Skip to main content
Log in

Elementary Science Methods Courses and the National Science Education Standards: Are We Adequately Preparing Teachers?

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

Despite the apparent lack of universally accepted goals or objectives for elementary science methods courses, teacher educators nationally are autonomously designing these classes to prepare prospective teachers to teach science. It is unclear, however, whether science methods courses are preparing teachers to teach science effectively or to implement the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). Using the “Science Teaching Standards” as a framework for analysis, this research proceeded in two phases. During the first phase, the elementary science methods courses, perspectives, and practices of six science teacher educators were examined to determine similarities and differences in the course goals and objectives, overall emphases, and their efforts to prepare their students to implement the Science Teaching Standards. The second phase of the study investigated the elementary science methods courses of a national sample of science teacher educators as reflected in their course syllabi. It was found that universal inclusion of content related to the Science Teaching Standards does not exist, nor are there clear linkages between course goals, activities, and assignments.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Teacher Educators. (2003). Standards for teacher educators. Retrieved September 26, 2003, from http://www.ate1.org/teampublish/120 620 2171.cfm

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremin, L. (1953). The heritage of American teacher education: Part I. Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 163–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102, 28–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification, and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 751–776). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, V. L., Burns, J., Hagen, E. R., & Locker, K. M. (1997). Becoming better primary science teachers: A description of our journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 467–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 212–233). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and its impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91, 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81, 277–294.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (1998). NCATE program standards: Program for initial preparation of teachers of science or science specialists. Retrieved October 9, 2003, from http://www.ncate.org/standard/ new%20program%20standards/nsta%202001.pdf

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425–2093 (2002).

  • Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook on research in teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 163–197). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel, B. S., & Tom, A. R. (1996). Changes and choices in teaching methods. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 593–619). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E., Lutz, M. V., & Craven, J. A. (1996). Do national standards indicate the need for reform in science teacher education? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, L.K., Gess-Newsome, J. Elementary Science Methods Courses and the National Science Education Standards: Are We Adequately Preparing Teachers?. Journal of Science Teacher Education 15, 91–110 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000044867.21773.7c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000044867.21773.7c

Keywords

Navigation