Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 981–1003 | Cite as

Examining the Beliefs and Practices of Four Effective Australian Primary Science Teachers

  • Angela FitzgeraldEmail author
  • Vaille Dawson
  • Mark Hackling


With trends across many countries still indicating the decline of student interest in school science and diminishing numbers of students studying science beyond the compulsory years, it seems that the field remains in crisis. To address these unfortunate trends, there needs to be a greater emphasis on science education research that highlights the good news stories. For example, what are science teachers actually doing in their classrooms to increase student interest and understanding in science? This article focuses on the science teaching beliefs and practices of four Western Australian primary school teachers. The teachers were nominated by a professional colleague as effective practitioners. The study involved gathering information from classroom observations and teacher interviews to provide background information to assist in developing understandings of these teachers and their science teaching. This article reports on the initial findings drawn from Deanne A, Kate B, Lisa C and Rebecca D. Their practices were organised into the following six categories: classroom environment; conceptual knowledge and procedural skills; teaching strategies and approaches; student-specific considerations; teacher-specific considerations; and context-specific considerations. In examining the components contributing to these categories, it was evident that the teachers’ beliefs, as well as the contextual factors inherent in each classroom environment, influenced how and why they teach science in the ways they do.


Effective primary science teachers Effective science teaching practices Primary science education and teacher beliefs 


  1. Akerson, V. (2005). How do elementary teachers compensate for incomplete science content knowledge? Research in Science Education, 35(2), 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angus, M., Olney, H., & Ainley, J. (2007). In the balance: The future of Australia’s primary schools. Kaleen, ACT: Australian Primary Principals Association.Google Scholar
  3. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Science Teachers Association and Teaching Australia. (2009). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science. Canberra: Australian Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  6. Ayres, P., Sawyer, W., & Dinham, S. (2004). Effective teaching in the context of a grade 12 high-stakes external examination in New South Wales, Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beasley, W., & Butler, J. (2002, July). Implementation of context-based schooling within the freedoms offered by Queensland schooling. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, QLD.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Needam Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  9. Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13–18.Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R.W. (2006, August). Boosting science learning through the design of curriculum materials. Paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, C., & Tytler, R. (2007). Views of student learning. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 23–42). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Commission, E. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, J. (1986). On narrative methods, personal philosophy, and narrative unities in the study of teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dodrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duschl, R. A. (1983). The elementary level science methods course: Breeding ground of apprehension toward science? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Feasey, R. (2012). Thinking and working scientifically. In K. Skamp (Ed.), Teaching primary science constructively (4th ed.). Melbourne, Vic: Cengage.Google Scholar
  21. Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fensham, P.J. (2006, August). Student interest in science: The problem, possible solutions and constraints. Paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer-Mueller, J., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). A case study of teacher beliefs in contemporary science education goals and classroom practices. Science Educator, 11(1), 46–56.Google Scholar
  24. Gagné, R. M., & White, R. T. (1978). Memory structures and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 187–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodrum, D. (2006, August). Inquiry in science classrooms - rhetoric or reality? Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  26. Goodrum, D., Cousins, J., & Kinnear, A. (1992). The reluctant primary school teacher. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from
  28. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Hargreaves, L., & Galton, M. (2002). Transfer from the primary classroom: 20 years on. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harlen, W. (2009). Teaching and learning science for a better future. School Science Review, 333, 33–42.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, A. (2007). The wonder of science. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 3–22). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  33. Hattie, J. A. (1992). Towards a model of schooling: A synthesis of meta-analyses. Australian Journal of Education, 36, 5–13.Google Scholar
  34. Killen, R. (2007). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice. South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning Australia.Google Scholar
  35. King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85(2), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindahl, B. (2007, April). A longitudinal study of students’ attitudes towards science and choice of career. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  39. Lyons, T. (2005). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 25–48.Google Scholar
  41. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Making meaning in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Time spent teaching core academic subjects in elementary schools: Comparisons across community, school, teacher, and student characteristics. Washington DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  44. Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2000). Concept cartoons in science education. Sandbach: Millgate House Education.Google Scholar
  45. Ornstein, A. (1986). Teacher effectiveness research: Some ideas and issues. Education and Urban Society, 18(2), 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2003). Postnote: Primary science. Retrieved 30 January, 2012 from
  49. Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29(9), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ramsden, J. M. (1998). Mission impossible? Can anything be done about attitudes to science? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE – A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Norway: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  55. Skamp, K. (2007). Conceptual learning in the primary and middle years: The interplay of heads, hearts and hands-on science. Teaching Science, 53(3), 18–22.Google Scholar
  56. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Symington, D., & Tytler, R. (2004). Community leaders’ views of the purposes of science in the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. The Royal Society. (2006). Taking a leading role. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  59. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research into Science Teaching, 27(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  62. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2002). Talking to effective teachers of primary science. Investigating, 18(4), 11–15.Google Scholar
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Yin, R. K. (2009). Applications of case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Fitzgerald
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vaille Dawson
    • 2
  • Mark Hackling
    • 3
  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Edith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations