectively. The current U.S.

Presidential administration has also proposed a plan that prioritizes mathematics and

science instruction in the attempt to prepare young citizens to be active members of

a technologically-dependent society (The Obama-Biden Plan 2009). The Plan ForLifetime Success Through Education seeks to reform the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education 2002), however that will take

some time to accomplish. In the meantime states, schools, and teachers must

strategically work within the confines of this policy to deliver the highest quality

education possible to this nation’s youngest citizens.

NCLB is a federal act that mandates school accountability in its provision of

federal funds (Mahoney and Zigler 2006). Its primary mission is to eliminate the

gaps in academic achievement that are a result of educational inequities due to

social status (Marx and Harris 2006). NCLB relies on large-scale testing (Neil

2003), and when it was first enacted, only mathematics and reading were among

those subject areas tested. However, in the Spring of 2007, science and social

studies were added to the testing requirement, thus leading to many potential

consequences for the design of the science curriculum, and more importantly, the

instructional delivery of science in classrooms across the nation (Johnson 2007a).

112 A. R. Milner et al.

123

Restructuring Science Education Locally

Ironically, despite the good intentions of reforming science education at the national

level, the success of reforms is dependent on the changes that occur at the classroom

level (Anderson and Helms 2001; Johnson et al. 2007). Change in science teaching

practice requires support of local administration and is most effective when a

critical mass of teachers within the school are on board (Anderson and Helms 2001;

Berns and Swanson 2000; Johnson 2009). External supports for teachers overall,

such as resources, preparation time, and administrative support to teach science are

rare (Berns and Swanson 2000). It has been well-documented in the research

literature that elementary teachers lack the content knowledge and, subsequently,

the confidence to teach science effectively to their students (Crawford 2000; Keys

and Bryan 2000; Weiss 1978, 1987; Weiss and Place 1978). Supovitz and Turner

(2000) found that individual teachers’ content knowledge has a ‘‘powerful

influences on teachers’ uses of inquiry-based practices and investigative classroom

culture’’ (p. 976). Murphy et al. (2007) used a mixed-methods research design to

explore some of the key issues hindering the progress of science education. They

found that the major issue elementary teachers face is the lack of ability and

confidence to teach science. Additionally, research on teacher’s beliefs suggests a

strong relationship between beliefs and classroom practices.

The Role of Teachers’ Beliefs on Classroom Practice

Teachers’ beliefs can be described as their convictions, philosophy, tenants, or

opinions about teaching and learning. Both prospective and inservice teachers have

developed their beliefs about teaching from two primary extensive experiences;

namely, the years spent in the classroom as both students and teachers (Perry 1990).

Disconcertingly, the beliefs of teachers are not necessarily consistent with the

literature about best practice in teaching (Battista 1994; Fetters et al. 2002; Haney

et al. 1996). Moreover, teachers’ beliefs appear to be stable and resistant to change

(Kagan 1992; Lumpe et al. 2000). Additionally, teachers’ perceived lack of support

from colleagues and principals have a significant effect on their beliefs (Friedman

2003; Johnson 2007b). Consequently, problems may arise if classroom teachers and

their beliefs about reform are ignored and thus, teacher self-efficacy and belief

structure should be directly addressed (Fetters et al. 2002; Haney et al. 2002, 2003;

Marshall et al. 2009). The Rand Change Agent Study conducted from 1973 to 1978

reported that effective change and program implementation depended more upon

local factors than ‘‘top down’’ methods (McLaughlin 1990). McLaughlin (1987)

indicated, ‘‘What actually is delivered or provided under the aegis of a policy

depends finally on the individual at the end of the line’’ (p. 174). Specifically to

science education, Clark and Peterson (1985) claim that teachers and their beliefs

may play a major role in science education reform since teachers’ beliefs lead to

actions and these actions impact students. This critical relationship between the

beliefs of teachers regarding implementation of reform efforts and instructional

Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 113

123

decisions is well documented (Crawley and Salyer 1995; Johnson 2006; Haney et al.

1996).

According to Bandura (1986), beliefs are thought to be the best indicators of the

decisions people make throughout their lives. Yet, beliefs are often confused with

other related concepts such as attitudes, values, judgments, concepts, and

dispositions. Pajares (1992) explained that clusters of beliefs around a particular

situation form attitudes, and attitudes become action agendas that guide decisions

and behavior. In other words, people act upon what they believe. The connections

among clusters of beliefs create an individual’s values that guide one’s life and

ultimately determine behavior (Ajzen 1985). Teachers possess beliefs regarding

professional practice. Since their beliefs may impact their actions, teachers’ beliefs

play a critical role in paving restructuring science education.

Theory of Planned Behavior

Several research models have been employed to examine human beliefs because of

the growing interest in the role of peoples’ beliefs and their relationship to behavior.

Specifically, Ajzen and Madden’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1986) was

effective in identifying belief factors influencing intention and behavior. The TPB

consists of direct measures of three constructs: attitude toward the behavior (ABD),

subjective norm (SND), and perceived behavioral control (PBCD) (see Fig. 1).

Attitude toward the behavior (AB) encompasses the beliefs about the

consequences of performing a particular behavior and the evaluations of those

consequences. In other words, the AB represents a personal dimension. Subjective

norm (SN) represents a social dimension regarding an individual’s belief about the

extent to which other people, important to his/her life, think the behavior should be

performed. Perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to beliefs regarding the

existence of both resources and obstacles related to engaging in the behavior

(Crawley and Koballa 1992).

Theory of Planned Behavior

Salient Beliefs

Salient Beliefs

Salient Beliefs

Attitude toward the Behavior ABD

Subjective Norm SND

Perceived Behavioral Control PBCD

Behavioral Intent BI

BehaviorB

Fig. 1 Theory of planned behavior


123

Together, the attitude toward behavior (AB), subjective norm (SN), and perceived

behavioral control (PBC) constructs theoretically influence a persons’ intent to

engage in a particular target behavior; called behavioral intention (BI). In turn,

behavioral intention directly influences a persons’ actions or behavior (B), and

salient beliefs and the evaluations of those beliefs influence a persons’ ABD (direct

measure of attitude toward behavior), SND (direct measure of subjective norm), and

PBCD (direct measure of perceived behavioral control). The salient beliefs represent

a collection of the specific AB, SN, and PBC beliefs about the target behavior, thus,

they produce indirect measures of the three constructs (ABI, SNI and PBCI).

Ultimately, the Theory of Planned Behavior links a persons’ behavior to attitudes,

social support, and beliefs about both internal and external control factors. The

Theory of Planned Behavior is a theoretical model that is causal and unidirectional.

As a model of human behavior, a person’s behavior is influenced by his/her salient

beliefs and his/her salient beliefs are influenced by experiences; in other words,

people learn from their experiences. Both social science researchers and science

educators have used the Theory of Planned Behavior to trace the relationship of

beliefs and intention (see Crawley and Koballa 1992; and Koballa and Crawley 1992

for an extensive review of this research). However, few studies used the Theory of

Planned Behavior to examine the beliefs and intentions of science teachers with

regard to reform efforts (See Crawley 1990 and Haney et al. 1996 as exceptions).

Need for This Study

Science is now a critical, high stakes subject under NCLB. Therefore, it is important

that research emerge from the field to compare elementary science teachers’ beliefs

and behavior prior to and after the change in testing requirements. Since NCLB was

in effect for 7 years prior to adding science as a component, it is feasible to conduct

studies that compare elementary science teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices

before and after the science assessment portion of NCLB was implemented.

For the first few years after the implementation of NCLB, schools and teachers

directed most of their energy and resources toward mathematics and reading

instruction, while science was positioned as a lesser priority (Johnson 2007a; Keeley

2009). Griffith and Scharmann (2008) found that elementary teachers, in fact, cut

time from science instruction as a result of NCLB in favor of increased time for

mathematics and reading instruction. A recent study found that the NCLB law lifted

math scores (Zehr 2009), but we know little about the impact on science teaching.

Therefore, there is a necessity for the gap in the literature to be filled with

contemporary research that focuses on if and how elementary teachers’ beliefs about

teaching science have changed as a result of the NCLB science assessment changes.

Additionally, the pressure on teachers to yield high test scores encourages them

to prioritize fact memorization and drill-and-practice routines at the expense of

standards-based instruction (Anderson 2007). These rote instructional methods lead

to a lesser degree of conceptual understanding than the latter strategy (Panijpan

et al. 2008). Thus, there is a need to explore changes in classroom practices before

and after the implementation of science testing in NCLB.


123

Purpose of This Study

The research base has demonstrated that the quality and quantity of elementary

science instruction students in the U.S. receive is lacking (Banilower et al. 2007).

The purpose of this study is to explore the dynamics that impact teacher practice in

elementary science, including teacher beliefs, perceptions, and challenges pre- and

post-NCLB required state science testing. This paper examined four primary

research questions:

(1) What are elementary teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLB

science testing requirement) concerning their science teaching?

(2) Do elementary teachers’ belief-based affects influence their intent to teach

science in their own classrooms (both before and after NCLB state science

testing requirements)?

(3) Do elementary teachers believe NCLB required science testing has impacted

their science teaching? If yes, how?

(4) What influence did NCLB required science testing have on elementary

teacher’s classroom practices?

Methodology

Instrumentation

Over the last decade, using a mixed methods approach to educational research for

the purpose of answering research questions has gained credibility and popularity

(Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). There are many cited advantages to using mixed

methods design, such as: strengths of quantitative offset the weakness of qualitative

and vice versa; use of all tools for data collection helps answer research questions

that cannot be answered alone with one approach; researchers often collaborate

more and use multiple worldviews or paradigms; and it is a practical approach to

understanding phenomena with both numbers and words (Creswell and Clark 2007).

For this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a survey

of practicing teachers’ beliefs about their elementary science teaching pre-required

state science testing and post-required state science testing. Open-ended questions

were included on the survey and analyzed qualitatively. To add depth to the

understanding of teachers’ beliefs about their elementary science teaching and

classroom practices, a small sample of survey respondents were contacted for

further phone interviews after the surveys were collected.

Questionnaire

Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) technique was used to develop the standard

questionnaire to assess the subjects’ salient beliefs related to participating in a

given target behavior. This technique required an initial sample of elementary

teachers to answer open-ended questions regarding their beliefs about teaching


123

science in their classrooms. As part of the open-ended questionnaire, the elementary

teachers were asked to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of teaching

science in their classrooms (representing the attitude toward behavior construct),

their beliefs about who might approve or disapprove of teaching science in their

classrooms (representing the subjective norm construct), and what things would

encourage or discourage them from teaching science in their classrooms

(representing the perceived behavioral control construct). The information gathered

from these open response questions were compiled and content analyzed resulting in

a list of salient beliefs about teaching science in their classrooms (see Table 1).

These salient beliefs were used to construct five point, bipolar semantic

differential items. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), only those salient

beliefs representing a majority of beliefs (75% of teachers) are to be selected for

questionnaire item construction. These semantic differential items comprised the

indirect measures of the three major constructs: attitude toward the behavior (ABI),

Table 1 Salient beliefs of teaching science as listed by elementary teachers

Advantages Disadvantages

Meeting the science standards Taking lots of time to prepare for class

Making learning fun and enjoyable for students Having inadequate materials and equipment

Teaching problem solving about the real world Having nonexistent curriculum

Covering other subject areas while teaching science The school not emphasizing science

Doing hands-on inquiry Experiencing classroom management issues

Motivating the students

Approve Disapprove

My principal My principal

Students School district administration

Other teachers

School district administration

Parents

People from organizations such as zoo, science museum

Encourage Discourage

More time to prepare lessons State pressure to teach/test

reading and math

More time to teach

A teaching assistant (to prepare kits, set up materials,

help work with small groups, etc.)

Having available supplies & equipment

A textbook

Less state pressure to teach reading and math

Professional development in science

A science resource specialist to help me

Tradebooks and other children’s literature focusing on science topics


123

subjective norm (SNI), and perceived behavioral control (PBCI). Based on the

Theory of Planned Behavior, the salient beliefs were combined according to the

linear equation described by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to form indirect measures.

Reliability indices for the indirect measures, direct measures, and measure of

behavioral intent were all calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency

coefficient. Indirect measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral

control scales all showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (ABI = .67;

SNI = .82; PBCI = .71). Reliability indices for the direct attitude, subjective norm,

and perceived behavioral control scales were as follows: ABD = .85; SND = .63;

PBCD = .32. The Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency for behavioral intent

was .83. With the exception of PBCD, all constructs in the model showed

acceptable levels of internal consistency.

Validity evidence of the scales for the indirect and direct measures of the Theory

of Planned Behavior can be inferred from several sources. Content validity evidence

can be presumed for the indirect measures because the salient beliefs emerged from

teachers’ own responses to the open-ended questions. Construct validity evidence is

questionable since significant correlations existed between the direct measures of

the theory constructs and behavioral intention as indicated in the Theory of Planned

Behavior (except post-PBCD), yet few significant correlations existed between

indirect and direct measures (see Fig. 2).

Open-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions were included at the end of the Elementary Science Teaching

Questionnaire. These questions attempted to draw out more in depth information on

teachers’ perceptions of effective science teaching, their ability to teach effectively,

their perceived impacts of NCLB on science teaching, their confidence in teaching

science, and beliefs about their teacher preparation to teach science. All participants

Path Model for Pre- and Post-Survey

ABI

SNI

PBCI

ABD

SND

PBCD

BI B

.027

.025

.452**

.301

.052

.062

.232***

.315***

.258***

.417***

.166***

.124

Fig. 2 Path model for pre- and post-survey. Note: Post-survey results indicated with italics. ***p \ .001


123

who completed the questionnaire were given the chance to complete the open-ended

questions as well regardless of survey administration time.

Telephone Interviews

The Theory of Planned Behavior (and quantitative questionnaire described above) is

a predictive model that examines the relationships between salient beliefs and intentto engage in a certain behavior (in this study the intended behavior was teaching

science in elementary classrooms). The quantitative questionnaire does not examine

actual behavior. Thus, we used a telephone interview protocol to obtain a sense of

actual classroom science teaching in the week of or prior to the interviews.

The research team developed the phone interview protocol. Phone interviews

were semi-structured and consisted of 19 questions. Fourteen of the questions asked

focused directly on a science topic the teacher had taught in the week of or prior to

the interview. The remaining 5 questions focused on the perceived impact of NCLB

on the elementary teacher’s science instruction. The interviews were an essential

source of information (Yin 2003) as they focused on the specific experiences and

perceptions of the teachers involved in this study (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003).

Participants

Questionnaire

To solicit the salient beliefs from a representative sample of elementary teachers

(which would be used to construct the Elementary Science Teaching Questionnaire),

we had 44 teachers completed the open ended survey of beliefs. The Elementary

Science Teaching Questionnaire was administered to a randomly selected national

sample of elementary school teachers obtained from the National Registry of

Teachers (which includes all teachers in the nation) from the National Science

Teacher Association once before the required NCLB testing in science (December

2006) and again after the required NCLB testing in science (December 2007). In

each administration, a random sample of 7,500 teachers was selected to receive the

questionnaire. The sample was randomly selected and stratified based on the

population of each state.

Teachers were mailed the survey and asked to complete then return it in an

enclosed pre-paid postage envelope. A post card reminder went out to all potential

participants after 3 weeks asking them to complete and return the survey if they had

not already done so. Although the researchers intended for this to be a randomly

selected sample of all elementary teachers nationally, due to the non-response of

many potential participants the limitations of a convenience sample must be noted.

A good number of teachers surveyed returned the survey or sent an email indicating

that they do not teach science, which, in hindsight, we believe is a problem when

sampling elementary teachers who either do not view themselves as science teachers

or who make informal agreements with peers to teach some subject areas leaving

science to be taught by another teacher in the building. While our response rates are

low, direct mail survey response rates are rarely over 30% (Alreck and Settle 2004),


123

and research has documented a trend of decreasing response rates to traditional mail

surveys since the early 1960s (Dey 1997).

In comparing the demographics from the pre-survey to the post-survey sample,

Table 2 indicates the groups, although largely different in size, were highly similar

with regard to relevant demographics. Both samples were comprised of mostly

White female teachers fairly evenly distributed across grade level taught.

Phone Interviews

Survey participants who responded to the questionnaire prior to the required state

science testing had the opportunity to further volunteer to be contacted by the

researchers about their science teaching beliefs. All teachers who volunteered for

this were initially contacted (n = 171), and 22 of them were available and willing to

speak with researchers for a brief 20–30 min interview. Limited demographic

information was collected from these participants. From the 22 elementary school

teachers interviewed, the vast majority was female (91%; n = 20). These

elementary teachers interviewed were largely from public schools (86%, n = 15),

followed by private/independent (18%, n = 4), and Catholic (14%, n = 3). The

grade levels taught ranged from Kindergarten to 5th grade with the majority teaching

at the early childhood level of K-3 (59%; n = 13) and fewer teaching in the middle

grades—4th and 5th—of an elementary school (41%; n = 9).

Results

RQ1: What are science teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLBscience testing requirement) concerning their elementary science teaching?

Many of the advantages for teaching science listed by the elementary teachers

focused on making science interesting and relevant for the students as well as

meeting the science standards (see Table 1). Some teachers were concerned about

the time it takes to prepare for science teaching and the inadequate access to

materials and supplies. They were also concerned about classroom management

issues. The approving and disapproving groups of people include many of the

groups who commonly interface with schools. It was interesting to note that

teachers believed people from organizations such as the zoo and science museum

would approve. Some teachers indicated available resources (funding, curriculum

materials, supplies and equipment, etc.) and staff development opportunities

would encourage them teach science. Others stressed the importance of a science

support specialist and teaching assistant who could help them prepare kits, set up

materials, and work with small groups of students). Finally, a number of teachers

felt that state pressures to teach mathematics and reading discouraged the teaching

of science.

Descriptive statistics for the pre- and post-survey model variables were very

similar and can be viewed in Table 3. On average, the teachers held positive beliefs

concerning attitude and subjective norm (ABI and SNI). A moderately positive


123

Table 2 Pre- and post-survey participant demographics

Demographic Pre-survey sample Post-survey sample

Randomly selected sample 100% (N = 7,500) 100% (N = 7,500)

Response rate 6.7% (n = 502) 2.3% (n = 170)

Ethnicity

Black 3.8% (n = 19) 2.9% (n = 5)

Hispanic 3.4% (n = 17) 2.9% (n = 5)

Other 2.8% (n = 14) 2.9% (n = 5)

White 89.2% (n = 448) 88.2% (n = 150)

Not identified .8% (n = 4) 2.9% (n = 5)

Gender

Female 87.1% (n = 437) 87.6% (n = 149)

Male 10.0% (n = 50) 8.2% (n = 14)

Not identified 3.0% (n = 15) 4.1% (n = 7)

Years teaching experience

Lowest 2.0 years 1.0 year

Highest 46.0 years 40.0 years

Mean 16.6 years 17.8 years

Median 15.0 years 17.0 years

SD 10.0 years 9.7 years


Number of days/week teach sci

0–1 Days 7.2% (n = 36) 8.9% (n = 15)

2–3 Days 38.4% (n = 193) 34.1% (n = 58)

4–5 Days 51.4% (n = 258) 50.1% (n = 85)

5 Days 3.0% (n = 15) 7.0% (n = 12)

Not identified

Current grade teaching

Pre-K-3rd 52.2% (n = 262) 47.1% (n = 80)

4th-5th 27.7% (n = 139) 29.4% (n = 50)

6th-7th 20.1% (n = 101) 5.3% (n = 9)


District location

Urban 17.5% (n = 88) 27.1% (n = 46)

Suburban 35.9% (n = 180) 25.9% (n = 44)

Rural 40.6% (n = 204) 37.6% (n = 64)


Highest degree obtained

Bachelor’s 48.2% (n = 242) 39.4% (n = 67)

Masters 44.4% (n = 223) 54.7% (n = 93)

Specialist/Ph.D. 3.2% (n = 16) 0.6% (n = 1)



123

mean (compared to the possible maximum score) for perceived behavioral control

(PBCI) indicates that the teachers did not feel overly confident that specific external

control factors such as supplies, equipment, and time will be available to assist them

with their science instruction. Elementary teachers’ direct attitude toward teaching

science (ABD) was high. The average direct subjective norm (SND) was high as

well indicating that the average teacher felt there was a high likelihood that other

people would influence their teaching science. Although the teachers were not very

confident that they would be able to easily teach science in their own classrooms

(PBCD), they felt strongly that they would in fact teach science in their elementary

classrooms (BI).

Figure 2 identifies the statistically significant and non-significant pathways found

from the regression analyses. Indirect measures of the theory construct (ABD, SND,

PBCD) were correlated to their direct measures (ABI, SNI, PBCI, respectively). The

path coefficients are standardized betas from the regression models (see Table 4).

Statistical pathway findings for pre- and post-survey administration were the same

with the only statistically significant pathway being from the indirect measure of

subjective norm (SNI) to the direct measure of subjective norm (SND) (pre-survey:

F = 125.48, p \ .001 r = .452; post-survey: F = 16.46, p \ .001, r = .301). The

indirect measure of attitude toward behavior (ABI) did not significantly predict

teachers’ direct attitude toward behavior (ABD) in either the pre- or post-survey

(pre-survey: F = .365, p = .546; post-survey: F = .106, p = .745). Similarly, the

indirect measure of subjective norm (PBCI) did not significantly predict teachers’

direct subjective norm (PBCD) in either the pre- or post-survey (pre-survey:

F = 1.33, p = .250; post-survey: F = .650, p = .421).

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey (n = 170)

Scale Mean SD Minimum Maximum

ABI (indirect attitude toward behavior) 13.74 7.10 -13 44

15.50 7.43 0 42

SNI (indirect subjective norm) 15.93 6.35 -10 24

15.91 6.37 -9 24

PBCI (indirect perceived behavioral control) 6.25 9.03 -28 29

8.46 8.86 -12 33

ABD (direct attitude toward behavior) 5.86 2.25 -8 9

5.89 2.50 -7 9

SND (direct subjective norm) 4.21 2.00 -5 6

4.19 1.93 -4 6

PBCD (direct perceived behavioral control) 1.97 1.88 -4 4

1.91 1.81 -4 4

BI (behavioral intent) 5.75 1.17 -6 6

5.46 1.72 -6 6

Post-survey data indicated with italics


123

RQ2: Do elementary school teachers’ belief-based affects influence their intent toteach science in their own classrooms (both before and after NCLB state sciencetesting requirements)?

Multiple regression results revealed that the behavioral intention (BI) of the

teachers was significantly linked to all three of the direct measures of the theory

constructs combined in the pre- (F = 32.72, p \ .001, r = .415) and post-survey

(F = 25.49, p \ .001, r = .571). As shown in Table 5, subjective norm provided

the strongest influence on teachers’ behavioral intention for both the pre- and post-

survey. This was followed by attitude toward the behavior, and finally perceived

behavioral control, which was the weakest predictor of behavioral intent.

RQ3: Do elementary science teachers believe NCLB required science testing hasimpacted their science teaching? If yes, how?

As far as strengths of the NCLB act, two teachers declared that it has ‘‘good

intentions’’ and is a ‘‘noble idea’’. Another teacher continues, ‘‘This year our fourth

Table 4 Regression analysis for indirect to direct measures for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey

(n = 170)

Direct measure

Indirect measure (predictor) r r2 F B SEB b t

Attitude toward Behavior (ABD) .027 -.001 .365 .009 .014 .027 .604

ABI .025 -.005 .106 .008 .026 .025 .325

Subjective Norm Behavior (SND) .452 .203 125.48 .143 .013 .452 8.81***

SNI .301 .085 16.46 .091 .023 .301 4.06***

Perceived Behavioral Control (PBCD) .052 .001 1.33 .011 .009 .052 1.15

PBCI .062 -002 .650 .013 .016 .062 .806

Post-survey data indicated with italics. ***p \ .001

Table 5 Regression analysis for behavioral intent (BI) for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey (n = 170)

r r2 F

.415 .167 32.72

.571 .313 25.49

Predictors B SEB b t

ABD (direct attitude toward behavior) .109 .020 .232 5.46***

.238 .050 .315 4.73***

SND (direct subjective norm) .137 .022 .258 6.11***

.372 .058 .417 6.37***

PBCD (direct perceived behavioral control) .094 .024 .166 3.94***

.119 .064 .124 1.87

Post-survey data indicated with italics. ***p \ .001


123

graders were tested in science. That will trickle down to the rest of us, I suppose,

and we will probably get tested down the line. That means we, as a District,

will place more priority in science. Another change for our district is a new

elementary science series that emphasizes both content and hands-on activities.

Our district not only bought the textbooks, but also bought the experiment kits for

each elementary classroom and sets of supplementary science books to be used in

reading groups.’’ Notwithstanding, the content analysis of the categories that

emerged from the phone interviews highlights the many challenges classroom

teachers face in the climate NCLB has created in the elementary classroom in

regard to science.

Many teachers themselves reported positive feelings and attitudes about science,

but this was unrelated to NCLB testing requirements. Some teacher quotes include,

‘‘I love science and hope to pass it on to my students…I love teaching

science…Science is my favorite subject’’. Additionally, 20 teachers reported that

their students had positive feelings and attitudes about science. Still, one teacher

reported that their students did not like science and one teacher reported their

students were bored with science.

RQ4: What influence did NCLB required science testing have on elementaryteacher’s classroom practices?

It is evident through the analysis of the phone interviews that the categories that

emerged show a complex learning environment with which elementary science

teachers deal. Although there were certainly examples of effective science teaching,

the data suggest a number of reasons why effective science teaching is not more

prevalent in the elementary schools. These reasons are underscored in the many

contradictory responses to the interview questions. For example, more than two-

thirds of the teachers interviewed (n = 15) reported using inquiry methods,

experiments, discovery, research and hands-on activities to teach; however, 73%

(n = 16) of these teachers declared that lack of time for quality science is the

biggest challenge NCLB has imposed on elementary classroom teachers. As one

teacher stated, ‘‘NCLB has taken away from all other things school is about;

science, art, music…’’ Thirty-six percent (n = 8) of the teachers reported linking

science education to reading/writing/literacy/spelling in order to satisfy science

requirements while focusing on the NCLB test with one teacher reasoning that,

‘‘…it was easy to fit in with the reading series.’’

Teacher autonomy was reported as limited. Eighty-two percent of the teachers

(n = 18) explained that state or school mandates were the reason they chose to

teach their particular science topics. Only one teacher reported teaching the topic

because it was relevant to the children in her classroom. Additionally, 23% (n = 5)

of the teachers stated that NCLB has taken away from individuality of both the

teachers as well as the students. And, according to one teacher, ‘‘NCLB is a crock of

crap! Diversity is necessary to sustain an environment!’’

The number one goal and objective reported from the teachers was student

comprehension and understanding of the topic being studied (45%; n = 10). Most

teachers reported using multiple instructional materials and methods to teach. One

teacher reported using, ‘‘multiple representations of info for all learning types.’’


123

Half of the teachers interviewed (n = 11) said they used technology and videos to

teach science. Half (n = 11) also reported using textbooks, trade books, and

workbooks to teach. Nearly two-thirds of the teachers (64%; n = 14) reported their

students engaged in hands-on activities and experiments while only one teacher

reported her students worked independently. Conversely, one teacher reported using

lecture and another teacher reported using demonstrations to teach. Most teachers

reported using multiple assessment strategies ranging from simple question and

answer sessions, performance assessments, and tests and quizzes. Related to student

comprehension, understanding, and assessment, 73% (n = 16) teachers reported

that their students met the learning objectives to some extent. Nonetheless, 18%

(n = 4) teachers reported that student comprehension of abstract concepts was their

biggest challenge.

From the open ended questionnaire, teachers reported at the time of the pretest,

6% (n = 28/451) believed that NCLB resulted in there being less emphasis on

science while 29% (n = 133/451) believed that it led to there being more

emphasis on science. At the posttest, the results show that 33% (n = 54/163) felt

NCLB resulted in less emphasis on science and only 2% (n = 4/163) who felt that

there was more emphasis on science (see Table 6). The responses teachers offered

at each time period indicate a different impact of NCLB on science instruction.

Pre-survey data implied there was more emphasis on science following the

implementation of NCLB. This is contradictory to the post-survey data, which

showed respondents believed less time and emphasis was directed toward this

subject.

Since the data from the pre and post surveys contradict one another, it may be

that at the time of this study, the teachers did not have a full understanding of NCLB

and its impact on their lives. For example, a respondent from Massachusetts said

Table 6 Open-ended

questionnaire responses about

NCLB’s impact on science

teaching in the classroom for

pre- (n = 451) and post-survey

(n = 163)

Post-survey data indicated with

italics

Theme reported Percentage (frequency)

No impact 33% (n = 151)

34% (n = 56)

Have no idea 4% (n = 19)

.06% (n = 1)

Less emphasis on science 6% (n = 28)

33% (n = 28)

More pressure on teacher and student 3% (n = 15)

5% (n = 8)

More emphasis on testing 10% (n = 43)

5% (n = 8)

More emphasis on science 29% (n = 133)

2% (n = 4)

More time and resources needed 5% (n = 22)

1% (n = 2)

Little impact 3% (n = 14)

1% (n = 2)


123

NCLB had negatively affected the science curriculum at that school, as they were

explicitly told not to teach science. In Illinois, a teacher commented, ‘‘Yes we do

spend a lot of time working with our low [performing] kids, and not so much with

science’’. An explanation for this may be reflected in the statement from a teacher in

Utah, ‘‘[The] more emphasis on language arts and math has decreased science.

Since [science] is not assessed, it gets pushed to the back’’. There are, however,

exceptions to this in certain cases. Teachers who teach in private schools, which are

not subject to the NCLB testing requirements, responded that NCLB has not had an

effect on the way their school taught science. Teachers in states such as Florida and

Pennsylvania where there is a state-mandated science test explained that there was

more emphasis on science, since there was pressure on the students to pass the

science portion of the test. The Florida teachers point out that, ‘‘there is much more

emphasis on Science due to the 5th grade Science FCAT test that affects our school

grade’’ and ‘‘I think the Florida State Assessment Tests starting in 5th grade has had

an impact’’. The Pennsylvania teachers echo this as well. ‘‘I absolutely believe this.

Before science was part of our state assessment, we were told not to spend more

than an hour a week on science or history’’.

Discussion and Implications

Research Methods

While Ajzen and Madden’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1986) is well

established and widely used in exploring human beliefs and their relation to

behavior, this study shows that the theory did not entirely hold up when

investigating teachers’ beliefs about teaching science in their classrooms. Specif-

ically, the direct perceived behavioral control (PBCD) construct had very low

internal consistency, and half of the theorized paths were not highly correlated. This

implies that caution must be used when interpreting the quantitative results from the

PBCD construct. Thus, this study supports the notion that the Theory of Planned

Behavior needs further examination when being used to explore teacher beliefs

about teaching science. However, the quantitative results were only one component

of this study. Qualitative results from open-ended questions on the questionnaire

and interviews highly supported the quantitative data regardless of the quantitative

model inconsistencies. Therefore, this study supports the use of mixed-methods

research in educational research since the qualitative data substantiated the

conclusions drawn from the quantitative data even with the somewhat flawed

quantitative theory.

K-12 Science Teaching

This study was designed to explore the impact of No Child Left Behind policy on

teachers’ beliefs and enacted science teaching practice. The first research question

dealt with elementary science teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLB


123

science testing requirement) concerning their science teaching. In general,

elementary teachers saw the benefit of making science relevant to their students

and meeting state and national standards, but there were many perceived

impediments to teaching science including those commonly reported in educational

literature including lack of time, resources, and materials as well as the lack of

professional development (Beck et al. 2000; DeSouza and Czerniak 2003; Haney

et al. 2002, 2003).

Interestingly, we found that teachers’ beliefs were more influenced by their

administration and peer group than they were by federally mandated policy.

Teachers indicated that time and resources were barriers but the opinions of others

and school mandates were the most closely aligned to their emerging practice.

These findings are similar to previous studies related to science reform projects in

that teacher beliefs are the key to whether or not instructional practices will be

changed and how they will be implemented and sustained (Anderson 2002; Battista

1994; Blumenfeld et al. 1994; Borko and Shavelson 1990; Fullan 2001; Loucks-

Horsley and Matsumoto 1999).

Through this study we found evidence that highlights a continued need to address

teacher beliefs regarding the teaching of science. Teacher beliefs are often not the

primary focus of professional development programs—which often target peda-

gogical content knowledge. Gess-Newsome (2003) argued that professional

development programs have rarely resulted in change due to lack of focus on

‘‘fundamental and complex beliefs about what it means to teach science’’ (p. 10). In-

service, as well as pre-service science teacher programs should ground their

experiences in a purposeful focus on existing beliefs of current and future teachers.

A more holistic program including the larger picture of the link between science

performance nationally and our future competitiveness in the global arena could

accomplish this. Once teachers have a more global perspective on the importance of

science in elementary grades, then emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring

elementary teachers have the educational preparation, resources, time, and support

to teach science effectively.

The second research question explored whether elementary school teachers’

belief-based affects influenced their intent to teach science in their own classrooms

(both before and after NCLB state science testing requirements). All of the three

constructs in the Ajzen and Fishbein Theory of Planned Behavior (1980) were

significant in predicting intention to teach science at the elementary level before

NCLB, but one variable (Perceived Behavioral Control) was not predictive of

intention to teach science after NCLB. This suggests that it is important for

elementary teachers to have a positive attitude about teaching science, but they also

need to be supported by the people who interface with schools, and they need to

have the time and resources to teach science so they believe they have the personal

ability and control to teach science.

The third and fourth research questions examined elementary science teachers’

beliefs as to whether the NCLB required science testing has impacted their science

teaching and the impact of NCLB on their teaching. We found that many teachers

believed that NCLB resulted in less science being taught at the elementary level.

This supports the findings of Griffith and Scharmann (2008) and Pratt (2007) who


123

found that elementary teachers reported a reduction in science teaching as a result of

NCLB. Teachers in our study reported decreasing time spent on science to help

children (oftentimes low performing children) on reading and mathematics. This

belief conflicts with research illustrating that science instruction at the elementary

level raises performance in mathematics and reading, even with at-risk students

(Klentschy 2006).

Some of our teachers reported that they were told by an administrator not to teach

science. Griffith and Scharmann (2008) also reported that a school administrator had

instructed teachers to reduce time teaching science in order to teach mathematics

and reading. Several studies have revealed the negative consequences of account-

ability on the teaching of science through inquiry (Anderson 1996, 2002; Johnson

2006, 2007a). ‘‘Principal support, coupled with school culture that both values

science as a core subject and provides an overall culture to support reform, is all too

rare,’’ (p. 11) and this lack of support has obvious implications on teachers of

science, according to Berns and Swanson (2000). Recently, Johnson (2006) found

that cultural barriers including teacher beliefs and political barriers including

perceived administrative support were the most influential on science teacher

practice. Follow-up interviews in our study gleaned some insight into teacher beliefs

that revealed state and local leaders may have not embraced the significance of the

reform mandates based upon the fact that NCLB uses only reading and mathematics

scores to determine individual schools adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Pratt (2007) reported that the pressure of the NCLB law has had the effect of

squeezing science out of the elementary school curriculum, and ‘‘many teachers

assume that children can ‘catch up’ on science when they reach middle school and

high school.’’ However, the National Science Education Standards (NAP 1996),

AAAS Benchmarks (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989), and more recently the work

focused on elementary science (Duschl et al. 2007; Michaels et al. 2008) illustrate

the complex nature of learning starting with young children. Prior knowledge is the

foundation for new learning, and students learn by progressing through increasing

complex concepts and skills. If students are not taught science at the elementary

level, the chances of doing well in later grades are low because they will have failed

to learn basic skills and we will have lost the chance to build interest in science

when children are young (Pratt 2007). The lack of quality science instruction at the

elementary level has resulted in a knowledge gap so large that it is often not

remedied through further years of schooling (Goldston 2005). Stakeholders in

science education realize that science instruction in elementary grades is a critical

issue that must be addressed (Keeley 2009; NSTA 2002). Findings from our study

indicate that until state and local leaders make science learning a priority at all grade

levels, this problem will continue to persist.

Finally, policy makers need to close the loop and take all core subjects into

consideration when determining annual school progress. There is a disconnect

between the message that NCLB intended and what is being delivered in the minds

of classroom teachers and school administrators. Testing without inclusion in AYP

has resulted in testing for the sake of testing, and the mistaken belief that science

instruction is not as important as mathematics or reading. Pratt (2007) states:


123

The reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law could provide an

opportunity to raise elementary science to a more prominent place in the

curriculum. The current law calls, in fact, for the implementation this school

year of testing in science at three levels (elementary, middle, and high school).

Yet, the results of these tests need not be factored into the goals for making

‘‘adequate yearly progress.’’ The Bush administration’s recommendations for

the reauthorization of the law call for all students to be proficient in science …but not until 2019–20. Can we wait that long?

Until there are consequences for school performance in science, the teaching of

elementary science will continue to be minimized further eroding our nation’s goals

for improved STEM education, advanced innovation, and improved economic

prosperity.

Figure 3 depicts how we might think about the relationships among the

implications from this study (policy, administrative support in K-12 schools, teacher

education, teacher beliefs and attitudes, and student learning). If the ultimate goal in

our K-12 schools is to impact student learning, there are layers that filter the

probability that student learning will occur in elementary science. Federal policy

must make elementary science important and it must ‘‘count’’ in the minds of school

administrators (i.e., science should be taught and teachers need the proper

curriculum, resources and time to teach it). Teacher education programs must

prepare elementary teachers to teach science effectively, and elementary teachers’

beliefs should be considered as an important variable which impacts whether

science is taught in elementary schools. Only when all of the outer elements in this

figure are inline and working for the same purpose can we really begin to have an

impact on student learning of science.

Fig. 3 Relationship between policy, teacher education, beliefs, and student learning


123

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman

(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and

perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill,

Irwin.

America 2000. (1991). An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Vol. 1: Findings and conclusions. Studies of

educational reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397535).

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal ofScience Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

Anderson, R. D. (2007). Teaching the theory of evolution in social, intellectual, and pedagogical context.

Science Education, 91, 664–667.

Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed

research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the

standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through

teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.

Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement of mathematics education. Phi DeltaKappan, 75(2), 462–470.

Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the

implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4),

323–343.

Berns, B. B., & Swanson, J. (2000, April). Middle school science: Working in a confused context. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,

LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444944).

Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned. How collaboration

helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 94(5), 539–551.

Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),

Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 311–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Carnegie Foundation. (2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and scienceeducation for citizenship and the global economy. New York: Institute for Advanced Study.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Raising above the gathering storm:Energizing and empowering America for brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press.

Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

Crawley, F. E. (1990). Intentions of science teachers to use investigative teaching methods: A test of the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 685–697.

Crawley, F. E., & Koballa, T. R. (1992, March). Attitude/Behavior behavior change in science education:Part I—Models models and methods. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Crawley, F. E., & Salyer, B. A. (1995). Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying curriculum

reform in Texas. Science Education, 79(6), 611–635.

Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.


123

DeSouza, J. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Study of science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about

collaborative reflective practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 1–31.

Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting adjustments.

Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215–227.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning andteaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing

teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101–130.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, I. A. (2003). Self-efficacy and burnout in teaching: the importance of interpersonal-relations

efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 191–215.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2003, April). Implications of the definitions of knowledge and beliefs on research andpractice in science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

Goldston, D. (2005). Elementary science: Left behind? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2),

185–187.

Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science

education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.

Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions regarding the

implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,

971–993.

Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Constructivist beliefs about the science classroom

learning environment: Perspectives from teachers, administrators, parents, community members,

and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 336–377.

Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and

actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171–187.

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers teachers

encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 1–12.

Johnson, C. C. (2007a). Effective science teaching, professional development and no child left behind:

Barriers, dilemmas, and reality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 133–136.

Johnson, C. C. (2007b). Whole school collaborative professional development and science teacher

change: Signs of success. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 629–662.

Johnson, C. C. (2009). An examination of effective practice: moving toward elimination of achievement

gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 287–306.

Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. (2007). A study of sustained, whole-school, professional

development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,

775–786.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65–90.

Keeley, P. (2009). Elementary science education in the K-12 system. NSTA Reports. Retrieved from

http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=55954.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2000). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential

research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.

Klentschy, M. (2006, April). Student achievement through active science learning. Paper presented at the

National Science Teachers Association annual convention, Anaheim, CA.

Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E. (1992). Attitude/Behavior change in science education: Part II—Results

of an ongoing research agenda. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association

for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of

mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–271.

Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science

teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.

Mahoney, J. L., & Zigler, E. F. (2006). Translating science to policy under the no child left behind act of

2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21st century community learning center. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 282–294.


123

http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=55954

Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’

beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 7, 575–596.

Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities,

challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–466.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro

realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.

Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research towork in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten years on.

Educational Research, 49, 415–430.

National Academy Press. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2002). NSTA position statement: Elementary school science.

Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/

about/positions/elementary.aspx.

Neil, M. (2003). NCLB: Don’t mourn, organize! Rethinking Schools Online, 18(1). Retrieved from

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_01/nclb181.shtml.

Obama for America. (2009). The Obama-Biden plan. Retrieved from http://www.barackobama.com/

pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Reviewof Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Panijpan, B., Ruenwongsa, P., & Sriwattanarothai, N. (2008). Problems encountered in teaching/learning

integrated photosynthesis: A case of ineffective pedagogical practice. Bioscience Education, 12(3).

Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol12/beej-12-3.aspx.

Perry, C. M. (1990, April). A pilot study of preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs about effectiveteaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Boston, MA.

Pratt, H. (2007). Science education’s ‘overlooked ingredient’: Why the path to global competitivenessbegins in elementary school. Retrieved from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_

10_29_pratt.htm.

Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989) American Association for the Advancement of Science. In Sciencefor all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching

practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitativeand qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). NCLB and Other Elementary/Secondary Policy Documents.Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb.

Weiss, I. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey on science, mathematics, and social studies.

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research

Triangle Institute.

Weiss, I. (1987). 1985–86 National survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle

Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Weiss, I., & Place, C. (1978). Proceedings from AERA 1978: 1977 survey of science, mathematics andsocial studies education: Implications for teacher education. Toronto, Canada.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Zehr, M. A. (2009). Study finds NCLB lifted math scores, but not reading. Education Week, 29(13), 8–9.


123

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_01/nclb181.shtml

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol12/beej-12-3.aspx

http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_10_29_pratt.htm

http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_10_29_pratt.htm

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb