An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science

An Analysis of ElementaryTeachers’ Beliefs Regardingthe Teaching and Learningof Science

KAREN E. LEVITTDuquesne University, 412 B Canevin Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA

Received 28 September 1999; revised 13 November 2000; accepted 12 February 2001

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to ascertain the beliefs of elementary teachersregarding the teaching and learning of science and the extent to which the teachers’ beliefswere consistent with the philosophy underlying science education reform. Sixteen teachersfrom two school districts involved in a local systemic initiative for science education reformparticipated in the study. Each teacher was observed teaching a lesson from the program.The observation served as the context for an interview with the teacher regarding his orher beliefs about the teaching and learning of science. One overarching belief emerged:Teachers believe that the teaching and learning of science should be student centered. Fivepatterns of teachers’ responses support this characterization of the teachers’ belief. Althoughvarying gaps exist between the teachers’ beliefs and the principles of reform, the teachers’beliefs suggest that the teachers are moving in a direction consistent with science educationreform. A modified case study of three teachers represents the patterns of beliefs expressedby teachers. C© 2001John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sci Ed86:1–22, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

Teachers are recognized as the central determining factor in successful implementation ofreform in science education (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989;Bybee, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). However, for many teachers, especiallyelementary teachers with a limited background in science, current reform in science educa-tion requires more than just a change in classroom practice. With its basis in a contemporaryview of the nature of science, science education reform requires a different way of thinkingabout science, including the teaching and learning of science.

The success of current programs of science education reform depends on teachers’ abilityto integrate the philosophy and practices of current programs of science education reformwith their existing philosophy, extant practices, and established district models, withoutcompromising the intent of the new science programs (Bybee, 1993). The dilemma isthat implementation of current science education reform requires considerable adaptationof teachers’ beliefs in order to align requisite practices with the philosophy of reform.If teachers’ beliefs are incompatible with the philosophy of science education reform, a

Correspondence to:Karen E. Levitt; e-mail: [email protected]

C© 2001John Wiley & Sons, Inc.DOI 10.1002/sce.1042

2 LEVITT

gap develops between the intended principles of reform and the implemented principles ofreform, potentially prohibiting essential change.

Teachers hold beliefs beyond matters of their profession and although these globalbeliefs influence teachers’ practice, they can be distinguished from the beliefs teachershold that are more specific to the educational process. Educational beliefs include be-liefs about students and the learning process, about teachers and teaching, about the na-ture of knowledge, about the roles of schools in society, and about the curriculum. Allteachers hold beliefs, however defined and labeled, about their work, the subject mat-ter they teach, and their roles and responsibilities. Peterson, Fennema, Carpenter, andLoef (1993) refer to these beliefs as pedagogical content beliefs and maintain that, alongwith pedagogical content knowledge, these beliefs provide a strong link to classroomaction.

Educational researchers have advocated the need for closer examination and direct studyof the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and educational practices (Ambimbola, 1983;Pajares, 1992; Pomeroy, 1993). In studying previous periods of reform in science educa-tion, researchers have found that changes in practice have only been sustained as long asthere was a “program” in place. When the program, specifically support for the materialsassociated with the program, was removed, teachers reverted to practices used prior to theimplementation of the program. Teachers did not make the epistemological shift necessaryfor sustaining reform. Consequently, if the connection between beliefs and practice can befurther established, then as part of science education reform, teachers’ beliefs underlyingpractice, for example, could be directly addressed through professional development inorder to maintain sustained change.

The focus of this study was the beliefs that elementary teachers hold about the teachingand learning of science. This study explored teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching andlearning of science and the extent to which the teachers’ beliefs about the teaching andlearning of science were consistent with the philosophy of current science education reform.The specific questions that guided this study were

1. What are the beliefs of the teachers participating in a program of elementary scienceeducation reform regarding the teaching and learning of science?

2. To what extent are the teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning consistent withthe philosophy underlying science education reform?

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Reform in science education in the United States calls for a new way of thinking about theteaching and learning of science. Constructivism provides the philosophical foundation forreform in science education (National Research Council, 1996). Constructivism “baffles,scares, and even annoys a large portion of educators—it requires new behaviors for manyteachers who learned science and how to teach it in conventional ways” (Loucks-Horsley,Harding, Arbuckle, Murray, Dubea, & Williams, 1993). Transition to teaching practices thatsupport a constructivist approach to learning first requires “a new vision of teaching andlearning,” a paradigm shift for those in the educational community (Bybee, 1993; Tobin,Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).

Constructivism stands in direct contrast to the traditional, dominant paradigm in sci-ence education, the positivist paradigm (Shapiro, 1994). Traditionally, learning of answers,memorization of bits and pieces of information, recitation, and reading are emphasized inscience classes at the expense of exploration of questions, critical thought, understanding incontext, argument, and doing science. In the traditional model, it is assumed that an already

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 3

developed body of knowledge, one generally accepted by the scientific community, can betransmitted to students through passive instructional means. What is known about learning,however, demonstrates that passive instruction is an ineffective tool for learning scienceconcepts (Tobin et al., 1994).

Instead, constructivism acknowledges that what is already in the learner’s mind matters(AAAS, 1989; Carey, 1986; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1993; National Research Council, 1996).A child’s experiences with his or her environment form the child’s knowledge base andprofoundly effect the learner’s view of the world and his or her ability to accept othermore scientifically grounded explanations. Learning in science is more a matter of alteringprior conceptions than giving explanations where none existed before. Children’s learningin science may be better characterized by changes in their thinking rather than additionsto their thinking (Shapiro, 1994). The process is evolutionary; students constantly “revise,reorganize, and deepen understanding” as they are exposed to new information (Carey,1986). To advance the restructuring of children’s knowledge, the role of the teacher movesfrom transmitter of knowledge to guide and facilitator in the students’ construction ofknowledge (Tobin et al., 1994). This role does not appeal to all teachers. If teachers do notbelieve philosophically in teaching for understanding rather than dispensing information,this role will be rejected (Worth cited in Willis, 1995).

The recommendations set forth in theNational Science Education Standards(NationalResearch Council, 1996) acknowledge the central role of the teacher in the reform ofscience education. The Standards recognize the implicit and explicit beliefs that teachershave about science and the teaching and learning of science, and they advocate opportunitiesfor teachers to examine their own beliefs when learning to teach science.

Teachers’ Beliefs About the Teaching and Learning of Science

For teachers’ of science, including elementary teachers, beliefs about teaching and learn-ing in general are coupled with beliefs about the nature of science and the teaching andlearning of science. The knowledge, beliefs, and theories a teacher holds about the nature ofscience and the teaching and learning of science determines to a great extent what science ed-ucation will be for a given child (Ambimbola, 1983; Tobin et al., 1994). Duschl (1983) writesthat the type of science experiences an individual encounters influences their perceptions ofscience teaching and learning. Conventional views such as “You do not need science to be anelementary teacher” usually relegates prospective elementary teachers to more traditional,lecture format science courses. It is in these classes that an “antagonistic dilemma” of scienceteaching is created for elementary teachers (Duschl, 1983). The antagonistic dilemma isbetween science as content, as learned in introductory level university science courses, andscience as process, as emphasized in science methods courses for elementary teachers. Sinceteachers tend to teach as they were taught, the dichotomy in these courses sets up the dilemmaof teaching science as content, as learned in the science courses, or process, as learned in themethods courses. Elementary teachers may be convinced of the value of hands-on activitiesand the use of cooperative learning from their science methods courses, and from generalpedagogical workshops, but are not able to develop science content from the activities. Theymay not even know what science students are supposed to learn from the activity (Tobinet al., 1994). Ineffective instructional practices as well as inappropriate assessment methodsare often learned from time spent in science classes (Tobin, Briscoe, & Holman, 1990).

When elementary teachers are asked how they perceive their role in elementary science,they often say that they see themselves primarily as dispensers of facts (Tilgner, 1990).Because they feel they may not, but should, have all of the right answers when a studentasks a question, they avoid situations where these questions are asked, i.e., they avoid

4 LEVITT

teaching science. Or instead, teachers may rely solely on the information in a textbook forteaching science. In each of these cases, the teacher’s beliefs about science and the teacher’sbeliefs about his or her role in elementary science influence decisions about the teaching ofscience.

Constraints perceived by elementary teachers contribute to their beliefs about the teachingand learning of science. For example, many elementary teachers believe they need sophis-ticated equipment to teach science; many believe that science concepts are too advancedfor elementary students and often overlook the science in children’s everyday lives. Thereason often given for not teaching science, “There is not enough time to teach science,”becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as teachers who are uncomfortable teaching science, forany reason, spend more time emphasizing other subject areas (Cronin-Jones, 1991). Thecombination of these beliefs often results in a lack of time spent teaching science or a lackof meaningful science taught at the elementary level. The average of one-half hour per dayspent teaching science might be indicative of teacher’s beliefs about their own reluctanceto teach it and the relative unimportance of the subject compared to others (Weiss, 1994).

Relationship Between Beliefs and Practice

One of the assumptions underlying the teaching standards is that the actions of teachersare deeply influenced by their perceptions of science as an enterprise and as a subject tobe taught and learned (National Research Council, 1996). For teachers, decisions regardingeducational practices depend on both the beliefs and knowledge of the teacher (Abell &Roth, 1992; Brickhouse, 1990; Pomeroy, 1993). Research in the area of teacher beliefsindicates that teachers’ beliefs may be a stronger predictor of behavior than knowledgewhen a teacher implements a designed program, including the organization and definitionof tasks associated with the program (Pajares, 1992).

A review of the research on teachers’ thought processes indicates that the beliefs teachershold about teaching and learning, including beliefs about their students, have a significantinfluence on the teacher’s behavior. The primary way in which teachers give meaning toeducational beliefs is through their behavior in the classroom (Peterman, 1993; Tobin, 1993).A teacher’s actions are guided by and make sense in relation to a personally held systemof beliefs (Bybee, 1995; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Pajares, 1992). Teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning, for example, underlie the processing of the multitude of information ateacher is presented with in the classroom and subsequently filter the information receivedresulting in an action taken. In science education, accumulated images of science havebecome deeply ingrained as educational beliefs about what science education “should be”and consequently influence teachers’ educational practice.

Teachers believe that most closely related to their role as teacher are matters with a highdependency on the teacher and those that the teacher has the most control over (Eisenhardt,Shrum, Harding, & Cuthbert, 1988). Teachers believe they are responsible for creatingan educational environment in which they can be nurturing, cordial, spontaneous, andeliciting of student’s work. As an example, teachers believe that their main responsibilityis providing instructional activities that contribute directly to helping students learn—“it’swhat [teachers] do best, it’s what they enjoy, and it is what they want control over” (p. 55).Teaching activities directed toward developing students’ enthusiasm and ability to continuelearning are more important to teachers than solely transmitting a particular subject matter(p. 57). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning affect their likeliness to enhancestudent learning and interest in all subject areas.

Methods of teaching such as cooperative learning, group discussion, and use of a learningcycle support the construction of knowledge by students. Students must have the opportunity


to build on prior knowledge and maximize social interactions with other students in order tonegotiate meaning (Duschl, 1995; Tobin et al., 1994). Interactions between students as wellas between the students and the teacher can result in clarifying understanding of specificscience content, identifying and resolving differences in understanding, solving problems,raising new questions, and answering existing questions, and designing investigations. How-ever, if a teacher arranges the desks in groups, yet has the students work independently attheir desks within the groups, the teacher may believe that cooperative learning serves as atool for management, but does not value the learning that comes from shared interactions.The manner in which a teacher implements cooperative learning depends largely on his orher beliefs about teaching and learning.

Although the connection of beliefs to action may be described simply, the relationshipbetween beliefs and behavior is highly complex (Brickhouse, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1986;Tobin, 1993). Teachers’ behavior and actions influence the continual development of theirbeliefs and theories; beliefs can be strengthened or modified with more evidence gained byclassroom practice. Events in the classroom, as well as in the school setting provide eitherconstraints or opportunities for the development of beliefs and theories (Clark & Peterson,1986). However, patterns of relationships have been found to exist between classroompractices and teacher attitudes and perceptions (Solomon & Battistich, 1996). Therefore,any innovation in context, practice, materials, or technology should take teachers’ existingbeliefs into account (Eisenhardt et al., 1988).

METHODOLOGY

This study of teachers’ beliefs was guided by a model of teachers’ thoughts and ac-tions proposed by Clark and Peterson (1986) asserting that behavior of teachers is greatlyinfluenced by their thought processes. In this model, teachers’ thought processes are concep-tualized as three interacting components, including teachers’ theories and beliefs. Teachers’actions in the classroom and the observable effects of those actions can be better understoodif the nonobservable phenomena of their thought processes, including their beliefs, are madepublic. The link between beliefs and action or behavior is a common element of differentdefinitions of beliefs and germane to this study.

The Context for the Study

The Allegheny Schools Science Education and Technology Inc. (ASSET) program pro-vided a relevant context for studying the beliefs of elementary teachers regarding the teach-ing and learning of science because the program was conceptualized and “designed to alignwith national recommendations for standards of science education reform” (ASSET, 1995).The program incorporates the five elements of exemplary science programs as designatedby the National Science Resources Center. These five elements include

1. Professional development2. Materials support center3. Hands-on, inquiry based materials4. Assessment5. Community support

The designation of these five elements as components of exemplary science programs areintended to address the problems associated with sustaining previous programs of reform.The central component of the ASSET program is an extensive system of professional

6 LEVITT

development. Each elementary teacher involved in the program will receive 100 h of pro-fessional development in science over the course of the 5-year grant. The hands-on, inquirymaterials chosen to support the program include modules from Science and Technologyfor Children developed by the National Science Resources Center and Full Option Sci-ence System developed by the Lawrence Hall of Science. Both module-based programsare endorsed by the National Science Foundation. The ASSET program procures, main-tains, and refurbishes the modules for delivery to each of the districts participating in theprogram. Assessment and community support are also core components of the ASSETprogram.

In 1993, the pilot year of the program, two districts participated in the program. Thedistricts represented in this study are the two districts that have been participating in ASSETsince its inception. Both districts are considered to be “suburban,” and although they differin size, they share similar demographic characteristics (Table 1).

A total of 100 elementary teachers from both districts had been participating in theprogram since its inception. At the time of the study, each of these teachers had participatedin at least two types of professional development. First, the teachers participated in generalhands-on science training to increase their comfort with the management and use of concretematerials for science lessons. Then, each teacher participated in module specific training.Before any teacher can receive a module for use in their classroom, they must attend atraining, at which time the trainer reviews each of the lessons in the module with the teachers.Several of the teachers from these districts conducted subsequent module training for theircolleagues. Additionally, teachers who had been identified as lead teachers participated inleadership seminars in order to facilitate implementation of the program in their schooldistrict.

TABLE 1Demographic Information for the Two School Districts Represented in thisStudya

School District 1 School District 2

Community population 14,089 23,278White 95% 98%Non-white 5% 2%

School districtEnrollment (Grades K-6) 795 1424Average daily attendance (Elementary) 95% 96%Annual drop-out rate <1% <1%Students continuing on to college or university 73% 55%Chapter One participationb 4% 16%Number of elementary teachers 50 62Student to teacher ratio 16:1 18:1

FacultyNon-white 2% 0%Female 82% 81%Average years teaching experience 15 years 19 yearsGraduate degrees 62% 50%

aAll information in this table was obtained from the Pennsylvania Educational Policy StudyDatabase (1994).

bChapter One participation in 1994 was dependent on the number of students enrolled inthe federally subsidized lunch program.


Of the 100 teachers participating in the program in these two districts, a sample of 20%,or 20 teachers, 10 from each district, were chosen for participation in the study. The sampleof 20 was selected to ensure representation of level of involvement in the program anddistribution across buildings within the two school districts. Furthermore, the sample waschosen to ensure representation of grade level teachers, lead teachers, and nonlead teachers,as well as gender distribution within these groups. The 10 teachers selected from eachdistrict demonstrated a range from moderate to extreme enthusiasm for the program. Of the20 teachers contacted for participation, 16 teachers participated: 9 teachers from SchoolDistrict 1 and 7 teachers from School District 2.

Data Sources

Beliefs do not lend themselves easily to empirical investigation. People may not be ableto accurately or adequately represent their beliefs; consequently, beliefs cannot be directlyobserved. Although beliefs cannot be directly observed, they can be inferred from whatpeople say, intend, and do (Pajares, 1992). Evidence of beliefs include belief statements(what a person says), intentions to behave in a certain manner (what a person plans todo), and behavior relative to the belief in question (what a person does). Therefore, what aperson says, what a person intends to do, and what a person does should be included in theassessment of beliefs.

To elicit beliefs of the participating teachers, a semistructured interview predicated on theobservation of the teaching of a science lesson was developed. Each teacher was observedteaching a single lesson from a module. The teachers’ responses to the interview questionsserved as the primary source of data used to answer the questions guiding this study.

Observation. Observations provided the context for the discussion with each teacherregarding their beliefs. All observations occurred in the spring. The observations lastedfor the duration of the lesson, ranging from 16 min to 65 min, with an average lessontime of 38 min. The observation notes of the researcher served as additional support forthe teachers’ responses to the interview questions. Observations could not be used as theprimary source of data for two reasons. First, beliefs cannot be directly observed; they canonly be inferred from behavior. Second, behavior is often modified because of perceivedexternal circumstances. Issues of time, materials, and students are very real to teachers andoften inhibit them from implementing a program according to their beliefs.

Interview. The classroom observation served as the means for eliciting information fromthe teachers about their beliefs based on their actions in the classroom; teachers spoke abouttheir own teaching and their beliefs underlying their teaching in relation to an actual episodein their classroom. The interview responses became more meaningful and relevant to theteacher because the beliefs of the teacher were connected to classroom experience.

The semi-structured interview focused the data collection in three areas: the teaching andlearning of science, the nature of science and of knowing science, and science educationreform, specifically in the context of the program (see Appendix). This article reports onthe first area, teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of science. Each respondenthad the opportunity to reply to questions in the same categories, although the specificprobes within each category were chosen based on the events of the lesson. The interviewwas structured so as to allow the interviewer to probe for clarification, justification, oramplification, or to respond to the intensity of the interviewee’s response (Guba and Lincoln,1981). The interviews ranged from 25 min to 2 h inlength, with an average time of 40 min.

8 LEVITT

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed for individual teachers and across groups of teachers. Data analysisfor this study was carried out in three stages: coding and distribution of data, generatinginferences about the data, and responding to the research questions.

The coding and distribution of data employed a strategy described by Miles and Huberman(1994). A matrix was developed for each of the interview questions, with a row for eachteacher participating in the interviews. The first column was labeled “Responses” andthe second column was labeled “Comments.” Verbatim sections of data from the text ofeach interview germane to the question, including those that indicated inconsistencies orambiguities, were recorded in the “Responses” column. The column labeled “Comments”was used to record responses given by an individual teacher that were consistent withor related to the teacher’s response to another question or when the teacher expressed adistinct response to a question. Researcher comments were also recorded in this columnwhen more than one teacher used similar phrases or expressed a thought or idea similar tothat of another teacher. These similar responses formed the basis for emerging patterns ofresponses.

In the next stage of analysis, inferences were generated about patterns of responses usingthe data matrices. Responses with common or similar phrases were grouped together intogeneral characterizations. Specific statements from the matrices and summary tables wereused to support generalizations. Working between the research questions and statementsmade by the teachers allowed the researcher to use specific data to respond to the questionsguiding the study. Doing so enhanced the trustworthiness of the conclusions. A second readerreviewed the coding and categorizations of the responses. The researcher and the readerrefined the generalizations until consensus was reached. Hypotheses about relationshipsamong categories were developed and recorded and the hypotheses themselves were sortedand ordered into a theory that accounted for observed events. Theory development wasmodified with further data analysis. The cycle of analysis was repeated until all data wereaccounted for.

The teachers’ beliefs can be summarized by three categories along a continuum: tra-ditional, transitional, and transformational. The three categories refer to characterizationsof the teachers’ beliefs relative to the recommendations for the teaching and learning ofscience as described in theNational Science Education Standards.Traditional beliefs areleast consistent with the recommendations of science education reform. Although teacherswho express traditional beliefs may exhibit elements of recommended practices, over-all, the belief statements and practices of the teachers in this category vary widely fromthe recommendations for teaching science. Transitional beliefs are those expressed be-liefs that are moving toward the recommendations for reform. Teachers in the transi-tional belief category seem to embrace aspects of the philosophy of reform yet incon-sistencies between their belief statements and actions exist, or stated constraints inhibitimplementation and adoption of beliefs. Classroom practices for this group of teachersare also beginning to align with reform, but the teacher still exhibits some traditional be-liefs and/or practices. Teachers espousing transformational beliefs were those whose beliefstatements and classroom practices demonstrated the closest alignment with the recom-mendations for science education reform as well as consistency between espoused beliefsand classroom practices. The sixteen teachers have been classified into the categories asfollows:

Types of Beliefs ←Traditional-------------Transitional-------------- Transformational→Teachers [1, 5, 8, 10, 16] [2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15] [3, 9, 12]


To illustrate patterns of beliefs expressed by a particular group of teachers, one teacherfrom each category of beliefs will be used to represent the group of teachers. Therepresentative teacher clearly portrays the characteristics and beliefs about the teachingand learning of science expressed by their respective group. Each of the three selectedteachers came into their teaching career with a similar background in science. Coursestaken included a general science course, biology, and a science methods course.

Robert represents the five teachers who expressed traditional beliefs about the teachingand learning of science. Robert has taught fifth grade for 29 years. He has a Master’sdegree equivalency that can be earned by attending professional development workshopsthrough regional institutions and advances a teacher in terms of a district’s pay scale.Although Robert has earned sufficient credits for the degree equivalency, he could notrecall any specific science courses taken since graduating with his Bachelor’s degree, norany professional development activities, other than training for the ASSET program, takenwithin the last 3 years.

Upon entering Robert’s classroom, an observer notices that the students’ desks are ar-ranged individually in rows. During the observed lesson, students mostly worked individu-ally, but worked in pairs when they needed to share materials. The room is full of crowdedbookshelves and a poster promotes reading as “Wonderful food for the mind.” A variety ofmaps and car models, personal interests of Robert’s, are noticeably displayed in the class-room. The displays in the room are neat and orderly, but none address science concepts ortopics. The teacher’s desk in is back of the room, and the teacher gives all instructions fromthis direction. Students raise their hand when they have a question or to obtain permissionto come to the teacher to ask him a question.

Kathy represents the category of teachers whose beliefs are in a transitional phase. Kathyteaches first grade and has done so for the last 3 of her 16 years in teaching. Kathy holds aMaster’s Degree in Education and has taken many science workshops with an emphasis onhands-on activities. She has also participated in nonscience related professional develop-ment including workshops that addressed adaptations for students with special needs andcooperative learning.

Kathy’s classroom has learning centers set up for reading, writing, math, art, and science.The students can use the centers during designated times throughout the school day. Displaysin the front of the room remind students of classroom routines. Charting the daily weatheron a calendar is one of these routines, as well as an element of the district’s chosen mathprogram. Nearly the entire length of the wall in the back of the room is dedicated to science.Hanging on blackboards and bulletin boards are charts from the unit being studied: WaysWoodland Plants are Different, Ways Woodland Plants are Alike, The Ways Plants andAnimals are Alike/Different. Next to these charts is a board titled “Organism—A LivingThing” displaying student work. The students drew pictures of living things and wrotesentences about what they thought the chosen living organism needed to stay healthy. Anaquarium with a frog was set up on a table that was also covered with books about organisms.Although the desks were set up independently in rows on the day the lesson was observed,Kathy said that this was not the usual set-up for her classroom. The teacher’s desk was infront of the room facing the students.

Jane, a third grade teacher, represents the group of three teachers who expressed beliefsthat can be described as transformational. Jane has been teaching for 25 years. She has aMasters degree in Special Education and has previously taught Kindergarten and SpecialEducation students. Jane continually develops her repertoire of teaching strategies througha variety of professional development activities. She has attended the National ScienceResources Center Leadership Institute, the New Standards Portfolio Project of the LearningResearch and Development Center with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and

10 LEVITT

science workshops at area universities and science centers. She frequently travels as partof ecological study groups. Jane has conducted professional development workshops forteachers in a variety of grade levels.

From the moment one enters Jane’s classroom, the observer can immediately discern themany ways in which the environment is supportive of science. Live animals—lizards, asnake, gerbils, and hamsters—and terrarium habitats line the shelves, and plants in variousstages of growth can be found under Gro-lights and in the window. One bulletin board inparticular reminds students how scientists use each of their senses for making observations.Others display fish species and declare the area “Gordon’s Greenhouse.” Materials arefreely accessible to students as they are working. Students’ desks are set up in pairs inamphitheater style seating. Students work either individually or in pairs, depending on thetask. The teacher’s desk is arranged diagonally in the back corner of the room and seemsto be used more to hold supplies than as a working space. Jane starts her lesson in front ofthe class and is in constant motion throughout the lesson, interacting with students.

TEACHERS BELIEFS REGARDING THE TEACHINGAND LEARNING OF SCIENCE

One overarching belief emerged from the teachers’ responses regarding the teaching andlearning of science. Teachers believe that the teaching and learning of science should bestudent centered. All of the other expressed beliefs can be related to and subsumed bythis dominant theme. Five patterns of teachers’ responses support the characterization ofteachers’ belief that the teaching and learning of science should be student centered. First,the teachers expressed belief in engaging students in hands-on activities. Second, teach-ers expressed belief in students as active participants in learning science. Third, teachersexpressed belief that the learning of science should be personally meaningful to students.Fourth, teachers expressed belief that science education should foster positive attitudestoward science. Fifth, teachers expressed belief that the role of the teacher changes to ac-commodate a focus on the students. The sections below illustrate each belief and discussits relation to elements of the philosophy underlying science education reform.

Engaging Students in Hands-On Activities

Overwhelmingly, teachers in each of the three categories expressed belief in teachingand learning science through hands-on activities. Robert, representing the group of teachersexpressing traditional beliefs, stated that he felt the reason to change from a nonhands onprogram to a hands-on program was that “it gets the students more involved . . . They canactually do something and reap the benefits right there. They can see what they’ve done.”Kathy, representing the group of teachers expressing transitional beliefs, responded, “It’sphenomenal . . . this is the way science should be taught . . . this is good teaching . . . agoodway for kids to learn . . .this is the way you teach little people science.” Kathy’s enthusiasmfor and stated belief in hands-on teaching was so strong it carried over into her teaching ofother subjects:

Everything I do I kind of think through in more of a hands-on thing, whether it be math orreading. . . when you see kids doing well, you figure, hey, they could be doing this in theirother subjects too.

Jane, representing the teachers with transformational beliefs, explained that she had alwaysbelieved “hands-on science was the best way to go. I think this [i.e. the hands-on activities]


is science.” Robert, Kathy, and Jane’s comments represent the essence of comments fromteachers in each of the categories about their belief in hands-on science teaching.

According to several of the teachers, hands-on activities contribute directly to studentlearning. Kathy stated that the students are “learning more science [with hands-on activi-ties] . . . they’rediscovering on their own and they sometimes even go further than [she]expects them to.” In addition, she saw “how much more they get out of doing it them-selves, the hands-on. . . somuch better than teaching from a textbook.” Additionally, Kathytalked about the specific connection between learning and doing, and that the processes thestudents were engaged in, such as observing, served as a means to learning the content.

Practices observed during each of the lessons supported the teachers’ expressed beliefin the use of hands-on materials in the teaching of science. Students in 14 of the 16 class-rooms were engaged in direct explorations of the concept being studied at the time of theobservation. Hands-on activities observed during the lessons ranged from guided discoverywith the teacher leading the students through the steps of an activity to more free explo-ration once expectations were established. During all of the observations, students activelyparticipated in the lessons. Although the observed lessons varied considerably, students inRobert, Kathy, and Jane’s classes were engaged with “hands-on” science lessons.

In Robert’s class, the first part of the lesson, was a brief review of the previous lesson.Robert spoke to the class about using their eyes and making observations. He asked thestudents how magnifying lenses worked but did not wait for any responses. Then Robertproceeded to tell the students where they could find the directions for the activities and listedthe materials they would need. After 20 min, the students began to work independentlyto observe the magnifying properties of a variety of objects, such as water, clear plasticcylinders, and lenses. Furthermore, he was very specific about the timing of activitieswithin the lesson and took a very structured approach to implementing the lesson. Robertprovided very little facilitation during the lesson but did provide explicit directions to thestudents for the activity. The duration of the lesson was 37 min. Although Robert’s studentswere engaged in a hands-on activity, Robert acknowledged how hard it is to get out of thehabit of teaching by opening the book. He made a clear distinction between teaching science“with the ASSET program and without,” and for several questions, asked for the context ofthe question, meaning did the question refer to teaching science with or without ASSET,i.e., with or without the provision of materials.

In Kathy’s class, students were engaged in logic problems that reviewed the contentlearned in the module, which had been collected the week prior to the observation of thelesson. Kathy shared with the observer that this was the first time the students had donea science lesson without their “tanks” on their desks. To begin, Kathy had the studentsdescribe the terrariums and aquariums that had been on their desks throughout the unit. Sheasked the students to describe the organisms that lived in the terrarium and the aquarium,to name some similarities and differences between the organisms, and to list what kinds ofthings were necessary to keep the organisms alive. After the students fully described thecontents of each habitat, they worked as a class to solve a logic problem. The logic problemwas an extension activity related to the module. The students had to decide which organismand which plant belonged to each of the children in the problem. Kathy showed the studentshow to use chips to mark their places on the grid that was provided as an aid for solving theproblem. When the problem had been solved, the students simply cleared their worksheetswith no discussion of the process or how they arrived at the solution. The duration of thelesson was 16 min.

Jane’s students were engaged in a lesson on thinning and transplanting plants. The lessonstarted with the students describing to the teacher the difference between planting a seedlingand planting seeds. The teacher coached the students through question and answers until

12 LEVITT

they had described in detail the parts of the seed and how they contributed to its growth.The students also relayed the elements necessary for planting a seed. Then Jane gave thestudents two words to think about, thinning and transplanting, and asked the students whatthey thought these two words meant. Together, these dialogues constituted the first 20 min ofclass. Next, Jane told the students they were going to be transplanting plants, and reviewed,again through question and answer, the processes for gathering materials and transplantingthe plants. Within 25 min, students were working with partners on transplanting three of fourplants they had previously grown. During this time, Jane asked the students to continue tothink about why they were only transplanting three plants, and where the optimal conditionswere for placement of the plants. Students stayed on task and were patient when waitingfor materials. Jane used positive reinforcement when talking with the students. At the endof the lesson, Jane posed several questions for the students to think about for the next class.The lesson lasted 70 min.

For nearly half of the teachers interviewed, specifically those with traditional and somewith transitional beliefs, their expressed belief in the teaching and learning of sciencethrough hands-on activities was moderated by practical constraints, especially as relatedto materials. In discussing the continued use of the program, Kathy stated that although“people [i.e. teachers] have to believe in it,” the modules have to be refurbished and it hasto be convenient for teachers to use. Robert made a similar point citing specific examples ofmaterials that were missing when the modules were delivered. He then reinforced the pointby describing previous module programs purchased by the district that were now sittingunopened in closets because the materials had not been refurbished. In his words, withoutASSET, he would “go back to monotonous reading and discussion.” As a follow-up to thiscomment, Robert talked about “other” teachers who would “turn off” from the program’suse if the modules were not stocked. Other teachers admitted that if the program did notexist or did not provide materials, they would not use as many hands-on activities or notuse hands-on activities to as great an extent. According to one teacher, “I would do someof the activities . . . but I canguarantee there is no way I would ever assemble the stuff,have it prepared and all . . . not nearly enough hours in the day.” Several teachers said theiruse of hands-on activities would depend on the unit they were teaching and that possiblythey would go back to teaching from the book, especially if the materials were not readilyavailable. For some teachers, this is where the focus on the student began to shift back tothe focus on the teacher.

Each of the three teachers expressing transformational beliefs said their teaching wouldnot change if the materials were not provided. They said they would continue to teach usingas much hands-on science as they do with the ASSET program and indicated that their use ofhands-on materials was not a result of having the materials provided. Jane described how theASSET program had made her focus more on what she was doing and provided names forthe methods she had always used in her classroom. When Jane was directly asked what shethought would happen if the materials were not provided, she responded, “ASSET serves asa means to encouraging students to learn, but is not the focus of the learning . . .People likemyself would continue doing things just like we always have, hands-on, this, that, and theother thing.” She expressed her belief that the difference between the teachers who wouldcontinue without the provision of materials and those who would not is “time, money,and effort.” Ultimately, Jane termed this “internal motivation.” To Jane, internal motivationmeant the teacher believed enough in teaching science through hands-on activities that theywould put in the time, money, and effort because it helped “kids learn.” She also believedthat teachers in her district were changing and shared a story of one teacher’s evolution,describing how he went from reading the newspaper at the first module training to askingwhen he would receive the next module for use in his classroom. She believed that teachers


have to see that it is worth doing, but there would always be resistors because of the time,money, and effort.

Belief in hands-on science is consistent with elements of Teaching Standard A andTeaching Standard D (National Research Council, 1996). Although the Standards recom-mend the use of inquiry, when appropriate, these teaching standards specifically refer tothe use of teaching strategies that support the development of student understanding. Thedescription of Standard A discusses how the activities in the classroom provide the basis forobservation, data collection, and analysis of first hand events and phenomena, ultimatelycontributing to understanding of the concept. Furthermore, Teaching Standard D refers tothe teacher “making the available science tools, materials, media, and technological re-sources accessible to students.” Although both of these standards include reference to theuse of hands-on materials, they refer to the materials as a means to the student learning thecontent, as mentioned by many of the teachers in their expressed beliefs.

Students As Active Participants in Learning Science

Teachers characterized the role of the students in a science lesson as active participantsin learning science, not as passive recipients of information. Specific terms used to describethe role of students included worker, experimenter, investigator, gatherer of information,observer, discoverer, and helper. The teachers who responded to this prompt used phrasesof action, in addition to the aforementioned labels, to describe the role of the student.

Robert repeatedly expressed his perspective on the role of the student in a science lesson.He tells students, “Hands-on means your hands, not mine.” He believes students shouldbe very self-directed in terms of following directions for the hands-on lessons from themodules, but not necessarily in terms of following their own inquiries. Furthermore, hestated that once he gives the directions, “the students are on their own for the most part . . .they do it all.” His belief was reinforced during the observation when Robert remained at hisdesk for the duration of the lesson. His interaction with students was limited to the instanceswhen students raised their hand because they had a question.

A repeated theme during Kathy’s interview was children as scientists. She discussed theactions of students, specifically observing and recording, as those that scientists also engagein. She felt it was important that all students, but especially girls, see the connection betweentheir activities in class and scientists’ work in their environments. Because Kathy placedsuch an emphasis on the processes of science during the interview, when she was askedabout the learning of content, Kathy replied that she believes that students learn sciencethrough the processes of science.

The constant focus of Jane’s responses to the interview questions was the students. Janeemphasizes to the students their responsibility to be engaged and to be accountable for theirlearning. When Jane began her lesson, she told the students, “Something new happened overthe weekend and you are going to have new responsibilities based on these new things.”Jane’s philosophy that underlies her teaching of all of the subjects is that students learn bytouching and doing. She stated, “I think it’s wonderful. The students actually get to touchinstead of saying, look at the picture. They’re actually doing it. They’re noisy; it’s busynoise.” Jane contends that this philosophy stems from her background in early childhood andspecial education. Jane believes that the children with special needs in her class, including achild with autism and several learning support students “end up doing better because the factthat they are involved gives them a greater chance of being successful.” Additionally, Janedescribed how she introduces the students to the terms, responsibility and accountability, interms of putting the responsibility to learn on the students and having them hold themselvesaccountable for their learning. In their own ways, each of the three representative teachers

14 LEVITT

expressed their belief in the focus on the student in a science lesson, yet their interpretationof that belief is markedly different.

Teachers frequently expressed belief in students working cooperatively and communi-cating, including questioning, as means of actively engaging the students in the learningof science. Working cooperatively was the process teachers discussed most often. Oneteacher in the transitional group noted her experience with the effect of cooperative learn-ing on student understanding as a reason to let students work together. She also statedthat she used cooperative learning as a lesson about life, “Sometimes you work with peo-ple you don’t like but the job has to get done.” Another teacher with traditional beliefsreplied that she grouped her students for science only because it allowed her to movearound better for management of materials. She later added, as somewhat of an after-thought, that she also liked the interaction between the students because “they’re learningoff each other.” Although each of these teachers expressed belief about students workingcooperatively in science, they represent a range of beliefs about the nature of cooperativelearning.

In over half of the 16 classrooms, seating arrangements conducive to cooperative learn-ing supported teachers’ expressed beliefs in students working cooperatively in science.The teachers whose rooms were not set up in an arrangement conducive to cooperativelearning stated that the students moved when doing science activities. Furthermore, dur-ing the lessons, students were most often observed working in pairs or in small groups toaccomplish tasks. Most of the work done in pairs occurred in primary classrooms. Olderstudents were allowed to work in a variety of group sizes, often with self-selected members.Students were also observed working independently during the lessons. In some instances,the classroom observation did not support the teacher’s expressed belief in cooperativelearning. For example, during Robert’s interview, he stated that he believed the most impor-tant goal for science was for students to learn to work cooperatively. Yet, in the observedlesson, students in his class worked independently. When probed about this discrepancy,Robert would not commit to describing how his students worked cooperatively in otherlessons.

Communicating, specifically reflecting and asking questions, were processes mentionedby teachers in support of their belief that students should be active participants in learningscience. Teachers encouraged students to use a variety of strategies in a science lessonto communicate for the purpose of enhancing understanding. Nine of the teachers whoexpressed either transformational or transitional beliefs encouraged the students to reconciletheir ideas when a discrepancy would occur, rather than solving the dilemma for the students.The discrepancy could have been between elicited ideas of different students, between theresults of two experiments, or between prior knowledge and learned information. Kathyused peer tutoring and encouraged discussion among her students not only to reinforcecommunication skills but because “even though they may not have it completely downpat, sometimes just verbalizing the answer helps them to go back to make a more concreteunderstanding.” She used journals to this end as well. In Robert’s classroom, when studentsreached different conclusions at different paces, he declared that the students who workedfaster “have nothing to do when they finish early.” Robert said that he might have students“clean-up” their work, but there was no evidence of students discussing results of any oftheir activities.

In addition, 11 of the teachers talked about the use of questions to encourage the studentsto think about the concept being taught. One teacher stated, “Science teaching should bequestions, questions, questions.” Even teachers who did not specifically discuss the use ofquestions during the interview utilized questioning techniques during their science lessons.Furthermore, teachers asserted that students were asking more questions using the modules,


a sign to the teachers of student learning. Even though teachers cited students’ questionsas evidence of student thinking and learning, students in only two classes were observedasking questions that went beyond procedural questions.

For 10 of the 16 teachers, their belief in students’ active involvement in the learningof science extended to other subject areas. The use of cooperative learning and hands-onactivities was specifically cited as carry-overs to other subjects. Teachers claimed scienceteaching had taught them to organize time, space, and materials in a different way.

Belief in students as active participants in learning science is consistent with many aspectsof the Teaching Standards, as well the recommendations for science education reformas discussed inScience for All Americans(AAAS, 1989). The teachers’ belief in studentsworking collaboratively is specifically mentioned in Teaching Standards B, D, and E and isfurther supported throughout the teaching standards. Teaching Standard B advocates thatteachers “orchestrate discourse among students about scientific ideas,” as well as promotedifferent forms of communication. Teachers should “encourage interdependence” throughwork in small groups. Teaching Standard D requests that teachers create a setting supportiveof scientific inquiry, including promoting the use of discourse as a means of pursuing andexchanging scientific ideas. Both teacher and student questions, as cited in the interviews,can be used as a means to orchestrate discourse in a classroom. Finally, Teaching Standard Erefers to the development of communities of science learners that reflect the intellectual rigorof scientific inquiry and the attitudes and social values conducive to science learning. Indoing this, teachers “nurture collaboration among students; structure and facilitate ongoingformal and informal discussion based on a shared understanding of the rules of scientificdiscourse.” As the teachers stated and the Standards concur, working cooperatively not onlyenhances understanding of science, but fosters the practice of many skills, attitudes, andvalues that characterize science (p. 50).

The Learning of Science Should Be Personally Meaningfulto Students

Meaningful, as described by the teachers, included descriptors such as important, useful,and relevant, as determined by the needs and interests of the students. As an example,teachers valued the processes discussed in the previous section because the processes taughtthrough science are needed for daily living and prepare young people for life beyond school.Skills characterized as “life skills” included developing independence, being more alert toproblems and more aware of one’s surroundings, and being involved. According to Kathy,her goals for science instruction include students developing the process skills of science,including making observations and recording changes. As she summarized, “These goalsare not just for science but overall . . . if in everysubject, they can become more independentand see a process and how it relates to real life, I think they’ll be fine.”

Descriptions of “personally meaningful” from the three teachers expressing transforma-tional beliefs extended beyond the relevancy of skills and topics to daily life. Jane statedshe believed teachers “do students a disservice by not building on the knowledge they cometo school with.” In the lesson Jane taught, a poignant incident exhibited her philosophyabout connecting the students’ prior knowledge to new learning. Jane asked the studentsto describe what they knew about the word “transplant.” One of the students asked aboutthe relationship of transplanting plants to the mother of another student who was evidentlyunable to receive an organ needed for a transplant. The student’s mother did not survive, soin the mind of the student giving the definition, transplanting was necessary for survival.Jane gracefully addressed the question by discussing with the class why a living thing,either a plant or a person, would need a transplant. Had Jane not acknowledged the students’

16 LEVITT

ideas about the transplant, and been keenly aware of the sensitivity of her students, thisopportunity for connecting the lesson to students’ prior knowledge would have resulted ina missed opportunity for facilitating understanding.

Seven other teachers acknowledged the role of students’ prior knowledge in learningscience. However, even though these teachers were observed asking students about theirexisting ideas, there was minimal evidence to suggest they were actually connecting stu-dents’ existing ideas to the topic being presented. The teachers who were prompted aboutthis said they referred back to the information at the end of the unit to determine whatstudents had learned. The information gathered from the students was not usually used orreferred to during the course of the unit. Kathy, for example, described how she wants herstudents to see how their ideas have changed over the course of a unit. So, at the end of theunit on organisms, she had her students refer to a picture of an organism they had drawnat the beginning of the unit to describe what it needs to live. However, the students did notrefer to the picture in the course of the unit, only at the end to compare their new knowledgeto their original ideas.

An additional aspect of utilizing prior knowledge is adapting the lessons to meet theneeds of the students. Neither Robert nor Kathy gave any indication that learning should betailored to individual needs. In Robert’s class, content is not modified and is limited to thecontent presented in the module. In addition, teachers in this category spoke about coveringcontent and the need for all students to be doing the same thing at the same time. Withinthe ASSET program, four units are taught per year at each grade level. Several teacherswere concerned that if only four topics were taught per year that “other things kids need toknow” and “topics necessary for children to learn” would be omitted.

The teachers expressing transitional beliefs tempered their student-centered focus withgeneralized teacher judgment. Even as Kathy asserted her belief that the students shouldbe the focus of the science lesson, she also stated that she decides what is “too hard” forstudents to learn and then breaks it down into simpler terms. Kathy makes decisions for herentire class of students about what she thinks they are able to learn.

However, the teachers expressing transformational beliefs, continually talked about mod-ifying lessons, both in content and in strategies in order to help individual students learn.Adapting a lesson might mean changing a strategy for a student with learning disabilitiesor providing a challenge for a gifted student. Jane strongly believed that learning shouldinclude concrete experiences and individualized strategies. She repeatedly discussed theteacher’s need to continually assess what individual children knew and were learning sothat lessons could be modified accordingly. Throughout the interview, Jane described ingreat detail how her decisions about adapting the module are dependent upon the abil-ity and skill level of each student. She does not eliminate lessons or activities from themodules, but instead adapts the lesson, perhaps including a written guide or combininglessons. She described how she modified the questions she might ask or reconsider thegrouping of her students. Jane integrated stories of individual students with her descrip-tion of specific examples of lesson adaptation and modification based on the needs of thestudent.

Five teachers referred to the use of student self-reflection in order to make learningmeaningful. Classroom observations of these five teachers provided support for their claimthat students were being asked to reflect on classroom activities to promote meaningfullearning. When students respond to questions either orally or in a journal entry, the verbal-ization and reflection “lead to a more concrete understanding,” according to one teacher.This teacher also used problem solving to encourage reflection because “if you just handthe answer to the students, they’ll just use it and say they did it, but not really reflect uponwhy something works.” Jane stated that reflection should be an “ongoing process.” Building


on her comments about student responsibility for learning and accountability, Jane felt theuse of portfolios would be beneficial to having students self-reflect and assess their ownprogress.

Accounting for the variations in the teachers’ definitions of “meaningful,” the beliefthat the learning of science should be meaningful to the students aligns with elementsof the Teaching Standards. In Teaching Standard A, teachers “select content and designand adapt curricula to meet the interests, knowledge, understanding, abilities, and ex-periences of students.” The explanation of Teaching Standard A advocates that teachersconsider the students who will be learning (p. 30); plan to meet particular interests, knowl-edge, and skills of their students and build on their questions and ideas (p. 31). teach-ers’ beliefs also concur with elements of Teaching Standard B, where it is recommendedthat teachers recognize and respond to student diversity. In adapting lessons to meet theneeds and interests of the students, teachers are, in part, responding to the diverse stu-dent population in their classroom. In Teaching Standard C, teachers engage in ongoingassessment of student learning. To this end, teachers guide students in self-assessment,allowing students to reflect on their own scientific accomplishments, thus deepening stu-dent understanding. Furthermore, teachers analyze assessment data to guide their teach-ing. In other words, in planning for instruction, the focus of science education is on thestudents.

Science Education Should Foster Positive Attitudes Toward Science

As a means of eliciting teachers’ beliefs about important outcomes for the teaching ofscience, teachers were asked about their goals for science instruction. For the majority ofteachers in each of the three categories, the primary goal for science instruction was thedevelopment of positive attitudes toward science. According to one teacher who expressedtransformational beliefs, the “ultimate goal” of science instruction is the enjoyment of sci-ence. He simply wants students to say, “I like it, I’m not afraid of it.” Related, teachersbelieve that students should enjoy science and have fun: “To have fun, that’s the key . . .to enjoy so that they remember.” According to Jane, if students are having fun they willbe engaged and interested in learning: “I look at learning as fun. If learning is to happen,you’ve got to make it fun . . . If we makelearning fun, I mean we want to make it aspositive and good and exciting as we can, that we stimulate these kids to want to constantlylearn, not just learn when they’re here at school.” The three teachers expressing transfor-mational beliefs believed that they should serve as a model for this attitude and expressedtheir hope that their own enthusiasm and love of science were passed on to their students.According to the teachers, students not traditionally regarded as “academic” within theirschool setting were enjoying and participating in science because of the activity-basednature of the class. The teachers’ belief that science teaching should foster positive atti-tudes toward science can further be inferred from the classroom environment. The physicalarrangement of the classrooms and the attention to science concepts and topics in class-room decorations indicated, in part, what the teacher did to promote science in his or herclassroom.

Although the development of positive attitudes toward science is not discussed within aspecific Standard, in the introduction to the document, there are several goals mentioned forscience education, including students “experience the richness and excitement of knowingabout and understanding the natural world of science.” The Teaching Standards advocatethat teachers should create a setting supportive of scientific inquiry. In doing so, teachersencourage the development of positive attitudes toward science. In addition, fostering pos-itive attitudes toward science is advocated as a goal inScience for All Americans(AAAS,1989).

18 LEVITT

The Role of the Teacher Changes to Accommodatea Focus on the Students

Twelve of the 16 teachers believed that the role of an elementary science teacher changedin order to accommodate an active approach to the teaching and learning of science. Thisactive approach entails more than simply presenting information. Labels used to describethe role of the teacher in an elementary science lesson included facilitator, encourager, diag-nostician, and model. Ten of the teachers used either the word “facilitator” or “encourager”to describe the role of the teacher. Descriptions of encouraging the children to go furtherin their explorations, to be curious, to ask questions, to start on a task, or to reflect on theirlearning suggested a belief in these roles for the teachers. Providing interesting objects toget the students involved in a topic was mentioned as a way of facilitating interest in science.

Four of the teachers described actions that indicated their belief in the role of the teacheras diagnostician. Primarily, these teachers described having to assess what the studentswere interested in and what the students know in order to effectively plan a lesson. Janedescribed this process as ongoing, “to determine what information is missing or what needsto be added . . . usewhat the students know or have learned as a basis for class discussion.”

Each of the three teachers who expressed transformational beliefs described the role ofthe teacher as that of a leader or a model. As Jane summarized, “There is not one role forthe teachers.”

For many of the teachers, regardless of the role they expressed for the teacher, theirexpressed beliefs and their actions in the classroom were consistent. Robert, for example,specifically used the word “foreman” to describe his view of the role of the teacher. If aforeman is defined as someone who oversees a job, makes sure people are on task, and givesdirections, then Robert’s actions in the classroom were consistent with his expressed belief.As he stated, “You have to walk around to make sure [the students] are on task and doingit correctly.”

On the other hand, Kathy provides an example of the tendency of teachers with transitionalbeliefs to state a belief consistent with the philosophy of science education reform, yetsupporting practices or other belief statements are not yet consistent. In asking Kathy totalk about her role as the teacher in a science lesson, several discrepancies demonstratewhy she is in a transitional phase of teaching science. First, Kathy was asked whetherthe observed lesson, which was teacher directed, was typical of the way she had alwaystaught science. She started shaking her head indicating “No” even before the question wasfinished being asked. She said her science teaching used to be more textbook orientedand included more dittos rather than the experiment work that she currently uses. Kathydescribed how she came to the realization that in the teaching of science, she was doing “toomuch talking.” “I think back to the first time I taught the module . . . I did toomuch talkingand I’ve really cut back,” pointing to the observed lesson as an example. However, whenasked about the observed lesson being very teacher directed, Kathy replied that it simplydepended on the topic and acknowledged that “good teachers don’t use any one thingspecifically.”

To varying degrees, teachers’ beliefs about the roles of the teacher aligned with theteaching standards. teachers’ expressed beliefs in the roles of facilitator and guide, andencourager and model, utilize phrasing directly stated in the Standards. Teaching StandardB discusses that teachers of science “guide and facilitate learning.” In doing this, the teacher“focuses and supports inquiries . . .encourage[s] and model[s] the skills of scientific inquiry,as well as curiosity, [and] openness to new ideas and data.” Teaching Standard E reiteratesthe need for the teacher to model and emphasize the skills, attitudes, and values of scientificinquiry. In addition, Teaching Standard C refers to teachers engaging in ongoing assessment


of their teaching and of student learning, aligning with the role of the teacher described asdiagnostician.

DISCUSSION

Three themes can be drawn from the beliefs of the teachers participating in this study.First, teachers did espouse certain nontraditional beliefs about the teaching and learning ofscience. Second, these nontraditional beliefs did accord, to varying degrees, with principlesof reform. Third, some of the beliefs expressed by the teachers came about as a result ofimplementing a program of science education reform.

Teachers espoused certain non-traditional beliefs about the teaching and learning of sci-ence, some of which represent a move away from previous research. For example, teachers’belief in the changing roles of the teacher is contrary to previous research regarding the roleof the teacher. Tilgner (1990) found that elementary teachers believed their role in the teach-ing of elementary science was to dispense facts, to transmit a body of knowledge. Beliefin the role of the teacher as facilitator, guide, and diagnostician provides a contrast to priorresearch. Although the roles expressed by the teachers have changed, this belief statementreinforces the research that teachers believe their roles are those they have most controlover and are most directly related to the classroom (Eisenhardt et al., 1988). On the otherhand, teachers’ belief that science education should foster positive attitudes toward science,along with their belief in the changing role of the teacher, supports previous research thatteaching activities directed toward developing students’ enthusiasm and ability to continuelearning are more important to teachers than solely transmitting a particular subject matter(Eisenhardt et al., 1988)

Teachers’ responses to the interview questions, as well as their actions in the classroom,suggested that these teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of science aligned with the gen-eral elements of the philosophy underlying current recommendations in science educationreform. To different degrees, the teachers’ beliefs departed from traditional elementary sci-ence instruction. For some teachers, the departure was in principle, for others, the departurewas in the practices associated with reform. Gaps still exist between the teachers’ beliefsand the principles of reform; however, the implication of the teachers’ beliefs is that theteachers were moving in a direction consistent with science education reform. Teachers hadadopted individual pieces of the standards, but they had not yet embraced the whole vision.Teachers’ beliefs can best be described as incomplete when compared to the philosophy ofteaching and learning underlying science education reform.

A significant gap that existed at the time of the study was teachers’ lack of attentionto “inquiry,” the primary philosophy and strategy advocated in the Standards. Teacherswere talking about and practicing “hands-on activity,” but no teacher mentioned inquirythroughout any of the interviews. Teachers’ belief in students’ active participation in scienceand the use of hands-on activities, as well as the strategies discussed for making learningmeaningful, demonstrated a beginning step toward embodying the principles and specificsof inquiry. For the majority of the teachers, their beliefs about the teaching and learningof science were internally consistent and provided a framework for their actions in theclassroom. The ASSET program has only recently begun transitioning from hands-on toinquiry, so that additional interviews and observations would be necessary to monitor furtherchanges in teachers’ beliefs.

This study can conclude that at least some of the beliefs expressed by the teachers cameabout as a result of implementing a program of science education reform. Teachers’ ex-pressed beliefs were most closely aligned with those elements of reform that had been

20 LEVITT

directly addressed by the ASSET program. To the time of this study, curriculum imple-mentation was used as the primary means of professional development. An underlyingassumption of curriculum implementation as professional development is that changingbeliefs and attitudes about teaching and learning can result from practicing new behavior(Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). Teachers mentioned both professionaldevelopment and seeing the students engaged in learning science as the means by whichthey examined and changed their beliefs and their accompanying practice.

Mounting evidence suggests that beliefs and behaviors interact in an ongoing way, andchanges in one can bring about changes in the other (Guskey, 1986). Once teachers inthis study observed their students learning, the teachers’ belief in the new approaches andcommitment to them changed significantly. With changes in classroom practice, teachers’beliefs continually evolved. Teachers need time to reflect on and learn from their expe-rience. More complex issues, such as inquiry, arise once teachers are comfortable withthe “how-to’s” and the “whats” of implementing a new science program (Loucks-Horsleyet al., 1998). Therefore, for the teachers participating in this study, as the ASSET programwas implemented, beliefs and behavior changed in a reciprocal way but the catalyst forbelief changes seemed to be a change in practice through implementation of the curriculummodules.

Teachers, as individuals, change at their own pace. This is the challenge of the imple-mentation of reform. The scope of implementation of science education reform includeshundreds of thousands of teachers. Reformers cannot expect all teachers to embrace the rec-ommended changes at the same time. Like the students they teach, teachers have individualconcerns and needs that must be addressed before they move forward toward adopting theprinciples of reform. Conventional professional development programs are usually unsuc-cessful in moving teachers toward substantial change in their beliefs. Critical examinationand change of beliefs takes time and deliberate attention. When teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning are acknowledged and addressed, professional development is moresuccessful in bringing about sustained changes (Bybee, 1993; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1993;Peterman, 1993).

Sensible professionals do not replace strongly held views and behavior patterns in re-sponse to a fiat or the latest vogue. Instead, they respond to developing sentiment amongrespected colleagues, to incentives that reward serious efforts to explore new possibilities,and to the positive feedback that may come from trying out new ideas from time to time—allof which takes years (AAAS, 1989). Mastering strategies consistent with the philosophy ofscience education reform is extremely complex. Recommended teaching strategies alignedwith the philosophy of reform introduce significant challenge to the assumptions and meth-ods underlying the practice of the majority of science teachers (Duschl, 1995). But unlessteachers move beyond the status quo, reform in science education will falter and eventuallyfail (Bybee, 1993). Given time, support, and resources, teachers can, and do, move beyondthe status quo to successfully sustain the implementation of science education reform.

Appendix: Interview

Interviewer: “I would like to begin the interview by briefly describing the events in yourclassroom as I saw them occur. Then, I will ask you a series of questions based on the lessonyou were teaching and finally, I would like to ask you several more general questions aboutscience education. If at any time you feel you have already answered the question, pleasefeel free to say so.”

Interviewer:Summarize the events of the lesson as they occurred. Ask:Is there anythingyou would like to add to this description?


1. Was the lesson you just taught typical of the way you teach science? Please describefor me how it is (or is not) typical of the way you teach science? Has what youdescribed for me always been typical of the way you have taught science? If not,how has your approach changed and what were the causes for change?

2. Probe: Can you tell me more about . . . (choose one from each category based on theresponses from the teacher to the first question and the events of the lesson)

a. Possible topics to probe in the area of the teaching and learning of science: Role ofthe teacher; role of the student; the physical set-up of the room; children workingalone or in groups; the type of discourse that occurs; materials utilized; methodsutilized; how do you know if students have learned from a science lesson; theinquiry cycle

b. Possible topics to probe in the area of the nature of science and knowing science:The emphasis placed on facts, rote processes, problem investigation, or alterna-tive solutions; basis for children’s knowledge of science; most important thingsfor students to learn about science

c. Possible topics to probe in the area of science education: Changes in what isa “typical” lesson for this teacher; what does a teacher need to know to teachscience; goals for the science lesson; goals for science instruction

3. ASSET Specific Questions

a. Has your use of the ASSET program changed since you first started using it?(Try to get timeline and causes of development.) How has it changed? What doyou think are the reasons for change?

b. How have the ideas of ASSET affected your teaching in other subjects? Whichsubjects?

c. What affect has ASSET had on the students?d. What materials, other than the materials from ASSET, do you use in teaching

science? Why?e. What enables you to implement the ASSET program in your classroom? What

are some constraints of implementation?f. What do you believe is the philosophy of the ASSET program?g. In a few sentences, what does ASSET mean to you?

4. Final Question: Is there anything you would like to add related to anything we havetalked about today?

REFERENCES

Abell, S., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching science: A case study of a science teacherenthusiast. Science Education, 76(6), 581–595.

Allegheny Schools Science Education and Technology. (1995). ASSET Teacher EnhancementProject—Project Description. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Ambimbola, I. (1983). The relevance of the “new” philosophy of science for the science curriculum.School Science and Mathematics, 83(3), 181–193.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York:Oxford University Press.

Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroompractice. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13–18.

Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education—Social perspectives and personal reflections. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

22 LEVITT

Bybee, R. (Ed.). (1995). Redesigning the science curriculum: A report on the implications of standardsand benchmarks for science education. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Cronin-Jones, L. (1991). Science teachers’ beliefs and their influences on curriculum implementation:Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235–150.

Duschl, R. A. (1983). The elementary level science methods course: Breeding ground of apprehensiontoward science? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 745–754.

Duschl, R. A. (1995). Portfolio culture classrooms: Merging scientific thinking with conceptuallearning. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Education ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Eisenhardt, M., Shrum, J., Harding, J., & Cuthbert, A. (1988). Teachers’ beliefs: Definitions, findings,and directions. Educational Policy, 2(1), 51–70.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass Publishers.Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher,

15(5), 5–12.Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C., Arbuckle, M., Murray, L., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. (1993). Teacher

Institutes. In Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Regional Laboratory forEducational Improvement of the Northeast Islands and the National Staff Development Council.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional developmentfor teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

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

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.

Peterman, F. (1993). Staff development and the process of changing: A teacher’s emerging beliefsabout learning and teaching. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.

Peterson, P., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., & Loef, M. (1993). Pedagogical content beliefs in mathe-matics. Unpublished paper.

Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison ofthe beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education,77(3), 261–278.

Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light—A constructivist perspective on children’s learningin science. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Soloman, D., & Battistich, V. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communitiesthat differ in socioeconomic levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 327–348.

Tilgner, P. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431.Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivist perspectives on teacher learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of

constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science

teaching. Science Education, 74(4), 409–420.Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching

science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York:MacMillan.

Weiss, I. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United States: 1993. ChapelHill, NC: Horizon Research.

Willis, S. (1995). Reinventing science education: Reformers promote hands-on inquiry-based learning.Curriculum update. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 1–8.

Documents

An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science