newly hired teachers of science

New

ly Hired Teachers of Science

Julie A. Luft and Shannon L. Dubois (Eds.)

Spine12.014 mm

Newly Hired Teachers of ScienceA Better Beginning

Julie A. Luft and Shannon L. Dubois (Eds.)

S e n s e P u b l i s h e r s

Newly Hired Teachers of ScienceA Better BeginningJulie A. LuftUniversity of Georgia, USA

and

Shannon L. Dubois (Eds.)Valparaiso University, USA

Supporting newly hired science teachers has taken on an increased importance in our schools. This book shares the most current information about the status of newly hired science teachers, different ways in which to support newly hired science teachers, and different research approaches that can provide new information about this group of teachers. Chapters in the book are written by those who study the status of beginning science teachers, mentor new teachers, develop induction programs, and research the development of new science teachers.

Newly Hired Teachers of Science is for administrators who have new science teachers in their schools and districts, professionals who create science teacher induction programs, mentors who work closely with new science teachers, educational researchers interested in studying new science teachers, and even new science teachers. This is a comprehensive discussion about new science teachers that will be a guiding document for years to come.

ISBN 978-94-6300-281-3

CHPS 5

C U L T U R A L A N D H I S T O R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E S O N S C I E N C E E D U C A T I O NC U L T U R A L A N D H I S T O R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E S O N S C I E N C E E D U C A T I O N : D I S T I N G U I S H E D C O N T R I B U T O R S

Distinguished Contributors

Newly Hired Teachers of Science

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE EDUCATION:DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTORS

Volume 5

Series Editors

Catherine Milne, New York University, USAKate Scantlebury, University of Delaware, USA

Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Science Education: Distinguished Contributors features a profile of scholarly products selected from across the career of an outstanding science education researcher. Although there are several variants in regards to what is included in the volumes of the series the most basic form con-sists of republication of 8-10 of the scholar’s most significant publications along with a critical review and commentary of these pieces in terms of the field at the time of doing the work, the theories underpinning the research and the methods em-ployed, and the extent to which the work made an impact in science education and beyond. Another genre of Key Works republishes the most influential research in a selected area of interest to science educators. Examples of the areas we will feature include science teacher education, science teaching, language in science, equity, the social nature of scientific knowledge, and conceptions and conceptual change. Col-lections of articles are placed in an historical context and the rationale for changing perspectives is provided and analyzed in relation to advances and changing priorities in science education. Each volume shows how individuals shaped and were shaped by the cultural context of science education, including its historical unfolding.

Newly Hired Teachers of ScienceA Better Beginning

Edited by

Julie A. LuftUniversity of Georgia, USA

and

Shannon L. DuboisValparaiso University, USA

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6300-281-3 (paperback)ISBN: 978-94-6300-282-0 (hardback)ISBN: 978-94-6300-283-7 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858,3001 AW Rotterdam,The Netherlandshttps://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2015 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

This book is dedicated to our parents, three of whom experienced the first years of teaching.

vii

TAbLE Of CONTENTS

A Better Beginning: Supporting Our Newly Hired Science Teachers ixJulie A. Luft and Shannon L. Dubois

Section 1: Looking at Newly Hired Science Teachers

1. The First Five Years: What the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Reveals about Novice Science Teachers and Their Teaching 3Eric R. Banilower, Peggy J. Trygstad and P. Sean Smith

2. Perceived Support and Retention of First Year Secondary Science Teachers 31Sissy S. Wong, Jonah B. Firestone, Richard L. Lamb and Julie A. Luft

3. Building Strong Foundations: Suggestions for Newly Hired Science Teachers and Coaches 43Michelle Brown

Section 2: Newly Hired Science Teacher Development

4. Exploring Beginning Teachers’ Content Knowledge 57Kathleen M. Hill and Julie A. Luft

5. Teaching Chemistry with a Biology Degree: Crosscutting Concepts as Boundary Objects 75Ryan S. Nixon and Julie A. Luft

6. Plugging the ‘Leaky Bucket’ of Early Career Science Teacher Attrition through the Development of Professional Vision 87Gregory T. Rushton and Brett A. Criswell

7. Creating Awareness of Science Teacher Identity: The Importance of Who Newly Hired Teachers of Science Are Expected to Be and Who They Become during Induction 99Angela W. Webb

Section 3: Supporting Newly Hired Science Teachers

8. Teach to Learn: An Example of an Early Career Teacher Development Program 115Benjamin K. Campbell, James D. Barlament, Amy R. Peacock, Glenda Huff, Janna Dresden, Noris Price and Erica L. Gilbertson

Table of ConTenTs

viii

9. Moving towards Comprehensive Induction Systems for New Teachers of Science through the Use of Technology Enhanced Communities of Practice 129Joel D. Donna and Gillian H. Roehrig

10. Professional Learning Community-Based Induction: Creating Support for New Teachers of Science 145Jacqueline T. McDonnough and Molly M. Henschel

11. Establishing Professional Practice through a New Teacher Support Group 155Hillary Merk, Tori Baird, Aliceson Brandt, Katie Greisen, Sophia Jackson and Jalah Reid

12. Creating Supports for the Development of High-Leverage Teaching Practices in Secondary Science Classrooms: From Preparation through Induction 165Gail Richmond

13. Supporting Ambitious Instruction by Beginning Teachers with Specialized Tools and Practices 181David Stroupe and Mark Windschitl

Connecting Research to Practice for Better Beginnings: Drawing upon What We Know to Enhance the Teaching and Learning of Newly Hired Science Teachers 197Julie A. Luft, Shannon L. Dubois, Eric R. Banilower, Benjamin J. Campbell, Brett A. Criswell, Joel D. Donna, Jonah B. Firestone, Katie Greisen, Molly M. Henschel, Kathleen M. Hill, Jacqueline T. McDonnough, Hillary Merk, Ryan S. Nixon, Gail Richmond, Gillian H. Roehrig, Gregory T. Rushton, David Stoupe, Angela W. Webb, Mark Windschitl and Sissy S. Wong

Contributors 205

Index 211

ix

JULIE A. LUFT AND SHANNON L. DUBOIS

A bETTER bEgINNINg

Supporting Our Newly Hired Science Teachers

INTRODUCTION

The education of teachers has often been viewed as a two-step process. Initial teacher preparation, which focuses on theory and practice, is often considered the first step, while in-service teacher education, which focuses on the improvement of practice and theory, is the second. Often in-service teacher education begins when a teacher becomes solely responsible for the instruction of students in a classroom. Usually, these two steps are distinct from each other, each with specific goals and outcomes.

In addition to well-crafted initial teacher preparation and in-service education programs, we must also design programs that serve teachers in their first five years on the job. As new teachers, they often encounter unique challenges that are not addressed through initial teacher certification or in-service education programs.

New science teachers, for instance, must learn how to manage laboratories and how to incorporate science as inquiry (National Research Council, 1996) or scientific practices (NGSS Lead States, 2013) in their daily instruction. This is in addition to learning about the curriculum they will use when working with students—a curriculum which may or may not coincide with their content knowledge. Most new science teachers must contend with a variety of different disciplines of science, and often don’t have a strong knowledge of the content that is situated within the curriculum they will be teaching.

This book challenges the traditional two-step process by presenting an expanded discussion about newly hired science teachers. The three sections provide different points of view about newly hired science teachers. The first section describes the experiences of newly hired science teachers. Banilower, Trygstad, and Smith share national data which reveals the working conditions and experiences of these new teachers. Wong, Firestone, Lamb, and Luft present data on teachers’ persistence and explore the relationship between support that is provided to new teachers, and their persistence in the field of teaching. Brown, a coach of new science teachers, draws upon her experiences to make practical suggestions for newly hired science teachers and those who work with them. She provides a unique perspective on the learning and teaching experiences of new science teachers.

The second section of the book focuses on research that has been conducted with newly hired science teachers, revealing emerging and important lines of work. Hill

x

J. A. LUFT & S. L. DUBOIS

and Luft, and Nixon and Luft review different processes that capture the content knowledge of newly hired science teachers, with a view toward better supporting the development of teachers’ content knowledge in this formative period. Rushton and Criswell suggest how professional vision—a view of what is possible in the future—among new science teachers may contribute to their persistence in the field. In the fourth chapter in this section, Webb explores the role of identity and how it can guide several dimensions of new teachers’ instruction. Overall, these different studies in new science teacher development explore emerging areas that are worth considering.

The final section reviews several programs that have been designed specifically for newly hired science teachers. Campbell and his colleagues describe a unique program; the result of a university and school partnership. Donna and Roehrig provide an overview of an online program to support new science teachers, while McDonnough and Henschel write about the advantages of a professional learning community. Finally, Richmond, and Stroup and Windschitl show how high leverage and ambitious practices can support the work of new science teachers.

Collectively, these sections bring a research and practice orientation to the teacher education domain, and reinforce the notion that newly hired science teachers have distinct learning and teaching needs.

TOWARDS A THEORY OF SCIENCE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

In 2014, Luft, Dubois, Nixon, and Campbell published a review of research over a 30-year period on newly hired teachers of science. They selected over 100 articles for inclusion in the review, and situated their analysis within teaching standards for new teachers from different countries. These standards included: teacher knowledge, teacher practice, learners and learning, equity, and professional practice. While there were key findings in each area, the review’s authors found several overarching conclusions:

1. Newly hired science teachers need specialized support programs.2. The context in which a new teacher works can impact his or her development.3. Initial teacher preparation programs are important in creating well-started science

teachers.4. There are different ways in which to support the development of a newly hired

science teacher.

This review is important for several reasons. First, it articulates what is known about newly hired science teachers. Some of these points are listed above. The review also suggests future topics for investigation. Through these investigations, additional knowledge could be generated to guide the development of induction programs. Luft, Dubois, Nixon and Campbell (2014) argue that carefully developed induction programs will help newly hired science teachers to experience a continuum of learning, and to attain national standards.

xi

A BETTER BEGINNING

In addition, the results of the review reinforce the timeliness and need for a scholarly book on the subject. Topics that cannot be addressed adequately in a review can be expanded upon in a book chapter. For instance, data pertaining to newly hired science teachers only (as presented by Banilower, Trygstad, and Smith) could be shared and discussed in its own chapter. Those involved in supporting new science teachers can describe the design and development of induction programs. Additionally, emerging theoretical positions about supporting new science teachers can be presented with ample detail.

Finally, the review reinforced the important connection between research and practice when developing support programs for new science teachers. In the present book, that connection is evident; we expand upon it in several different chapters, where the authors discuss both the research pertaining to new science teachers, and their practices. Within this discussion, there is an iterative connection between research pertaining to newly hired teachers and their own professional practice. This means that the research on and with new teachers guides or informs the practice of new teachers. As the practice of new teachers changes, so do the studies on new teachers. With this connection, there is an emerging theory about new science teacher development. This theory suggests how new teachers develop, which can guide the creation of induction programs or the implementation of additional studies. This connection is illustrated in Figure 1.

Teacher Practice

Theory

Figure 1. Iterative connection of research and practice among newly hired science teachers

In the Figure 1 model, the practice of a new teacher (which could include the teacher’s knowledge, identity, or practice) is purposely examined. The results of this examination guide the support that is provided to the new teacher, which in turn has a formative influence on the teacher’s practice. Through this back and forth process, the theory guiding new science teacher development is modified. In summary, the back and forth between research and practice help develop a theory of supporting newly hired science teachers.

This book contributes to the discussion of newly hired science teachers. It recognizes that a model for integrating research and practice is needed in order to develop a theory of new science teacher development. The chapters attend to different forms of research and provide different perspectives on practice.

xii

J. A. LUFT & S. L. DUBOIS

In the final chapter, we share potential propositions for a theory pertaining to newly hired science teachers. These propositions reveal different areas that are ready for new lines of research and new practices to support new science teachers. Collectively, the emerging theory and the propositions reveal ways in which to create a better beginning for new teachers of science.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book was made possible by National Science Foundation grants 1247096 and 0918697. The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of personnel affiliated with the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES

Luft, J. A., Dubois, S. L., Nixon, R. S., & Campbell, B. K. (2014). Supporting newly hired teachers of science: Attaining teacher professional standards. Studies in Science Education (ahead-of-print), 1–48. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.980559

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

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Julie A. LuftCollege of EducationUniversity of Georgia

Shannon L. DuboisDepartment of EducationValparaiso University

SECTION 1

LOOKINg AT NEwLy HIRED SCIENCE TEACHERS

J. A. Luft & S. L. Dubois (Eds.), Newly Hired Teachers of Science, 3–29. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

ERIC R. BANILOWER, PEGGY J. TRYGSTAD AND P. SEAN SMITH

1. THE fIRST fIVE yEARS

What the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Reveals about Novice Science Teachers and Their Teaching

INTRODUCTION

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) puts forth an ambitious vision for K–12 science instruction. The success of the NGSS will be judged in large part by how they are implemented in classrooms. Yet the ability of teachers to implement the NGSS successfully depends on a large number of factors including the development of new instructional and assessment materials, rethinking and revising preservice programs for prospective science teachers, and providing ongoing and in-depth professional development for inservice teachers. Figure 1 shows some of the major influences on teachers’ classroom practice that will affect efforts to implement the NGSS.

Figure 1. Major influences on science instruction

E. R. BANILOWER ET AL.

4

Developing the knowledge and skills needed to implement the NGSS poses unique challenges for novice science teachers, who comprise about a quarter of all teachers of science in the nation. In addition to facing the steep learning curve associated with being new to the profession, novices likely have not had much preparation to teach to the new standards. Induction programs for new teachers of science (a form of professional development) are one component of the systemic efforts needed to successfully implement the NGSS. In considering how best to design and/or revise these programs, it will be important to understand novice science teachers, including what preparation they have had for teaching science, the nature of their science instruction, and their current opportunities for professional growth.

This chapter describes the current status of novice science teachers in the United States—defined as teachers in their first five years of teaching science—using data from the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME). The 2012 NSSME, funded by the National Science Foundation,1 surveyed over 3,700 teachers of science.2 Although the focus of the 2012 NSSME was not on novice teachers, the dataset includes 857 teachers who reported being in their first five years of teaching science, including 226 elementary grades teachers (defined as teaching any grade K–5 or teaching a self-contained 6th grade class), 232 middle grades teachers (teaching any grade 6–8), and 399 high school teachers (grades 9–12). However, because of the sample design and the use of design weights in analysis, results of the 2012 NSSME are nationally representative. Consequently, the results presented in this chapter should be interpreted as indicative of all novice science teachers, not just those who participated in the study.3 Differences described in the text are statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

This chapter is divided into five main sections that align with parts of the logic model shown in Figure 1. The first provides data about the school contexts in which novice teachers work. The second includes demographic data on novice science teachers. The third section describes their preparation for teaching, including their college degrees, science coursework, and professional development experiences. The fourth provides data about their perceptions of preparedness to teach science and beliefs about teaching and learning. The fifth section describes the nature of instruction in novice teachers’ classrooms, including objectives for instruction and instructional strategies used, and resources novice teachers have available for instruction such as textbooks, facilities, and equipment. The chapter ends by considering implications for those responsible for the induction and support of novice teachers of science.

SCHOOL CONTExTS

Although the focus of this chapter is on the novice teachers themselves and their science instruction, the 2012 NSSME provides some data about their school contexts. For example, Table 1 shows the percentage of novice science teachers who work in schools with various characteristics. The distribution of school type (public schools,

THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

5

Catholic schools, and non-Catholic private schools) is the same for novice science teachers as it is for science teachers overall. However, novice science teachers are somewhat more likely to be teaching in urban schools and less likely to be teaching in rural schools than the typical science teacher. Novice science teachers are also more likely to teach in schools with higher proportions of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, and less likely to teach in low-poverty schools, than science teachers overall. Further, novice science teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to be assigned to classes of students with low prior achievement than novice science teachers in low-poverty schools. Because high-poverty schools historically include larger percentages of students from groups historically underrepresented in the sciences, novice science teachers are also more likely to teach students from these groups.

Table 1. School characteristics

Percent of teachersNovice Teachers All Teachers

School Type Public 90 (2.1) 91 (1.4) Non-Catholic Private 6 (2.2) 6 (1.4) Catholic 3 (0.8) 3 (0.6)Community Type Suburban 47 (2.9) 48 (1.6) Urban 34 (2.9) 28 (1.5) Rural 19 (2.4) 24 (1.3)Percentage of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

Lowest Poverty Schools 19 (2.5) 25 (2.0) Second Quartile 22 (2.7) 26 (2.2) Third Quartile 25 (3.0) 26 (2.4) Highest Poverty Schools 35 (3.4) 24 (2.0)

NOVICE SCIENCE TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

Table 2 shows demographic characteristics of novice science teachers. Roughly the same proportions of novice science teachers are in their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th year teaching science; this pattern is similar in each grade range. A large majority of novice science teachers across all three grade ranges are female. This gender discrepancy is particularly striking in the elementary grades, where over 90 percent of novices are female. Not surprisingly, novice science teachers are


6

also relatively young, with the mode at each grade range falling between 26 and 30 years of age.

Table 2. Characteristics of novice science teachers, by grade range

Percent of teachers Elementary Middle HighSex Male 7 (1.7) 24 (3.5) 41 (3.0) Female 93 (1.7) 76 (3.5) 59 (3.0)Race White 89 (2.7) 88 (3.1) 92 (2.0) Hispanic or Latino 12 (2.3) 9 (2.2) 5 (1.6) Black or African-American 4 (1.7) 7 (2.6) 3 (0.9) Asian 4 (1.5) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.8) American Indian/

Alaskan Native1 (0.6) 0 —* 0 —*

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

0 —* 0 —* 0 (0.5)

Two or more races 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.6)Age ≤ 25 13 (2.7) 8 (2.4) 17 (3.7) 26–30 42 (4.3) 28 (4.0) 41 (3.8) 31–35 12 (2.7) 16 (4.2) 16 (2.4) 36–40 5 (1.4) 14 (3.1) 6 (1.4) 41–45 9 (1.9) 13 (3.5) 6 (1.3) 46–50 8 (1.7) 5 (1.5) 5 (1.3) 51+ 11 (2.7) 16 (4.7) 10 (2.1)Experience Teaching any Subject at the K–12 Level

0–2 years 42 (3.6) 31 (4.9) 56 (3.5) 3–5 years 43 (3.3) 41 (5.1) 38 (3.3) 6–10 years 7 (1.7) 12 (4.1) 4 (1.4) 11–20 years 7 (1.5) 13 (2.6) 2 (1.1) 21 years 1 (0.5) 3 (1.2) 0 (0.1)

* No teachers in the sample selected this response option. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the standard error of this estimate


7

Individuals from groups historically underrepresented in the teaching profession (e.g., African-American and Hispanic teachers) continue to be underrepresented among novice teachers. The 2012 NSSME reveals that although only 62 percent of students enrolled in U.S. public schools are White and non-Hispanic, about 90 percent of novice science teachers in each grade range characterize themselves in that way.

Many novice science teachers are new to the teaching profession in general, not just science. The large majority at each grade range have five or fewer years’ experience teaching any subject at the K–12 level. However, about a third of novice science teachers entered the classroom after the age of 30, suggesting that teaching is a second career for many of them.

TEACHER PREPARATION

Content Background

One important aspect of teacher preparation is content knowledge. Data from the 2012 NSSME indicate that many novice science teachers, especially at the elementary and middle grades levels, do not have strong preparation to teach science. Further, very few novice science teachers at any grade range have any preparation in engineering.

As can be seen in Table 3, 60 percent of novice science teachers at the high school level have a degree (defined as an undergraduate major or graduate degree) in science and/or engineering; including science education increases the proportion with a degree in the discipline to 78 percent (some teachers have degrees in science/engineering and science education). At the elementary and middle grades levels, large proportions of novice science teachers do not have a degree in science, engineering, or science education.

Table 3. Novice science teachers’ degrees, by grade range

Percent of teachers Elementary Middle High

Science/Engineering 4 (1.3) 26 (3.6) 60 (3.5)Science Education 2 (0.8) 25 (3.6) 35 (3.1)Science/Engineering or Science Education

5 (1.5) 40 (4.7) 78 (2.6)

Teachers of science in the elementary grades are typically responsible for instruction across science disciplines, a trend that the NGSS will likely continue as the performance expectations at each grade draw on content from multiple science disciplines. As can be seen in Table 4, 35 percent of novice elementary science


8

teachers have had at least one course in each of the Earth, life, and physical sciences, and 40 percent have had coursework in 2 of the 3 disciplines; 4 percent of novice elementary science teachers have not had any college science courses.

Table 4. Novice elementary science teachers with coursework in multiple science disciplines

Percent of teachers

Courses in life, Earth, and physical science* 35 (3.0)Courses in two of the three disciplines 40 (3.4)Courses in one of the three disciplines 21 (2.8)No courses in any of the three disciplines 4 (1.5)

* Physical science is defined as a course in either chemistry or physics

Similarly, middle school teachers assigned to teach general or integrated science are expected to have expertise in multiple science disciplines. As can be seen in Table 5, 42 percent of novice middle school science teachers have had at least one course in chemistry, Earth science, life science, and physics. Another 32 percent have had coursework in 3 of the 4 disciplines.

Table 5. Novice middle school teachers of general/integrated science with coursework in multiple science disciplines

Percent of teachers

Coursework in life science, Earth science, physics, and chemistry

42 (5.2)

Courses in three of the four disciplines 32 (4.8)Courses in two of the four disciplines 18 (4.6)Courses in one of the four disciplines 6 (2.1)No courses in any of the four disciplines 1 (1.1)

Many secondary science classes focus on a single area of science; college science coursework for teachers of these courses is shown in Table 6. At the middle grades level, over half of novice life science/biology teachers have a degree in the field or at least three college courses beyond introductory biology; only about one-third of teachers of middle grades physical science and fewer than one-fifth of those teaching Earth science have a degree in their field or at least three courses beyond the introductory level. A similar pattern exists at the high school level, with teachers of life science/biology being more likely to have extensive


9

coursework in their discipline than teachers of chemistry, physics, Earth science, or environmental science.

Table 6. Novice secondary science teachers with varying levels of background in subjects taught*

Percent of teachers Degree

in FieldNo Degree in Field, but 3+

Courses beyond Introductory

No Degree in Field, but 1–2


No Degree in Field or


Middle Life science/

biology34 (9.3) 21 (6.3) 18 (7.9) 27 (7.8)

Physical science 11 (8.2) 23 (5.8) 32 (7.5) 35 (7.2) Earth science 4 (3.2) 13 (5.6) 27 (14.3) 56 (13.3)High Life science/

biology37 (5.8) 46 (5.8) 8 (2.7) 9 (2.9)

Chemistry 24 (3.6) 36 (4.9) 27 (6.5) 12 (4.4) Physics 18 (4.1) 26 (5.6) 9 (3.0) 48 (7.3) Earth science 16 (6.5) 17 (5.3) 23 (8.5) 43 (8.0) Physical science 10 (5.4) 38 (10.3) 40 (11.2) 12 (7.1) Environmental

science0 —** 22 (8.7) 15 (7.0) 63 (10.3)

* Teachers may be in more than one row as they are included in each subject area they are assigned to teach

** No teachers in the sample were in this category. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the standard error of this estimate

Certification

Another aspect of teacher preparation is certification. As can be seen in Table 7, the most common pathway to certification for novice elementary and middle school science teachers is an undergraduate program leading to a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential. In contrast, equivalent proportions of high school teachers enter the profession through an undergraduate program leading to a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential, a post-baccalaureate credentialing program that did not include a master’s degree, or a master’s program that awarded a teaching credential.


10

It is also noteworthy that 10 percent of novice high school science teachers have no formal teacher preparation.

Table 7. Teachers’ paths to certification, by grade range

Percent of teachersElementary Middle High

An undergraduate program leading to a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential

62 (5.0) 47 (7.3) 30 (4.7)

A post-baccalaureate credentialing program (no master’s degree awarded)

15 (3.5) 21 (5.1) 31 (4.7)

A master’s program that also awarded a teaching credential

21 (4.4) 29 (6.1) 29 (4.2)

No formal teacher preparation 3 (1.8) 3 (1.2) 10 (2.1)

Professional Development Experiences

The survey provided teachers multiple opportunities to describe opportunities for continued learning as teachers, i.e., after they were “on the job.” Forty percent of elementary novices have had no science-specific professional development in the preceding three years, and only 11 percent have had more than 15 hours (see Table 8). The data are only marginally more encouraging for middle and high school novice science teachers. About one-third have had what might be considered substantial professional development opportunities (more than 35 hours) in the last three years, and roughly half have had less than 16 hours.

Table 8. Time spent on professional development in the last three years, by grade range


0 hours 40 (3.4) 17 (4.3) 14 (2.7)1–5 hours 28 (3.3) 13 (3.0) 11 (2.4)6–15 hours 21 (2.8) 24 (3.5) 22 (2.4)16–35 hours 9 (2.1) 13 (2.2) 20 (3.0)More than 35 hours 2 (0.8) 31 (5.2) 33 (3.1)


11

The survey also asked novice science teachers about features of their professional development experiences. As can be seen in Table 9, the workshop continues to be the most common form of professional development, regardless of grade range. Of those who have participated in professional development, well more than half of novice teachers have taken part in a science-specific study group suggesting that in many schools, a structure for ongoing professional learning is in place. In addition, a large percentage of middle and high school science teachers have received feedback from a mentor or coach, another mechanism for helping novice science teachers improve their craft. Some of this feedback was probably in the context of an induction program and, as such, may be unlikely to continue. Elementary novices are far less likely than secondary novices to receive feedback about their science teaching.

Table 9. Novice science teachers participating in various professional development activities in the last three years, by grade range


Attended a workshop on science or science teaching

79 (3.8) 89 (2.9) 83 (3.4)

Participated in a professional learning community/lesson study/teacher study group focused on science or science teaching

57 (4.7) 72 (5.3) 73 (3.4)

Received feedback about your science teaching from a mentor/coach formally assigned by the school/district/diocese*

32 (5.1) 62 (7.0) 73 (4.9)

Attended a national, state, or regional science teacher association meeting

8 (2.2) 30 (4.2) 40 (3.6)

* This item was asked of all teachers whether or not they had participated in professional development in the last three years.

PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS AND BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING SCIENCE

Teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach science and beliefs about effective instruction are a result of many factors, including their own experiences learning science, their preservice education coursework, and their inservice professional development opportunities. Because feelings of preparedness and beliefs influence


12

instruction, the 2012 NSSME asked teachers about their feelings of preparedness to teach the science content they are expected to cover, their pedagogical preparedness to teach and encourage diverse learners, and their beliefs about effective science instruction.

Perceptions of Content Preparedness

Elementary teachers are typically assigned to teach multiple subjects to a single group of students. However, only 34 percent of novices at this grade level report feeling very well prepared to teach science. Not surprisingly given their college coursework, elementary teachers are more likely to indicate feeling very well prepared to teach life science than they are to teach Earth science or physical science (see Table 10). Engineering stands out as the area where elementary teachers feel least prepared, with only 4 percent indicating they are very well prepared to teach it at their grade level, and 68 percent noting that they are not adequately prepared to teach engineering.

Table 10. Novice elementary teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach various science disciplines

Percent of teachers*

Not Adequately Prepared

Somewhat Prepared

Fairly Well Prepared

Very Well Prepared

Life Science 3 (1.4) 25 (3.4) 51 (3.8) 21 (3.0)Earth Science 4 (1.2) 28 (3.6) 49 (3.7) 19 (2.6)Physical Science

7 (1.9) 34 (3.6) 44 (3.7) 14 (2.5)

Engineering 68 (3.3) 20 (2.9) 7 (1.9) 4 (1.3)

* Includes only teachers assigned to teach mathematics, reading/language arts, science, and social studies to a single class of students in grades K–6

The survey presented middle and high school science teachers with a list of topics based on the subject of a randomly selected class in their teaching assignment, and asked how well prepared they feel to teach each of those topics at the grade levels they teach. Although novice science teachers of chemistry and physics at the high school level feel better prepared in those subjects than their counterparts at the middle school level, there are few, if any differences between the grade levels in topics in Earth/space science or the life sciences (see Table 11). Only 11 percent of novice high school science teachers and 7 percent of novice middle school science teachers feel very well prepared to teach engineering concepts. This finding is not surprising given that few teachers have had college coursework in engineering, and engineering has not traditionally been part of the school curriculum.


13

Table 11. Novice secondary science teachers considering themselves very well prepared to teach each of a number of topics, by grade range

Percent of teachers*

Middle High

Earth/Space Science Earth’s features and physical processes 41 (6.1) 45 (6.7) Climate and weather 28 (5.6) 37 (8.6) The solar system and the universe 25 (5.2) 30 (5.0)Biology/Life Science Cell biology 56 (6.2) 60 (5.3) Structures and functions of organisms 50 (6.1) 58 (5.8) Genetics 47 (6.1) 56 (5.8) Evolution 36 (5.1) 49 (5.8) Ecology/ecosystems 45 (5.7) 48 (5.9)Chemistry Atomic structure 45 (5.5) 72 (5.2) The periodic table 45 (5.7) 71 (5.7) Elements, compounds, and mixtures 49 (5.6) 70 (5.6) States, classes, and properties of matter 56 (5.9) 67 (5.5) Chemical bonding, equations, nomenclature, and reactions 30 (5.4) 65 (5.4) Properties of solutions 30 (5.5) 53 (5.9)Physics Forces and motion 33 (5.0) 60 (6.9) Energy transfers, transformations, and conservation 27 (4.5) 56 (6.6) Properties and behaviors of waves 17 (3.4) 34 (6.0) Electricity and magnetism 15 (3.5) 33 (5.8) Modern physics (e.g., special relativity) 5 (2.4) 15 (3.5)Other Environmental and resource issues (e.g., land and water

use, energy resources and consumption, sources and impacts of pollution)

34 (7.3) 29 (5.9)

Engineering (e.g., nature of engineering and technology, design processes, analyzing and improving technological systems, interactions between technology and society)

7 (2.6) 11 (2.0)

* Each secondary science teacher was asked about one set of science topics based on the discipline of his/her randomly selected class, and all secondary science teachers were asked about engineering.


14

Perceptions of Pedagogical Preparedness

Teachers were asked how well prepared they feel to address diverse learners in their science instruction, including encouraging participation of a number of underrepresented groups. As can be seen in Table 12, about half of all novice high school teachers feel very well prepared to encourage students’ interest in science and/or engineering and encourage the participation of students from historically underrepresented groups in science and/or engineering; the proportion of teachers feeling very well prepared decreases with decreasing grade level. Additionally, fewer than one-quarter of novice teachers across all three grade ranges feel very well prepared to teach science to students who have learning or physical disabilities, or are English-language learners. These data suggest that novice science teachers need further preparation in tailoring instruction to meet the needs of all learners.

Table 12. Novice science teachers considering themselves very well prepared for each of a number of tasks, by grade range


Encourage students’ interest in science and/or engineering

24 (4.2) 35 (7.0) 51 (4.1)

Manage classroom discipline 66 (4.6) 54 (6.7) 49 (4.3)Encourage participation of females in science and/or engineering

28 (4.5) 38 (7.3) 49 (4.5)

Encourage participation of racial or ethnic minorities in science and/or engineering

32 (4.5) 34 (7.1) 39 (4.3)

Encourage participation of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in science and/or engineering

33 (4.6) 41 (8.3) 38 (4.3)

Plan instruction so students at different levels of achievement can increase their understanding of the ideas targeted in each activity

21 (4.2) 24 (5.6) 26 (3.7)

Provide enrichment experiences for gifted students

21 (4.4) 20 (5.0) 22 (3.6)

Teach science to students who have physical disabilities

9 (3.1) 12 (3.0) 14 (2.9)

Teach science to students who have learning disabilities

11 (3.3) 22 (5.2) 10 (2.5)

Teach science to English-language learners

17 (4.1) 11 (3.6) 7 (1.9)


15

Teachers were also asked about how well prepared they feel to monitor and address student understanding during instruction, focusing on a specific unit in a randomly selected class. In general, most novice teachers across the grade bands do not feel very well prepared in these areas, including monitoring and assessing student understanding and anticipating difficulties students may have with science ideas and procedures (see Table 13). This lack of preparedness is particularly concerning given that these tasks are critical components of high-quality science teaching (National Research Council [NRC], 2005).

Table 13. Science classes in which novice teachers feel very well prepared for each of a number of tasks in the most recent unit, by grade range

Percent of classes Elementary Middle High

Assess student understanding at the conclusion of this unit

40 (4.4) 53 (5.1) 51 (3.3)

Monitor student understanding during this unit

40 (4.4) 49 (5.0) 45 (3.3)

Implement the science textbook/module to be used during this unit*

35 (5.9) 40 (7.0) 37 (4.0)

Find out what students thought or already knew about the key science ideas

28 (3.2) 34 (4.4) 34 (3.0)

Anticipate difficulties that students may have with particular science ideas and procedures in this unit

18 (2.8) 27 (4.5) 33 (3.3)

* This item was presented only to teachers who indicated using commercially published textbooks/modules in the most recent unit

Beliefs about Effective Science Instruction

The survey revealed a number of areas in which novice science teachers’ beliefs are aligned with current thinking about effective science instruction (NRC, 2005; see Table 14). For example, approximately three-fourths of novice science teachers at each grade range agree that it is better to focus on ideas in depth, even if it means covering fewer topics, one of the central tenets of calls for reform in science instruction (NRC, 2011; NGSS Lead States, 2013). In addition, 85 percent or more agree that most class periods should provide students opportunities to share their thinking/reasoning.


16

Table 14. Novice science teachers agreeing* with various statements about teaching and learning, by grade range


Most class periods should provide opportunities for students to share their thinking and reasoning

99 (0.7) 95 (2.3) 94 (1.5)

Most class periods should include some review of previously covered ideas and skills

93 (1.8) 89 (2.8) 90 (1.7)

Most class periods should conclude with a summary of the key ideas addressed

96 (1.3) 88 (3.1) 89 (1.9)

Students should be provided with the purpose for a lesson as it begins

96 (1.2) 85 (2.9) 89 (1.7)

Inadequacies in students’ science background can be overcome by effective teaching

88 (2.2) 84 (3.5) 86 (1.9)

At the beginning of instruction on a science idea, students should be provided with definitions for new scientific vocabulary that will be used

91 (1.8) 80 (4.4) 75 (3.1)

It is better for science instruction to focus on ideas in depth, even if that means covering fewer topics

75 (3.9) 73 (4.2) 70 (2.6)

Students learn science best in classes with students of similar abilities

36 (3.3) 58 (5.4) 68 (3.1)

Hands-on/laboratory activities should be used primarily to reinforce a science idea that the students have already learned

64 (3.4) 60 (5.6) 59 (3.8)

Students should be assigned homework most days

45 (3.9) 36 (5.4) 43 (3.5)

Teachers should explain an idea to students before having them consider evidence that relates to the idea

50 (3.3) 43 (4.5) 38 (3.4)

* Includes teachers indicating “strongly agree” or “agree” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”

In other areas, novice science teachers’ beliefs are inconsistent with what is known from research on learning (NRC, 2005). For example, between 38 and 50


17

percent of novice science teachers agree that teachers should explain an idea to students before having them consider evidence for that idea. Relatedly, between 59 and 64 percent agree that hands-on/laboratory activities should be used primarily to reinforce ideas already learned by students. Further, despite recommendations that students develop understanding of concepts first and learn the scientific language later (NRC, 2005), between 75 and 91 percent of novice science teachers indicate that students should be given definitions for new vocabulary at the beginning of instruction on a science idea.

The prevalence of these beliefs among novice science teachers’ suggests a need for interventions to reshape their ideas about effective science instruction. Such interventions could introduce novice science teachers to ways of thinking about teaching and learning that align with what is known from research about effective instruction.

INSTRUCTION

In the elementary grades, classes are typically self-contained and science is taught by the same teacher who provides instruction in all the core subjects (mathematics, reading/language arts, science and social studies). In contrast, at the secondary level, classes are departmentalized and science teachers typically provide instruction to multiple classes of students. Consequently, the 2012 NSSME asked somewhat different questions of elementary and secondary teachers about how science instruction is structured.

Similar to elementary school classes taught by more experienced teachers, relatively few elementary grades classes taught by novice elementary teachers receive science instruction for an entire school year. In grades K–3, only 20 percent of classes taught by novice teachers receive science instruction all or most days, every week of the school year; the remaining classes receive science instruction either 3 days or fewer each week, or some weeks of the year but not others (see Table 15). Grades 4–6 classes

Table 15. Frequency with which self-contained elementary classes taught by novice teachers receive science instruction

Percent of classes

Grades K–3 All/Most days, every week 20 (2.9) Three or fewer days, every week 42 (3.6) Some weeks, but not every week 38 (3.7)Grades 4–6 All/Most days, every week 42 (5.7) Three or fewer days, every week 29 (5.0) Some weeks, but not every week 29 (5.5)


18

are twice as likely to receive science instruction all/most days, every week of the school year, with the rest of classes split between receiving science instruction some days each week, or only some weeks of the school year. As a comparison, in both grade bands, mathematics was taught all/most days every week of the school year.

Elementary classes taught by novice teachers spend relatively little instructional time on science, as reading/language arts and mathematics comprise the large majority of instructional time (see Table 16). This pattern is similar to that found in all elementary classes, not just those of novice teachers.

Table 16. Average number of minutes per day novice teachers spend teaching each subject in self-contained classes,* by grade range

Number of minutes Grades K–3 Grades 4–6Reading/Language Arts 82 (3.2) 73 (4.5)Mathematics 52 (2.3) 57 (2.8)Science 18 (1.0) 26 (1.9)Social Studies 15 (0.9) 21 (1.7)

* Only teachers who indicated they teach reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies to one class of students were included in these analyses

Secondary teachers were asked to list each science course they taught (e.g., life science/biology, chemistry) and the level of the course (i.e., non-college prep, 1st year college prep including honors, 2nd year advanced). These data were used to compute the number of different science preparations novice secondary science teachers have (note, the survey did not collect data on non-science courses that might also be taught by science teachers). As can be seen in Table 17, the vast majority of novice middle school science teachers are responsible for only one or two types of science course (e.g., life science, 7th grade science). The data are more varied at the high school level, with 30 percent having one, 51 percent having two, 15 percent having three, and 4 percent having four or more preparations.

Table 17. Number of preparations of novice science teachers, by grade range

Percent of teachers Middle High1 76 (4.2) 30 (3.3)2 18 (4.3) 51 (3.6)3 5 (1.8) 15 (2.7)4 or more 1 (0.5) 4 (1.2)


19

The survey asked several series of items about the nature of teachers’ science instruction, including their perceptions of autonomy in making decisions about curriculum and instruction, instructional objectives, class activities, and assessment methods.4 Novice teachers are more likely to perceive themselves as having strong control over pedagogical decisions than curriculum decisions (see Table 18). For example, in elementary classes, novice teachers perceive themselves as having strong control in determining the amount of homework to be assigned (62 percent), selecting teaching techniques (52 percent), and choosing grading criteria (42 percent). In far fewer classes, novice science teachers perceived themselves as having strong control over determining course goals and objectives (19 percent), selecting content, topics, and skills to be taught (8 percent), and selecting textbooks/modules (3 percent). This pattern is similar in middle grades and high school classes taught by novice science teachers.

Table 18. Science classes in which novice teachers report having strong control over various curriculum and instruction decisions, by grade range


Determining the amount of homework to be assigned

62 (5.4) 73 (5.0) 79 (3.3)

Selecting teaching techniques 54 (5.1) 68 (6.0) 79 (3.9)Choosing criteria for grading student performance

42 (6.3) 52 (6.8) 60 (4.2)

Selecting content, topics, and skills to be taught

8 (2.9) 19 (5.5) 35 (5.3)

Determining course goals and objectives

19 (6.0) 18 (3.9) 32 (4.5)

Selecting textbooks/modules 3 (1.6) 8 (2.7) 24 (4.8)

The survey provided a list of possible instructional objectives and asked teachers how much emphasis each would receive over the entire course of the randomly selected class. A majority of classes taught by novice science teachers, at each grade range, give a heavy emphasis to understanding science concepts and increasing student interest in science (see Table 19). Classes are much less likely to heavily emphasize learning test taking skills/strategies and memorizing science vocabulary and/or facts.

Teachers were also given a list of activities and asked how often they did each in the randomly selected class; response options were: never, rarely (e.g., a few times a year), sometimes (e.g., once or twice a month), often (e.g., once or twice a week), and


20

all or almost all lessons. Table 20 shows the percentage of classes taught by novice science teachers engaging in each activity at least once a week. The vast majority of classes taught by novices at each grade range include: the teacher explaining science ideas to the whole class, whole class discussions, and students working in small groups. Hands-on/laboratory activities are used weekly in about half of elementary and middle school classes, and about two-thirds of high school classes; requiring students to supply evidence in support of their claims occurs with essentially the same frequency, suggesting these two activities are used in concert. Students are asked to represent and/or analyze data somewhat less often (41–50 percent of classes doing so on a weekly basis, depending on grade range). Elementary and middle school classes are more likely than high school classes to have students read from a science text (50, 53, and 35 percent of classes respectively), likely because of the emphasis on literacy skills at the K–8 level. Elementary and middle grades classes are also more likely than high school classes to have students write reflections on what they are learning (43 vs. 26 percent).

A few key instructional practices are highlighted in Figure 2, which shows the percentage of classes in which the practice occurs in all/almost all lessons versus weekly. The teacher explaining science ideas to the whole class occurs on a daily basis in a majority of novice teachers’ science classes at each grade level. In contrast, hands-on/laboratory activities are more likely to be a weekly occurrence, as is requiring students to use evidence to support their claims.

Table 19. Science classes taught by novice teachers with heavy emphasis on various instructional objectives, by grade range


Understanding science concepts 60 (4.8) 79 (4.1) 83 (2.6)Increasing students’ interest in science 53 (3.6) 53 (5.5) 52 (3.0)Learning about real-life applications of science

45 (4.4) 38 (4.6) 51 (3.2)

Learning science process skills (e.g., observing, measuring)

46 (3.8) 44 (4.3) 47 (3.1)

Preparing for further study in science 38 (4.3) 38 (4.2) 43 (3.4)Learning test taking skills/strategies 23 (3.3) 21 (3.2) 19 (2.3)Memorizing science vocabulary and/or facts

15 (3.9) 14 (2.2) 14 (2.1)


21

Table 20. Science classes in which novice teachers report using various activities at least once a week, by grade range


Explain science ideas to the whole class 89 (1.9) 97 (1.2) 96 (1.5)Have students work in small groups 73 (3.3) 78 (4.4) 83 (2.5)Engage the whole class in discussions 90 (1.9) 93 (1.9) 81 (2.1)Do hands-on/laboratory activities 53 (4.4) 49 (4.6) 65 (3.0) Require students to supply evidence in support of their claims

57 (4.1) 53 (4.1) 63 (2.9)

Have students represent and/or analyze data using tables, charts, or graphs

41 (3.9) 43 (3.8) 50 (3.3)

Give tests and/or quizzes that are predominantly short-answer (e.g., multiple choice, true /false, fill in the blank)

40 (4.4) 52 (4.0) 39 (3.0)

Give tests and/or quizzes that include constructed-response/open-ended items

25 (3.5) 33 (3.8) 37 (3.0)

Have students read from a science textbook, module, or other science-related material in class, either aloud or to themselves

50 (4.9) 53 (5.6) 35 (3.0)

Focus on literacy skills (e.g., informational reading or writing strategies)

46 (4.1) 45 (5.0) 27 (2.7)

Have students write their reflections (e.g., in their journals) in class or for homework

43 (4.5) 43 (5.2) 26 (3.1)

Engage the class in project-based learning (PBL) activities

32 (3.7) 20 (3.0) 20 (3.0)

Have students practice for standardized tests

19 (3.3) 27 (3.1) 18 (2.3)

Have students make formal presentations to the rest of the class (e.g., on individual or group projects)

10 (2.2) 14 (2.9) 10 (2.2)

Have students attend presentations by guest speakers focused on science and/or engineering in the workplace

3 (1.5) 4 (1.9) 1 (0.5)


22

Figure 2. Frequency of use of selected instructional practices


23

Data about ways novice teachers assessed student progress in their most recently completed unit are also remarkably similar to those from teachers regardless of career stage. The vast majority of classes at each grade level include informal assessment practices during the unit to see if students are “getting it,” such as questioning individual students during class activities, reviewing student work, and using whole class informal assessments (see Table 21). In addition, using an assessment task or probe at the beginning of the unit to uncover students’ initial ideas occurs in a majority of novice teachers’ science classes.

Table 21. Science classes in which novice teachers report assessing students using various methods in the most recent unit, by grade range


Questioned individual students during class activities to see if they were “getting it”

96 (1.3) 98 (0.8) 95 (1.6)

Reviewed student work (e.g., homework, notebooks, journals, portfolios, projects) to see if they were “getting it”

87 (3.7) 93 (1.7) 95 (1.2)

Assigned grades to student work (e.g., homework, notebooks, journals, portfolios, projects)

66 (3.9) 96 (1.3) 92 (1.6)

Administered one or more quizzes and/or tests to assign grades

58 (4.4) 88 (2.1) 89 (1.8)

Went over the correct answers to assignments, quizzes, and/or tests with the class as a whole

59 (4.5) 86 (3.0) 86 (2.0)

Used information from informal assessments of the entire class (e.g., asking for a show of hands, thumbs up/thumbs down, clickers, exit tickets) to see if students were “getting it”

87 (2.5) 88 (2.6) 83 (2.7)

Administered one or more quizzes and/or tests to see if students were “getting it”

53 (4.8) 82 (3.1) 79 (2.6)

Administered an assessment, task, or probe at the beginning of the unit to find out what students thought or already knew about the key science ideas

52 (4.3) 59 (5.0) 57 (3.0)

Had students use rubrics to examine their own or their classmates’ work

9 (2.5) 23 (3.3) 16 (2.7)


24

The survey included several questions about the instructional materials teachers use. The data suggest that novice science teachers in the elementary grades generally cobble together their materials from multiple sources, some of them commercial, some not. Over half of elementary science classes primarily use non-commercially published materials or a mix of commercial and non-commercial materials most of the time (see Table 22).

Table 22. Instructional materials used in science classes taught by novice teachers, by grade range


Mainly commercially published textbook(s) One textbook 25 (3.7) 39 (5.5) 46 (3.4) Multiple textbooks 5 (1.6) 11 (2.4) 8 (2.3)Mainly commercially published modules Modules from a single publisher 11 (2.7) 8 (2.3) 3 (0.8) Modules from multiple publishers 6 (3.1) 4 (1.4) 2 (1.0)Other A roughly equal mix of commercially

published textbooks and commercially published modules most of the time

21 (3.7) 13 (2.3) 15 (2.2)

Non-commercially published materials most of the time

31 (4.3) 24 (4.1) 26 (2.9)

A majority of middle and high school science classes taught by novice teachers rely on multiple sources of materials for their instruction, and one-fourth use primarily non-commercially published materials most of the time. Among those who do use published materials, there is a widespread tendency to modify them. More than two-thirds of classes taught by novice science teachers supplement their material, and 40 percent or more in each grade range skip parts of their material (see Table 23). The practice of skipping material is reflected in the fact that a substantial proportion of secondary classes cover less than three-fourths of the textbook (see Table 24).

Clearly, instructional materials influence the decisions of novice science teachers. The 2012 NSSME asked teachers to rate the influence of several other factors that might affect instruction, using a five-point scale with three anchored points: 1 “inhibits effective instruction,” 3 “neutral,” and 5 “promotes effective instruction.” For a large majority of science classes at each grade range, teachers


25

Table 23. Ways novice teachers substantially* used their textbook in the most recent unit, by grade range

Percent of classes**

Elementary Middle High

You incorporated activities (e.g., problems, investigations, readings) from other sources to supplement what the textbook/ module was lacking

66 (4.4) 67 (6.5) 80 (3.2)

You used the textbook/module to guide the overall structure and content emphasis of the unit

80 (4.5) 69 (6.6) 65 (3.7)

You picked what is important from the textbook/ module and skipped the rest

40 (5.7) 45 (7.2) 53 (4.5)

You followed the textbook/module to guide the detailed structure and content emphasis of the unit

62 (6.2) 55 (7.3) 39 (4.1)

* Includes those responding 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 5 “to a great extent”

** Only classes using published textbooks/modules in the most recent unit were included in these analyses

Table 24. Percentage of textbooks/modules covered by novice science teachers during the course, by grade range

Percent of classes*

Elementary Middle High

Less than 25 percent 16 (6.6) 5 (2.5) 6 (2.4)25–49 percent 0 —** 11 (5.1) 20 (5.0)50–74 percent 14 (7.1) 59 (8.6) 31 (5.8)75–100 percent 70 (9.5) 26 (8.1) 43 (6.3)

* Only classes using published textbooks/modules were included in these analyses** No teachers in the sample were in this category. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the

standard error of this estimate

indicate that their principal’s support promotes effective science instruction (see Table 25). Note that textbook selection policies are considered to promote effective instruction in half or fewer science classes. The data on district pacing guides, particularly in the secondary grades, are similar. Neither testing/accountability policies nor parent/community influences are generally seen as promoting effective science instruction.


26

Table 25. Factors seen as promoting* effective instruction by novice science teachers in the randomly selected science class, by grade range


Principal support 72 (5.1) 82 (5.0) 74 (4.2)District/Diocese curriculum frameworks 68 (5.3) 58 (9.2) 63 (4.7)Teacher evaluation policies 45 (6.8) 53 (6.7) 63 (5.1)Time for you to plan, individually and with colleagues

55 (6.1) 62 (6.3) 62 (4.8)

Students’ motivation, interest, and effort in science

76 (4.1) 69 (6.1) 61 (3.9)

District/Diocese/School pacing guides 54 (5.8) 49 (8.5) 61 (5.1)Current state standards 66 (5.2) 67 (4.9) 60 (4.7)Time available for your professional development

51 (5.8) 59 (7.3) 57 (5.1)

Textbook/module selection policies 40 (5.9) 46 (7.7) 52 (4.2)Parent expectations and involvement 46 (5.7) 34 (6.1) 52 (4.9)Students’ reading abilities 52 (6.1) 46 (8.0) 49 (4.2)Community views on science instruction 45 (6.4) 43 (7.6) 49 (5.4) District/Diocese testing/accountability policies

45 (7.2) 34 (5.5) 42 (5.9)

State testing/accountability policies 43 (6.7) 37 (9.1) 37 (5.5)

* Includes those responding 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “inhibits effective instruction” to 5 “promotes effective instruction”

IMPLICATIONS

K–12 science education is on the cusp of major changes, driven in large part by the NGSS. However, whether the vision of the NGSS is realized will depend on the alignment of all aspects of the education system, including preservice teacher preparation, induction programs, professional development offerings for teachers and administrators, instructional materials, assessments, and teacher evaluation systems among others. Data from the 2012 NSSME suggest a number of areas in which preservice, induction, and ongoing professional growth programs should focus to prepare and support novice teachers to implement the NGSS. The data also provide implications for schools, districts, and states.


27

One area of need is deepening novice teachers’ understanding of science, with an emphasis on content knowledge, scientific practices, and the nature of science as a discipline. Data from the 2012 NSSME indicate that many teachers, especially in grades K–8, have limited content preparation to teach science. Data also reveal inconsistencies in novice science teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, with teachers across grade levels holding beliefs about teaching and learning that do not reflect the research on how people learn science. Preservice programs may need to reconsider course requirements to allow prospective teachers greater opportunity both to learn science and how to teach science effectively. Induction programs can also play a critical role in deepening novices’ content knowledge and in reshaping their ideas about effective instruction. Further, schools, districts, and states may want to consider using science specialists at the elementary level as very few teachers have the time and training to become expert practitioners in every core academic subject.

Another area of need is developing novice teachers’ abilities to provide high-quality science instruction to all students. Few novice science teachers indicate feeling very well prepared to encourage the participation of students from historically underrepresented groups in science and/or engineering, or to teach science to students who have learning disabilities, physical disabilities, or are English-language learners. Although some novice science teachers have likely been introduced to strategies for engaging diverse learners during their preservice program, it takes time for teachers to bridge the gap between principles and practice. Induction programs can provide supportive environments for teachers to discuss and practice modifying instruction to meet the needs of all students. In addition, schools should consider concrete ways to ensure that access and equity issues are consistently examined, for example by disaggregating data for subgroups of students or by including regular time for discussion of these issues into their Professional Learning Communities.

An issue facing novice science teachers specifically at the elementary level is finding time to teach science, as mathematics and language arts monopolize instructional time. However, induction programs may be able to help novices see cross-curricular connections, equipping them to teach science more frequently than they would have otherwise. Further, induction programs can help novices maximize productivity during the science instructional time they do have, prompting them to think about the most important ideas and practices for given lessons/activities.

At each grade range, a substantial proportion of novice science teachers take a mix-and-match approach to curriculum. This finding is not particularly surprising, given that preservice methods courses often require students to create an instructional unit. Teachers may in fact enter the profession with the expectation that they should create their own materials, regardless of what materials their schools have on hand. Preservice programs may want to shift their emphasis to having teacher candidates analyze, implement, and reflect on extant curriculum materials rather than encouraging them to develop their own. Similarly, induction programs can prompt teachers to examine the pros and cons of creating/modifying curriculum


28

materials and help them make wise decisions. For example, in cases where teachers must create their own materials, induction programs could provide support for the design process. In cases where teachers are unsure about how to implement a set of commercially published materials, induction programs could provide support for purposeful implementation. Induction programs may also provide support to teachers in selecting high-quality lessons to supplement their existing materials when there are mismatches between topics addressed in the materials and the content standards they are responsible for teaching. Because curriculum materials to support the NGSS have not yet been developed, schools and districts may want to focus on other aspects of the system (e.g., professional development for teachers and administrators) until such curriculum materials are available.

Finally, data from the 2012 NSSME suggest that the one-shot workshop is still the most frequently offered form of professional development, despite the limited effectiveness of such experiences. The data also indicate that potentially more powerful forms of professional learning are gaining prominence. A substantial proportion of novice science teachers report participating in science-specific study groups or receiving feedback from a mentor or coach about their science teaching. These experiences may already be a part of existing induction programs, but if they are not, the programs can leverage these existing structures to address the areas of need identified in this chapter. Given that implementing the NGSS will pose challenges for all science teachers (not just novices), schools and districts may want to consider creating opportunities for all teachers of science to participate in these learning communities.

NOTES

1 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-1008228. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

2 Detailed information about the study, including instrument development, sampling, weighting, and data analysis can be found in the Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Banilower, Smith, Weiss, Malzahn, Campbell, & Weis, 2013).

3 The results of any survey based on a sample of a population (rather than on the entire population) are subject to sampling variability. The sampling error (or standard error) provides a measure of the range within which a sample estimate can be expected to fall a certain proportion of the time. For example, it may be estimated that 7 percent of all elementary science lessons involve the use of computers. If it is determined that the sampling error for this estimate was 1 percent, then, according to the Central Limit Theorem, 95 percent of all possible samples of that same size selected in the same way would yield computer usage estimates between 5 percent and 9 percent (that is, 7 percent ± 2 standard error units). The standard errors for the estimates presented in this chapter are included in parentheses in the tables.

4 Secondary teachers were directed to respond for a single, randomly selected class. For these data, the teacher weight was adjusted to reflect the number of classes taught, and therefore, the probability of a particular class being selected.


29

REFERENCES

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Recruiting and retaining teachers: Turning around the race to the bottom in high-need schools. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(1), 16–32.

Horizon Research, Inc. (2010). Why teachers’ science content knowledge matters: A summary of studies. Retrieved from www.mspkmd.net/pdfs/blast16/3b1.pdf

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? Research Report (#RR–82). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educators. (2006). What makes a teacher effective? A summary of key research findings on teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495408.pdf

National Research Council. (2005). In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K–12 Science Education, Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Eric R. BanilowerHorizon Research, Inc

Peggy J. TrygstadHorizon Research, Inc

P. Sean SmithHorizon Research, Inc

newly hired teachers of science

Documents