CNAS GOALS 2000 PROGRAM

Science Teaching Beliefs III

The Science-related Profile of Faculty and Students with Respect to Classroom Environment and Science Teaching Beliefs
by
Chin-Tang Liu
Becky Baker
Farella Shaka
Larry Banks
Michelle Norgren
College of Natural and Applied Sciences
and College of Education
A final paper submitted to Salish Research Project II in 1998

*Abstract*
*Introduction* 
*Purposes of the Study*
*Methodology**
*Implications of this Study**
*Conclusions*
*References*

Implications of this Study

The data collected in this study were obtained by 42 multiple choice written questions.  In the more comprehensive Salish I study, first year teachers' CLES scores were compared to actual taped observations of them in action.  According to that report, most new teachers thought (from CLES) that they were very student-centered, but tapes showed them to be teacher-centered.  After a couple of years, these same teachers thought (via CLES) that they were much more teacher-centered than before, while the tapes showed them to be less so.  [The University of Iowa.  (1997b)]  

The Research Team agrees that taping teachers' actual classroom activity is essential if a project can afford the time and expense to do it.  Some videotaping of science instruction was conducted in the 1998-99 school year.

The TPPI instrument was also administered in written form.   During the analysis process, it became quite obvious to the Research Team that the use of other techniques such as interview my allow faculty to elaborate their understanding in some of the questions.  Furthermore, the MSU Team recommends that the original TPPI coding schemes be re-examined in ways that would generalize them for use in other research settings.

Results indicated in this study echo the calls for a close examination of the condition of science teacher preparation programs.   [Adams & Krockover, 1997 a & b; Kyle 1997]

To ensure high quality science education in the K-12 setting it is important that we provide high quality teacher preparation to our prospective teachers of science.  This exploratory study attempted to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our existing programs.

The analysis of our responses to the CLES instrument shows that MSU faculty believe that the learning environment they provide is generally student-centered.  MSU students' responses to their version of the same instrument shows that they also believe this, but not to the degree believed by faculty.  Further, TPPI results reflect that MSU faculty seem to hold a relatively discipline-specific traditional view about the nature of science, as opposed to a more humanistic view.  This result indicates a need for faculty discussion of, and perhaps more formal activities on, the various aspects of constructivist learning.

While the MSU faculty want to be student-centered on all CLES scales, some may not desire to be totally student-centered in the area of Shared Control.   The above result warrants further study of the extent to which Shared Control enhances student learning.

The results further provide a strong message to faculty and staff who participate in the preparation of prospective teachers of science.  Are adequate and appropriate preparations being provided to these prospective teachers?  If not, what can be done to improve the science teacher preparation programs at MSU ?  For example, this study has shown that MSU classroom activities provide relatively few opportunities for students to be involved in classroom decision-making processes in terms of what learning activities are to be undertaken.   Individuals on the Research Team have expressed various views about this result.   Is it necessary to model the "Constructivist Learning Practices" for this aspect of the learning process?  If not, why not?  Further studies need to be conducted to attempt to answer some of the questions generated by this study.

The science education community needs to ensure that future teachers are exposed to a challenging environment that encourages them to question, explore and investigate.  The Goals 2000 project at MSU offers a tremendous opportunity to many of the science, science education, and professional education faculty involved in it to revisit how they can orchestrate a learning environment that will promote student learning congruent with the current  learning theories as recommended in the National Science Education Standards.  [National Research Council.  (1996b)]

Conclusions

Results obtained in this study can be summarized as follows:

1. A TPPI analysis has shown that MSU Goals 2000 faculty seem to have a discipline-based approach in their thinking about the nature of science,

2. The CLES study of the same faculty shows some agreement by indicating that Scientific Uncertainty may not be emphasized enough in their classrooms.

3. Based on the CLES analysis, MSU Goals 2000 faculty think their classrooms are relatively student-centered.   Students agree that class environments are somewhat student-centered with the exception of Shared Control.

4. While MSU faculty want to be student-centered on all CLES scales, some may not desire to be totally student-centered in the area of Shared Control.  The above result warrants further study of the extent to which Shared Control enhances student learning.

*Shared Control--students share control of the classroom learning environment