on the nature of teaching nature of science: preservice early childhood teachers' instruction...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 2, PP. 213–233 (2010)

On the Nature of Teaching Nature of Science:Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Instruction

in Preschool and Elementary Settings

Valarie L. Akerson,1 Cary A. Buzzelli,2 Lisa A. Donnelly3

1Indiana University, Science Education, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana 474052Indiana University, Early Childhood Education, Bloomington, Indiana

3Department of Teaching, Leadership and Curriculum Studies, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

Received 31 January 2008; Accepted 28 May 2009

Abstract: This study explored whether early childhood preservice teachers’ concerns about teaching nature

of science (NOS) and their intellectual levels influenced whether and how they taught NOS at the preschool and primary

(K-3) levels. We used videotaped classroom observations and lesson plans to determine the science instructional practices

at the preschool and primary levels, and to track whether and how preservice teachers emphasized NOS. We used the

Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SOCQ) pre- and postinternship to determine concerns about NOS instruction, and the

Learning Context Questionnaire (LCQ) to determine intellectual levels. We found that neither concerns about teaching

NOS nor intellectual level were related to whether and how the preservice teachers emphasized NOS; however,

we found that all preservice early childhood teachers began their internships with NOS concern profiles of ‘‘worried.’’

Two preservice teachers’ NOS concerns profiles changed as a result of their internships; one to ‘‘cooperator’’ and one

to ‘‘cooperator/improver.’’ These two preservice teachers had cooperating teachers who were aware of NOS and

implemented it in their own science instruction. The main factors that hindered or facilitated teaching NOS for

these preservice teachers were the influence of the cooperating teacher and the use of the science curriculum. The

preservice teacher with the cooperating teacher who understood and emphasized NOS herself and showed her how to

modify the curriculum to include NOS, was able to explicitly teach NOS to her students. Those in classrooms

whose cooperating teachers did not provide support for NOS instruction were unable to emphasize NOS.

� 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 213–233, 2010

Keywords: nature of science; early childhood; preservice; elementary

To help early childhood students at the preschool and primary levels understand aspects of nature of

science (NOS) it is critical that their teachers have adequate views of NOS and explicitly teach about NOS.

Early childhood preservice teachers can improve their NOS conceptions by participating in science methods

courses that explicitly emphasize NOS. Research has shown that characteristics of the preservice teachers,

such as their intellectual levels (Akerson & Buzzelli, 2007; Perry, 1970) influence the ways they

conceptualize NOS even after participating in explicit NOS instruction (Akerson, Morrison, & Roth

McDuffie, 2006; Akerson & Volrich, 2006). The question that logically follows is whether intellectual levels

influence NOS teaching practice at the early childhood level. We also recognize that preservice teachers have

different concerns about teaching than inservice teachers, and these concerns could influence whether and

how they teach NOS, and whether those concerns would change after teaching. We previously found that

preservice teachers’ NOS teaching concerns fell into the categories of (a) non-user, (b) concern with how

teaching about NOS would align with what other teachers were doing, (c) classroom management related to

NOS instruction, (d) consequences for NOS instruction for their students, and (e) those seeking more

information about NOS instruction (Akerson & Donnelly, 2008). We wanted to know whether their NOS

Correspondence to: V.L. Akerson; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20323

Published online 25 November 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

teaching concerns would interact with their Perry intellectual positions and influence whether and how they

taught NOS.

To explore our questions we studied four preservice early childhood teachers during their internships as

they taught science in preschool and primary classrooms. All four held adequate or informed views of NOS

after participating in a science methods course that emphasized NOS. They varied in their intellectual levels

as found by Perry (1970) and were initially either at the dualism, multiplicity, or relativism positions.

Our specific research questions became ‘‘How are intellectual levels related to preschool and early

childhood science teaching?’’ ‘‘How are preservice teachers’ concerns related to their NOS instruction?’’

‘‘To what extent do our preservice teachers address NOS at the preschool and primary levels?’’

Review of Literature

Why explore our preservice teachers’ NOS teaching practice? Darling-Hammopnd and Baratz-

Snowden (2007) suggest that teacher preparation programs should be preparing highly qualified teachers.

Part of being a highly qualified teacher is teaching in line with national reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1997)

and supporting K-12 students in developing knowledge of content, which for teachers of science, includes

NOS content. It is difficult to learn to teach (Sadler, 2006). It is especially difficult to teach in someone else’s

classroom as a teacher intern; indeed it is difficult to teach on one’s own as a new teacher in the field (Roehrig

& Luft, 2006). Time, support and practice are required to help preservice teachers develop identities as

science teachers (Luehmann, 2007). Otero and Nathan (2008) found that the way preservice teachers taught

in their internships was related to how they view their students’ prior knowledge. We wished to see whether

there are other personal characteristics that may make the transition to teaching NOS easier, in the hopes that

we can help future preservice teachers capitalize on such characteristics.

We review several literature bases that inform our study. We examine NOS teaching, stages of concern,

intellectual levels, and teaching science in preschool and primary classrooms.

Nature of Science Teaching

Nature of science (NOS) refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values

and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). Rudolph (2000) urges an

emphasis on NOS in the science curriculum despite the debate of what exactly constitutes NOS. Driver,

Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) recommend an emphasis on NOS to promote scientific literacy.

In their NOS position statement the National Science Teachers Association (2000) recommends that

teachers and students should know that: (a) scientific knowledge is both reliable (one can have confidence in

scientific knowledge) and tentative (subject to change in light of new evidence or reconceptualization of prior

evidence); (b) no single scientific method exists, but there are shared characteristics of scientific approaches

to science, such as scientific explanations being supported by empirical evidence, and are testable against the

natural world; (c) creativity plays a role in the development of scientific knowledge; (d) there is a relationship

between theories and laws; (e) there is a relationship between observations and inferences; (f) though science

strives for objectivity, there is always an element of subjectivity in the development of scientific knowledge;

and (g) social and cultural context also play a role in the development of scientific knowledge. Because these

are the ideas that teachers need to teach, when observing our preservice teachers we explored whether they

emphasized these aspects.

Prior research has emphasized learner characteristics that influence how teachers conceptualize NOS.

For example, Southerland, Johnston, and Sowell (2006) explored the conceptual ecologies of elementary

teachers and influences on how they conceptualized NOS and found that those who discerned a

‘‘boundedness’’ of science improved their views of NOS. Schwartz and Lederman (2002) found that of two

beginning high school science teachers, the one with the better views of NOS and stronger science content

knowledge was better able to address NOS than the teacher with lesser knowledge.

Through a series of our own studies targeting preservice elementary teachers we have found that learner

characteristics influence whether they improve in their NOS views (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004;

Akerson & Buzzelli, 2007; Akerson & Donnelly, 2008; Akerson et al., 2006). Some of these characteristics

are whether they see science as a separate way of knowing, their motivation for learning NOS, their

intellectual levels, metacognitive awareness, and cultural values.

214 AKERSON, BUZZELLI, AND DONNELLY

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

We have noted that these learner characteristics influence whether and how preservice teachers improve

their views of NOS. As part of this study we explored whether and how these characteristics were related to

how NOS was taught in preschool and primary settings.

Stages of Concern

Our preservice teachers had recently improved their views of NOS after participating in the science

methods course taught by the first author. We believed they would have concerns about teaching NOS because

they had not previously learned NOS. We used the Stages of Concern model for measuring our preservice

teachers’ concerns about teaching NOS. Stages of Concern is based on the Concerns Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) that indicates teachers have a variety of concerns about teaching an innovation, and those supporting

teachers should address those concerns when helping them enact new strategies (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).

We used the Concerns about NOS Teaching survey to explore specific concerns our preservice teachers may

have about teaching NOS. Akerson and Donnelly (2008) found that preservice teachers’ NOS teaching

concerns fell into the categories of (a) non-user, (b) concern with how teaching NOS aligns with other

teachers’ instruction, and (c) classroom management related to NOS instruction, (d) consequences of NOS

instruction for students, and (e) seeking more information about NOS instruction. In the current study we

explore whether these preservice teachers held similar concerns, how they affected classroom practice,

and whether their concerns changed after classroom teaching.

Bitan-Friedlander, Dreyfus, and Milgrom (2004) used the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) to

classify teachers into five profiles enabling them to provide specific teaching supports. The first profile was the

‘‘opponent’’ which was characterized by the sense that teachers did not need more information, but were high

in concern for personal, and refocusing, but low on information and collaboration on the SoCQ. Those with

the ‘‘worried’’ profile were high on personal concerns, with high scores in collaboration, consequence to

students, and information, suggesting such teachers are worried by feelings of personal difficulties in

implementing the innovation. The profile ‘‘docile performer’’ was characterized as those who accept the

innovation as authority, what they need to do, but do not adopt the innovation. These teachers had high

concern for consequences for students. Those with the ‘‘cooperator’’ profile had high concerns regarding

information, collaboration, and students, and were low on personal, management, and innovation. Those

who are ‘‘cooperators’’ willingly implement the innovation, but grasp the idea of cooperation as gaining

information not of exchanging and sharing information. Those classified as ‘‘improvers’’ were concerned

with consequences, collaboration, and refocusing, and were concerned most about their students’

achievements and difficulties.

Because our preservice teachers have not experienced teaching NOS their concerns about NOS

instruction may change as they assumed their roles as classroom teachers. Sevilla and Marsh (1992) found

that elementary teachers were initially concerned with time management, while later more concerned with

their own teaching and consequences for children’s learning. We imagine that our preservice teachers may

experience a change from a focus on management to student learning. However, new teachers are often less

concerned with consequences for students, and more concerned about collaboration, or how their teaching

was in line with others’ teaching (Christou, Eliophotou-Menon, & Phillippou, 2004).

Most studies using SoCQ have been with inservice teachers. However, Ward, West, and Isaak (2002)

used the SoCQ with preservice teachers in a study on mentoring. They found that use of the SoCQ with

preservice teachers must be combined with interviews to interpret and reveal the magnitude of their concerns.

Therefore we used interviews along with the SoCQ to determine our preservice teachers’ concerns about

teaching NOS.

Relationships Between NOS Views and Intellectual Levels

In the current study we explored how intellectual levels were related to whether and how preservice

teachers emphasize NOS. Perry (1970) devised a scheme of intellectual and ethical development that

categorizes adults into epistemological positions along a continuum, such as dualism, multiplicity,

relativism, and dialectical. Dualism is defined as ‘‘authority being right’’ and belief in the ‘‘right answer.’’

Those at multiplicity positions are defined as recognizing there are multiple possibilities, but still believing

ON THE NATURE OF TEACHING NATURE OF SCIENCE 215


there is ‘‘one best answer.’’ Those at the relativism position recognize there is no right answer, though

authorities pass judgment on the answers. Those at the dialectical position understand knowledge is

contextual and the ‘‘best knowledge’’ depends on the context. Previous studies have documented the

relevance of Perry’s framework to NOS learning, which we will review in this section. One study (Akerson

et al., 2006) investigated the relationship between preservice elementary teachers’ intellectual levels and their

gains and retention of more informed NOS views following an elementary science methods course. The

authors found that almost all preservice teachers held inadequate NOS views prior to the class, and most

students improved their NOS views as a result of the class. However, students at higher Perry positions

retained their improved NOS views more effectively than did their peers at lower Perry positions. These

findings suggest that intellectual levels are important influences on the sustainability of NOS view

improvement.

Tsai (2007) found that teachers holding epistemological views consistent with positivism employed

more teacher-directed teaching methods while teachers whose epistemological views were consistent with

constructivism employed student-centered methods. Furthermore, teachers’ epistemological views were

related to their students’ epistemological views, and teachers and students were similar in terms of their

desired classroom climates. These findings highlight the importance of teachers’ epistemological views for

influencing classroom climate and instruction, and provide impetus for further study of how epistemology is

related to NOS instruction.

Akerson, Buzzelli, and Donnelly (2008) tracked the influence of a science methods and foundations

course on cultural values, intellectual development, and the relationship of these with preservice teachers’

views of NOS. The researchers found that those at higher Perry positions had more informed NOS views.

Because we found that those at higher Perry positions held better NOS conceptions we predicted that they

may be better at teaching NOS. The current study explores whether and how these intellectual levels affect

teaching practice.

Teaching Science at the Preschool Level

To our knowledge the teaching and learning of NOS has not been researched in preschool settings. To

identify how NOS may be learned in preschool settings we reviewed studies of preschool science curricula

and the teaching of science.

Prior to our review we were not certain what curricula our preservice teachers may find in their settings.

We identified two studies that provided us with some background. Gelman and Brennenman (2004) explored

Preschool Pathways to Science (Pre-PS) which was developed to introduce vocabulary such as observe,

predict, check, and ‘‘the scientific method.’’ A second example of preschool curricula is ScienceStart!

Described by French (2004) with a goal to engage children’s interest as the centerpiece and builds on

children’s natural curiosity about the world. It presumes a role for adults to support students’ learning through

planning ways to explore topics and create a language-rich environment. Thus, some preschool science

curricula involve investigations, build on students’ interest, are designed to integrate math and language

learning, but do not explicitly emphasize ‘‘what science is’’ or address NOS.

Other studies explored what was considered science in preschool classrooms. Wigg (1995) noted that

preschool classrooms rarely used science vocabulary, especially when students were conversing. Tu (2006)

also explored the kinds of science experiences preschool children had through the environments in their

classrooms. He used Neuman’s (1972) structure of formal sciencing, informal sciencing, and incidental

sciencing to classify their experiences. He found that half of the preschool classrooms had science areas, 30%

provided indoor sand box activities, and 25% had indoor water activities. He found that 86.8% of the time

spent in the classrooms was spent on activities other than science, while 4.5% of those activities were related

to formal science (e.g., making playdough). He found 8.8% of the activities were related to informal

sciencing, such as playing in the sandbox. Teachers interacted least often with students in the science area.

Finally, Inan, Trundle, and Kantor (2007) concluded that science took place in numerous spots classroom,

such as the sensory table, art studio, kitchen, dramatic play area, circle area, science table, quiet room, and the

playground. In their study science was defined as making and manipulating things, building, caring for pets

and plants, and playing. They indicate that children’s questions shaped the classroom’s science instruction.



Like the preschool curricula research, these studies indicate that preschool children do not explicitly learn

‘‘what science is.’’

It became clear to us that though there are few preschool science curricula, the focus of these curricula

range from those that are not inquiry or NOS focused (Gelman & Brennenman, 2004) to those that are more-

inquiry focused with long-term explorations (French, 2004). We realized that preschool science may be

different from elementary science. Preschool science seemed to be associated with anything active such as

playing and work in kitchen areas, and is not always referred to as science to the children or among the

teachers (Tu, 2006; Wigg, 1995), and in fact, could be considered many things such as building, manipulating

items, and other naturally occurring events (Inan et al., 2007). This knowledge shaped how we viewed

preschool science lessons we observed in the study.

Teaching NOS at K-3 Level

There have been questions raised about whether young children can even gain understandings of NOS or

scientific inquiry; however we are of the mind that given appropriate instruction and scaffolding young

children will be able to conceptualize appropriate NOS views (Metz, 2004). Indeed, Varelas, Pappas, and Rife

(2006) found that second graders not only grappled with complex ideas, but used data to support claims, and

showed sustained interest in long term scientific inquiries. We were able to find several studies at the primary

(K-3) level that explored children’s views of NOS. First, it appears that through appropriate instruction young

children can improve their views of NOS. For instance, Akerson and Hanuscin (2007) interviewed

Kindergarten and first grade students to track changes in their NOS views and found students improved their

views of NOS as a result of explicit NOS instruction provided by experienced elementary teachers with

adequate and informed NOS views. Such explicit NOS instruction can be carried out by preservice teachers.

Akerson and Volrich (2006) focused on a preservice teacher’s efforts to emphasize NOS in her first grade

classroom and found that students’ views of the inferential, tentative, and creative NOS improved. In these

studies collaboration between experienced teachers (first study) and the preservice teacher and university

faculty member (second study) provided support for those seeking to teach NOS to children. Goodnough

(2002) explored the professional knowledge of science of two K-1 teachers who worked together. From

working together these teachers enhanced their teaching by sharing ideas. Both improved their assessment

and planning strategies, shifting away from reliance on the textbook. Goodnough emphasized the importance

of collaboration in teaching reform. The mentoring provided by a cooperating teacher could provide

collaboration that supports preservice teachers seeking to teach NOS. Samarapungavan, Mantzicopoulos,

and Patrick (2008) have found that similar scaffolding by a teacher who understands how to teach science

through inquiry would improve kindergarten students’ conceptions of inquiry. We believe that teachers

who explicitly teach NOS using contextual scaffolding will positively influence their young student’s views

of NOS.

We also found studies that shared information on elementary curricula. Unlike what we found at the

preschool level, there is a range of science curriculum materials to be found at the early elementary level.

These curricula range from textbooks to resources such as science ‘‘kits:’’ like Science and Technology for

Children (National Science Resource Center, 2002) or Full Options Science System (Appleton, 2008;

Lawrence Hall of Science, 2008). Textbooks generally do not include materials to be used for science

explorations, whereas the kit-based programs typically include most of the materials needed to carry

out investigations that illustrate important science concepts. None of these curricula explicitly addresses

NOS.

General trends for teaching elementary science range from teaching science as inquiry, encouraging

cognitive conflict through discrepant events, addressing misconceptions through conceptual change

strategies, orchestrating small group interactions through which students share ideas, using models and

analogies to connect new concepts to old, providing scaffolding, and use of the learning cycle, among others

(Appleton, 2008). Thus, there have been numerous strategies explored for teaching science at the elementary

levels. These strategies are designed to be used with any curriculum, from textbook to kit, and depend upon

teacher understanding of pedagogy and content, as well as an understanding of how students best learn

different content.



Method

We examined the influence of learner characteristics of intellectual levels and concerns on preservice

teachers’ ability to teach about NOS in their preschool and elementary internship settings. We used an

interpretive (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) approach to track preservice teachers’ teaching about NOS, and related

their instruction to their intellectual levels and NOS views. We purposely selected participants with a range of

intellectual levels and concerns for NOS teaching to explore whether and how these characteristics influenced

NOS instruction. We will describe our methods in the sections below.

Context of the Study

In this section we describe the science methods and foundations for teaching early childhood classes, the

preparation the preservice teachers received to improve their views of NOS, and their preparation for teaching

NOS. We also describe the participants and the school settings in which they were interns.

Science Methods and Foundations Courses. The early childhood science methods course met once a

week for three hours. Course goals were to help the preservice teachers gain methods for teaching science at

the K-3 level. Major emphases were on improving the preservice teachers’ NOS conceptions and providing

strategies for teaching NOS at the K-3 levels. The course instructor (first author) used explicit reflective

teaching as was found effective in improving preservice teachers’ conceptions of NOS in previous studies

(e.g., Akerson et al., 2000).

The foundations of early childhood education course met twice a week for 75 minutes. The course

instructor (second author) emphasized teaching as a moral activity, the influence of culture on how teachers

teach and students learn, the thoughtful use of language in teaching, and teacher authority. His instruction

often paralleled that in the science methods course, as he focused on evidence as well as cultural influences in

interpreting evidence. Greater details on activities for the courses can be found in Akerson et al. (2008).

Participants

The Early Childhood Education Teacher Education Program leads to a BA degree with certification to

teach in preschool and K-3 settings. As part of a cohort program preservice teachers move through three

consecutive semesters of block courses and field placements in their sophomore and junior years. The

preservice teachers in this study were in their senior year during which they have three internship placements.

In one semester they have an 8-week internship in preschool and eight more weeks in a kindergarten

classroom. In the other semester they have a 15-week internship in a primary classroom.

Among the 14 participants in this cohort—all of whom had adequate or informed views of NOS at the

conclusion of the courses—were four at the dualism position, seven at multiplicity, and three at Perry’s

contextual relativism position of intellectual development. We purposely selected four teachers (Callie,

Meredith, Addison, and Izzie) to follow in their internships because they each had (a) attained adequate views

of NOS, (b) varying intellectual levels as described by Perry (1970), and (c) been placed in settings close

enough to allow us to conduct classroom observations. See Table 1 for a list of our participants.

School Settings. All preschool and primary classrooms were from the same school district in proximity

to the university. The district had adopted FOSS for its primary and elementary science curriculum. Callie

was placed in the Bandolino Head Start preschool which was housed on the same lot as an elementary school.

There was one male teacher and one male assistant. The 15 students were 3–5 years old. Callie later taught in

a kindergarten classroom of 17 students at Ferragamo Elementary School, also in the spring semester. The

school was in an affluent part of the community, with 83% of the students being white, and only 14% on free or

reduced lunches. Though FOSS had been adopted K-5, this kindergarten room did not use FOSS. The

classroom arrangement had bookshelves lining the walls and student desks arranged in groups, with a large

carpeted meeting area. The teacher was a female with 20 years of experience.

Meredith was placed in a classroom with 15 students at Blahnik Private Preschool. Meredith’s

cooperating teacher was female with 20 years experience. The classroom had water tables, toys, art areas,

bookshelves, and a fish tank. For her primary placement Meredith taught in a third grade classroom with



23 students at Versace Elementary School. The school has 534 students, 80% of whom are white and 42%

of whom are on free or reduced lunches. The school had adopted FOSS for their K-5 science curriculum.

Her cooperating teacher was female with 5 years of experience, and had participated in a NOS inservice

program.

For her preschool internship Addison was placed in a 15-student class affiliated with a local synagogue at

Weitzman Preschool. The curriculum included some religious education, but also activities common to

quality preschool programs. Addison’s primary internship was a first grade classroom with 20 children in

Prada Elementary School. The school has 363 students of which 83% are white, 8% are multiracial, 2% are

African-American, and 2% are Asian. Forty-one percent of the children received free lunch and 8% received a

reduced lunch. Addison’s female cooperating teacher had 31 years of teaching experience.

Izzie’s preschool placement was completed at a classroom with 13 students at the Choo Early Childhood

Center. The student population was 97.1% Caucasian. Her female teachers had 5 years of experience. Izzie’s

primary placement was in a second grade classroom with 27 students at Louboutin Elementary School.

This public school has a student body that is 59% Caucasian, 22% Asian, 8% multiracial, 7% black,

and 5% Hispanic. The school has been designated as a four-star school, a high distinction within the

state. Izzie’s female cooperating teacher had taught for 21 years and participated in four years of a NOS

inservice program. Science was taught from FOSS two times every week.

The Researchers. The lead researcher was an associate professor of science education and had been the

science methods course instructor for the students. She has previously taught first, second, and third grades at

a public elementary school. The second researcher was a professor of early childhood education and was the

instructor for the foundations for early childhood course. He has previously taught preschool. The third

researcher was a doctoral student in science education and was serving as a research assistant for this project.

She has previously taught high school biology as well as K-2 students in an informal science setting.

Table 1

Characteristics of Participants

Participant Callie Meredith Addison Izzie

Intellectual position pre Contextualrelativism

Multiplicity Dualism (retreatedfrom multiplicity)

Dualism

Intellectual position post Dialectical Multiplicity Multiplicity MultiplicityNOS views Informed and

adequateAdequate Adequate Adequate

NOS concerns pre profile Information,personal,collaboration‘‘worried’’

Information, personal,collaboration,consequence‘‘worried’’

Personal,management,collaboration‘‘worried’’

Personal, information‘‘worried’’

NOS concerns postprofile Information‘‘worried’’

Information,collaboration‘‘cooperator’’

Information, personal,management‘‘worried’’

Information personal,refocusing‘‘cooperator/improver’’

Demonstrated awarenessof NOS emphasis byresearchers

Yes No No Yes

Preschool setting Head start Private Synagogue School districtPrimary setting Kindergarten Third grade First grade Second gradePrimary cooperating

teacher co-plansNo No Yes Yes

Primary cooperatingteacher emphasizesNOS in own teaching

No Yes No Yes

Explicitly teaches NOSin preschool setting

No No No No

Explicitly teaches NOSin primary setting

No No No Yes



Data Collection

To track the preservice teachers’ science instruction we used non-participant observation as we

videotaped classroom instruction, collected lesson plans, and took field notes. We sought to make as many

observations in the preschool and early elementary settings as we could. Because the preservice teachers were

not in the preschool settings very long, and did not teach science very often, we were not able to make as many

observations as we made for the elementary settings. Additionally, in the elementary schools science was not

always taught each week, and several times observations were cancelled due to weather or illness of the

preservice teacher. We believe that more science may have been taught in these classrooms during this study

simply because they knew we were coming in to observe science lessons. Due to the classroom constraints the

number of observations in each setting was not equivalent, but represents the most observations we were able

to make in each classroom, and we base our results on the maximum number of observations we could make.

Each classroom observation was for the duration of the science lessons which ranged from about 30 to

45 minutes. For each teacher we made at least two preschool observations and at least four elementary

observations. We made two preschool observations of Callie, Meredith, and Addison, and three of Izzie.

Each researcher made at least one observation at each elementary placement, enabling us to compare notes

and share insights from being in each classroom. We made four elementary observations of Callie, Addison,

and Izzie, and five elementary observations of Meredith. As part of these observations we collected lesson

plans that they had prepared.

We verified whether the preservice teachers held sufficient content knowledge for teaching about NOS

from 30 to 45 minute audiotaped interviews using the VNOS-B (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, &

Schwartz, 2002). The VNOS-B allowed researchers to note NOS views emphasized in the national reforms

(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996) for K-12

learners. This instrument was administered at the conclusion of the methods courses and before the

internships to determine whether the preservice teachers retained their improved NOS understandings.

We used the Stages of Concern instrument modified to explicitly measure concerns about NOS teaching

using instructions from the developers (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 2005). We administered

the instrument pre- and postinternship with interviews to identify NOS teaching concerns and determine

whether concerns about teaching NOS changed after their internship. The instrument notes teachers’

concerns in terms of whether teachers have no awareness of the innovation (stage 0), a desire for more

information about the innovation (stage 1), personal concerns about the innovation (stage 2), concerns about

management issues related to the innovation (stage 3), concerns about consequence of using the innovation

(stage 4), concerns about how other teachers are using this innovation, or collaboration (stage 5), and

refocusing—concerns that they have better ways of teaching that may or may not include this innovation

(stage 6). Sample items from this questionnaire are: ‘‘I am concerned about students’ attitudes toward nature

of science instruction;’’ ‘‘I don’t even know what nature of science instruction is;’’ ‘‘I am concerned about not

having enough time to organize my day;’’ and ‘‘I would like to develop working relationships with our faculty

and outside faculty using nature of science instruction.’’ We used profiles developed by Bitan-Friedlander

et al. (2004) to classify the preservice early childhood teachers’ concerns for teaching NOS pre and

postinternship.

To determine the preservice teachers’ intellectual levels we used the learning context questionnaire

(LCQ) (Kelton and Griffith, 1986). This instrument was developed and validated for use with college

students, and consists of 50 items (26 of which are scored) that are marked on a 6 step scale from strongly

agree to strongly disagree. The authors report an alpha reliability of 0.77. The questionnaire sorts student

responses into Perry Positions of Dualism, Multiplicity, Contextual Relativism, and Dialectical Commitment

to Relativism. We used this instrument at the conclusion of the preservice teachers’ methods courses, and

prior to and after our preservice teachers’ participation in their internships to track any change in intellectual

positions.

We interviewed the preservice teachers prior to and at the conclusion of their internships to determine

their perspectives on science teaching at preschool and elementary levels, the role of their cooperating

teachers, and challenges and successes they had. As part of these audiotaped 30–45 minute interviews we

included a video-stimulated recall portion (Ericsson & Simon, 1980) through which we shared video clips of



the preservice teachers in their preschool and elementary settings to collect thought processes regarding

instruction. Because we were non-participant observers we did not want to lead the preservice teachers

toward our research interests in NOS and did not directly ask them about their NOS teaching but rather

allowed any discussion about NOS teaching to emerge in the conversation. We therefore did not plan any

explicit questions regarding NOS teaching but noted whether any discussion regarding NOS emerged in

the interviews. We acknowledge this as a weakness in our study because we could have obtained more

information regarding their impressions of their teaching of NOS had we explicitly asked them in a

postinterview. In future studies we recommend following up on preservice teachers’ views of NOS teaching

through a postinternship interview. We did target their concerns about teaching NOS in the Concerns about

Teaching NOS surveys, but we failed to ask any direct questions regarding their NOS instruction. An example

of the interview protocols is in the Appendix.

Data Analysis

To determine the preservice teachers’ teaching practice we all reviewed the videotapes of their

instruction at the preschool and elementary levels. We made and compared notes as we viewed the tapes. We

used field notes to help us recall insights from observations, and to share ideas with the other researchers who

had not been on site. We made notes of (a) how science was being represented, (b) whether NOS was being

explicitly or implicitly addressed in the lesson, and (c) impressions of how the preservice teacher felt the

lesson was going. We sought common themes of instruction for the participants, and compared those themes.

We reviewed lesson plans to note whether there were any NOS objectives listed, and whether any plans were

made to explicitly teach NOS to the children.

To verify the preservice teachers’ views of NOS we transcribed interview responses to the VNOS-B. We

coded the views as either ‘‘informed’’ (indicating a fully developed understanding of the NOS aspect),

‘‘adequate’’ (indicating a developing view), or ‘‘inadequate’’ (indicating a misconception was held by the

student) using the coding criteria recommended by the developers (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, &

Schwartz, 2002). Two researchers independently analyzed these responses and these analyses were

compared, with any differences resolved through discussion and consensus. More detail on the use of the

VNOS can be found in Akerson et al. (2008).

The LCQ results were analyzed by assigning item scores to the positively and negatively weighted items

and then obtaining the total score for each individual. The total scores enabled us to identify Perry Positions

for participants. We compared the pre- and post-LCQ scores to determine change in Perry position. We

compared the scores at the beginning of the internships to those from the end of the methods course to

determine whether there were any students who changed (either retreated or improved) Perry positions

between the end of the courses and the beginning of the internships.

We scored the Stages of Concern for teaching NOS Questionnaire and interviews to determine the

concerns the preservice teachers held prior to and following their internships. We compared pre- and

postresponses to determine whether the preservice teachers’ concerns changed with teaching experience. To

score these surveys, we followed the conventions established by Hord et al. (2005). As such, the interns

received subscores for items pertaining to their awareness, informational, personal, management, learner

consequences, collaboration, and refocusing concerns about using NOS pedagogy. These subscores were

then converted into percentiles, and graphical profiles identifying interns’ most prominent concerns were

created for each student. Each researcher independently classified each preservice early childhood teachers’

concerns into the profiles developed by Bitan-Friedlander et al. (2004). These profiles were ‘‘opponent,’’

‘‘worried,’’ ‘‘docile performer,’’ ‘‘cooperator,’’ or ‘‘improver.’’ Any discrepancies between classification

were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Results

We present results in the sections below, first describing our participants’ intellectual levels followed by

their concerns for teaching NOS pre- and postinternship. Though we have limited classroom observations due

to reasons described above, and though we did not explicitly ask explicit NOS teaching questions in the

postinterview, we describe the teaching patterns that we inferred from our observations in the preschool



settings, followed by a section describing elementary teaching settings. Our final section describes

relationships noted between NOS teaching and intellectual levels or concerns for teaching NOS.

Intellectual Levels

Callie began the school year at the contextual relativism position indicating she recognized there are

multiple views at any given time but depending on the context one view is preferable. At the end of the year

she attained the Perry position of Dialectical, meaning she recognized and was committed to her own views,

and noted that others have different views that are not equal in all settings. She no longer appealed to authority

but trusted her own knowledge.

Meredith’s intellectual position remained multiplicity throughout the study indicating she viewed

knowledge as ‘‘anything goes,’’ and recognizing there are many different interpretations of ideas without

acknowledging one idea is preferable than others depending on context.

Prior to her internship, Addison’s intellectual position was dualism having retreated from the higher

multiplicity position she held at the end of the previous semester. At the dualism position individuals believe

in absolute truth that is held by authorities. Near the end of her student teaching, Addison returned to the

multiplicity position, acknowledging multiple perspectives and uncertainty.

At the beginning of the year Izzie was at Perry’s dualism position indicating her appeal to authority for

right answers. At the end of her internship she was at the multiplicity position indicating she acknowledged

multiple perspectives and uncertainty.

NOS Views and Concerns About Teaching NOS

All preservice teachers’ NOS views were a mixture of adequate and informed meaning they held enough

content knowledge about NOS to be able to teach it. Early in the school year all preservice teachers’ NOS

concerns followed the ‘‘worried’’ profile for teaching about NOS and included concerns with how to

implement NOS instruction (information), how teaching NOS would affect her (personal), and how to align

this instruction with what other teachers were doing (collaboration). Addison and Callie’s concerns for

teaching NOS did not change from being in the classroom, and she retained the ‘‘worried’’ profile.

Meredith and Izzie’s NOS teaching concerns changed after the internships. After teaching Meredith held

dual concerns about information and collaboration indicating she wanted to know more about teaching NOS,

and to be sure she was teaching NOS as other teachers were, consistent with the ‘‘cooperator’’ profile. After

teaching Izzie was most concerned about getting more information about NOS instruction, how it would

personally impact her, and how it could be taught differently (refocusing), which is the profile of a

‘‘cooperator/improver.’’

We think it interesting that while concern for classroom management was expressed preinternship, it

was not of primary concern to the preservice early childhood teachers. This finding is contrary to that which

finds management issues as a concern foremost to student teachers (Hollingsworth, 1989). The responses

from these four preservice teachers may have resulted because we specifically asked them about concerns

teaching NOS as opposed to general concerns about teaching. Conversely, on postinternship data, the

one concern expressed by all four interns was information. Each expressed the same concern about wanting

more information about teaching NOS. However, Addison and Callie retained their ‘‘worried’’ profile, while

Meredith and Izzie changed their profiles to ‘‘cooperator’’ or ‘‘cooperator/improver.’’ These two teachers

were less concerned about personal implications for teaching NOS, and were open to new ideas for NOS

teaching, with Izzie indicating a desire to share ideas for teaching NOS.

Preschool NOS Teaching

Callie described preschool science as being very hands-on with meaningful sensory experiences. The

lesson we share from her class seemed meaningful to the students because it was a theme that related to the

upcoming Easter holiday. This was a lesson she described as helping students ‘‘think scientifically’’ by

making observations of marshmallow ‘‘Peeps’’ candy and describing them, comparing them, describing

ideas of ‘‘what they can be used for,’’ telling her what the ‘‘peeps’’ make the students think about, and

describing how they think they are made. When we read her lesson plan we noted no objectives for NOS



teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS. Students were encouraged to share ideas and Callie

recorded responses to post for parents. She believed this lesson would help students ‘‘think scientifically’’

because she adapted it from her science methods class (taught by the first author). Callie raised questions,

probed responses, and was careful to use the words of the children when describing the peeps (e.g., ‘‘birds’’ or

‘‘bunnies’’). In the video-stimulated recall interview Callie stated she used questions to help clarify what

students were describing, and to get feedback on their ideas. She wanted to use the terms they used so she

would not ‘‘mislead their answer’’ by using a term differently than they did. She did not want them to think

their answers were wrong and that she was correcting them.

Callie believed that the ‘‘peeps’’ lesson was science because it was ‘‘similar to what we did in your class!

And I remember I liked the activity and I thought they could do it with peeps. He (cooperating teacher) gives

me themes and I am kind of like forced to follow the themes. I thought the critical thinking part aspect would

be good.’’

As we reviewed the videotapes of Callie in her preschool, we noticed that while she was teaching

science, and though she wanted to encourage students to ‘‘think scientifically,’’ she never talked about the

activities as being science, or being similar to what scientists do. Callie stated she was allowed to develop any

science lessons she wished as long as she connected them to the given theme. She received no feedback from

the cooperating teacher, though he liked to have science at least weekly. In her interview Callie stated that she

thought we hoped to see her teaching what science was and how it was different than what science is not,

indicating an awareness that the researchers were looking for a NOS emphasis. She said she believed that

science is important in the preschool, and that her cooperating teacher found it important.

Meredith described science in preschool as being more basic—‘‘that the children do not realize they are

doing science—they think it is neat and gooey and fun.’’ We share a lesson in which Meredith had the students

make playdough. In this lesson she wanted the students to observe that heat made the mixture turn into

playdough. She considered this lesson science because ‘‘following a recipe’’ is part of the preschool science

standards. When we read her lesson plan we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for

teaching NOS. She allowed each student to add an ingredient to the mixture. She asked many questions to

‘‘help students focus and to help them understand what was happening.’’ As we reviewed Meredith’s

videotapes we noted that like Callie, she did not speak about the activities as being ‘‘science’’ with the

students. She said she ‘‘figured out’’ preschool science by observing what her cooperating teacher considered

science, and realized that students often followed recipes. She believed that everything in the preschool

setting could be ‘‘stretched’’ to be considered science. She believed science should fit into the preschool

classroom—to have students observe, discuss, think and figure out by testing things. She believed they

‘‘soaked up’’ the science while ‘‘not realizing it was science.’’

On the other hand, Addison described the preschool science curriculum as based on the children’s

interests. The emphasis is on encouraging children to try new things. Addison said, ‘‘Anything we are

teaching is based on interest—before food we did a lot on pairs—two of a kind makes a pair—eyes, twins,

Noah’s Ark.’’ The unit on Noah’s Ark led to a science unit on sinking and floating. Addison likened the

preschool curriculum to the Montessori approach ‘‘They do so much stuff here—different from Montessori,

but like it in a way because it is real. Learning gross motor skills, some fine motor skills with writing their

names.’’ The curriculum contained many of the features central to a good early childhood program. Addison

believed that these qualities accounted for having so few behavioral problems. When we reviewed her lesson

plans we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS.

The day before one of our observations, the children had been playing outdoors and were intrigued by

how ice had formed on some of the outdoor toys. Of particular interest was a bicycle that had frozen in a tub of

water. Addison and her supervising teacher brought the entire tub and bike into the classroom. Addison asked

the students ‘‘What do you think we’re going to do to get the bicycle out of the ice?’’ As more students

gathered around the ‘‘frozen’’ bike, Addison said ‘‘Look at this, the ice is frozen. Look at the bicycle and how

it’s frozen to the ice. What would we have to do to get this bike out?’’ Students freely roamed to and from this

bike exploration table. During this time Addison continued to pose questions, ‘‘What do you think you need to

do to melt this ice? Hot water or cold water?’’ At this point the classroom teacher brought a pitcher of hot

water for Addison to pour into paper cups. Addison distributed these cups to the children surrounding her, and

said ‘‘Feel the cup. Pour it on there and see what happens. Do you want to pour some hot water on there? Is it



melting? How can you tell if it’s melting?’’ The students poured the water on the bicycle and the ice. One

student came up and said, ‘‘It’s melting.’’ Addison wiggled the bike and said, ‘‘Is it going to come out?’’

Addison lifted the bike and a chunk of ice out of the tub. The students watched her as she put the ice and

bike (still stuck together) back. The classroom teacher brought over some salt and said to put salt on half of the

ice. Addison asked, ‘‘What do you think will happen with the salt?’’

When asked about this activity, Addison commented that she and her teacher engaged the children in

such activities because in her preschool they had what she termed a ‘‘very indirect curriculum. It was kind of

like it came as it came and anything the kids were interested in, that’s what we were doing. . .You know we did

all these different experiments with it, but that was totally unplanned. You know it was something we saw and

knew the kids are going to love.’’

Addison said that because her preschool did not have a science curriculum she thought more broadly

about what she considered to be science. This was one aspect of her preschool experience that she enjoyed, yet

sometimes she felt adrift without a focused curriculum.

At Izzie’s preschool students had ‘‘table time’’ for science every day. During this time students were

divided into three groups that rotated for 15 minutes each between science, math, and language arts. Izzie

worked at the science center and led the students in activities set up at different tables. When we read her

lesson plans we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS. The science

center activities included making handprint clouds, using play-dough, water-coloring, coloring over shapes,

sewing with yarn and cardboard masters, stamping with ink pads, painting with vegetables, and completing

puzzles. Izzie was not involved in planning these activities and did not like them. Izzie said, ‘‘I didn’t really

make up a lot of it. I didn’t really like them. They didn’t really let me do anything so it was all just basically

their stuff that they gave me to do with the kids.’’ She described how, ‘‘when it started, that [science table time]

was supposed to be like investigation time, but then it sort of turned into, ‘oh, let’s just color worksheets

because we don’t feel like planning anything’.’’ She did not like the small group format used for the science

tables. She said, ‘‘I think it’s hard because I don’t know, I just didn’t like preschool at all. I like to be in front of

the classroom teaching, not like what we were doing there.’’ Izzie saw the lack of materials and helpers as

obstacles to planning lessons. She said ‘‘Like if they wanted to do something, they had to cut everything out

themselves. So I think it was like if they didn’t want to do it, they would just get a worksheet. If they had a

FOSS unit or something, I think they would, they would utilize that.’’ Thus, Izzie saw the lack of curriculum as

a hindrance to teaching what was actually science. She stated ‘‘I knew you wanted to see me teach science and

to teach about NOS, but I know the activities were not really science.’’

Izzie explained how much of what she did with the students was not really science. She said, ‘‘I tried to

make it science, but I didn’t really think it was science.’’ Izzie explained that ‘‘just introducing ideas in

preschool would be science, introducing, you know, bugs, fabric, any of that kind of stuff would be science in

preschool.’’ However, she ultimately concluded that she didn’t ‘‘really know what science is like in preschool.

I don’t really know what to do. I don’t really think water coloring is science, but I really don’t know what

I would change. I don’t really know what science looks like.’’ Izzie knew what she was teaching was

not science and that introducing scientific ideas would be better, but was unsure what preschool science

should be.

Primary NOS Teaching

Callie’s first grade cooperating teacher provided her with themes through which to teach science.

The representative lesson we share was about surface tension in which small groups of students predicted

the number of drops of water that fit on a penny and then tested their predictions. Callie stated she

planned this lesson to connect to the ‘‘money’’ theme given by her cooperating teacher. When we read

her lesson plan we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS. She

recalled doing this lesson as a child and being surprised at the results, and thought her students would be as

well. Callie stated that her goals were to teach about surface tension. She wanted students to work on

‘‘thinking about the process for figuring it out,’’ and thought it would be a ‘‘fun activity.’’ She asked students to

make predictions and then test their ideas. She was required by her cooperating teacher to use a worksheet that

asked students to illustrate and write predictions and results for science. She found it ‘‘redundant to both draw

and write.’’



She never mentioned surface tension or properties of water to the students, nor did she talk about her

lessons as science. She stated that elementary science needs to go beyond preschool to making connections to

children’s world. She believed science should be taught in elementary school but that it varies depending on

the teacher and she believed her cooperating teacher did not find science important. She felt her cooperating

teacher had no expectations for her to teach science. She thought that her cooperating teacher never taught

science, and she received no guidance for teaching science. Similar to preschool, she believed the researchers

wanted to see her teach the distinction between science and nonscience to her own students.

Meredith taught the third grade Rocks and Minerals unit straight from the FOSS curriculum without

addressing any NOS aspects during the lessons we observed. When we read her lesson plans we noted no

objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS. Meredith told her students when it was

‘‘time for science,’’ so they knew when they were engaging in science. Meredith said she was frustrated

because they only did science twice a week for 30 minutes. Because there were days separating the lessons she

needed to review prior to starting new material. Meredith said she followed the FOSS guide verbatim because

she figured that was ‘‘what she was supposed to do.’’

The lesson that we describe was one in which students tested minerals for hardness using scratch tests,

and then categorized the minerals according to that property. After the students conducted their scratch tests

and recorded their data Meredith lead them in a discussion by stating ‘‘We will figure out what these minerals

are. Look at your test results to see which mineral is harder than the others. Quartz is the hardest mineral.’’

Students checked their results but disagreed about which was the hardest. Meredith told them ‘‘mineral

number two’’ was the hardest mineral. She told them that gypsum is the softest mineral, and asked them to

look for the softest mineral. She continued asking them to consult their results to determine the minerals.

In her interview Meredith stated that she found the FOSS kit so structured that it ‘‘tells you when to

breathe!’’ She found that stifling, and difficult to move beyond. Meredith told the observer she did not think

she was teaching science very well, or doing it ‘‘right.’’ She had earlier related similar frustrations because she

did not believe that the students were listening. She said she had difficulty with classroom management.

However, the observer noted that students were on task and engaged in the activities. Meredith stated that she

wanted students to learn how to observe and record their observations. She felt like this was a more structured

kit—that other third grade classrooms were doing inventions, yet she was ‘‘stuck with boring rocks.’’

Meredith stated that elementary science is more structured than preschool science and elementary students

have their own ideas, and know it is science. She claimed you could ‘‘do more with an older child,’’ because

they are more ready to understand science.

Meredith claimed that her cooperating teacher did not help her plan lessons. She said she thought her

cooperating teacher chose the FOSS kit because it would not take much effort. She believed that her

cooperating teacher expected her to ‘‘just teach the kit—get it taught, make sure they had the experience.’’

On the other hand, Addison’s cooperating teacher was supportive of Addison teaching science, and

provided her with help in planning as well as feedback. Her cooperating teacher assisted Addison during

lessons, but did not intervene nor interrupt during Addison’s instruction. Addison taught from the FOSS

Motion Unit, and like Meredith, did not include NOS in her instruction. Addison liked the FOSS program,

stating ‘‘The FOSS program is great. . .it’s very step-by-step, and if you’re someone who’s not very creative

and someone that doesn’t really have an interest in what you’re teaching then it’s perfect. But I think that it’s a

foundation and you look at the lessons, and you see what you’re going to be teaching, and then you look at

your class and you say, how can I make this lesson more interesting for my children?’’ When we read her

lesson plan we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for teaching NOS.

We chose a lesson on ramps and wheels as the exemplar lesson. Addison first demonstrated how to make

a ramp using four clothes pins and a 1500 square piece of cardboard. The students worked in groups of 2–3, and

were given two sets of wheels and one plastic rod for an axle. The students used the axle and wheels to observe

how wheel size and placement on the axle influenced the speed and direction it rolled on the ramp.

Each group made a ramp and began a series of experiments placing different sized wheels at various

points along the axle. As they worked, Addison circulated, asking and answering questions, offering

suggestions and drawing children’s attention to the axles’ movements. After about 15 minutes, Addison told

them that each group would demonstrate their best and fastest performing wheel/axle design. She gave them

another five minutes to test their designs.



When they reconvened they demonstrated their creations. Addison asked them a variety of questions,

some of which focused their attention on specific characteristics of an axle and how it rolled down the ramp.

Other questions were open ended ‘‘Why do you think. . .?’’ questions.

Addison talked about the challenge of leading the large group discussion. She said, ‘‘I think that the end

of the lesson was always the hardest to control, the drawing together, the tying together. Because they’re so

excited about whatever just happened. And they’re looking forward to whatever we’re doing next. That it’s

just kind of like ahhh but . . .again I think that part is very necessary.’’ She said that she sensed elementary

science was seen as an ‘‘extra,’’ which made her feel ‘‘sad because I love teaching it. I think it’s probably

one of the most fun activities that I’ve taught and come up with because it gives you a chance to really

be creative. But it really is viewed as that, when you’re preparing for standardized tests, and when,

everyone is so focused on literacy and getting them to read there’s not enough time in the day especially when

we have specials for half the afternoon and we’re supposed to have an hour of reading an hour of math and

hour of you know everything a day, and you know like. There’s no time for it. So I think that with those

subjects, with science and social studies and health, they kind of get pushed aside because they’re not viewed

as important.’’

Izzie’s second grade science teaching used various strategies like reading children’s books, questioning,

making predictions, constructing apparatuses and using them to test predictions, and reflecting on findings.

Izzie began all of her science lessons by reading aloud a children’s book that pertained to the science content.

Izzie liked using a children’s book because ‘‘they’re excited and want to do it and try it.’’ Then Izzie asked

questions about what students already knew about the science content. For example, during the kite lesson,

Izzie asked, ‘‘How do you think the kite uses air?’’ Izzie had students make predictions about what they would

find out in an investigation. For example, Izzie asked students to predict the wind speed for the next day. Then

students constructed something (graph, anemometer, kite, and pinwheel) they used to test their predictions.

For example, on the weather graphing day, the students constructed bar graphs of the weather and compared

each month with respect to types of precipitation. This testing was followed by whole-group discussion and

written assessment of the findings. For example, after the weather graphing, students presented bar graphs for

each month and figured which predictions were correct.

Izzie was involved in developing her science lessons with her cooperating teacher. She described how

‘‘the main ideas of the lessons came from FOSS but we usually adapted them to fit the students.’’ Izzie liked

the FOSS materials because they are ‘‘hands-on’’ and ‘‘provide so many materials for you to use.’’ She

described how she and her cooperating teacher would ‘‘talk about them before so we’d go over what we

actually wanted to cover.’’ We saw Izzie explicitly teach NOS within her second grade science lessons,

despite that when we read her lesson plans we noted no objectives for NOS teaching, nor activities planned for

teaching NOS. She described how her cooperating teacher was ‘‘big into the NOS also’’ and ‘‘wanted me to

incorporate the NOS stuff into it.’’ They ‘‘tried to bring in things like empirical evidence’’ when adapting the

FOSS lessons. In her lesson on weather graphing, Izzie began by asking students if they had ever heard of

‘‘empirical evidence’’ before. In the lesson she described how ‘‘empirical evidence is something that

scientists use just like what we’ve been doing with our weather patterns.’’ She explained to us how she was

trying ‘‘to bring it to their level. Like scientists do stuff like this all the time at a higher level, but we’re going to

do this little thing at our level using our weather graphs.’’ Izzie connected empirical evidence with recording

data. She said, ‘‘isn’t that what empirical evidence [is], when you record your findings? It’s not just finding

them, but marking them and keeping track of them.’’

Izzie’s ideas about elementary science teaching centered on investigation and application. While Izzie

saw preschool as a time for introducing ideas, she described how in ‘‘elementary school, it’s more like

applying all that.’’ As second graders, Izzie thought, ‘‘they know all the knowledge. It’s more applying it,

using it. Izzie viewed second-grade science instruction as providing students with opportunities to apply

knowledge of science in different contexts.

Izzie considered science an important component of the elementary school curriculum. She said,

‘‘I think it’s just as important as the other stuff, but I don’t think it’s viewed like that at all.’’ She felt like the

second grade teachers were committed to science teaching because they all used the FOSS boxes of materials

regularly. Izzie described how her teacher ‘‘thinks it’s [science] just as important’’ because ‘‘we don’t ever

skip it.’’



Similarities and Differences in Teaching Across the Preschool and Primary Settings

The authors remind the reader that teaching observations were limited to the maximum we could

schedule within the internship time frames, and as such, are limited data sources. However, all four preservice

teachers we studied reported they did not use a science curriculum at the preschool level. All said they taught

lessons with a science-related focus. However, the lessons were developed as a result of children’s interest, an

event that caught the teacher’s attention, or based on a theme selected by the cooperating teacher. While

science teaching provided students with active engagement it did not necessarily include science content. The

preservice teachers either had free reign (Addison, Callie, Meredith) or lacked control in planning lessons

(Izzie). Callie adapted a lesson she had participated in herself in her science methods course into a format for

preschool students to ‘‘help them think scientifically.’’ From observing her cooperating teacher, Meredith

decided that science lessons typically asked students to follow a recipe. Addison observed her cooperating

teacher and noted that many things constituted science, and built on the students’ interests. Izzie felt stuck

with the plans that her cooperating teachers had for her that she recognized were not science. These preservice

teachers recognized that preschool science encompassed many other topics that would not typically be

considered science topics. In the case of preschool science teaching, we found in our observations that none of

the preservice teachers explicitly taught NOS, nor did they plan to teach NOS as evidenced from reviewing

their lesson plans, despite the fact that at least Callie spoke about wanting to teach her students to ‘‘think

scientifically,’’ and that Callie and Izzie realized that the researchers would be interested in them teaching

about NOS. In fact, none of the preservice teachers we observed ever mentioned the term ‘‘science’’ to their

preschool students, so they could not even implicitly gain an understanding of NOS. The cooperating teachers

did not dissuade them from teaching science but did not support them in teaching science or emphasizing

NOS.

All four preservice teachers reported that their elementary science teaching differed from preschool

science. First, in the elementary settings there was a specified time set aside for science, even if not every day.

A second difference is that they perceived pressure that children achieve on standardized tests which was

absent in preschool settings. As a result, though science was part of the core curriculum, it was often

considered of less importance.

A third difference reported by all is that the elementary schools had a science curriculum. While they

were teaching different units, all were all teaching from the FOSS curriculum. It was interesting to note that

though FOSS had been adopted K-5 in the school district Callie’s Kindergarten room did not use it. Using the

FOSS curriculum provided varying structure to the science lessons. Izzie and Addison found the FOSS

curriculum to be conducive to their science teaching and in Izzie’s case, adaptable to emphasizing NOS and

adding children’s literature to support NOS instruction. While the curriculum allowed a focus on science, it

did not guarantee an emphasis on NOS. Indeed, each preservice teacher we observed announced to the

elementary students that it was ‘‘time for science’’ when instruction began, but other than Izzie, we did not

observe others emphasize NOS explicitly, despite that they indicated to us that they expected we would want

to see them teach the difference between science and non-science.

Discussion

We now discuss our results in terms of our research questions. We explore teaching NOS at the preschool

and primary levels, and discuss the influence of intellectual level and concerns about teaching NOS on

practice.

Factors Related to Teaching NOS at the Preschool and Primary Levels

The reader is cautioned that our study’s results are based on limited observations of teaching at the

preschool and primary levels, and should consider this an exploratory study in need of follow-up research.

Though we conducted as many observations as we were able to schedule during the internship settings,

science is taught less in the preschool and early childhood classrooms than we would have liked. Additionally,

we regret not explicitly ask the teachers about their NOS teaching in the exit interviews. However, from our

limited data we found that three of the preservice teachers (Addison, Callie, and Meredith) reported having

freedom to design their own lessons in preschool. They saw this as facilitating their teaching of science



because they could use children’s interests as a springboard for science activities. Thus, their science

activities were primarily hands-on and related to either the classroom theme or based upon children’s

interests. The former characterization is consistent with a number of recent curriculum guides for early

childhood classrooms (e.g., Catron & Allen, 2008; Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2007), which view such

activities as crucial for children’s cognitive development. The latter view is more closely related to the

Emergent Curriculum as described by Jones and Nimmo (1994) and Jones, Evans, and Rencken (2001), or the

Project Approach (Chard and Katz, 1998; Katz and Chard, 2000). However, while this can be seen as a

positive factor supporting the interns’ teaching of science, it also worked to hinder other aspects of teaching

science. This meant that although three of the interns had great latitude in planning their lessons the absence

of a specific science curriculum meant that they had no resource to guide them in developing lessons, and

none included NOS in their science lessons that we observed, nor in their lesson plans.

In the primary settings all four interns were pleased to have a designated time set aside for teaching

science. However, the increased pressure to prepare students for standardized tests meant that while time

was set aside for teaching science, it was limited to two or less lessons per week. McNeil (1986, 2000)

has documented teaching practices in elementary classrooms and found that the subjects assessed on

standardized tests received more instructional time than those not assessed. Goldstein (1997, 1998) reported

similar findings. It was evident to these preservice teachers that an emphasis on standardized tests shaped the

curriculum and the time allotted for any subject. Because science is not assessed on standardized tests at the

primary level but reading and mathematics are it is often the case that science is allotted less time in the

primary classroom, and in fact, some districts specifically ask primary teachers not to focus on science if they

are in an at-risk school (Akerson, Cullen, & Hanson, in press). Indeed, one reason it was difficult to schedule

more observations in the primary classrooms is because science was not often taught in these classrooms, and

we needed to push to schedule observations, meaning it was possible that because we were pushing to make

observations it was taught more than it would have been had we not done this study.

In our limited sample of four teachers, we found that the cooperating teacher was the single most

important factor affecting NOS instruction in the primary classroom. Recall that Addison’s teacher helped

her plan lessons but her unfamiliarity with NOS meant that she could not provide Addison with support in

teaching NOS. Izzie’s teacher provided her with both lesson planning and guidance in how to explicitly teach

NOS in their second grade classroom. Meredith and Callie had different experiences with their cooperating

teachers. Meredith felt restricted by the FOSS unit and even though her teacher participated in a NOS

professional development program, she did not facilitate Meredith’s teaching of NOS, nor really of science.

Callie’s teacher did not plan with her but merely told her to plan activities based on the topic.

Thus, our preservice teachers required a combination of the cooperating teacher understanding NOS and

how to teach it, as well as supporting the preservice teacher in planning and in adapting the science curriculum

to emphasize NOS. Further research should be conducted to determine whether this is a need common to

preservice early childhood teachers, as it is similar to what was found with secondary preservice teachers

(Crawford, 2007). Similar to Goodnough’s (2002) finding that collaboration improves K-1 science teaching,

we found that if our preservice teachers collaborated with their cooperating teachers in designing, adapting,

and planning lessons (e.g., Addison, Izzie) they could teach science at the elementary level, and if the

cooperating teacher understood NOS and how to teach it (e.g., Izzie) the preservice teacher was able to

emphasize NOS. However, simply having a cooperating teacher who understands NOS and knows how to

explicitly teach NOS does not mean the preservice teachers in our study had an easy time emphasizing NOS.

For example, Meredith felt constrained by the FOSS unit, and was not able to adapt the lessons, nor to

explicitly integrate NOS into her lessons despite the fact that her cooperating teacher had participated in the

same NOS professional development program as Izzie’s cooperating teacher. Meredith’s cooperating teacher

did not co-plan with Meredith, nor provide suggestions. Meredith simply taught straight from the FOSS unit.

We found the same in Callie’s case—though she did not use the FOSS unit in her kindergarten

placement. She realized we would want to see her teaching how science was different from non-science, but

was not able to do so. Her cooperating teacher did no planning with her, but gave her a topic (‘‘money’’)

through which Callie was to connect her science lessons and Callie was free to plan whatever she wanted.

Despite Callie’s intention to teach the distinction between science and non-science, and to teach about surface

tension, she did not mention either in her science lessons.



The Influence of Intellectual Level and Concerns About Teaching NOS on Teaching Practice

All four preservice teachers in our study held adequate and informed views of NOS, but we found their

views did not impact whether NOS was taught. This finding is consistent with previous research (Lederman,

1999; Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). Teachers’ adequate NOS views may not be translated into teaching

practice for various reasons including teacher experience, excluding NOS as an instructional goal, feeling

NOS is too abstract, pressure to cover content, institutional constraints, and lack of resources (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 1999). For these same reasons, our preservice teachers may not have

emphasized NOS.

We also found that in our case, preservice teachers’ Perry positions were not related to their NOS

teaching. Three (Callie, Addison, and Izzie) improved their Perry positions. However, these positions were

not related to the extent to which they addressed NOS in their classrooms. Both Izzie and Addison started their

internships at the dualist position, and both ended at the multiplicity position. However, we only observed

Izzie address NOS and only in her elementary school placement. This finding was surprising given prior

research documenting relationships between preservice teachers’ Perry position and gains in NOS views

(Akerson, Buzzelli, & Donnelly, 2008; Akerson et al., 2006). Intellectual positions may be related to learning

NOS aspects, meaning intellectual positions can influence NOS views. However, because NOS views do not

necessarily translate into NOS teaching it may not be surprising that we found intellectual views unrelated to

NOS teaching practice. We expected to find that those with higher intellectual levels to be able to more readily

infuse NOS into their teaching, but that was not the case.

In our study we found that NOS teaching practices did not differ with respect to the kinds of concerns

preservice teachers had about teaching NOS. Prior to their internships, the preservice teachers we studied had

many non-user concerns—desiring information about NOS instruction and how it might impact them

personally. Additionally, all four participants had collaboration concerns prior to their student teaching,

indicating that they wondered how NOS teaching would fit with what other teachers were doing, and they all

fit in the ‘‘worried’’ profile as defined by Bitan-Friedlander et al. (2004), indicating they were concerned with

personal difficulties they may have in implementing NOS instruction. Addison and Callie retained the

‘‘worried’’ profile throughout their internship. Perhaps when they found that their teachers were not teaching

NOS in their science lessons they realized they need not teach NOS either. However, Meredith and Izzie had

cooperating teachers in their primary settings who also taught NOS or at least knew about NOS teaching.

Though Meredith did not teach NOS in her primary setting, her concerns for NOS changed to those of a

‘‘cooperator’’ profile, indicating a willingness to teach about NOS with fewer personal concerns about NOS,

and a desire for more knowledge about NOS instruction. In Izzie’s case, her primary setting cooperating

teacher was concerned about teaching NOS herself, and Izzie did teach NOS in her science lessons.

Interestingly, Izzie’s postinternship SoCQ indicated that she had refocusing concerns meaning she had

additional ideas or strategies to replace or enhance existing NOS instruction. Izzie’s postinternship profile

was that of ‘‘cooperator/improver,’’ indicating that she was willing to teach NOS as well as gain and share her

strategies for NOS teaching. Of the teachers we observed we found that Izzie was the only preservice teacher

to address NOS, and she was the only preservice teacher whose cooperating teacher strongly advocated NOS

instruction. Further study should be done to determine whether these relationships between NOS teaching

concerns are similar for other teachers. This finding is consistent with previous studies in which mentors

impacted preservice teachers’ concerns (Ward et al., 2002). In future studies we recommend interviewing the

preservice teachers after their teaching to determine how they viewed their own NOS instruction, and whether

it was related to intellectual position or NOS concern.

Implications for Teacher Preparation

Given our finding that the cooperating teacher was the most important factor influencing our preservice

teachers’ NOS instruction, we recommend increased emphasis to be placed on the cooperating teacher.

Evidence from our data shows that in our case the cooperating teacher needed to understand NOS as well as be

an effective mentor to support preservice teachers in their endeavors to teach NOS. It will be difficult to find

sufficient numbers of cooperating teachers who have both NOS understandings and pedagogical strategies

needed to emphasize NOS with elementary students. As others have found (e.g., Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick,



2003; Lederman, 1999) understanding NOS is not sufficient to be able to teach it to students. Understanding

NOS and knowing how to teach it are not sufficient for supporting new teachers in their endeavors to teach

it to elementary students. More professional development is needed to help cooperating teachers understand

(a) NOS, (b) how to teach NOS, and (c) how to mentor new teachers in teaching NOS. This recommendation

to support cooperating teachers could also include providing them with mentoring and NOS teaching support

during the time they are hosting preservice teachers to enable them to better help the preservice teachers

(Sadler, 2006). Now that we know our preservice teachers had concerns about the kinds of NOS instruction

they would see in the field, along with how their teaching would align with others’ NOS teaching we know we

should stress the need to persevere emphasizing NOS despite the mentor teacher’s lack of knowledge and

instructional practice regarding NOS. In this way we hope to make the change in profile from ‘‘worried’’ to

‘‘cooperator’’ in NOS instruction sooner for our preservice teachers.

We noted that our preservice teachers struggled with how to teach science at the preschool level. Our

preservice teachers currently receive science teaching preparation in an integrated curriculum through which

they are to deliver all instruction. We recommend that when preschool teachers engage their students in

science activities they label the activities as science as they would label reading and writing activities. Doing

so would help their students get an initial awareness of science. Another recommendation is to refer only to

actual science investigations or content as ‘‘science’’ rather than use a broad definition that incorporates many

activities to avoid confusion regarding preschool science. The definition of science may be broader in

preschool (Wigg, 1995) and should be more in line with elementary content.

Regarding our primary science methods, we need to instruct how to adapt and modify curricula to

emphasize NOS. The only preservice teacher we observed do so in our group was Izzie, and that was at the

support of her cooperating teacher. Though our other preservice teachers were able to modify the curriculum

to meet the needs of their students, we did not observe them include NOS. We should emphasize how to

request support from the cooperating teacher, and how to recognize when students are being productively

noisy and when they are off task. Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) recommend using

classroom case studies to help preservice teachers envision reform science teaching. We recommend the

development of cases that share NOS instructional practices that can be used in primary methods classrooms.

Regarding internship settings, our recommendations are in line with Sadler (2006) and Luehmann

(2007) that new teachers need to develop identities as ‘‘teachers of NOS’’—that it is simply the best way they

teach science their students. This ‘‘NOS teacher’’ identity may need to come after an identity as a ‘‘science

teacher’’ but perhaps it can be built simultaneously. Both Sadler (2006) and Luehmann (2007) recommend

building in a component of reflective practice into the internship, in this case, reflection on NOS teaching.

Therefore, building in a way for the preservice teachers to share their NOS teaching practices and to receive

feedback will encourage them to actually effectively embed NOS in their teaching. If they are not encouraged

to think about NOS as part of instruction they will likely not infuse it into their teaching. We simply observed

their teaching without providing suggestions or support. A future study could explore ways to develop

communities of practice surrounding the internship through which preservice teachers shared, reflected upon,

and discussed NOS teaching. Luehmann (2007) suggests developing communities of practice in which

teachers share challenges and successes and ask questions when trying new strategies. We recommend such

communities with preservice teachers, through which they can further develop their identities as ‘‘teachers of

NOS,’’ which will also alleviate their concerns for teaching NOS. Similar to the findings by Samarapungavan

et al. (2008) that kindergarten students can conceptualize appropriate views of scientific inquiry, we expect

that young children will also be able to conceptualize appropriate views of NOS, but we need to help

their teachers see themselves as not only teachers of science, but teachers of NOS. We may find that they

develop understandings of NOS more quickly than older students because they are ‘‘universal novices’’

(Samarapungavan et al., 2008) and need views developed, not changed.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that

mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A

critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.



Akerson, V.L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: Ayearlong case study of a fourth

grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.

Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective Explicit Activity-Based

approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 295–

317.

Akerson, V.L., & Buzzelli, C.A. (2007). Relationships of preservice early childhood teachers’ cultural values, ethical

and cognitive developmental levels, and views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 15–24.

Akerson, V.L., Buzzelli, C.A., & Donnelly, L.A. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of nature of science: The

influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

45, 748–770.

Akerson, V.L., Cullen, T.A., & Hanson, D.L. (In press). Fostering a community of practice through a professional

development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching.

Akerson, V.L., & Donnelly, L.A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice elementary

teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 45–58.

Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-Year professional

development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.

Akerson, V.L., Morrison, J.A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary

teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194–213.

Akerson, V.L., & Volrich, M.L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061

report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Appleton, K. (2008). Research on elementary science teaching. In: S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of

research on science education (pp. 493–536). New York: Routledge.

Bitan-Friedlander, N., Dreyfus, A., & Milgrom, Z. (2004). Types of ‘‘teachers in training’’: The reactions of primary

school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education:

An International Journal of Research and Studies, 20(6), 607–619.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Catron, E., & Allen, J. (2008). Early childhood curriculum: A creative-play model (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Chard, S., & Katz, L. (1998). The project approach: Making curriculum come alive. New York: Scholastic.

Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Phillippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new

mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 157–176.

Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 44, 529–651.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly

qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.

French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.

Gelman, R., & Brennenman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 19, 150–158.

Goldstein, L. (1997). Between a rock and a hard place in the primary grades: The challenge of providing

developmentally appropriate early childhood education in an elementary school setting. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 12, 3–27.

Goldstein, L. (1998). Caught in the middle: Tension and contradiction in enacting the primary grade curriculum.

Curriculum Inquiry, 28, 311–337.

Goodnough, K. (2002) Teacher development through collaborative inquiry: Primary teachers enhance their

professional knowledge of science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research

Journal, 26, 160–189.

Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (2005). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum. Development.



Inan, H.Z., Trundle, K.C., & Kantor, R. (2007). An exemplary approach to nature sciences education in preschool:

Reggio Emilia. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Jones, E., Evans, K., & Rencken, K. (2001). The lively kindergarten: Emergent curriculum in action. Washington,

DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Jones, E., & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corporation.

Kelton, J., & Griffith, J.V. (1986). The learning context questionnaire for assessing intellectual development.

Davidson, NC: Davidson College.

Kostelnik, M., Soderman, A.K., & Whiren, A.P. (2007). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in

early childhood education (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lawrence Hall of Science. (2008). Full option science systems (FOSS). Berkeley CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.

Retrieved July 29, 2008 from http:/ /www.lawrencehallofscience.org/foss/scope/research/index.html.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that

facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire

(VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really

influence teacher behavior. Science Education, 71, 721–734.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): A model for change in individuals. In:

R. Bybee (Ed.), National standards and the science curriculum (pp. 57–72). Dubuque, IA: Kendell Hunt.

Luehmann, A.L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91, 822–

839.

McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of reform: The educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.

Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in

investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290.

National Research Council. (1997). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved March

18, 2003, from http:/ /www.nsta.org/159&psid¼22.

Neuman, D. (1972). Sciencing for young children. In: K.R. Baker (Ed.), Ideas that work with young children

(pp. 27–52). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Otero, V.K., & Nathan, M.J. (2008). Preservice teachers’ views of their students’ prior knowledge. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 45, 395–523.

Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Roehrig, G.H., & Luft, J.A. (2006). Does one size fit all? The induction experience of beginning science teachers from

different teacher-preparation programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 963–985.

Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 32, 403–419.

Sadler, T. (2006). ‘‘I won’t last three weeks’’: Preservice science teachers reflect on their student-teaching

experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–241.

Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through Inquiry in Kindergarten.

Science Education, 92, 868–908.

Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). ‘‘It’s the nature of the beast’’: The influence of knowledge and intentions

on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205–236.

Sevilla, J., & Marsh, D.D. 1992 Inquiry-oriented science programs: New Perspectives on the implementation process.

Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Southerland, S., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers’ conceptional ecologies for the nature of

science. Science Education, 90, 874–906.

Tsai, C. (2007). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students’ views.

Science Education, 91, 222–243.



Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood

Education Journal, 33(4), 245–251.

Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban

second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 599–

745.

Ward, J.R., West, L.S., & Isaak, T.J. (2002). Mentoring: A strategy for change in teacher technology education.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 553–569.

Wigg, A. (1995). Improving the preschooler’s science knowledge and skills through hands-on activities. Unpublished

Dissertation, Nova Southeastern Univeresity, Nova.

Appendix: Example of Interview Protocol for Postinternship

General Lesson Questions

(1) What would you consider science in preschool classrooms? In elementary classrooms? Is science in

preschool and elementary settings different? Why or why not?

(2) How did you come up with each of your two lessons?

(3) What roles did your cooperating teachers play in the development of these lessons?

(4) What do you think the students learned from the lessons?

(5) Is there anything you would change about these lessons if this were your classroom?

(6) Is there anything you would change about these lessons if you could do it all over again?

(7) What were your cooperating teachers’ expectations for you for teaching science?

(8) How do you think science fits within the overall curriculum in preschool? Elementary?

(9) How do you think your cooperating teachers think science fits within the overall curriculum in

preschool? Elementary?

Callie Preschool Video Clip

Context: PEEPs activity with individual students.

(1) You asked many questions throughout this lesson—What were you hoping to accomplish with all of

your questions?

(2) What were your intentions when you asked the student ‘‘what do you notice about these’’?

(3) What were your intentions when you asked ‘‘are there any things between these two that look

alike. . .different from each other’’?

(4) When you asked, ‘‘how do you think they made those? What did they use to make those?’’ where

were you trying to go with that?

(5) You were very careful to call the PEEPs whatever name the students called the PEEPs, in this case

birds. Why was that?

(6) How do you consider this lesson ‘‘science?’’ What do you think might make it more ‘‘scientific?’’

(7) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about this lesson?

Callie Elementary School Video Clip

Context: Drops of water on penny activity.

(1) What were your overall goals for this activity? What kinds of things were you hoping they’d learn?

(2) What were your intentions when you asked at the beginning ‘‘How many drops of water do you think

will fit on this penny’’?

(3) Why did you ask, ‘‘does that count as one drop’’?

(4) What were your intentions when you did the penny as a demonstration first?

(5) What were your goals when you asked students, ‘‘what do you notice about the size of the penny? Do

you think it will take more drops or less’’?

(6) At the end of this lesson, you had the students compare the number of drops that it actually took to

their original ideas, what were you hoping would happen here?

(7) Is there anything more you would like to tell us about this lesson?



on the nature of teaching nature of science: preservice early childhood teachers' instruction...

Documents