Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 461–468 | Cite as

Relationship between science knowledge levels and beliefs toward science instruction held by preservice elementary teachers

  • George Wenner


Aspects of science background knowledge and attitudes toward teaching science were examined among preservice elementary teachers. The results indicated a low level of science knowledge, a negative relationship between science knowledge and attitude toward teaching science, and a marked lack of confidence toward teaching science among the prospective teachers. Some interesting paradoxes were also found. Recommendations concerning preservice preparation, inclusion of academic science coursework, and collaborative efforts between college departments are offered.

Key words

Elementary science education preservice teacher preparation science knowledge science attitudes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (1983).General Science Test — Level II, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D. R. (1991). A summary of research in science education — 1989.Science Education 75(3): 1–35.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, S. M., and Toms, K. (1990). Science in the elementary schools: Teachers' perceptions of test mandated curriculum reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, February 1990.Google Scholar
  4. Blosser, P. E., and Howe, R. W. (1969). An analysis of research on elementary teacher education related to teaching of science.Science and Children 6(5): 50–60.Google Scholar
  5. Crawley, N. N. (1991). A summary of research in science education — 1989.Science Education 75(3): 1–35.Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham, C. F., and Blakenship, J. W. (1979). Preservice elementary science teachers' self concerns.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16: 419–425.Google Scholar
  7. Feistritzer, E. C., and Boyer, E. L. (1983).The Conditions of Teaching: A State by State Analysis The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization.American Education Research Journal 6: 207–226.Google Scholar
  9. Hone, E. (1970). Science scarecrows.School Science and Math 70: 322–326.Google Scholar
  10. Haury, D. L. (1984). The Contribution of Science Locus of Control Orientation to Expression of the Attitude Toward Science Teaching. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 244 829.Google Scholar
  11. Lucas, K. B., and Pooley, J. H. (1982). Student teachers' attitudes toward science and science teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 19: 805–809.Google Scholar
  12. Manning, P. C., Esler, W. K., and Baird, J. R. (1982). How much elementary science is really being taught?Science and Children 19(8): 40–41.Google Scholar
  13. Markel, G. C. (1978). Assessing the validity and reliability of the subject preference inventory with preservice elementary teachers.Journal of Research in Science Training 15: 519–522.Google Scholar
  14. Mechling, D. R., Stedman, C., and Donnellan, J. (1982). Preparing and certifying science teachers: An NSTA report.Science and Children 20(2): 9–14.Google Scholar
  15. National Academy (1982).Science and Math in the Schools: Report of a Convocation National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Riggs, I. M., and Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy belief instrument.Science Education 76: 625–637.Google Scholar
  17. Rottler, J. B. (1966). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74: 243–250.Google Scholar
  18. Sherwood, R. D., and Westerback, M. E. (1983). A factor analytic study of the state-trait anxiety inventory utilized with preservice elementary teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20: 225–229.Google Scholar
  19. Schoeneberger, M., and Russell, T. (1986). Elementary science as a little added frill: A report of two case studies,Science Education 70: 519–538.Google Scholar
  20. Shymanski, J. A., and Green, D. W. (1982). Valuing science content: Science is a basic we all can do. In Benson, B. W. (Ed.),Teaching Children Science: Changing Adversity into Advocacy Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  21. Stake, R. E., and Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education. National Science Foundation Report No. SE 78–74, 2 vol. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Stepans, J., and McCormack, A. (1985). A Study of Scientific Conceptions and Attitudes toward Science of Prospective Elementary Teachers: A Research Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 266 024.Google Scholar
  23. Victor, E. (1961). Why are elementary school teachers reluctant to teach science?The Science Teacher 71(7): 17–19.Google Scholar
  24. Wolk, R. A. (1963). Mathematics and science education: Problems and prospects.Education Week 2(39): supplement.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Wenner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Elementary Education & ReadingState University College at BuffaloBuffalo

Personalised recommendations