Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3): 247-265, 2002 247

©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

Teaching as You Would Have Them Teach:

An Effective Elementary Science Teacher Preparation Program

Cherin Lee
Lisa Krapfl
Department of Biology, The University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, 50614-0421,
U.S.A.

Introduction

Teachers acquire behaviors and beliefs about teaching through experiencing

school for seventeen or more years in a 30,000 hour apprenticeship-by-observation
(Lortie, 1975). This apprenticeship includes twelve to thirteen years of a mixture
of passive listening, regurgitation, and verification activities followed by one to
four more years of the same at the post-secondary level (Fosnot, 1989). Collectively
these experiences create a situation where “… potential teachers enter the profession
with well developed sets of rules that will govern teacher behaviors” (Ost, 1989, p.
165). These rules result in resistant views about teaching and learning and
unfortunately do not align well with national standards for teaching practice.
Preservice teachers carry with them existing conceptions of teaching and
attitudes toward teaching (Bryan & Abell, 1999; Tilgner, 1990; Wink, 1999),
including beliefs about the pedagogy which they experienced or preferred as a
student (Mellado, Blanco, & Ruiz, 1998). Introducing new teacher behaviors
incongruent with the culturally conditioned views held by preservice teachers
results in little attention to the advocated behaviors. Change becomes exceedingly
difficult. Science educators striving to follow reform initiatives (American
Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research
Council [NRC], 1996) creating empowered learners and teachers (Fosnot, 1989)
must create preservice programs that model reform efforts both in content and
methods, over a period of time. Preservice teachers must undergo changes in ideas
about teaching and learning and experience changes in methodology and attitudes
toward teaching science (Mellado, et al., 1998). This will only be facilitated if
teachers become aware of beliefs acquired throughout their K-12 apprenticeship,
raise them to a conscious level, and examine them (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). Efforts
at creating change in preservice teachers’ conceptions about teaching must be
rooted in different experiences in teaching and learning at the K-12 level and
extensions of these non-traditional experiences through the post-secondary level.
Teachers who learn in a different may be oriented to teach in a different way and
ultimately students in their classes who become teachers will be encultured with a
different model of teaching.
Funding for creating the Basic Science Minor was provided by the National Science
Foundation project TPE-8851116. The views expressed here do not necessarily
represent those of the National Science Foundation.
248 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
Two decades ago elementary preservice teachers’ notions of teaching science
were predominantly focused on teaching science information. Zeitler (1984) notes
that little was written on how to improve or change the inadequate preparation of
preservice elementary teachers. He recommended the integrated teaching of content
and process. Ten years later Ernst’s (1994) research on the inadequacy of elementary
teachers’ preparation led to recommendations that teacher preparation programs
should: (a) develop a strong foundation of science content, (b) provide opportunities
to experience science as a hands-on, inquiry-based process, and (c) provide
opportunities to observe good models of science teaching.
These recommendations spoke to the reconceptualization of the entire
preservice science preparation program as it existed in most post-secondary education
institutions. Modifications in science methods courses and their accompanying
field experience components followed during the mid 1990s (Anderson, 1997;
Bryan & Abell, 1999; Butts, Koballa, & Elliott, 1997; Greenwood, 1996; Stuart &
Thurlow, 2000). These included direct student experiences with desired science
teaching models attempting to elicit changes in preservice teachers’ attitudes about
science and teaching science. This is crucial because attitudes toward teaching
science, confidence and comfort level in teaching science, and desire and ability to
teach science have all been linked to attitudes toward science and the ability and
desire to teach it (Jarrett, 1999; Lucas & Dooley, 1982; McDevitt, Heikkenen,
Alcorn, J, Ambrosio, & Gardner, 1993; Pedersen & McCurdy, 1992; Stefanich &
Kelsey, 1989). Documentation of inadequate science content background also led
to the redesign of science courses during the 1990s (Boone & Gabel, 1998; Fones,
Wagner, & Caldwell, 1999; Greenwood, 1996; Hammrich, 1997; Mulholland &
Wallace, 1996). Crowther (2001) reported at least 32 United States universities and
colleges with science courses designed specifically for elementary education majors,
23 of these programs offering content courses taught by arts and sciences faculty,
many of the courses having an inquiry, process approach.
There is a close interrelationship between content knowledge, how it is learned,
and overt experiences with teaching models. Given this, and the stability of
culturally derived beliefs about teaching, it is difficult for single course changes,
either methods or content, to have much effect on changing a future teacher’s
conception of teaching science. Total program efforts present the best chance for
successfully altering how elementary teachers teach science and ultimately how
future elementary teachers are introduced to and learn science throughout the K-12
school system. The total program presented here provides an example of changing
the culture of learning science to foster a change in the culture of teaching science.
The following research assessed the impact of such a program.

The Program

Initiated in 1988, the Basic Science Minor represents a total program effort at
altering the way elementary science is taught by modeling advocated teaching
approaches while enhancing content knowledge, facilitating positive attitudes,
and providing a cohesive experience in teaching science. The program was
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 249
established through a National Science Foundation (NSF) Teacher Enhancement
project initiated in the late 1980s and includes two courses previously developed
through a NSF CAUSE grant from 1977-1980. The program implements science
content courses in earth, life, and physical sciences along with courses that facilitate
pedagogical content knowledge (Borko, 1993) involving the integration of content
knowledge, pedagogy, knowledge of students, and knowledge of curriculum as
well as the integration of mathematics and science. In the late 1980s the NSF
funded several elementary mathematics and science teacher preparation grants as
part of a teacher enhancement initiative to change elementary science teacher
preparation. Some programs developed content and methods sequences for both
mathematics and science, others for only science or only math (Gardner & Cochran,
1993). Some programs include all of an institutions’ elementary education majors
such as one portion of the program at Indiana University (Boone & Gabel, 1998),
and the programs at the University of Northern Colorado (McDevitt et al., 1993;
McDevitt, Gardner, Shaklee, Bertholf, & Troyer, 1999), the University of Wyoming
(Stepans, McClurg, & Beiswenger, 1995), and Kansas State University’s program
(Shroyer, Wright, & Ramey-Gessert, 1996). Other programs include a subset of
elementary education majors desiring an emphasis in science, such as the program
at Indiana University (Boone & Gabel, 1998) and the Preparation of Elementary
Math and Science Teachers program at the University of Northern Iowa (Ward,
1993).
The Basic Science Minor resulted from a grant project creating parallel minors
in mathematics and science for elementary education majors seeking K-6
mathematics or science endorsement. Both minors became part of university offered
programs. Though the project was initiated in 1988 prior to the publication of
national science reform initiatives, it contained many reform emphases for teaching,
teacher preparation, and professional development (NRC, 1996). The resulting
Basic Science Minor provides adequate preparation for teaching science: strong
science content knowledge, opportunities to experience science as a hands-on,
inquiry-based process, and opportunities to observe good models of science
teaching (Ernst, 1994).
The Basic Science Minor is pursued by elementary education majors planning
to specialize in science and designed to meet state endorsement requirements for
K-6 science. The Minor consists of 25 credit hours with each course assigned a
number of student credits toward the total number of required graduation credits.
Courses include both science content and pedagogical content knowledge courses.
Science content knowledge is enhanced by a liberal arts core capstone course,
Environment, Technology and Society, required of all students at the university and
taught within the context of science, technology, and society. Figure 1 outlines the
five science courses and the two courses related to teaching science. Additionally
Minors take Teaching Elementary School Science, a science methods course required
of all elementary education majors at the university (Lee, Krapfl, & Steffen, 2000)
but not included in the Minor.
The two introductory content courses in the Minor, Activity Based Life Science
(ABLS) and Activity Based Physical Science (ABPS), are included as options in the
250 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
university’s liberal arts core open only to elementary education majors. Though
both Activity Based courses are designed specifically for and limited to elementary
education majors not all elementary education majors choose to take these courses,
opting for other course options in the list of liberal arts physical and life science
courses. Thus both ABLS and ABPS have a mix of elementary education majors
who are Minors and who are not.

Year Courses
Activity Based Activity Based
Fr./So. Life Science W X Physical Science
4 hr. 4 hr.

[ [ \
Investigations in Investigations in Investigations in
Life Science Earth Science Physical Science
So./Jr. 4 hr. 4 hr. 4 hr.

[ \
Integrated Activities Experiences in
in Mathematics Elementary
and Science School Science
3 hr. 2 hr.
Jr./Sr.

Figure 1. Overview of the basic science minor for elementary education majors

ABPS emphasizes science process skills and the use of models in science. The
course includes concepts in celestial models of sun, Earth, moon relationships;
classification schemes using rocks and minerals; temperature, energy and motion
relationships; and atomic models. ABLS also emphasizes process skills, focusing
on concepts dealing with the diversity of life, life cycles, and ecosystems. Both
courses are taught in two double period classes per week. The laboratory portion
precedes discussion/lecture, with the ability to move seamlessly between laboratory
facilities and lecture/discussion as the flow of the class indicates. The advantages
of this integrated lab-lecture arrangement have been recently noted (Fones, Wagner,
& Caldwell, 1999; Poole & Kidder, 1996). This approach is also consistent with
recommendations by Leonard (2000) that meaningful undergraduate science
instruction should include significantly more active learning in a constructivist
learning environment, using lab before lecture and science content and instructional
methods consistent with national science education initiatives. This constructivist
learning environment creates opportunities for students to internalize or transform
new information creating and expanding their individual cognitive structures. This
fosters conceptual understanding not rote learning of science vocabulary and facts.
The courses feature laboratory activities and content indicated by the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) for inclusion in elementary science,
however at a conceptual level suitable for post-secondary liberal arts.
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 251
The second tier of three Investigation courses consists of Investigations in
Earth Science, Investigations in Life Science, and Investigations in Physical Science.
All are four credit hour courses with five contact hours. They build on the concepts,
processes, and modeling of pedagogy introduced in the Activity Based courses.
Investigations in Life Science adds concepts for the elementary Minors at the cellular-
molecular level, inheritance concepts including cell division, and uses a plants
and animals systems approach that includes transportation, support and movement,
reproductive systems, and how plant and animals interact with the environment.
Investigations in Physical Science adds to students’ knowledge in physics and
chemistry in the areas of states of matter, density, electricity, solutions and polarity,
light and color, acids and bases, and magnetism. Investigations in Earth Science
extends the ABPS introduction of astronomy and geology ideas to Earth materials,
external and internal Earth processes, the atmosphere, and Earth’s place in the
universe. This trio of courses explicitly uses learning cycles as the framework for
inquiry teaching, most often employing a three-part model (Lawson , Abraham, &
Renner, 1989; Marek & Cavallo, 1997) with an Exploration, Concept Development
and an Application. These courses are similar in nature to recent course
modifications made at Clemson University (Fones, et al, 1999) in that they are
integrated lab/lecture, inquiry oriented courses designed specifically for elementary
education majors. Interestingly enough they also originated in the same time
period, 1989-1991, and are four credit hour courses, however, they are not liberal
arts options. Since these three courses carry ABLS and ABPS prerequisites they are
taken only by Basic Science Minors and their smaller class size (12-18) allows true
concept discussions rather than lectures.
After five inquiry-oriented content courses Basic Science Minors move on to
Experiences in Elementary School Science and Integrated Activities in Mathematics
and Science. Both of these courses are open to students other than Basic Science
Minors but are mostly inhabited by Minors because of the four science content
course prerequisite. The courses are typically taken one to two semesters before
student teaching and frequently one of them coincides with the required Teaching
Elementary School Science methods course taken by all elementary education
majors.
Experiences in Elementary School Science is a two credit hour, three contact
hour course. It is basically a pedagogical content knowledge course (Lee, 1993) in
which students are involved with science activities employing conceptually oriented
teaching models, inquiry, and authentic assessment strategies particularly useful in
teaching science. Students reflect on what was taught, how it was taught, and why
it was taught in such a manner. Practitioner journal articles provide additional
information and raise issues for class discussions. The preservice teachers experience
teaching elementary students on-campus and in classroom settings. This includes
planning and teaching multiple learning cycle lessons. These experiences as well
as the emphasis on inquiry teaching and the explication of learning cycles, provides
a richer background in science teaching than the general elementary science methods
course, but does not include all of the features of the methods course.
The title Integrated Activities in Mathematics and Science describes the course.
252 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
This class meets once per week for three class periods. It includes developing a
philosophy of integrating mathematics and science, peer teaching of integrated
science and mathematics lessons, and the assembly of a student folio of integrated
mathematics and science lessons and resources. Through involvement with
curricular materials such as Great Expectations in Math and Science [GEMS]
(Lawrence Hall of Science, 1993b), and the Full Option Science system [FOSS]
(Lawrence Hall of Science, 1993a) Basic Science Minors acquire a thorough
understanding of how mathematics and science fit together and how teaching one
can enhance teaching the other.
Science education faculty in science departments within the College of Natural
Sciences teach all five of the science courses and Experiences in Elementary School
Science. The science education faculty have science backgrounds equivalent to a
minimum of a masters degree in a content discipline and doctoral degrees in science
education. There is a strong commitment among the faculty to inquiry teaching,
experiencing and learning science as the process that it is, and to a constructivist
learning paradigm. At the same time, science colleagues consider course content
conceptually rigorous and credible.
The uniqueness of the Basic Science Minor is that it incorporates science
teaching models and pedagogy for strengthening elementary preservice preparation
(Ernst, 1994; Zeitler, 1984) within a constructivist teaching-learning framework
for undergraduate college courses (Leonard, 2000) and has faculty who teach in a
manner consistent with this framework. Though only 2-3 % of the elementary
education majors choose the Basic Science Minor, this group of preservice teachers
is prepared to be exemplary science teachers and to assume immediate leadership
roles in elementary science education.

Purpose

An assessment of the Basic Science Minor program was initiated by a 1991

graduate of the program (pseudonym Laurie) who wondered where her peers were,
what they were experiencing in their teaching positions and how their teaching
experiences compared to hers. In particular, Laurie felt somehow “different” from
her non-science oriented colleagues in the schools where she had taught, and wanted
to know if this was true for other program graduates. Additional impetus was
provided by the questions of soon-to-graduate Minors about why the program was
designed the way it was and observations that few teachers that they observed in
their undergraduate field experiences taught science as they were being taught to
teach it. Such questions about program effectiveness are important to program
review and modification. Collecting evidence from program graduates on outcomes
compared to program goals is necessary for data driven program responsiveness
and required by such accreditation agencies as the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] (NCATE, 2000). The evaluation was
designed to determine the effects of this elementary science preparation program
on its graduates and to determine how program graduates differed from or were
similar to each other and to other teachers.
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 253
Methods

A small number of graduates was selected so as to conduct an in depth

qualitative assessment of the Basic Science Minor program utilizing semi-structured
personal interviews. The initial population was 53 1991-1995 Basic Science Minor
graduates for whom the university had address information. This period was selected
to include the first five years of program graduates and to exclude those who would
be first year teachers in the 1996-1997 data-gathering year. Laurie and other 1991
and 1992 graduates were the first to graduate from the program and as such took
ABPS, ABLS, Experiences in Elementary School Science, and Integrated Activities
in Mathematics and Science plus one or more of the Investigations content courses
but not all of them, as courses were phased in from 1989-1991.
Laurie had three years of teaching experience as a science specialist in the
upper elementary grades before returning to the university to pursue her Masters in
Elementary Science Education. She was serving as a graduate assistant during the
period of the research and a portion of her teaching assignment was working with
current Basic Science Minors in Experiences in Elementary School Science. It was
during this time that she became interested in pursuing this research. Her experiences
as a Minor and a classroom teacher and ultimately at the university assisting in the
program provided her with a unique perspective from which to ask questions about
the program and through which to interpret the data.
The 53 graduates were sent surveys requesting demographic data and
information about teaching positions and experiences since graduation. The
graduation distribution for the five years was: 1991 - 12, 1992 - 6, 1993 - 10, 1994
- 12, and 1995 - 13. Thirty-four graduates (64%) returned surveys, constituting the
pool for selecting interviewees. The respondents were scattered throughout Iowa
and seven other states, 23 teaching in K-8 classrooms, 14 in science specialist
teaching positions, 9 in self-contained settings, and 9 who were not full time teachers.
Nine of the 34 survey respondents were purposefully selected for interviews
according to the following criteria: 1) type of employment (generalists in self-
contained classrooms teaching science, specialists who taught mostly science, or
graduates not currently teaching science), 2) proportional representation of males
and females, and 3) distribution across graduation years. This resulted in the
following interviewees: 1991 - 1, 1992 - 2, 1993 - 1, 1994 - 2, and 1995 - 3, a
slightly disproportionate number of interviewees from 1992 but reasonable spread
across all five graduation years and the three interviewee criteria. The eight teacher-
interviewees had from two to six years of experience. The non-teacher interviewee
had two years of 7th-8th grade teaching experience and had since chosen to be
home with her children. There were six females and three males, reflecting the
greater percentage of males in the Basic Science Minor as compared to the percent
of males in the Elementary Education Major at this university.
Each of the nine subjects was interviewed by phone in the spring of 1997.
Initial interview questions were based on survey responses, with subsequent
questions based on interview responses. Two main categories addressed science
teaching preparation directly related to the Basic Science Minor and current status
254 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
with respect to teaching science. Questions about science teacher preparation
(Krapfl, 1997) included: (a) the most memorable and beneficial aspects of the
program, (b) comparisons of their preparation program to that of their colleagues,
(c) contributions of the program to their attitudes about teaching science, and
(d) any changes in their attitudes toward science teaching since graduation.
Questions about current status with respect to teaching science included: (a) a
description of their teaching situation, (b) their strengths as science teachers and
the challenges they face in this position, and (c) their greatest frustrations in teaching
science. As in any semi-structured interview, additional questions were posed as
appropriate (Borg & Gall, 1989). Audiotapes were transcribed and transcripts were
coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Additional comparisons were made by
the researcher between her experiences and those of the nine interviewees. Data
from students enrolled in Experiences in Elementary School Science at the time of
the study was also included for some questions. The following analysis addresses
the role of the preparation program in the current practice of these graduates.

Results

Whether the teaching situations of the nine interviewees is representative of

all Basic Science Minor graduates from 1991-1995 is not known. Six of the
interviewees were teaching or had taught only science in a range of grades: 6th,
8th, 7th and 8th, 3rd through 8th, 4th through 8th. The two teachers spanning
multiple grade levels were science specialists teaching in Catholic schools. Three
of the eight teachers were in self-contained classrooms in 3rd and 5th grades. None
of the interviewees had taught below the 3rd grade level. Though the Minor is
designed for K-6 endorsement, five of the interviewees were teaching or had taught
at the 7th and 8th grade level. Within this range of grade levels, settings, and
experiences it was apparent the graduates held common beliefs about the Basic
Science Minor and its influence on them as professionals. The voices of these nine
graduates often spoke in unison about the program and how it impacted their lives
as science educators.
Assertion One: The Basic Science Minor graduates were positive about their
preparation and stated that it made a difference in how they currently teach
science.
The graduates’ comments reflected the importance of the teaching approach
used in the Minor and supported the idea that modeling pedagogy leads to a strong
foundation for later teaching experiences. Hands-on, rather than inquiry, was used
as a criterion in this interpretation. All nine advocated using a hands-on approach
that they defined as student involvement and the opposite of a text driven approach.
All nine attempted to carry this out in their classrooms; however, the extent varied
due to constraints mentioned under Assertion Two.
The Basic Science Minor served not only as a unique preparation for teaching
elementary school science, but also as an effective facilitator of learning science
content. The graduates commented that they were not told how to teach or shown
how in only methods courses. They actually learned science content in the context
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 255
of the advocated teaching approach.

I enjoy teaching science… with the way they taught it. I think it got me
more excited about teaching it. Instead of just sitting through a lecture
and then once a week having a lab or something … they taught us in the
same methods that they wanted us to teach. (Thomas ‘93, 8th)

They also pushed the hands-on parts…to get kids doing as much as they
can. And I guess that’s the part that really sticks with me today…it’s all
the doing stuff. I mean, that meant a lot more. And I still use some of that
stuff today because I did it then. (Becky ‘94, 3rd)

Several interviewees felt that what distinguished them from other elementary
science teachers was their content knowledge. Grant had no qualms about his
science preparation, “I have no worries about my concept knowledge and content
knowledge.” (‘95, 7/8th). Jill also felt confident in her science content knowledge,
which in turn affected her confidence in teaching just about anything in her science
curriculum.

I feel so confident when it comes to teaching science. I know that no

matter what kind of unit they throw at me, I have at least some sort of
resources available to me and if I don’t then…I know where to get them.
I feel like I’ve got a very strong base in all areas and basically, I don’t
really have to worry about it…So when the student brings up what do
volcanoes have to do with this, I feel comfortable going off on that
tangent…. (Jill ‘95, 3rd)

On the other hand the sixth grade middle school teacher and four of the five
interviewees teaching 7th and 8th grade science felt that the Basic Science Minor
did not provide the needed content knowledge for their middle/junior high teaching.
Diane said “I should have taken…more courses in science. I think I could definitely
be more …knowledgeable in a lot of areas…” (‘95, 6th). Jane echoed “You see, I
still don’t feel that I had enough background in science, especially that I teach
junior high science even though I’m only certified to teach K-6.” (‘92, ). Jill, a third
grade teacher comfortable in her own knowledge, realized this very same thing.

I think as long as I stay at an elementary level and have some support

material available to me, I’d be OK. If I moved to junior high…I’d have to
take more classes. I know that I have enough activities to at least illustrate
the principles but I don’t know personally that my own concept levels
would be high enough to be comfortable with it. I know at third grade
I’m fine. (Jill ‘95, 3rd)

These comments should not be surprising and are not an indictment of the
program. The Minor was designed for teaching elementary school science and it
256 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
appears that content-wise the courses are on target for K-6 science. They are not,
however, adequate for Minors who teach above the 6th grade. Even with the
expressed inadequacy of content the graduates teaching at the junior high level
persist in their efforts at teaching science. What appears to provide these graduates’
strength for teaching junior high science concepts, even if somewhat lacking in
their own content knowledge, is their own interest in science and the program’s
emphasis on modeling the process of learning science. These teachers embraced
the idea of learning as a process, for both students and themselves.

I don’t feel bad if I don’t know the answer. I know I can go look it up.
Science is a constant exploration and I can feel comfortable in some labs
or some topics with my students where all of us are exploring at the same
time and feel comfortable with that. (Jane ‘92, 4-8th)

Assertion Two: Program graduates encountered similar obstacles and hurdles

as other elementary school teachers in teaching hands-on science: 1) meeting the
variety of student needs, 2) time, 3) money and materials, 4) management, and 5)
the reality of “wanna-do’s” and “gotta-do’s”.
Similar to previous research about why science teachers do not use, or continue
to use, hands-on science (Eiriksson, 1997; Ernst, 1994; Tilgner, 1990) the Basic
Science Minors found certain constraints in implementing in their own classrooms
the type of teaching they experienced in their college science courses. The first of
these obstacles was the need to teach science effectively to all students.
Mainstreaming was a concern and meeting the range of student abilities was a
daunting task. Teachers were challenged by low reading levels, special needs
students, and students identified as having special talents (Talented and Gifted
[TAG]). Becky experienced the full range of special students in her self-contained
classroom.

I do have some inclusion in my classroom. I have two special ed. students

and the one student has to have an aide with her…I also have…six kids
[who] are in TAG. So the kids are very intelligent. And then you have
your middle kids too.…The other thing is the whole inclusion thing. With
just how to meet the needs of all of your kids, especially in science.
(Becky ‘94, 3rd)

Though some of the teachers were in schools where students were pulled out
of the regular classroom setting for some courses, others, such as Grant, were not.
Grant, a specialist in 7th and 8th grade science, has what he terms “all of the kids”.
“[I am the only] teacher there that has every special ed. or every labeled kid. I have
everybody because there is no pull out for science.” (Grant ‘95, 7th-8th). Others in
addition to Grant and Becky faced this challenge and noted that they were ill
prepared to meet the challenges of a variety of students, least of all while doing
hands-on science. Though special students created special problems, the benefits of
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 257
hands-on approaches for them were the same as for other students (Mastropieri &
Scruggs, 1994). These teachers found solutions to this challenge, though not
necessarily ones different than other classroom teachers. While they struggled with
teaching science as they had learned it, they persisted in their hands-on approach.

We did chemistry and used those big sticky dots because he can see those
big things. (Diane ‘95, 6th)

I do most of my experiments with cooperative groups so if someone has a

disability there is someone who can compensate for that. (Donna ‘94,
5th)

The second challenge mentioned was time: time for preparing, time for finding
activities, and time for organizing and switching materials between classes. Grant
mentioned his frustration with this aspect while Jane addressed other aspects of
time.

…getting the materials for a lab out and back… I don’t have the same
classes in a row…I’m always tearing down, putting back, tearing down,
putting back. (Grant, ‘95, 7-8th)

Time to do research on new activities. Time to set up for different labs.…

All of the prep work… I just spent an hour tonight making cabbage juice
and smelling up my kitchen and I’m thinking the other teachers at home
aren’t doing that tonight. (Jane, ‘92, 4-8th)

Most of the eight practicing teachers mentioned a lack of materials, which

reflected the lack of monetary support for their teaching approach. “Oh sure, the
budget…We didn’t have much to work with at all being in a Catholic school.”
(Becky, ‘94, 3rd). All of my challenges come with time and money.… We don’t
ever have enough supplies and I could use three times as much time to plan. (Jill,
‘95, 3rd)
All of the interviewees mentioned management issues which could be
categorized into managing the materials, managing student behavior, and managing
the materials and the students while teaching a hands-on approach.

My first year I had no science materials. My second year, the day before
school starts they bring in boxes of new equipment…brown boxes that
you can’t look into… and I did not get them out the entire year. This year
I bought a science cabinet before school started. I put everything on the
shelf so I could see it. (Donna, ‘94, 5th)

I mean…having so many kids in a classroom. Sometimes it gets a little

out of control, it’s a lot to manage especially if you don’t have (enough)
materials and you have bigger groups. (Diane, ‘95, 6th)
258 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
Student misbehavior has been noted as a barrier to utilizing hands-on
approaches (Wallace & Louden, 1992) because of materials manipulation, student
collaboration, and asking unplanned questions. Preparation to cope with this
appeared to be something lacking in the program. “I think that might be a real
good idea, actually. In the [minor] program maybe talk about management with
hands-on activities because you never really touched on it.” (Cory, ‘92, 3-8th)
The last category of challenges was labeled the “wanna do’s” and “gotta do’s”
by the interviewees. Many of these comments revolved around how they wanted to
teach science but felt forced to do otherwise because of various constraints. Several
tried to implement learning cycle lessons, but found the reality factor of time
caused them difficulties. “I thought I’d be doing labs constantly and basically, I’ve
slowed down now. I realize that it’s going to take three or four days to teach a
learning cycle” (Donna ‘94, 3rd). Jane apologetically admitted that she just couldn’t
follow a learning cycle teaching approach with five teaching preps a day.

…one thing, and they probably wouldn’t be too thrilled with this in the
program, they really stressed the learning cycle. I see the benefits to that,
but I know that I don’t use it as often as they would like. I guess I felt it
took so much prep to really do this learning cycle properly and with the
five different grade levels I teach, it just bogged me down. I know that I
do a lot of labs, but I don’t think I do as much (sic) exploratory labs as I
should. Some of them are done after we teach the topic, and then we do
the labs which is what I know that I’m not supposed to do. But for lack of
time, I do those sometimes. (Jane ‘92, 4-8th)

It is obvious that Jane knows the difference between the learning cycle she desires
to do and the verification labs she ends up doing.
Program graduates wanted to teach hands-on science because it created greater
student interest in science and fostered more positive student attitudes.

I guess I have to go back to the hands-on thing that it makes it a lot more
fun. My students enjoy doing instead of listening to me ramble on. I
think the preparation at [university] helped me find a way to make the
science more interesting for them. (Grant ‘95, 7-8th)

Jane and Grant and the other teachers persist in teaching science and in their
attempts to use hands-on learning even if they cannot implement specific inquiry
approaches or learning cycles because they feel well prepared in their content
knowledge. They remain committed, at least in part, because of the strength of
their undergraduate background and preparation.
Assertion Three: The program graduates viewed themselves as confident
science educators who continue to involve themselves in professional development.
Teaching was viewed as a process of becoming over time. Becky has been
teaching three years: “To say that you are a strongly effective science teacher… I’m
not sure if I fit in that category.… To me it’s more of an experience thing and I have
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 259
a lot to learn about how kids learn.” Jill has been teaching 5 years “…but I haven’t
reached the point yet where I’m completely satisfied with my science teaching. I
feel I’m an effective teacher but I know I can always do better.”
The graduates identified various areas of professional development in which
they had been engaged: attending professional conferences and workshops, serving
on committees, grant writing, and assuming leadership roles in curriculum
development and teaching.
Their attendance at professional meetings was greatly influenced by their
voluntary membership in the Student Science Teachers Association (SSTA) as
undergraduates. The SSTA is a campus organization for anyone interested in teaching
science. Activities include monthly meetings featuring guest speakers on various
topics, after school outreach activities in metro area schools, and sponsorship of
student attendance at state, regional, and national science teacher professional
meetings, most notably the National Science Teachers Association conferences.

Because of the…program… we did take a trip to a science conference in

Kansas City. … That kind of sparked my interest and then when I was a
senior a group of us went to Boston. Since then I’ve become a remember
of NSTA. And I do attend their conferences and also the Iowa Science
Teachers Conference in Des Moines. (Jane ‘92, 4-8th)

Graduates continued to study science in teacher inservice workshops and act

as facilitators with their colleagues.

I participated in what was called an Aster program, but it was an

astronomy program in Arizona. And I went there for a month in the
summer of 1995, and I came back to Iowa and put on workshops for other
teachers… (Cory ‘92, 3-8th)

Program graduates also pursued formal course work. Cory and one other
graduate had already enrolled in graduate programs and two of the remaining six
practicing teachers expressed an interest in graduate work. These professional
activities relate to the role many Basic Science Minors have assumed as building or
district leaders in science education.
The leadership roles broadened into planning and budgeting for science as
well as grant writing. Diane said “I order whatever I need. I am in charge of doing
that.” Cory (‘92, 3-8th) has “…written one grant this spring for…a program utilizing
computers in 7th and 8th grade.” Thomas was recently involved in coauthoring a
grant for an outdoor classroom. “I and [another teacher], she did most of the grant
writing and stuff and basically I am a facilitator.”
Whatever their professional involvements, Basic Science Minor graduates
welcomed the freedom to make decisions about the many aspects of teaching science.
From the very beginning of their professional careers they did not shy away from
leadership roles.
Assertion Four: Program graduates voiced varying degrees of being
260 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
“different” than their science teaching colleagues and attributed these differences
to their preparation program.
These differences were first noted by Laurie in framing the study.

Though it (science) was my favorite part of the day I quickly sensed this
was not the common feeling among my peers. My fellow 5/6th grade
teachers were relieved I taught their science and the other teachers in
the school were very reluctant to teach science at all. This was the first
time that it occurred to me that perhaps I was somewhat different in how
I felt about teaching science. I thought that maybe there was something
different about my teacher preparation or maybe it was that I had any
preparation at all (Laurie, ‘91).

Her fellow graduates agreed with this view that they were somehow different,
possibly unique. The difference between them and some of their colleagues was
obvious to them and provided both frustration and leadership opportunities.

I don’t know how to say this correctly, there’s no continuity. In the K-3,
their [the teachers’] main thrust is to teach them how to read and how to
do math and yes, they do throw science in… like I said if they [other
teachers] don’t like science, they don’t teach the science. That’s probably
one of my biggest frustrations. (Donna ‘94, 5th).

I’ve been basically helping [do] a lot of team planning and team teaching
with the other teacher, right now the unit that we’re on is the body, she
doesn’t know her arm from her leg but I mean… that sounds really bad,
but …we were doing some things on organs inside the body and she was
‘how do you know this stuff?’ And I’m like ‘well it’s kind of common sense
isn’t it?’ (Becky ‘94, 3rd)

There was little doubt that the Basic Science Minor was a factor in these
differences. Diane noted that “…the program was I think a good thing. We haven’t
talked to too many other people that have gone through something probably like
we did.” What specific aspects of this program were influential?
One aspect was a difference in attitude towards science and teaching science
between the Minors and other teachers. Cory (‘92, 3-8th) stated “I think that even
without the program I wouldn’t be so fearful, but I get a lot of comments [from other
teachers] like, ‘I could never teach science’, or ‘it’s out of my league, it’s too hard’.”
The differences for Beth were more in the way she viewed teaching science.

I don’t think that I’m any more knowledgeable than they are or anything,
I just think it’s a different style of teaching.… They were probably more
technical in some areas than I was. I was more concentrating on the
process, and if they [the students] understood it. (Beth, ‘91, 7-8th))
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 261
The epitome of this difference in teaching methods was related by Jill.

Occasionally I feel like I’m standing [in] a room of chaos because everybody
is doing their own thing and it’s loud and it’s messy and nothing is in its
place. And sometimes I get frustrated because they don’t need me. They
know what they are supposed to do…I’m just in their way. They tell me once
in a while to stop talking so they can get to work. (Jill, ‘95, 3rd)

A student enrolled in the program at the time of the study summed it up when
she said:

I am different because of the consistency of the program. The methods

used in each course don’t depend on the professor. All classes are taught
from the constructivist perspective using learning cycles. The science
courses are all set up in similar fashion with an inquiry orientation
through hands-on activities and discussion. These professors make you
do it, rather than tell you. The science content is relevant and I can see
the use for either the knowledge or the actual activity in the classroom.
And, they are demanding. They force you to think! (Amy, ’99)

Conclusion

The purpose of this post-project evaluation was to assess the effects of the
Basic Science Minor on program graduates and to ascertain the similarities and
differences between program graduates and their teacher colleagues. It appears the
Basic Science Minor has been effective in preparing its graduates to teach elementary
school science. Graduates understand and attempt to utilize hands-on science and
the learning cycle. They have a very positive attitude toward teaching science, are
confident as science teachers, and persist in spite of several constraints. They
consider their content knowledge to be very good for teaching K-6 science, but do
not feel it is adequate for teaching science at the 7th and 8th grade level.
Program graduates are similar to other elementary science teachers in
experiencing four of six constraints to using or not persisting in the use of hands-on
science frequently noted in the literature (Eiriksson, 1997; Ernst, 1994; Tilgner,
1990): it is time consuming, it takes a great deal of work, there is a lack of money
and materials, and there are classroom management issues. Two constraints not
found in program graduates were dislike for chaos, and the lack of content
knowledge. The Minors felt self confident in their understanding of science for the
range of elementary school grades but viewed it as inadequate for teaching at the
7th and 8th grade level. Minor graduates seemed comfortable with the nature of an
active classroom, quite possibly because of their own college experiences in
learning science. An additional difference between program graduates and the
teachers described in the literature is that program graduates are more likely to
persist in working through constraints.
Another difference between program graduates and their colleagues is their
262 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
positive attitude and confidence toward teaching science. They want to teach
science, they want to teach it using hands-on methods, and they find themselves
acting as resource people and assuming leadership roles with fellow teachers. This
is indeed noteworthy since all of these graduates had six or fewer years of teaching
experience, and several had only two or three years teaching experience.
If the Basic Science Minor continues to be used by elementary education
majors as preparation for science specialization at the middle/junior high school
level the current number of hours or extent of science content will need to be
reexamined. One question that needs careful attention is, can one preparation
program for science content effectively span grades K-8? A second recommendation
would be that some sort of classroom management component specific to dealing
with both the materials and children’s use of materials be added to the program,
quite possibly in Experiences in Elementary School Science. Additionally, there
seems to be a need for enhancing the mainstreaming component that is part of the
university-wide teacher preparation program or for including a feature in the Minor
that specifically deals with inclusion in the science classroom, since science is
often a “no pullout” subject in elementary grades.
Basic Science Minors appeared to share a great many characteristics with each
other. They expressed the same constraints and challenges in teaching science,
whether at the 3rd, 5th or 7th-8th grade levels. They voiced the same suggestions
for improving the preparation program: classroom management with respect to
materials, plus an added component directly dealing with special needs students in
a hands-on science classroom. They were similar in their attitudes, confidence, and
attention to professional development. The graduate student/researcher found that
her experiences were not anomalous. She and her fellow Minors were somewhat
different from their colleagues with respect to their views of teaching science.
Interviewees voices were almost in unison in expressing their sentiment about the
Basic Science Minor program, “…college can prepare you as much as possible, but
reality hits, [it] really hits, so I would say keep on doing the hands-on, keep trying
to show you know that less is more. Teach one thing very well instead of
dabbling…those are the things that you taught us.” (Grant, ‘95, 7-8th)
Program development and modification need to be data driven (NCATE, 2000).
The information with respect to this program is useful and will facilitate changes in
program courses and in the extent of science content included. More information
of this type is needed in order to modify teacher preparation programs. This should
progress to the next step of gathering data on the graduates’ effectiveness in the
classroom. This will enable teacher preparation programs to go beyond the local
impact on graduates to the broader impact on teaching and learning. Data driven
review is essential.
While it would be desirable for all future elementary teachers to have a
comprehensive science preparation that may not be possible given the breadth of
course work necessary in an elementary education major. What the Basic Science
Minor does is prepare a small group of elementary majors with a strong content
background, the pedagogical tools to teach inquiry-oriented science, and an attitude
and orientation towards science and teaching science that serves them well as
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 263
future elementary teachers and allows them to persist and to assume leadership
roles in elementary science teaching. As Wallace and Louden (1992) state, teaching
is complex, it is not simply a matter of applying skills; rather it is a product of
professional knowledge arising from years of experience. The “genesis of teachers
knowledge is in their practice” (p. 519). Likewise, the genesis of preservice teachers’
notions of teaching and of science is in their experiences with learning and teaching
science. How better to learn an approach to teaching science then to learn one’s
science through that approach? The Basic Science Minor involves a different set of
experiences from those of the past and sows seeds for the evolution of a different type
of practice in the future. Teaching teachers as you would have them teach is effective.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science, (1993). Benchmarks

for science literacy. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (1997). The science methods course in the context of the total
teacher education experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 269-282.
Boone, W. J. & Gabel, D. L. (1998). Effectiveness of a model teacher preparation
program for the elementary level. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 63-84.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction, 5th
ed., New York: Longman.
Borko, H. (1993). The integration of content and pedagogy in teaching. In
Gardner, A. L. & Cochran, K. F. (Eds.) Critical issues in reforming elementary
teacher preparation in mathematics and science, Conference Proceedings, p. 25-
43, University of Northern Colorado. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED359176.
Bryan, L., & Abell, S. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning
to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121-139.
Butts, D., Koballa, T., & Eliott, T. (1997). Does participating in an
undergraduate elementary science methods course make a difference? Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 1-17.
Crowther, P. (2001). Resources and programs in higher education: Science
content courses for elementary education majors. Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 5. Retrieved January 2001 from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/
resources/html.
Eiriksson, S. (1997). Preservice teachers’ perceived constraints of teaching
science in the elementary classroom. Journal of Elementary Science Education,
9(2), 18-27.
Ernst, E. M. (1994). Improving the preservice science and science education
preparation of elementary teachers, Unpublished dissertation, George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA.
Fones, S., Wagner, J., & Caldwell, E. (1999). Promoting attitude adjustments in
science for preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching
28, 231-236.
Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners. New York: Teachers
College Press.
264 CHERIN LEE & LISA KRAPFL
Gardner, A. L. & Cochran, K. F. (Eds), (1993). Critical issues in reforming
elementary teacher preparation in mathematics and science, Conference
Proceedings, University of Northern Colorado. ERIC Document Reproduction No.
ED359176.
Greenwood, A. (1996). When it comes to teaching about floating and sinking,
preservice elementary teachers do not have to feel as though they are drowning.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 1-16.
Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Implications for teacher education. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 8, 167-185.
Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice
elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49-56.
Lawrence Hall of Science (1993a). Full option science system. Berkeley, CA:
Regents, University of California.
Krapfl, L. (1997). A program evaluation of an elementary science teacher
preparation program, Unpublished masters thesis, University of Northern Iowa,
Cedar Falls.
Lawrence Hall of Science (1993b). Great expectation in math and science.
Berkeley, CA: Regents, University of California.
Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989) A theory of instruction,
Monograph of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Number One.
Lee, C. (1993). Experience in teaching teachers differently. In Gardner, A. L. &
Cochran, K. F. (Eds.) Critical issues in reforming elementary teacher preparation
in mathematics and science, Conference Proceedings, p. 139-146, University of
Northern Colorado. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED359176.
Lee, C., Krapfl, L., & Steffen, A. (2000). The 10th anniversary of a successful
elementary science teacher preparation program. Proceedings of the 2000 Annual
Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS).
ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED438191.
Leonard, W. (2000) How do college students best learn science? Journal of
College Science Teaching, 29, 385-388.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Lucas, K. & Dooley, J. (1982). Student teachers’ attitudes toward science and
science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 805-809.
Marek , E. A. & Cavallo, A. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school
science and beyond, revised ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science
curricula: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 15, 72-85.
McDevitt, T. M., Heikkenen, H. W., Alcorn, J. K., Ambrosio, A. L., & Gardner, A.,
(1993). Evaluation of the preparation of teachers in science and mathematics: Assessment
of preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Science Education, 77, 593-610.
McDevitt, T., Gardner, A., Shaklee, J., Bertholf, M., & Troyer, R. (1999). Science
and mathematics instruction of beginning elementary teachers. Journal of Science
Teacher Education 10, 217-233,
 TEACHING AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TEACH 265
McLoughlin, A. S. & Dana, T, M. (1999). Making science relevant: The
experiences of prospective elementary school teachers in an innovative science
content course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 69-91.
Mellado, V., Blanco, L., & Ruiz, C. (1998). A framework for learning to teach
science in initial primary teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
9, 195-219.
Mulholland, J. & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary
teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17-38.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (August 2000).
NCATE handbook for initial accreditation visits. Washington, DC: National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ost, D. H. (1989). The culture of teaching: Stability and change, The
Educational Forum, 53(2), 163-181.
Pedersen, J. & McCurdy, D. (1992). The effects of hands-on, minds-on teaching
experiences on attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 76,
141-146.
Poole, B. & Kidder, S. (1996). Making connections in the undergraduate
laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 34-36.
Shroyer, M. B., Wright, E. L., & Ramey-Gassert, L. (1996). An innovative
model for collaborative reform in elementary school science teaching. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 7, 151-168.
Stefanich, G. & Kelsey, K. (1989). Improving science attitudes of preservice
elementary teachers. Science Teacher Education, 73, 187-194.
Stepans, J. l., McClurg, P. A., & Beiswenger, R. E. (1995). A teacher education
program in elementary science that connects content, methods, practicum, and
student teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 158-163.
Stuart, C. & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’
experiences, beliefs, and classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 15,
113-121.
Tilgner, P. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science
Education, 74, 421-431.
Wallace, J. & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge:
Prospects for reform of elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507-521.
Ward, R. (1993). The preparation of elementary mathematics and science
teachers project. In Gardner, A.L. and Cochran, K. F. (Eds.), Critical issues in
reforming elementary teacher preparation in mathematics and science, Conference
Proceedings, pp. 63-65. University of Northern Colorado. ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED359176.
Wink, D. J. (1999). Is teaching instinctive? No, I’m afraid not. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 28, 315-317.
Zeitler, W. R. (1984). Science backgrounds, conceptions of purpose and
concerns of preservice teachers about teaching children science. Science Education,
68, 505-520.