Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reversing the Downward Spiral of Science Instruction in K-2 Classrooms

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This study investigated the extent to which teacher professional development led to changes in science instruction in K-2 classrooms in rural school districts. The research specifically examined changes in (a) teachers’ content knowledge in science; (b) teachers’ self-efficacy related to teaching science; (c) classroom instructional time allotted to science; and (d) instructional strategies used in science. The study also investigated contextual factors contributing to or hindering changes in science instruction. Data sources included a teacher survey, a self-efficacy assessment, content knowledge tests, interviews, and classroom observations. After one year in the program, teachers showed increased content knowledge and self-efficacy in teaching science; they spent more instructional time on science and began using different instructional strategies. Key contextual factors included curricular demands, resources, administrative support, and support from other teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold, M., Gaddy, B., & Dean, C. (2004). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, W. (1996). Improving rural teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 961–977). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (2002). Professional development that supports school mathematics reform (Vol. 3, Foundations Monograph). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

  • California Council on Science and Technology. (2010). The preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science in California. Sacramento, CA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2008). Elementary teachers’ ideas about effective science teaching: A longitudinal study. In ICLS Proceedings for the 8th international conference for the learning sciences, (Vol. 1). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., & Venkatesan, S. (2007). The status of science education in the Bay Area: Research brief. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshach, H., & Fried, M. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulp, S. L. (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germuth, A., Banilower, E., & Shimkus, E. (2003). Test-retest reliability of the Local Systemic Change teacher questionnaire. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, H., Gordanier, J., Henry, L., & George, A. (2007). Changing teaching practices in rural schools. The Rural Educator, 28, 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, H., & Smith, K. (2007). A legacy of leadership and lessons learned: Results from the rural systemic initiatives for improving mathematics and science education. Charleston, WV: Edvantia, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, D. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Crawford, R. A. (2006). LSC teacher questionnaire study: A longitudinal analysis of data collected between 1997 and 2006. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1177–1203). London, England: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement science teacher questionnaire. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/tq_k8sci.php.

  • Jones, R., & Swanson, E. (2009). Understanding elementary teachers’ use of science teaching time: Lessons from the Big Sky Science Partnership. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 11, 163–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, P. (2009). Elementary science education in the K-12 system. Science and Children, 46, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Math and Science Partnership Knowledge Management and Dissemination (KMD) Project. (2008). Why teachers’ science content knowledge matters: A summary of studies. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://mspkmd.net/pdfs/blast18/3b1.pdf.

  • McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Rising above the gathering storm two years later: Accelerating progress toward a brighter economic future. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Rev. Ed.). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council (NSDC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, S. (2007). Rural science education. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 345–369). London, England: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, S., & Labov, J. (2009). Nurturing and sustaining effective programs in science education for grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning. Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an efficacy belief instrument for elementary teachers. Science Education, 74, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R. (1999). Evaluating science and mathematics professional development programs. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of California Irvine, 3200 Education Building, Irvine, CA, 92697-5500, USA

    Judith Haymore Sandholtz

  2. WestEd, 400 Seaport Court, Suite 222, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA

    Cathy Ringstaff

Authors
  1. Judith Haymore Sandholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Ringstaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Haymore Sandholtz.

Appendix

Appendix

Sample Items

Teacher Survey

Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhance Science K-8 Teacher Questionnaire, Horizon Research, Inc. Available at http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/

Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI) Sample Questions

1.

When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort

SA

A

UN

D

SD

2.

I am continually finding better ways to teach science

SA

A

UN

D

SD

3.

Even when I try very hard, I do not teach science as well as I do most subjects

SA

A

UN

D

SD

4.

When the science grades of students improve, it is most often due to their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach

SA

A

UN

D

SD

5.

I know the steps necessary to teach science concepts effectively

SA

A

UN

D

SD

Content Knowledge Test Sample Questions

You put three ice cubes in a sealed bag and record the mass of the ice in the bag. You let the ice cubes melt completely. Then you record the mass of the water in the bag. Which of the following best describes the result?

  • A. The mass of the water in the bag will be less than the mass of the ice in the bag.

  • B. The mass of the water in the bag will be more than the mass of the ice in the bag.

  • C. The mass of the water in the bag will be the same as the mass of the ice in the bag.

Describe your thinking. Provide an explanation for your answer.

A glass of unsweetened lemonade weighs 255 g. A spoonful of sugar is weighed before stirring it into the lemonade. The sugar weighs 25 g. Predict how much you think the sweetened lemonade will weigh after you stir in the sugar.

  • A. It will weigh slightly less than 255 g but more than 230 g.

  • B. It will weigh slightly more than 255 g but less than 280 g.

  • C. It will weigh 230 g.

  • D. It will weigh 280 g.

  • E. It will weigh the same: 255 g.

Describe your thinking. Provide an explanation for your answer.

Which is the best example of a constant velocity?

  • A. A car cruising on the Interstate at 70 mph.

  • B. A car cruising on a circular race track at 140 mph.

  • C. A car crashing into another car.

  • D. A car in orbit around the Earth.

In a mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, such that the gases have the same temperature, which of the following is true:

  • A. The Oxygen molecules are moving faster, on average.

  • B. The Hydrogen molecules are moving faster, on average.

  • C. The molecules of both gases move at the same speed.

  • D. It is impossible to tell at what speed the molecules move.

Teacher Interview Sample Questions

  • This past year, how frequently did you teach science?

  • What factors influence the amount of time you spend teaching science?

  • Describe your confidence level in teaching science, in comparison to other subject areas.

  • What factors do you think about when making decisions regarding what science curriculum you will teach?

  • What types of support and resources do you have at the school or district level for teaching science?

About this article

Cite this article

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. Reversing the Downward Spiral of Science Instruction in K-2 Classrooms. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 513–533 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9246-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9246-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation