CNAS GOALS 2000 PROGRAM
Science Teaching Beliefs

The Science-related Profile of Faculty and Students with Respect to Classroom Environment and Science Teaching Beliefs
by
College of Natural and Applied Sciences
and College of Education
A final paper submitted to Salish Research Project II in 1998

MSU , in partnership with area school districts (Lebanon, Nixa, Springfield and Strafford), Southwest Professional Development Center, and the Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (MO DESE), is using Goals 2000 funding to improve preparation programs for grade 1-12 science teachers.  The study summarized here represents part of the effort to establish base-line information concerning the science beliefs and classroom environment of K-12+ faculty, and recent graduates of MSU 's science teacher preparation program.

    Data was obtained from "Teacher Pedagogical Philosophy Interview" (some TPPI questions) and "Constructivist Learning Environment Survey" (CLES), instruments developed by the Salish I Research Project in 1997 [The University of Iowa, 1997b].

Major results include:

1. Instructional faculty possessed a relatively discipline-specific traditional view about the nature of science as opposed to a more humanistic view.
2. Faculty and graduates perceived that they generally provide a "student-centered" learning environment in their classes,
3. Students perceived the science learning environment they were exposed to as being less student-centered than was perceived by faculty.

These research results suggest that professional development for faculty and staff participating in the preparation programs of K-12 teachers of science is needed.

Introduction

The latest report released by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study ([TIMSS]  [U.S. Department of Education, (1996)] indicates that America's 8th grade students were outperformed by other countries in Science and Mathematics.  It concludes that one reason for students' failure to perform as well (as those from other countries) in Science and Mathematics is the inadequate preparation (or use) of America's science teachers.  The suggestion is that teacher's performances in the classroom do not adequately prepare and stimulate students for high standards of learning.   [Adams & Krockover (1997a & b); Kyle (1997); National Research Council. (1996a & 1997); National Science Foundation. (1996)]

In 1996, MO DESE began utilizing a portion of its Goals 2000 funding in support of reform initiatives in pre-service teacher education.  The mission of this Goals 2000-Science initiative coalition partnership in southwest Missouri is to improve the quality of the teaching and learning of science.   This effort is particularly important for science since DESE recently initiated entirely new sets of certification requirements for middle and high school science.

Major results include:

1. Instructional faculty possessed a relatively discipline-specific traditional view about the nature of science as opposed to a more humanistic view.
2. Faculty and graduates perceived that they generally provide a "student-centered" learning environment in their classes,
3. Students perceived the science learning environment they were exposed to as being less student-centered than was perceived by faculty.

These research results suggest that professional development for faculty and staff participating in the preparation programs of K-12 teachers of science is needed.

Introduction

The latest report released by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study ([TIMSS]  [U.S. Department of EducationU.S. Department of Education, (1996)] indicates that America's 8th grade students were outperformed by other countries in Science and Mathematics.  It concludes that one reason for students' failure to perform as well (as those from other countries) in Science and Mathematics is the inadequate preparation (or use) of America's science teachers.  The suggestion is that teacher's performances in the classroom do not adequately prepare and stimulate students for high standards of learning.   [Adams & Krockover (1997a & b); Kyle (1997); National Research Council. (1996a & 1997); National Science Foundation. (1996)]

In 1996, MO DESE began utilizing a portion of its Goals 2000 funding in support of reform initiatives in pre-service teacher education.  The mission of this Goals 2000-Science initiative coalition partnership in southwest Missouri is to improve the quality of the teaching and learning of science.   This effort is particularly important for science since DESE recently initiated entirely new sets of certification requirements for middle and high school science.

Based on these changes, the MSU Goals 2000-Science Team (a subset of their Research Team) has been developing revised curricula for elementary/middle and secondary teachers of science.  In order to measure improvements, results were documented by several instruments developed by Salish I. [The University of Iowa. (1997a)]

Purposes of the Study

This study identified:

1. science beliefs among instructional faculty involved in the preparation of    teachers of science
2. strengths and weaknesses of the current MSU teacher preparation programs relative to the teaching and learning of science
3. any professional development needs of the group involved in pre-service instruction in science

The MSU Goals 2000 project focuses on the development of a model elementary/middle teacher preparation project that emphasizes math and science, and a secondary unified science teacher preparation project.  Results from both programs will be disseminated throughout the State of Missouri, providing some of the baseline information for determining the effectiveness of Goals 2000 during the lifetime of this project and beyond.  The MSU Research Team participated in the Salish II:  Chautauqua for Improving Science Teacher Education Programs (funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OREI) of the U.S. Department of Education) as an aid in focusing its research efforts.

The following research questions guided this 1998 study:

1. What are the science beliefs of a group of faculty with various backgrounds involved in the preparation of K-12 teachers of science?
2. How do different groups of faculty, graduates and students perceive the learning environment in science?

Methodology

SUBJECTS:

The study included four groups of subjects: 
   1.  instructional faculty--science education, professional education, science          faculty and K-12 science teachers at the MSU laboratory school
   2   recent graduates teaching K-12 science
   3.  education major students
   4.  pre-professional science majors

QUESTIONNAIRES:

Teacher Pedagogical Philosophy Interview (TPPI):  50 interview questions are ideally administered and recorded in a personal interview with a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year teacher and are designed to determine views and knowledge about the nature of science/mathematics, the nature of teaching and learning, themselves as teachers (if applicable), and their educational environment (provided by or to them).  [

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES): Teacher and student versions of 42 items which measure students' attitudes and perceptions of their science experiences.  CLES reports on six areas: 

1. Personal Relevance (PR)--students relate university science to real world science

2. Scientific Uncertainty (SU)--students' awareness that science is uncertain and evolving

3. Critical Voice (CV)--students exert a voice in quality of learning environment

4. Shared Control (SC)--students share control of the classroom learning environment

5. Student Negotiation (SN)--students verbally interact in the learning process

6. Attitude (AT)--students have good attitudes toward learning activities

Based on the participant's responses to the instruments above, the following levels were created by the Salish study:

PROCEDURES:

TPPI:  25 faculty members completed the survey during the last half of the spring semester of 1998.

CLES:  232 college science students, 7 graduates teaching K-12 science and 21 faculty completed the survey during the last half of the spring semester of 1998.

DATA ANALYSIS:

The qualitative data obtained from TPPI were analyzed by the Research Team which consisted of science and science education faculty.  Data obtained from CLES were analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences programs on a PC platform.

Results and discussions