School and teacher predictors of science instruction practices with English language learners in...

A version of this paper was published as:

Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R., Myers, N., Lee, O., & Buxton, C. (2009). School and teacher predictors

of science instruction practices with English language learners in urban elementary schools. Journal of

Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15(2), 93-118.

Abstract

This study examined predictors of the following three science teaching practices with English

language learning (ELL) students: (a) reform-oriented practices to promote understanding and

inquiry, (b) traditional/conventional practices, and (c) English language development practices.

Data were collected from 140 third through fifth grade teachers. Teacher predictors included

years of teaching, science courses taken, and perception of science knowledge. Predictors

pertaining to school support included principal support and discussion of student diversity.

Predictors pertaining to school barriers included standardized testing and poor student academic

skills. Results indicate that perception of science knowledge and discussion of student diversity

were significant predictors of both reform-oriented and traditional/conventional practices.

Student diversity, standardized testing, and poor student academic skills were significant

predictors of English language development practices.

Predictors of Science Instruction 2

School and Teacher Predictors of Science Instruction Practices

with English Language Learners in Urban Elementary Schools

The challenge of educating an increasingly diverse student population led to the No Child

Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001 which mandates high-stakes testing and accountability in core

subject areas as a means of ensuring that all students achieve high academic standards. Science is

included as part of accountability systems in many states and is expected to be part of the NCLB.

Science educators have examined effective practices in science teaching generally (American

Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989; National Research Council [NRC],

1996), and effective practices specifically aimed at teaching science to diverse student groups in

urban settings (Lee & Fradd 1998; Rodriguez, 1998). A central requirement of effective science

teaching includes promoting scientific understanding and inquiry (AAAS, 1989; NRC, 1996).

Unfortunately, this element is often missing from today’s science classrooms as many

elementary school teachers are not adequately prepared to teach science effectively (Garet,

Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, &

Stiles, 1998).

This study was conducted as part of a larger five-year research and development project.

The data were collected prior to implementation of an intervention and involved third through

fifth grade teachers from 15 urban elementary schools that enrolled a high number of English

language learning (ELL) students in a large school district. We examined teacher and school

variables as predictors of the following three science teaching practices with ELL students: (a)

reform-oriented teaching practices to promote understanding and inquiry, (b)

traditional/conventional practices, and (c) English language development practices. Teacher

predictors included number of years teaching, total number of science courses taken, and

perception of science knowledge. School supports included principal support of science

instruction and discussion of student diversity in the context of science. School barriers included

standardized testing and poor student academic skills.

The purpose of this study is to examine both teacher and school variables that influence

science teaching to ELL students while no intervention is in place. This study contributes to the

understanding of science teaching practices in the context of school supports and barriers as well

as teacher characteristics. The results can assist in designing and implementing professional

development aimed at promoting reform-oriented practices with ELL students in urban

elementary schools. The results can also be used to help the teachers develop more reflective

practices as they consider a wide range of features that may consciously or subconsciously

influence their science teaching practices with ELL students.

Literature Review

Teaching practices in science are influenced by teacher characteristics, such as

knowledge of the academic content and strategies used to teach the content. In addition to factors

residing within individual teachers, features related to school organization, such as interactions

between school administrators and teachers, also influence teaching practices.

Reform-Oriented Science Teaching Practices with ELL Students

Science reform documents indicate that teachers should promote students to develop deep

and complex understandings of science concepts, be able to make connections among science

concepts, and be able to apply science concepts in explaining natural phenomena or real world

situations (NRC, 1996). Teachers should also engage students in scientific inquiry to promote the

development of arguments and justification of solutions based on evidence (NRC, 2000).

ELL students need to develop English language and literacy skills in content areas, such

as science, in order to achieve at the same level as their English-speaking peers. Therefore,

science instruction should provide a meaningful learning environment for English language and

literacy development. Simultaneously, English language and literacy development should

provide the medium for understanding science content (Amaral et al., 2002; Buxton, 1998;

Fathman & Crowther, 2006; Lee & Fradd, 1998). Teachers need to create classroom

environments that promote ELL students’ development of general and content-specific academic

language (Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2002).

The adoption of reform-oriented teaching practices in science has the dual effect of

improving English language acquisition as well as science learning. Hands-on, inquiry-based

teaching practices are particularly effective for ELL students to learn science and acquire English

language proficiency simultaneously (Amaral, Garrison, & Klentschy, 2002; Lee, Deaktor, Hart,

Cuevas, & Enders, 2005; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). Hands-on activities are often less

dependent on formal mastery of the language of instruction, thus reducing the linguistic burden

on ELL students. Hands-on activities promote students’ communication of their understanding in

a variety of formats, including gestural, oral, graphic, and textual. Additionally, hands-on

activities through collaborative inquiry foster authentic communication about science knowledge

and practice.

In reality, however, many elementary school teachers have difficulty adopting reform-

oriented practices to promote students’ scientific understanding and inquiry. After engaging in

large-scale professional development, teachers often blended reform-oriented practices with

traditional/conventional practices (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Knapp, 1997). For example, they might

engage students in hands-on activities or ask the students to pose questions (reform-oriented

practices), but then not help students make sense of the data collected or ask for explanations

based on evidence (traditional/conventional practices). Furthermore, many teachers continue to

use traditional teaching practices that consist of reading about science concepts from textbooks,

memorizing science facts or vocabulary, and responding to questions in worksheets. Such

practices have contributed to racial and gender inequities in science achievement and poor

performance on international measures of science outcomes for the last few decades.

Many elementary school teachers have additional difficulties teaching science to ELL

students. They may believe that ELL students must acquire English before learning science, be

unaware of cultural and linguistic influences on science learning, fail to consider “teaching for

diversity” as their responsibility, overlook linguistic differences, or accept inequities as a given

condition (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005). Also, many teachers do not

incorporate English language and literacy development as part of science instruction.

Furthermore, most teachers focus on ELL students’ acquisition of English, but fail to take

advantage of ELL students’ oral and written proficiencies in their home language.

Teacher Characteristics in Teaching Science for Student Diversity

It seems self-evident that teachers must know the subject matter they are required to teach

(Kennedy, 1998). Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter is a particularly important issue in

science education, as many teachers of science have only limited preparation in the science

disciplines. Many elementary school teachers have difficulty promoting students’ scientific

understanding and inquiry because of their insufficient knowledge of science content and

content-specific teaching strategies (Garet et al., 2001; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley et al.,

1998). They often have the same misconceptions or alternative frameworks about science as their

students (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lonergan, 2000; Smith & Neale, 1989).

Teachers who possess subject matter expertise and the ability to represent the subject matter to

their students are more likely to engage in conceptually rich, inquiry based activities that

facilitate students’ scientific understanding, whereas teachers with weak subject matter

knowledge are more likely to rely heavily on the textbook as the primary source of subject matter

content (Carlsen, 1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1990). This is problematic for student learning, since

science textbooks generally fail to address students’ misconceptions and teachers with weak

science knowledge are unable to clarify students’ confusion (Donovan, 1997). One way that

teachers may increase their subject matter expertise is through college coursework. Monk (1994)

found that additional teacher coursework in subject matter was related to an increase in student

learning.

In addition to knowledge of subject matter, literature indicates other teacher

characteristics influencing science teaching practices. Teachers should have pedagogical content

knowledge or know how to represent subject matter content in ways that their students can

understand (Shulman, 2004). Research suggests that novice teachers are often unprepared in both

content and pedagogy to teach for understanding in their discipline (Adams & Krockover, 1997;

Ball & McDiarmid, 1990).

School Supports and Barriers in Teaching Science for Student Diversity

School supports. School leadership is one source of support for the teaching of science,

particularly in a context in which other core subjects (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics)

command the bulk of the resources by virtue of tradition and formal policy. Spillane et al. (2001)

examined how the school leadership (i.e., administrators and lead teachers in science) at one

urban elementary school successfully identified and activated resources for promoting change in

science education. The researchers argue that promoting change in science education involves

the identification and activation of: (a) physical resources (i.e., money and other material assets);

(b) human capital of teachers and school leaders (i.e., the individual knowledge, skills, and

expertise that form the stock of resources available in an organization); and (c) social capital

(i.e., the relations among individuals in a group or organization, and such norms as trust,

collaboration, and a sense of obligation). The researchers emphasize the importance of

“distributed leadership,” in which administrators and teacher leaders support and sustain the

professional community.

Collaboration among teachers within a school is another source of support for the

teaching of science. Gamoran and his colleagues (2003) argued that successful efforts to enable

students to learn mathematics and science with understanding entailed the strategic use of

human, social, and physical resources to promote change among teachers, including those

teachers who would otherwise resist change. Challenges to such strategic use of resources are

more formidable in urban schools where funding tends to be limited (Hewson et al., 2001; Knapp

& Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001).

Studies involving schools that enroll large numbers of ELL students have produced

similar findings, although science is seldom the focus in the literature (as exceptions, see Fradd

& Lee, 1995; Garcia & Lee, 2008). Effective schools for ELL students highlight language

development both in students’ home languages and in English as a key feature of the school’s

instructional program. Minicucci (1996) reported that four middle schools offering exemplary

science and mathematics programs to ELL students gave them access to challenging and

stimulating science and mathematics curricula by teaching them either in their home languages

or via sheltered English instruction.

School barriers. In addition to school supports, schools present barriers to the teaching of

science. Typically, barriers are more than simply the absence of supports. Some barriers are

internal characteristics residing within the school, and may be associated with students (e.g.,

poor academic skills in reading, writing, and math), personnel (e.g., administrator turnover,

teacher turnover, low morale among teachers), and other school-level constraints (e.g., shortage

of science supplies, large class size, lack of time to teach science, pullout programs during

science). In their review of literature on schools as social organizations, Gamoran, Secada, and

Marrett (2000) argued that teachers sometimes resist, if not work directly against, programmatic

changes that are supported by other teachers in their school, thereby revealing school-level

organizational divides. Such tensions are felt more acutely in urban schools due to limited

resources and funding (Hewson et al., 2001; Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001).

Barriers also include external forces that impinge on school functioning. In the current

policy environment, accountability measures influence instructional practices both in subject

areas that are tested and in those that are not tested. When science is not part of accountability, it

may be taught only minimally in the elementary grades (Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al.,

2001). When science is part of accountability, this may force schools to introduce the teaching of

science in ways that take away from other subject areas. In other words, school subjects end up

competing against one another for time, resources, and quality. This tension may be experienced

more acutely in low-performing urban schools due to the urgency of developing basic literacy

and numeracy. Furthermore, urban school teachers face added challenges, as sanctions against

poor academic performance are disproportionately leveled against them, their students, and their

schools (Settlage & Meadows, 2002; Wideen, O’Shea, Pye, & Ivany, 1997).

Multifactor Influences on Science Teaching

A small number of studies (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle,

2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000) examined both teacher-level and school-level predictors of

science teaching practices after teachers participated in an intervention. Supovitz and Turner

(2000) used a teacher survey to examine teacher-level and school-level predictors of inquiry-

based teaching practices. At the teacher level, minority status, content preparation, principal

supportiveness, and classroom culture were all significant predictors and were positively

associated with inquiry-based teaching practices. At the school-level, proportion of students on

free or reduced lunch, town (as compared to urban), and school size were all significant

predictors and were negatively associated with inquiry-based teaching practices.

Banilower et al. (2007) used a teacher survey to examine teacher-level and school-level

predictors of investigative and traditional practices in science following teacher professional

development. With regard to investigative practices, at the teacher-level, principal support and

fewer years of teaching experience in addition to professional development were positively

associated. At the school-level, number of students enrolled in the school was negatively

associated with investigative practices, whereas the percent of students classified as limited

English proficient was positively associated. With regard to traditional practices, principal

support was positively associated as a teacher-level predictor. At the school level, both number

of students enrolled in the school and number of students classified as non-Asian minority were

positively associated with traditional practices, whereas the percent of students classified as

limited English proficient was negatively associated.

Research Purpose and Questions

The existing literature indicates that elementary teachers of science to ELL students in

urban schools are influenced by a number of factors, including insufficient knowledge of science

content and inadequate skills in using content-specific teaching strategies. In addition, teachers

struggle to address the academic needs of ELL students while also teaching content knowledge

and vocabulary associated with the content. Beyond these teacher characteristics, school

characteristics, such as organizational supports and barriers within and outside the school,

influence teaching practices with ELL students.

This study was part of a five-year research project designed to simultaneously promote

urban elementary school teachers’ knowledge of science content, practices in teaching science,

and practices for supporting English language development of ELL students in a large urban

school district. As initial efforts to design effective professional development interventions, this

study explored the influence of both teacher and school characteristics on teacher practices in

teaching science to ELL students.

This study examined how teacher characteristics (i.e., number of years teaching, number

of science courses, and perceived science knowledge) and school characteristics collected at the

individual level (i.e., school supports including principal support of science and discussion of

student diversity, and school barriers including standardized testing and poor student academic

skills) were related to the following three science teaching practices with ELL students: (a)

reform-oriented teaching practices to promote scientific understanding and inquiry, (b)

traditional/conventional practices in teaching science, and (c) teaching practices for English

language development during science class. The research questions being investigated are:

1) What are teacher and school predictors of reform-oriented teaching practices to

promote scientific understanding and inquiry?

2) What are teacher and school predictors of traditional/conventional practices in

teaching science?

3) What are teacher and school predictors of teaching practices for English language

development during science class?

This study contributes to the existing literature by examining both teacher and school

variables that influence urban elementary teachers’ practices in teaching science to ELL students.

Although a few studies have examined variables related to teacher practices in science, these

studies addressed changes in teacher practices as the result of participation in a professional

development intervention (Banilower et al., 2007; Supovitz et al., 2000; Supovitz & Turner,

2000). This study differs in that it examined variables related to science teaching without an

intervention in place. It is important to examine science teaching practices prior to any

intervention in order to guide us in developing an effective professional development

intervention for our larger five-year project. It will also help us in accurately assessing the

growth of the teachers throughout the intervention. Although this study differs from the others in

several aspects, it examined some of the same predictors. This overlap allows us to compare the

results of this study to those of other studies. This comparison may be useful in confirming

previous results in the literature or identifying other predictors of teaching practices in future

research. Future research may also compare changes brought about by different interventions.

In addition, this study looked at a specific population by examining urban elementary

school teachers working with a high proportion of ELL students in their classes. This student

population has traditionally lagged behind their English-speaking peers, as they must learn

content knowledge through a yet unmastered language in schools that frequently have limited

resources. As high-stakes testing and accountability in science approaches, attention has turned

to finding the most effective science teaching practices. This study examined factors influencing

teaching practices with this specific student population to better understand how to improve

science teaching for ELL students and to decrease the science achievement gap of ELL students.

The results of this study established a baseline for our intervention in regards to the role

of both the teacher and the school in various areas of science instruction. Our intervention is

longitudinal and will address a number of issues and concerns when teaching science to ELL

students while taking into account high-stakes testing and accountability. The results can be used

to determine areas of science instruction that should be addressed through professional

development interventions with elementary school teachers of ELL students in urban settings

within high-stakes testing and accountability policy contexts.

Research Setting and Procedures

School Selection and Participants

The research was conducted in a large urban school district in the southeast U.S. with a

student population displaying a high level of linguistic and cultural diversity. The study is part of

a larger research and development project. During the 2004-2005 school year, the ethnic makeup

of the student population in the school district was 60% Hispanic, 28% Black (including Haitian

and Caribbean immigrants), 10% White Non-Hispanic, and 2% Asian or Native American.

Across the school district, 72% of elementary students participated in free or reduced price lunch

programs, and 24% were designated as limited English proficient (LEP), the state’s term for ELL

students in ESOL programs.

The schools selected for the study were above the district average in percentages of low

SES and ELL students and were rated by the state as academically low performing. In late May

2004, elementary schools were selected for inclusion in the study based on three criteria: (a)

percentage of ELL students (predominantly Spanish or Haitian Creole-speaking students) above

the district average, (b) percentage of students on free and reduced price lunch programs above

the district average, and (c) a minimum of four years getting school grades of C or D according

to the state’s accountability plan. This plan, which started in the 1998-1999 school year, assigns

grades of A, B, C, D, or F to each school. The research avoided working with so-called failing

(or F) schools because the district was focusing many resources and programs on those schools.

Of the 206 elementary schools in the district, 33 schools met these criteria. Our letter of

invitation was sent to the principals of these schools to ascertain their and their faculty’s interest

in and commitment to a five-year professional development intervention project. Of the 33

schools, 17 volunteered to participate. Eight schools initially received the intervention and nine

schools served as comparison schools. Shortly after the project commenced, one treatment and

one comparison school withdrew, for a total of 15 schools participating in the larger project.

For our school-wide initiative, every third through fifth grade teacher in each of the 15

participating schools was asked to complete a questionnaire. Table 1 presents the demographic

makeup of the third through fifth grade students in these 15 schools. The students were

predominantly Hispanic and Black (including many Haitian) from low SES backgrounds. Close

to 40% of the students were currently in ESOL programs or had exited from ESOL programs

within the previous two years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 About Here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 shows the demographic makeup of the teachers in the study. The study sample

included 140 teachers; the number of teachers per school ranged from 2 to 21 with an average of

9 teachers per school. The majority of the teachers identified themselves as being from

racial/ethnic nonmainstream backgrounds, which reflected the overall teacher demographics of

the school district. The nearly 40,000 teachers in the district consisted of 41% Hispanic, 34%

Black, 24% White Non-Hispanic, and 1% Asian/Pacific Islander. Of the teachers in the study,

more than one third reported languages other than English as their native language. Slightly over

half of the teachers reported having a bachelor’s degree while less than half reported having

graduate degrees. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 39 years, with an average of 11.5

years. They had been teaching at their current schools for an average of 7.5 years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instrument

We developed a survey instrument based on relevant literature, our previous research

(Author, 1995, 2003, 2004), and extensive field-testing with the entire teacher sample in the

beginning of our current research during the fall of 2004. Validity evidence for measures

obtained from the instrument was provided by multiple sources. Throughout the developmental

stage, a diverse group of content experts representing the areas of science education,

ESOL/bilingual education, school organizations, and high-stakes testing and accountability,

jointly conceptualized the constructs to be measured. Through numerous stages and pilot testing,

items addressing the constructs being measured were selected from various sources, including

national and international studies and individual research projects. If preexisting items did not

address the construct being measured, new items were developed. The items were clustered

based on content validity and empirical information from pilot testing.

The items were categorized into four broad areas: (1) teaching practices with a focus on

reform-oriented practices, traditional/conventional practices, and English language development

practices, (2) teacher background, (3) school supports, and (4) school barriers. To help teachers

think about their actual classroom practices and guard against responding quickly without

thinking about their actual practices, items inquiring into teacher “practices” were framed in

terms of specific time periods (such as “in the last month”) and were focused on practices that

teachers engaged in for sustained periods of time (such as “for at least 10 minutes”). The

instrument is unique in that: (a) it includes items that form scales to measure latent constructs,

thus increasing the reliability and validity of the measures over that of single items; (b) it

considers science instruction and student diversity simultaneously; (c) it examines both

classroom-level and school-level variables; and (d) it addresses issues pertinent to the education

of nonmainstream students in urban schools. The items are provided in the Appendix.

Data Collection

The teachers in the study completed the questionnaire at their school sites in May of

2005. Of the 230 teachers in the pool, 221 teachers (96%) completed the questionnaire. Of the

221 teachers, 45 third grade teachers who had begun their participation in the intervention and 36

teachers who were not required to teach science due to departmentalization at their schools were

excluded from the analyses. Thus, the completed questionnaires of 140 teachers were used for

analysis purposes. The questionnaire took 30 – 45 minutes to complete. A small compensation

was offered to participating teachers.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire consisted of items that were grouped together to form scales. The

scales used a four or five-point rating system for each item. The score for each scale was

computed using the average of the responses to the items that comprised the scale. Use of the

average item response, as opposed to the summated score, ensured that missing responses would

not lead to a systematic negative bias of the scale scores. A scale score was computed only for

those respondents who had valid responses for at least 75% of the items in the scale. If someone

answered fewer than 75% of a scale’s items, the respondent’s scale score was set to be missing

and omitted from analysis pertaining to that particular scale. The reliability of the obtained scale

scores was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. Internal reliability estimates ranged from .77 to .96

(see Table 3). Correlations between composite scores were consistent with theoretically-based

expectations, which provided evidence for external validity of the measures. The data were not

factor analyzed due to a relatively small sample for this purpose (Thompson, 2004).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent inferential analyses were used to model teacher practices as a function of

teacher background and school support/barrier predictors. Three different sets of models were

considered, each in relation to one of three aspects of teacher practices: (a) use of reform-

oriented practices to promote scientific understanding and inquiry, (b) use of

traditional/conventional practices, and (c) use of English language development practices.

Teacher background predictor variables were based upon information collected from the

teachers’ self-reports on the questionnaire. Three teacher variables were included in the analysis:

(a) the number of years they had been teaching; (b) the number of science courses they had taken

in six different areas, with the highest category of “7 or more” science courses collapsed together

(see Section II in the Appendix; the number of science courses was added together and could

range from 0 to 36); and (c) the score obtained from a scale measuring the teachers’ perceived

science knowledge. School support predictor variables in teaching science were scores obtained

from scales measuring principal support of science and discussion of student diversity. School

barrier predictor variables were scores obtained from scales measuring standardized testing and

poor student academic skills.

Multilevel or hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) relaxes the

assumption of independence of observations. In this study, teachers were nested within schools.

The degree to which this nesting created an empirical dependency was evaluated for each of the

dependent variables by (a) estimating the proportion of variance that was attributable to schools,

and (b) imposing a single parameter hypothesis test that the relevant population variance equals 0

(α = .05). In all three cases, the proportion of variance attributable to schools was less than 3%

and the relevant null hypothesis was retained. From this point forward, therefore, fixed effects

linear regression models were imposed.

A series of regression analyses were conducted to examine how teaching practices in

science with ELL students were predicted by teacher and school characteristics. Separate

simultaneous regression analyses were conducted for each dependent variable: (a) reform-

oriented practices to promote understanding and inquiry, (b) traditional/conventional practices,

and (c) English language development practices. All models used the same seven predictor

variables: number of years teaching, number of science courses, science knowledge scale,

principal support of science scale, teacher discussion of student diversity scale, standardized

testing barrier scale, and students’ poor academic skills barrier scale. Pearson correlations among

the predictor variables ranged from -0.06 to 0.72. In each analysis, only respondents who had

valid responses on all of the variables used in the analysis were included. The coefficients for

which p < .05 were interpreted as differing significantly from zero.

Results

Reform-Oriented Practices to Promote Understanding and Inquiry

The results of the regression equation predicting reform-oriented practices from the

teacher and school predictors are presented in Table 4. The model explained a statistically

significant proportion of the variance in reform-oriented practices, R2 = .34, F [7, 104] = 7.62, p

< .001. The predictors combined to account for 34% of the variance in reform-oriented practices.

The scores obtained from the science knowledge and student diversity scales were significant

predictors.

The unstandardized coefficient for the science knowledge scale was 0.35, t[104] = 4.09, p

< .001. The resulting coefficient of 0.35 indicates that each one point increase on the science

knowledge scale was associated with an increase of 0.35 points on the reform-oriented practices

scale, after accounting for the other variables in the model. The proportion of variance accounted

for by the science knowledge scale was .106, indicating that the scale accounted for 10.6% of the

variance in reform-oriented practices after accounting for the other variables in the model.

The unstandardized coefficient for the student diversity scale was 0.14, t[104] = 2.97, p =

.004. The resulting coefficient of 0.14 indicates that each one point increase on the student

diversity scale was associated with an increase of 0.14 points on the reform-oriented practices

scale, after accounting for the other variables in the model. The proportion of variance accounted

for by the student diversity scale was .056, indicating that the scale accounted for 5.6% of the

variance in reform-oriented practices after accounting for the other variables in the model.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traditional/Conventional Practices

The results of the regression equation predicting traditional/conventional practices from

the teacher and school predictors are presented in Table 5. The model explained a statistically

significant proportion of the variance in traditional/conventional practices, R2 = .27, F [7, 102] =

5.25, p < .001. The predictors combined to account for 27% of the variance in

traditional/conventional practices. The scores obtained from the science knowledge and student

diversity scales were significant predictors.

The unstandardized coefficient for the science knowledge scale was 0.18, t[102] = 2.21, p

= .029. The resulting coefficient of 0.18 indicates that each one point increase on the science

knowledge scale was associated with an increase of 0.18 points on the traditional/conventional

practices scale, after accounting for the other variables in the model. The proportion of variance

accounted for by the science knowledge scale was .035, indicating that the scale accounted for

3.5% of the variance in reform-oriented practices after accounting for the other variables in the

model.

The unstandardized coefficient for the student diversity scale was 0.15, t[102] = 3.24, p =

.002. The resulting coefficient of 0.15 indicates that each one point increase on the student

diversity scale was associated with an increase of 0.15 points on the traditional/conventional

practices scale, after accounting for the other variables in the model. The proportion of variance

accounted for by the student diversity scale was .076, indicating that the scale accounted for

7.6% of the variance in traditional/conventional practices after accounting for the other variables

in the model.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

English Language Development Practices

The results of the regression equation predicting English language development practices

from the teacher and school predictors are presented in Table 6. The model explained a

statistically significant proportion of the variance in English language development practices, R2

= .38, F [7, 96] = 8.32, p < .001. The predictors combined to account for 38.0% of the variance

in English language development practices. The scores obtained on the teacher discussion of

student diversity scale, standardized testing barrier scale, and students’ poor academic skills

barrier scale were significant predictors.

The unstandardized coefficient for the scores on the teacher discussion of student

diversity scale was 0.38, t[96] = 6.11, p < .001. The resulting coefficient of 0.38 indicates that

each one point increase on the student diversity scale was associated with an increase of 0.38

points on the English language development practices scale, after accounting for the other

variables in the model. The proportion of variance accounted for by the student diversity scale

was .242, indicating that the scale accounted for 24.2% of the variance in English language

development practices after accounting for the other variables in the model.

The unstandardized coefficient for the scores on the standardized testing barrier scale was

-0.17, t[96] = -2.44, p = .016. The resulting coefficient of -0.17 indicates that each one point

increase on the standardized testing barrier scale was associated with an decrease of 0.17 points

on the English language development practices scale, after accounting for the other variables in

the model. The proportion of variance accounted for by the standardized testing barrier scale was

.039, indicating that the scale accounted for 3.9% of the variance in English language

development practices after accounting for the other variables in the model.

The unstandardized coefficient for the scores on the students’ poor academic skills barrier

scale was 0.18, t[96] = 2.27, p = .025. The resulting coefficient of 0.18 indicates that each one

point increase on the students’ poor academic skills scale was associated with an increase of 0.18

points on the English language development practices scale, after accounting for the other

variables in the model. The proportion of variance accounted for by the students’ poor academic

skills scale was .033, indicating that the scale accounted for 3.3% of the variance in English

language development practices after accounting for the other variables in the model.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion and Implications

Discussion of Results

This study examined influences on science teaching practices with ELL students. First,

we examined the variance at the teacher and school level. There were no significant differences

between schools on the three dependent variables being examined; therefore regression analyses

were used, which examined differences only between teachers. The lack of variation between

schools suggests that teaching practices in the three areas differed more within schools than

across schools. This may be a result of the schools having been selected based on the same

criteria (similar proportions of ELL students and students receiving free or reduced lunch and

similar school grades), which might, in turn, lead to similar decision making regarding science

teaching practices.

The significant predictors of reform-oriented practices to promote scientific

understanding and inquiry with ELL students were teachers’ perceived knowledge of science and

teacher discussion of student diversity, with the teachers’ perceived knowledge of science scale

explaining the most variance. As these two variables increased, the use of reform-oriented

practices increased. The finding that an increase in teachers’ perceived science knowledge is

related to an increase in reform-oriented practices is consistent with the literature indicating that

teachers with more subject matter expertise are more likely to use inquiry-based strategies

(Carlsen, 1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1990). The finding that an increase in teacher discussion of

student diversity is related to an increase in reform-oriented practices is also consistent with

much of the literature on diverse student groups in the science classroom. This research points to

the role of reform-oriented inquiry practices in enhancing the science learning of all students,

especially those who have traditionally been underserved when it comes to high-quality science

learning opportunities, namely students of color, students of poverty, and ELL students. As

teachers engage more in discussions about the learning needs of all their students, they begin to

shift more to reform-oriented practices (Barton, Drake, Perez, St. Louis, & George, 2004;

Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001).

The significant predictors of traditional/conventional practices with ELL students were

teachers’ perceived knowledge of science and teacher discussion of student diversity, with the

teacher discussion of student diversity scale explaining the most variance. As these two variables

increased, the use of traditional/conventional practices increased. While teacher discussion of

student diversity had nearly the same effect on the traditional/conventional practices scale (b =

0.15) as the reform-oriented practices scale (b = 0.14), teachers’ perceived knowledge of science

had a much smaller effect on traditional/conventional practices (b = 0.18) than reform-oriented

practices (b = 0.35). This suggests that teachers’ perceived knowledge has a stronger effect on

reform-oriented practices than traditional/conventional practices.

The finding that teacher knowledge was a significant predictor of both reform-oriented

and traditional/conventional practices may be a result of teachers blending these teaching

practices. Studies have shown that even after participating in professional development in

science, teachers often blended reform-oriented practices with traditional/conventional practices

(Cohen & Hill, 2000; Knapp, 1997). The finding that teacher discussion of student diversity was

a significant predictor of both reform-based and traditional/conventional practices is also

consistent with some aspects of research on culturally and linguistically diverse students. As

teachers spend more time discussing the learning needs of students of color, students of poverty,

and ELL students, they may come to focus on the need to be explicit about scientific norms and

practices in relation to these students’ cultural norms and practices. Research points to the initial

value of explicit instruction as teachers gradually transition to more reform-oriented practices

(Aikenhead, 2001; Delpit, 1998).

The third dependent variable examined was English language development practices in

teaching science. There were three significant predictors of English language development

practices. The first significant predictor was teacher discussion of student diversity; this variable

explained much of the variance in English language development practices. Teachers who

engaged in discussion about the inclusion of diverse student groups in their science teaching

tended to use English language development practices more often while teaching science to ELL

students. This suggests that teachers who more proactively considered issues of diversity were

also more actively engaged in classroom strategies to address the needs of their diverse students.

The second significant predictor variable was students’ poor academic skills. Teachers who

reported poor academic skills as a barrier to teaching science were more likely to use English

language development practices while teaching science to ELL students. It could be the case that

teachers believed an explicit emphasis on English language development with students who had

limited basic skills in literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy (mathematics) was a

necessary precursor to effective science teaching. Finally, standardized testing was negatively

related to English language development practices. Teachers who reported standardized testing

as a barrier to teaching science were less likely to use English language development practices

while teaching science to ELL students. These teachers might have become overly concerned

with teaching to the test to such a degree that they failed to focus on other critical pedagogical

goals, including the need to develop their students’ English language proficiency.

Implications for Future Research

There are some limitations of which we are aware. The teacher sample was not chosen

through random selection, as the schools were included because they met our criteria for the

larger research. As a result, there is a limit to the generalizability of the results.

In addition, all of the data were self-reports. Survey responses may not accurately depict

teachers’ practices since self-reports are subject to a social desirability response tendency. Prior

to administering the survey, we ensured teachers that their responses were confidential and

would not be shared with district or school administration. We also addressed questions or

hesitations that the teachers expressed. While a small number of studies examining teacher-level

and school-level predictors of science teaching practices also used teacher surveys (Banilower et

al., 2007; Supovitz et al., 2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000), future research that replicates our

findings with more objective measures would increase confidence in the results of this study.

Finally, measures were derived from a new instrument for which additional validity

evidence (e.g., structural validity) would be useful. Future research that provides such evidence

would add to the content validity and external validity provided for measures derived from the

instrument in this study.

Despite the limitations of this study, the study offers important insights on science

teaching practices with ELL students. Our research has developed a survey instrument using

scales which is different from many existing survey instruments that consist of individual items.

This study examined the relationships among these scales and was conducted prior to

implementation of the intervention with the teachers. Thus it provides a baseline for our

longitudinal research and also a description of how science is being taught to ELL students in

urban elementary schools without an intervention in place. In contrast, most studies looking at

the relationships among these variables examined the effects of an intervention without

examining what was taking place in classrooms prior to the intervention (e.g., Banilower et al.,

2007; Supovitz et al., 2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).

In the longitudinal research design, future research may examine the impact of our

professional development intervention on changes (or lack thereof) in teachers and schools. The

relationships among the variables may change throughout the intervention. In addition, future

research will explore whether there continues to be such little variation between schools on the

dependent variables. If there is significant variation between schools in future years, we will

examine what factors may contribute to these between-school differences since the intervention

is both multi-faceted and school-wide, and different schools may respond differently to the

various components of the intervention.

Most studies focus on science instruction with students broadly, whereas our study

focuses on science instruction with a specific student population. ELL students in urban

elementary schools have traditionally been left behind in science instruction; however, with the

enactment of high-stakes testing and accountability in science due to the NCLB Act, this student

population has increasingly become a focus of attention by teachers, administrators, and policy

makers. Our ongoing intervention and longitudinal research will lead to better understanding

about teachers’ knowledge and practices to promote science and English literacy achievement of

all students, including ELL students.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and

instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.

Adams, P. E. & Krockover, G.H. (1997).Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary

science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81(1), 29-50.

Aikenhead, G. (2001). Cultural relevance: Whose culture? What culture? In J. Wallace & W.

Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching (pp. 92-95). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase

achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,

26(2), 213-239.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Author. (1995).

Author. (2003).

Author. (2004).

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid,G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R.

Houston (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437 - 449). NewYork:

Macmillan.

Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the

vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local

systematic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.

Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parental

engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12.

Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for

science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821-839.

Buxton, C. (1998). Improving science education of English language learners: Capitalizing on

educational reform. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(4),

341-369.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective.

In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Vol. 2: Teachers’ knowledge of

subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression /

Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The

mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s

children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.

Donovan, M. P. (1997). The vocabulary of biology and the problem of semantics. Journal of

College Science Teaching, 26(6), 381-382.

Fathman, A. K., & Crowther, D. T. (Eds.). (2006). Science for English language learners: K-12

classroom strategies. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1995). Science for all: A promise or a pipe dream for bilingual students?

Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 261-278.

Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S.

(2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can

support change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gamoran, A., Secada, W. G., & Marrett, C. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching

and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of

research in the sociology of education (pp. 37-63). New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum.

García, E. E., & Lee, O. (2008). Science instruction for all: Creating a responsive learning

community. In A. S. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English

language learners: Building on students’ strengths (pp. 151-161). Arlington, VA:

National Science Teachers Association.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science education

in urban middle schools: Do reform efforts make a difference? Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 38(10), 1130-1144.

Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research

and Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom:

The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of

Educational Research, 67, 227-266.

Knapp, M. S., & Plecki, M. L. (2001). Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1089-1100.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional

intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and

linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

42(8), 857-887.

Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W. G.

Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 26 (pp. 23-69). Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language

backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12-21.

Lonergan, T. A. (2000). The photosynthetic dark reactions do not operate in the dark. American

Biology Teacher, 62(3), 166-67,169-70.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Minicucci, C. (1996). Learning science and English: How school reform advances scientific

learning for limited English proficient middle school students. Santa Cruz, CA: National

Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, CREDE.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers

and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.

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

National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A

guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rodriguez, A. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative

constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and understanding. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 35, 589-622.

Rodriguez, A., & Kitchen, R. S. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing prospective mathematics and science

teachers to teach for diversity: Promising strategies for transformative action. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse:

Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21,

61-94.

Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences:

Implications for science education within America’s urban schools. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127.

Shulman, L. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: disciplinary perspectives.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2) 135-140.

Smith, D. C., & Neale, D, C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary

science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 1-20.

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school

leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an

undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918-940.

Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional

practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of

systematic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science

teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in science teaching, 37(9),

963-980.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. (1990). What does it mean to be an

exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3-25.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-

thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.

Wideen, M. F., O’Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of

science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428-444.

Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language.

Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Appendix About Here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

School and teacher predictors of science instruction practices with English language learners in...

Documents

Elementary Trigonometry - Forgotten Books

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS

Elementary Hydrostatics - Notes

Elementary Electronic Structure - GBV

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Elementary School - UNIS Hanoi

Tanzania cases for learners

Wayoata Elementary School Newsletter

Science achievement of english language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention

Elementary teachers' knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Upstream Elementary A2 - Workbook

Copopa Elementary School

Gregory Elementary School

ELIZABETH LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Developing Assessment Capable Learners

Elementary Linear Algebra - PDF4PRO

Elementary Grammar Woksheets

ELEMENTARY A2 - profesorisaacgarciariosestuamigo

Nantucket Elementary School Newsletter