Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
Thomas Dana and Vincent Lunetta, Section Editors
Evaluation of the Preparation of Teachers in Science and Mathematics: Assessment of Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs TERESA M. McDEVIW College of Education, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639
HENRY W. HEIKKINEN Chemistry Department, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639
JANET K . ALCORN Shaffer Elementary School, Littleton, CO 80127
ANTHONY L. AMBROSIO College of Education, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639
APRIL L. GARDNER Biological Sciences Department, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639
A version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, August 1992, Washington, DC. This study was funded in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (TEI-8751476) to the University of Northern Colorado. The authors thank the project’s senior staff for their contributions to the project’s evaluation (Wallace Aas, Donn Adams, Kathy Cochran, Mark Constas, Jay Hackett, Lynn James, Ivo Lindauer, Chuck McNerney, Jeanne Ormrod, and Rick Silverman). Appreciation is also extended to participating students for assistance in completing instruments and to Clay Gorman, Tina Danahy, Rod Troyer, Erica Warren, Alice Horton, Wilbur Bergquist, Gayle Munson, and Matt Smith for assistance in administering instruments and coding data. They also acknowledge contributions made to the project by present and former teaching fellows: Sandy Abernathy, Gatha Asbra, Bruce Burron, Charles Call, Mike Fitzgerald, Tammy McDivitt, Cheryl Nelson, Rebecca Ramirez, Larry Spohn, John Stevenson, and Bettie J . Stone. The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the NSF, and no official en- dorsement by NSF should be inferred.
Science Education 7716): 593-610 (1993) 0 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326 I93 1060593- 18
594 McDEVlTT ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
This article describes a comprehensive evaluation of a model program in science and mathematics for prospective elementary teachers. The program, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was delivered as an optional plan of study to two cohorts of students at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC). The general aim of the program was to enhance prospective teachers’ ability to teach science and mathematics. Specific targets for enhancement included several teacher vari- ables: understanding of science and mathematics as fields of study; confidence in knowledge of these subjects as well as assurance in teaching them; awareness of close interrelationships between science and mathematics; appreciation for societal applications and everyday relevancies of these subjects; competency in employing effective “hand-on,’’ investigative methods for teaching science and mathematics; and sensitivity to all students’ needs in becoming motivated and able to learn these subjects.
Rationale for the Program
The primitive level of knowledge in science and mathematics possessed by our nation’s children and adults is denounced in sources as diverse as newspaper articles, corporate reports, political analyses, formal academic presentations, and informal discussions in teachers’ lounges. Although many perspectives are offered on the origins of this problem, one commonly cited remedy focuses on teachers. In fact, there is considerable agreement that children in the United States are rzot receiving adequate instruction in science and mathematics at the elementary and high school levels (e.g., National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 1983; Raizen & Jones, 1985). A variety of specific difficulties have been identified, many of which reflect poor preparation on the part of teachers. For example, Eylon and Linn (1988) observe that science curricula tend to be fragmented, with few attempts to relate one experience to another or to underlying concepts. Instruction frequently fails to clarify relationships between concepts; we ask students to retain a series of disembodied facts. Science courses often ignore students’ everyday experiences; memorization, rather than understanding, is em- phasized. To make things worse, minimal time is spent on science in the elementary classroom (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; Weiss, 1987), and some subgroups receive little encouragement to learn science and mathematics. For example, elementary and secondary teachers interact more with boys than with girls, especially during math- ematics and science lessons (Eccles, 1985; Sadker & Sadker, 1985). Boys are also asked more demanding questions than are girls (Tobin & Gallagher, 1987), subtly reinforcing children’s beliefs that science and mathematics are not desirable areas of study for girls.
Teachers’ attitudes toward science and mathematics represent a critical influence on their instruction in these subjects. These attitudes may have direct bearing on the amount of time they devote to science and mathematics and to the specific methods of instruction they adopt. For example, teachers with weak backgrounds
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 595
in science have been shown to rely on lecture and student memorization (Anderson & Roth, 1989). “Transmittalist instruction” is often the fall-back strategy for teach- ers because they teach as they were taught, and the information explosion places pressure on them to “cover” an increasing amount of material (Mestre, in press). Similarly, teachers’ general views of the nature of learning and their ideal roles as instructors may affect their ability to enhance their students’ understanding and interests in science and mathematics and other subjects. Mestre (in press) has argued that teachers’ “cognition of instruction” is often incompatible with current views of learning and instruction, and summarizes observational research that shows teachers seldom take into account conceptual knowledge held by students: “During the course of instruction, students’ ideas, predictions, and explanations of science phenomena are not probed to monitor whether the concepts being taught are in conflict with students’ prior notions” (p. 11). As Perry (1990) has pointed out, preservice and in-service teachers have developed their beliefs over years of being students themselves and from their own teaching experience. These beliefs are not necessarily consistent with literature about “good teaching” or with their training. In fact, teachers’ beliefs appear to be highly stable and resistant to change (Kagan, 1992). Thus, teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, and science merit further investigation, even though the relationships between beliefs and behavior are highly complex (Benson, 1989; Brickhouse, 1989; Tobin, 1990).
In this article, the effects of a model program on teachers’ attitudes toward science and mathematics and beliefs about effective teaching are examined. It was hypothesized that students participating in the program would develop attitudes toward science and mathematics that were more positive and would develop beliefs about teaching that reflected greater awareness of how understanding in science and mathematics can be facilitated. Preservice teachers’ beliefs represent one of the program’s key targets; evaluation data related to other components are sum- marized elsewhere (e.g., Alcorn et al., 1993; Ambrosio et al., 1991; Constas et al., 1991, 1992; Heikkinen et al., 1992; McDevitt et al., 1993; McNerney, 1991).
Overview of the Program
The program began at the University of Northern Colorado in 1987 when a group of science and mathematics content, methods, and education faculty, campus ad- ministrators, and local experienced elementary teachers began to collaborate in specific ways to reform the preparation of elementary teachers in science and mathematics. Project instructors substantially revised their instruction in eight courses, and one additional course was developed specifically for the program (Equity Issues in a Technological Society). Faculty members supported each other in efforts to prepare teachers in line with recent research in how learning in science and mathematics is best facilitated. Collectively, they professed a desire to help prospective teachers learn to teach science and mathematics in ways that are not conceptually fragmented and removed from student’s everyday experiences, that do not contain excessive lecturing and mechanical memorizing, that do not rep- resent rigidly structured lessons delivered with apprehension, and that do not perpetuate a caste system in children of science and mathematics “haves” and
596 McDEVlTT ET AL.
“have nots.” To address these concerns, external funding from the National Science Foundation was sought, and a program with the following courses was devised:
Year 1: Earth Science Concepts for Elementary Teachers, Equity Issues in a Technological Society, Fundamentals of Mathematics I , and Effective Instruction in Elementary School Mathematics;
Year 2: Fundamentals of Mathematics 11, Educational Psychology, Physical Sci- ence Concepts for Elementary Teachers, and Teaching Science in the Elementary School;
Year 3: Biological Concepts for Elementary Teachers.
Students were recruited into the program in 1988 and 1989. The program was designed for students who were preparing to become elementary teachers but who did not necessarily wish to pursue majors in science or mathematics. Most of the nine courses fulfilled institutional requirements for either General Education, the Professional Teacher Education core, or Elementary Certification at the University of Northern Colorado. Sequencing of the courses allowed instructors to integrate material across courses and build on concepts developed in previously completed courses. For example, the instructors of the physical science course built on specific mathematical understandings in their course; likewise, the educational psychology instructors were able to conduct an information-processing analysis of a lesson modeled earlier in the mathematics methods course. Integration was accomplished by project instructors through discussion of course concepts and overarching themes at regularly held meetings.
The focus of project courses was to build integrated knowledge in mathematics and science, develop effective teaching skills, and cultivate self-confidence and positive attitudes toward these subjects. Project instructors revised and delivered courses in ways that modeled effective instruction for elementary classrooms. In- structional materials and strategies highlighted problem-solving and investigative “hands-on” activities. Attention was also given to instructional strategies such as laboratory work and cooperative learning groups that educators have argued are particularly appropriate for groups presently underrepresented in scientific and technological fields. A final key feature of the project was the participation of experienced elementary teachers (teaching fellows) who worked in a team capacity with senior staff in all phases of course design, delivery, and revision (the project’s senior staff was comprised of university faculty members teaching project sections of courses and other faculty members serving the project in administrative capac- ities).
Evaluation of the Project
Three primary elements constituted the program evaluation. First, the need to document the delivery of courses was addressed through descriptive forms that the instructors and teaching fellows completed for every class meeting. Second, eth- nographic methods were employed to obtain in-depth understandings of students’ experiences in the project and the nature of the instruction they encountered. Intensive interviews, selected observations, and content analyses of course and
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 597
project materials were conducted as part of the ethnographic segment of the eval- uation. Finally, more broadly based methods were employed to examine what students learned, believed, and felt as a result of their participation in the project. The understandings of project students were compared to those of two other groups of students-a comparison group of students who entered UNC the same year as project students and who were also seeking certification in elementary teaching (longitudinal control), and a second group of students who were taking comparable courses (but different sections) the same semester as project students (course con- trol). A variety of instruments were administered, including course-evaluation sur- veys focused on project objectives and measures of understanding of course ma- terials. Comparisons between project and longitudinal control groups constitute the primary focus of the current report.
Several threats to validity with the evaluation must be acknowledged. First, the program evaluators had day-to-day contact with other project staff. This “insider” perspective provided timely access to valuable formative information (Scriven, 1967) and was cost-effective in that it allowed for role sharing. Even so, partiality of the evaluation is open to question, and arrangements had to be made to control bias. For example, an external national advisory board and state steering committee regularly offered guidance, and clearly defined procedures for collecting data and blind coding of students’ responses were employed whenever possible. Second, students were not randomly assigned to project and control groups, and thus dif- ferences at the follow-up phase could have been the result of preexisting variation on a host of attributes. To contend with the truculent problem of preexisting differences, students from a variety of backgrounds were actively recruited and basic background data were obtained as students entered the project and control groups. Nor were instructors randomly assigned to teach project courses; these individuals participated voluntarily. Third, in several cases in both the project and control groups students elected to terminate their quest for elementary certification. Attrition was documented throughout the program. Fourth, project and control groups differed in countless ways in their experiences in classes and advisement, making it difficult to determine with certainty which aspects of the program or individual courses were most influential. A systems attack, while often defensible in programming social change, yields havoc with causal attribution. Fifth, the instructors in the project were motivated to teach with care and zeal, and it is not possible to separate the effects of other instructional innovations from the enthu- siasm and vigilance that may have characterized these instructors. Nevertheless, enthusiasm can be construed as a trademark of excellent teaching and a critical feature of the program’s system attack, and not merely as a confounding feature of the research design. Finally, it is also possible that project students, by virtue of their growing identification with the program, were highly motivated in com- pleting evaluation instruments and therefore cast the program in a more glowing manner than it deserved. We can report that students in the program were socialized from the beginning to voice their concerns to project staff, and they did express concerns freely. It was clear to project staff that the students, albeit loyal to the program and bonded to each other, were willing to offer criticism (in fact, at times some of us wished they would remain quiet and docile!). Hence, numerous threats
598 McDEVlTT ET AL.
to validity were present in this investigation, though reasonable measures were taken to control these threats.
Experiences of Control Students
Because control students had countless options in their experiences, it is not possible to describe their programs of study with as much detail. Project students participated as cohorts in a defined sequence of study over nine program courses. Control students, in contrast, had far more flexibility in building semester schedules and sequences of study. Thus, the experiences of control students were more varied and less coherent. It is worth noting that the institution is committed to quality education for all of its students. UNC is NCATE accredited, and the university is active in restructuring of teacher education, as evident by its participation in groups such as Project 30 and the Renaissance Group.
The experiences of the control students can be assumed to resemble many of the qualities typical of teacher preparation in this country. First, even though inquiry is a “highly touted instructional strategy” (Cruickshank & Metcalf, 1990), teachers typically receive little instruction in its use. Accordingly, we assume that control students received far less exposure to inquiry-based formats than did project stu- dents. Similarly, lecture is the primary format of instruction in university science courses (Spector, 1987). Thus, we expect that control students received far more exposure to lecture than project students. Second, practicing teachers are only infrequently involved in the on-campus courses taken by preservice students (Heik- kinen et al., 1992). Control students did not have this exposure, whereas project students did. Third, field-based experiences are often unfocused components of teacher preparation (Cruickshank & Metcalf, 1990); we assume that control stu- dents did not receive the same amount of practice with teaching equitably and coordinating hands-on activities.
METHOD
Subjects
Project Students. Two cohorts of project students enrolled in the program, 65 entering in 1988 and 61 entering in 1989. These students were compared throughout their participation in the program with other students who entered the university at the same time and who also planned to become elementary teachers (labeled longitudinal control groups 1 and 2).
There was a great deal of diversity within the project groups. For example, one strongly prepared student in the first cohort had taken five mathematics courses and four science courses in high school. A less-prepared student entering the program that same year had taken only three mathematics courses and two science courses. Diversity was also evident in students’ reasons for entering the program. Some students reported interest in the program because of a desire to avoid passing on deficiencies in mathematics and science. For example:
I’m interested in this program because math and science are difficult for me and I would like to be able to help make it easier for others.
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 599
Others applied due to keen interests that they wished to foster:
I a m extremely interested in joining because I have always enjoyed and excelled in the math and science courses I have been involved in. I feel that it would be more beneficial t o the students I would be teaching if I thoroughly understood and enjoyed the subjects I would be teaching them.
Longitudinal Control Students. Two control groups were recruited to serve as com- parisons with the two cohorts of project groups. One control group (longitudinal control group 1) was comprised of 60 freshmen entering UNC in autumn semester 1988 (at the same time as the first project cohort); the second group of 60 students (longitudinal control group 2 ) entered the university in autumn 1989. Criteria for admission into the longitudinal control groups were similar to criteria for admission into the project: Students needed to be freshmen who were seeking certification in elementary education.
The project and control groups were similar upon their entry into the university on basic demographic variables, high school coursework, and admission test scores. More specifically, the project and longitudinal groups were similar in terms of their ethnicity, age, parents’ professional backgrounds, and ACT mathematics, natural science, and composite scores. Both groups were pursuing a variety of academic majors (required for certification in Colorado). Only one significant difference appeared in comparisons between the number of science and mathematics courses taken in high school: Project 1 students had more exposure to science in high school than did longitudinal control 1 students, t(121) = 3.23, p < 0.01, 2.9 (in compari- son to 2.4 courses). There was attrition from both the project and control groups (Table 1).
Instruments and Procedure
Two sets of instruments were administered to project and control students: (1) measures of students’ attitudes toward science, mathematics, and gender issues; and (b) measures of students’ beliefs about desirable teaching characteristics. The pool of six attitude devices came from existing and revised instruments with Likert scales. The second set of measures was taken from responses to open-ended ques- tions about effective teaching in general and effective instruction in science and mathematics in particular. Hence, we were able to obtain a comprehensive picture of students’ attitudes toward science and mathematics, their attitudes toward teach- ing these subjects, and their ideals of teaching in general and teaching science and mathematics in particular.
Students’ Attitudes toward Mathematics, Science, and Genoer Issues. Six instru- ments were administered to project and control students at the beginning of their first semester on campus and again after several semesters of study on campus. The Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976; 72 of the 5-level Likert items were incorporated) were comprised of six subscales, Effectance Motivation in Mathematics, Confidence in Learning Mathematics, Use-
600 McDEVITT ET AL.
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 601
fulness of Mathematics, Teacher, Mathematics as a Male Domain, and Mathematics Anxiety (combining across pre- and post test phases, scores ranged from 156 to 360). The Science Attitudes Scales was a revision of the Fennema-Sherman scale; for most items, “science” was substituted for “mathematics” (scores ranged from 153 to 395). The Adaptation of the Science Attitude Scale-Revised (Thompson & Shrigley, 1986) consisted of 36 5-level Likert items, 22 of which were taken from Thompson and Shrigley (1986). The other 14 items were developed to measure attitudes toward teaching consistent with project objectives, for example, “I don’t understand the value of hands-on activities for science instruction” (scores ranged from 97 to 178). The Teaching Mathematics Attitudes Scales was developed for the purposes of the evaluation. Twenty-two items were adaptations of Thompson and Shrigley’s (1986) 22 items for mathematics; an additional 14 items were written to be consistent with project objectives (e.g., “I know how to integrate my instruction in mathematics with my instruction in other subjects such as reading and science”) (scores ranged from 95 to 176). The Attitudes toward Women instrument (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) consisted of 15 4-level Likert items (scores ranged from 19 to 60). Finally, the Questionnaire on Men (Sadker & Sadker, 1982) consisted of 20 4-level Likert items (scores ranged from 6 to 80). All of these instruments were readministered at the end of the students’ junior year fall semester with the ex- ception of the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales and Teaching Mathematics Attitudes Scales, which were administered at the end of students’ sophomore year fall semester. These instruments demonstrated good reliability at pre- and post test phases. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha for the instruments ranged from 0.76 to 0.97.
Students’ Beliefs about Desirable Characteristics for leaching. At the end of the fall semester of their junior year, students were asked an open-ended question about the types of knowledge, skills, and understandings that they believed are necessary for effective elementary teachers to possess. A coding scheme was de- veloped based on an existing coding scheme utilized with a similar population (Perry, 1990) and on students’ actual responses in the present study. Perry (1990) adapted Weinstein’s (1989) scheme related to good teaching based on responses from preservice and experienced teachers. For the present study, four sets of categories were included. First, categories 1-30 were adopted from Weinstein (1989, reported in Perry, 1990). Second, categories 31-34 (“objectives,” “meta- cognition,” “evaluation,” “integration”) were taken from Porter and Brophy (1988), as adapted by Perry (1990). Third, category 35, “pedagogical content knowl- edge,” was taken from Shulman (1987). Finally, two categories, 36 and 37, “ex- perience” and “lifelong learning,” were responses made by students in this study that could not be coded into earlier categories. A miscellaneous category was developed for responses that did not fit into any of the preceding categories. Approximately 20% of the responses were randomly selected as the basis for an interrater reliability estimate; two coders were in 80.5% agreement as to classifi- cation of responses. Coding was conducted without knowledge as to group mem- bership.
602 McDEVlTT ET AL.
Also at the end of the fall semester of their junior year, students were asked to list the five most important components of effective teaching in science and math- ematics. Responses were categorized into 1 or more of 17 categories (categories were based on project objectives and students’ responses). Interrater reliability, based on 20% of the sample, was 90.5%.
RESULTS
Students’ Attitudes toward Science and Mathematics
A series of r-tests were computed to determine if there were any differences between the project and control groups on attitudinal variables at the pretest phase. There were no significant differences on any of these variables for either cohort comparison.
The pattern of findings was different at posttest phases. For these data, a series of analyses of covariance were computed with the relevant pretest score as the controlled variable. For the first cohort, project students displayed more positive attitudes than control students to science (Science Attitude Scales, F(1, 69) = 12.43, p < 0.005 (M = 283.5, SD = 39.6 for project and M = 250.4, SD = 45.1 for control), to teaching science (Adaptation of Science Attitude Scale Revised, F(1, 75) = 14.44, p < 0.01 (M = 147.8, SD = 16.1 for project and M = 134.5, SD = 18.2 for control), and to teaching mathematics (Teaching Mathematics At- titudes Scales, F(1, 76) = 8.10, p < 0.01 (M = 146.2, SD = 13.8 for project and M = 137.6, SD = 14.9 for control). Students in the 1988 cohort did not differ significantly in their responses on the Fennema-Sherman Attitudes Scales, Atti- tudes Toward Women, or Questionnaire on Men. For the second cohort, the project students were significantly more positive about teaching science, F(1,71) = 7.17, p < 0.01 (M = 149.3, SD = 13.8 for project and M = 141.5, SD = 16.0 for control), and teaching mathematics, F(1, 70) = 7.88, p < 0.01 (M = 147.3, SD = 9.7 for project and M = 141.1, SD = 14.7 for control).
Students’ Beliefs about Desirable Characteristics for Teaching
Overall, the most frequently cited characteristics of effective teaching included being knowledgeable about subject matter, pedagogy, pedagogical content knowl- edge, and understanding of children (see Table 2). In addition, a discriminant analysis was computed to determine which variables most clearly distinguished project and control groups (the two cohorts were collapsed to enhance the reliability of the analysis; there were 82 project students and 52 control students with complete data). A stepwise analysis was computed based on Wilks’ Lambda, with a tolerance level set at 0.01. The percent of cases correctly classified was 72.4; 16 variables entered the analysis, with a Wilks’ Lambda of 0.73, ~ ~ ( 1 6 ) = 39.16, p < 0.005. The variables project students emphasized were “lifelong learning,” “fairness,” “self-evaluation,” “challenging,” “evaluation,” “pedagogical content knowledge,” and “relate to children.” Variables that distinguished the control students were
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 603
“discipline,” “professional behavior,” “enjoyment ,” “flexibility,” “openness,” “respect,” “experience,” “commitment,” and “relate to people.” Thus, control students focused more on general affective characteristics and demeanors of teach- ing; project students focused more on their own teaching strategies and their stu- dents’ learning. Of particular significance is the project students’ concern with fairness (given the program’s emphasis on equity issues) and pedagogical content knowledge (given the emphasis on instructional modes of learning, such as learning cycle methods, designed to maximize children’s interests, understanding, and re- tention related to science and mathematics).
Examples of actual responses (quoted verbatim) from students support these conclusions:
Project Student 1: To be an effective teacher one not only needs to have knowledge in an area, but heishe must also know how to teach the information. A person needs to be aware of gender and racial inequality and treat all students equally. An effective teacher needs to use hands-on, minds-on activities that make learning fun and interesting. Project Student 2: An effective elementary teacher has to know, learn, and un- derstand a lot about hidher students. He/she needs to learn about each child’s schema, home life, learning styles, and personality. An effective teacher also needs to stay on top of new information in subject areas and teaching styles. H e or she needs to know how to make learning meaningful, exciting, and fun for students by using manipulatives and hands-on activities. Control Student I : To become an effective elementary teacher you must first un- derstand fully the subject matter in which you are teaching. Second, you must want to be a teacher; if you d o not have this desire, you will not succeed. A teacher must also be able to cope with the everyday happenings in the classroom. This goes past the classroom management area to a more personable one. You need to understand your students. Control Student 2: To be an effective teacher one needs to be born with what it takes in my opinion. Anyone can get through the classes but only those who are patient, understanding, able to relate to children, have perspective on life, and possess wisdom will “make a difference” in the lives of those they teach. I have seen so many teachers who carry a 4.0 GPA through their education courses but when it comes to relating to real people and the real world they score a zero.
Students’ Conceptions of the Most Important Components of Effective Teaching in Science and Mathematics
Overall, the most frequently mentioned characteristics of effective teaching in science and mathematics were using hands-on activities and manipulatives and making instruction relevant to students’ experiences (Table 3). However, project students more often mentioned characteristics that were consistent with project objectives. Specifically, a variable was created as a composite of the number of criteria directly related to project objectives mentioned by students. These criteria including using hands-on activities and manipulatives, making instruction relevant
TAB
LE 2
Ele
men
tary
Tea
cher
s 0
)
0
P
Per
cent
ages
of
Stu
dent
s M
entio
ning
Spe
cific
Kno
wle
dge,
Ski
lls, a
nd U
nder
stan
ding
s N
eces
sary
for
3
0 0
Pro
ject
Gro
up 1
Lo
ngitu
dina
l Con
trol 1
P
roje
ct G
roup
2
Long
itudi
nal C
ontro
l 2
2 (n
= 3
8)
(n =
22)
li
(n =
31)
-I
Car
ing
11.4
9.
7 13
.2
27.3
rn
-4
Cha
lleng
ing
4.5
0.0
2.6
4.5
>
!- C
omm
itmen
t 2.
3 6.
5 0.
0 0.
0 C
reat
ivity
9.
1 9.
7 5.
3 13
.6
Dis
cipl
ine
2.3
9.7
7.9
31.8
__
_~
-
-_
_
~
1989
Ent
ry
-~
19
88 E
ntry
(n =
44)
~
~~
~~~
Dyn
amis
m
2.3
6.5
2.6
4.5
Enj
oym
ent
6.8
9.7
0.0
9.1
Exp
lana
tion
4.5
0.0
2.6
9.1
Fairn
ess
22.7
9.
7 23
.7
13.6
Fl
exib
ility
2.
3 12
.9
5.3
4.5
Hum
or
6.8
12.9
0.
0 9.
1 Im
pact
15
.9
19.4
13
.2
31.8
In
tellig
ence
0.
0 0.
0 0.
0 0.
0 In
tera
ctio
n 0.
0 0.
0 7.
9 4.
5 K
now
ledg
e of
ped
agog
y 36
.4
35.5
42
.1
27.3
K
now
ledg
e of
sub
ject
75
.0
71 .O
50.0
63
.6
Mee
ting
need
s 27
.3
9.7
31.6
36
.4
Mot
ivat
ing
2.3
16.1
23
.7
9.1
Non
verb
aliv
erba
l 11
.4
9.7
2.6
4.5
Ope
nnes
s 0.
0 0.
0 5.
3 9
1
Org
aniz
atio
n 15
.9
12.9
2.
6 0.
0 P
atie
nce
15.9
9.
7 5.
3 18
.2
Pre
para
tion
2.3
3.2
0.0
0.0
Pro
fess
iona
l beh
avio
r 2.
3 6.
5 0.
0 4.
5 R
elat
e to
chi
ldre
n 25
.0
19.4
23
.7
18.2
Rel
ate
to p
eopl
e R
espe
ct
Sel
f-eva
luat
ion
Tim
ejef
fort
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f ch
ildre
n O
bjec
tives
M
etac
ogni
tion
Eva
luat
ion
Inte
grat
ion
Ped
agog
ical
con
tent
kno
wle
dge
Life
long
lear
ning
E
xper
ienc
e O
ther
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
40.9
6.8
0.0
4.5
2.3
20.5
2.3
0.0
2.3
3.2
0.0
0.0
9.7
64.5
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
6.5
7.9
0.0
2.6
2.6
42.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
47.4
21.1
0.0
2.6
13.6
13.6
0.0
0.0
40.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
45.5
4.8
4.8
13.6
0
n
-I rn rn R 1
n u)
Q)
TAB
LE 3
8
~
c5 P
erce
ntag
es o
f S
tude
nts
Men
tioni
ng S
peci
fic C
ompo
nent
s of
Eff
ectiv
e Te
achi
ng in
Sci
ence
and
Mat
hem
atic
s -~
1989
Ent
ry
0
____
____
_ rn
(n =
44)
(n
= 3
1)
(n =
38)
(n
= 2
2)
4
1988
Ent
ry
Pro
ject
Gro
up 1
Lo
ngitu
dina
l Con
trol 1
P
roje
ct G
roup
2
Long
itudi
nal C
ontro
l 2
5 m
-_
__
~
~~
Com
pone
nts
dire
ctly
rela
ted
to p
roje
ct o
bjec
tives
U
se h
ands
-on
activ
ities
and
man
ipul
ativ
es
Mak
e in
stru
ctio
n re
leva
nt to
stu
dent
s’ e
x-
Don
’t ov
erus
e dr
ill a
nd p
ract
ices
; don
’t
88.6
perie
nce
61.4
cove
r too
muc
h m
ater
ial
2.3
Em
phas
ize
prob
lem
sol
ving
20
.5
Enc
oura
ge a
ll st
uden
ts
34.1
Em
ploy
coo
pera
tive
grou
ps
50.0
B
e kn
owle
dgea
ble a
bout
con
tent
20
.5
Inte
grat
e su
bjec
t m
atte
r 9.
1
Oth
er c
ompo
nent
s of
tea
chin
g sc
ienc
e an
d m
athe
mat
ics
Bui
ld o
n sk
ills
2.3
Use
a v
arie
ty o
f met
hods
in te
achi
ng
31.8
M
otiv
ate
stud
ents
with
fun
and
inte
rest
ing
mat
eria
l 9.
1 U
se e
ffect
ive
eval
uatio
n sy
stem
s to
mon
i- to
r un
ders
tand
ings
and
prov
ide
feed
back
6.
8 B
e ef
fect
ive
gene
rally
50
.0
Pos
sess
pos
itive
inte
rper
sona
l cha
ract
eris
- tic
s 4.
5 B
e ef
ficie
nt w
ith ti
me
0.0
Mis
cella
neou
s 0.
0
83.9
41.9
6.5
16.1
6.
5 16
.1
16.1
35
.5
3.2
32.3
38.7
16.1
48
.4
25.8
0.
0 0.
0
89.5
68.4
5.3
21 .I
7.
9 31
.6
42.1
18
.4
0.0
39.5
42.1
13.2
39
.5
2.6
10.5
5.
3
4
77.3
D
r
54.5
9.1
13.6
9.
1 13
.6
13.6
40
.9
4.5
40.9
50.0
22.7
59
.1
31.8
4.
5 0.
0
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 607
to students’ experience, refraining from an overreliance on drill and a superficial coverage of a massive quantity of material, integrating subject matter, emphasizing problem solving, encouraging all students, employing cooperative groups, and being knowledgeable about subject matter. Project students more often mentioned these criteria than did control students [for the 1988 cohort, M = 2.86, SD = 0.88 for project students; M = 2.22, SD = 0.80 for control students; t(73) = 3.20, p < 0.01; for the 1989 cohort, M = 2.84, SD = 0.86 for project students; M = 2.32, SD = 1.04 for control students; t(58) = 2.11, p < 0.051.
Examples from students (quoted verbatim) exemplify these distinctions between project and control students’ beliefs:
Project Student I : (a) hands-on activities, (b) use of manipulatives, (c) encourage all students in math and science, (d) incorporate it into other areas, and (e) en- courage students to have fun with math and science; stay away from rote memory. Project Student 2: (a) hands-on activities, (b) cooperative learning, (c) discovery learning, (d) experimentation with science and math centers, and (e) making it real and fun. Control Student I: (a) understanding the material as a teacher, (b) being able to bring it down to a level that is understandable to the students, (c) do not show your frustration to the students, (d) have other activities in other subject areas to reinforce what they (students) learned, and (e) keep reviewing the “learned” area for reinforcement. Control Student 2: (a) knowledge of subject area, (b) being enthused and excited and interested in the subject so the children can perceive that it is not boring and painful, (c) being non-biased, (d) make lessons pertain to everyday life, and (e) show concern for children’s learning.
DISCUSSION
These findings suggest that participation in the project enhanced students’ at- titudes toward teaching science and mathematics. As results, they foster optimism for other comprehensive national efforts to change the attitudes of teachers toward these subjects. They are also consistent with the effects of innovations in more delimited areas of teacher preparation (e.g., Pedersen & McCurdy, 1992).
Some of the attitudinal data suggest that the long-term effects of the project did not extend to gender-related beliefs, but ethnographic data and other knowledge- based instruments indicate that project students did become committed to teaching in a manner that encourages both boys and girls to learn and pursue science and mathematics (Constas et al., 1991). In addition, there was evidence in the present study that the program cultivated concern about fairness and equity in students’ beliefs about exemplary teaching in general and teaching in science and mathematics in particular.
The beliefs about effective teaching offered by project and control students revealed different epistemological orientations to learning and teaching. Control students focused on personal-social dimensions and the survival skill of maintaining classroom discipline. This orientation is similar to other descriptions of novice and preservice teachers (Book et al., 1983; Perry, 1990). According to Perry, simplistic
608 McDEVlTT ET AL.
and idealized images of teaching are not typically dispelled by the first two to three years of college course work: “Effective teachers are those who care (learn your names), know their subject, and have personalities that make class interesting (usually by being creative or dynamic)” (Perry, 1990, p. 12). Project students, in contrast, showed more concern for particular instructional strategies (being fair and challenging, applying pedagogical content knowledge). These discrepancies in belief systems may be attributed, at least in part, to the different experiences the two groups of students had in their programs of study. This finding is noteworthy, given other work that suggests it is difficult to influence the beliefs of preservice teachers (Kagan, 1992).
The present findings are consistent with other evaluation findings related to the project. Analyses of other data (summaries of open-ended comments) suggest that project students became far more eager to teach science and mathematics than did control students. Further, project students became more concerned about sharing their insights with their colleagues and extending the strategies they learned (Alcorn et al., 1993). Other evidence indicates that project students developed relatively sophisticated understandings of the relationships between science and mathematics (Constas et al., 1992) and that their understanding of scientific and mathematical content and reasoning was superior to control students (McDevitt et al., 1993). Positive consequences of the innovative program also extended to faculty members and teaching fellows associated with the project (Heikkinen et al., 1992; McNerney, 1991). Specifically, faculty members benefitted from the challenge to reexamine basic assumptions about teaching and learning. They adapted their instructional formats and content selection based on daily feedback from experienced teachers. Teaching fellows experienced professional renewal, gained greater confidence in themselves as professionals, and solidified their leadership skills in science and mathematics education. What remains unclear is the long-term impact the exper- imental program may have on its graduates as they enter the classroom and contend with competing demands, advice, and models. Such follow-up information is fun- damental to more definitive conclusions about lasting effects on teachers’ abilities to facilitate children’s learning of science and mathematics.
In closing, we offer the following recommendations for elementary teacher prep- aration in science and mathematics. First, enlist the cooperation of experienced elementary teachers in the redesign and delivery of content and methods courses. Second, model teaching strategies you wish prospective teachers to use, including experiments and other investigations, hands-on activities, and interpretation of graphs and organized data sets. Third, focus preservice teachers’ field experiences by assigning reform-minded instructional tasks, such as relating material to students’ previous interests and understandings and encouraging all children to develop interests in science and mathematics. Fourth, structure the preparation of teachers such that cohorts are established and sequences of courses are developed. Fifth, address the needs of all types of learners and the barriers they encounter with science and mathematics. Finally, and whenever possible, adhere to teacher-prep- aration standards of the National Science Teachers Association and National Coun- cil of Teachers of Mathematics. These and other related strategies are designed to prepare exemplary elementary teachers.
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS 609
REFERENCES
Alcorn, J. K., McDevitt, T. M., Troyer, R., Hall, G. E., & Heikkinen, H.W. (1993). Pre- service teachers’ concerns in an innovative teacher preparation program. Manuscript in preparation.
Ambrosio, A. L., McDevitt, T. M., Gardner, A. L., & Heikkinen, H.W. (1991, August). Factors related to equitable teaching: Implications for an equity issues course. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA .
Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated learning of science. In Advances in research on teaching. Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.
Benson, G. (1989). Epistemology and science curriculum. Journal of Curriciilum Studies,
Book, C., Byers, J . , & Freeman, D. (1983). Student expectations and teacher education traditions with which we can live and cannot live. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 9- 13.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). Teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching: Narratives of convictions, actions, and constraints (doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3320-A.
Constas, M. A., McDevitt, T. M., & Gardner, A. (1991, April). Educating for equity: A pilot program for elementary school teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Constas, M. A., Silverman, F. L., & McBride, J. W. (1992). The perceived relationship between mathematics and science among preservice elementary school teachers. Paper submitted for publication.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
Cruickshank, D. R., & Metcalf, K. K. (1990). Training within teacher preparation. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), M. Haberman & J. Sikula (Assoc. Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators. New York: Macmillan, pp. 469-497.
Eccles, J. S. (1985). Sex differences in achievement patterns. In T. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium of motivation. Vol. 2. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. Abstracted in the JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6 , 31.
Heikkinen, H. W., McDevitt, T. M., & Stone, B. J. (1992). Classroom teachers as agents
265-309.
21, 329-344.
16, 297-334.
of reform in university teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 275-282.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,
McDevitt, T. M., Ambrosio, A. L., Troyer, R., Heikkinen, H. W., & Warren, E . (1993). Evaluating for understanding: Prospective teachers’ knowledge of science and mathematics in a model pre-service program. Manuscript in preparation.
McNerney, C. (1991, April). The use of mentor teachers in the college mathematics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Mathematical Association of America, Greeley, CO.
27, 65-90.
610 McDEVlTT ET AL.
Mestre, J. P. (in press). Cognitive aspects of learning and instruction in science. In Precollege teacher enhancement in science and mathematics: Status, issues, and problems. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Mullis, I . V., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). Science learning matters: An overview of the science report card. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). Educating American for the 2Ist century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Pedersen, J. E . , & McCurdy, D. W. (1992). The effects of hands-on, minds-on teaching experiences on attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 76, 141- 146.
Perry, C. M. (1990, April). A pilot study of preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs about effective teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45, 74-85.
Raizen, S. A., & Jones, L. V. (1985). Indicators of precollege education in science and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (1982). Sex equity handbook for schools. New York: Longman.
Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1985). Is the OK classroom, OK? Phi Delta Kappan, 55, 358- 361.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Cur- riculum Evaluation, No. l. Chicago: Randy McNally & Co., pp. 39-83.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 114-135.
Spector, B. S . (1987). Excellence in preservice elementary teacher education in science. In J. E . Penick (Ed.), Focus on excellence: Preservice elementary teacher education in science. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, pp. 5-8.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Thompson, C. L., & Shrigley, R. L. (1986). Revising the Science Attitude Scale. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 331-343.
Tobin, K. (1990). Teacher mind frames and science learning. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London, UK: Falmer Press, pp. 33-91.
Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J . J . (1987). The role of target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61-75.
Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 44-51.
Weiss, I. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Edu- cation. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Accepted for publication 18 March 1993
