Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers’.pdf

Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers’Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

Rebecca McNall Krall Æ Kimberly H. Lott ÆCarol L. Wymer

Published online: 29 October 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate inservice ele-

mentary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration,

basic concepts they are expected to teach. A forced-choice instrument assessing

selected standards-based life science concepts with non-scientific conceptions

embedded in distracter options was utilized to assess 76 inservice elementary and

middle school teachers from the central Appalachian region. Outcomes from four

tasks assessing photosynthesis and respiration concepts are discussed. Findings

revealed similarities between non-scientific conceptions the teachers demonstrated

and non-scientific conceptions reported in the research literature on elementary and

middle school students’ understanding of the concepts. Findings also informed

subsequent inservice teacher professional development efforts in life science and the

development of a biology course for preservice elementary teachers.

Keywords Inservice teachers � Elementary school � Middle school �Science education � Misconceptions � Life science � Photosynthesis �Respiration � Teacher preparation

R. M. Krall (&)

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Kentucky, 114 Taylor Education Building,

Lexington, KY 40506-0001, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

K. H. Lott

Bob Jones High School, 650 Hughes Road, Madison, AL 35758, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

C. L. Wymer

Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Morehead State University, 103 Lappin

Hall, Morehead, KY 40351, USA

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2009) 20:41–55

DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9117-4

Despite science education reform efforts promoted by national science education

organizations (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]

1993; National Research Council [NRC] 1996) in the 1990s, recent reports have

underscored little change in student achievement in science. Results recently

reported from the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Grigg

et al. 2006) indicate a negative change in high school student achievement in

science between 1996 and 2005. Specifically, 12th grade students achieving at the

Proficient and Advanced levels (that is, students showing a firm foundation of

content knowledge and reasoning skills necessary to be proficient at 12th grade

science) decreased from 21% in 1996 to 18% in 2005. Science achievement of

middle school students at the same levels showed no change between 1996 and

2005, remaining at a low 29%. Elementary students faired little better, increasing

from 28 to 29% during the same period. According to 2005 NAEP results (Grigg

et al. 2006), the number of students performing at or below Basic Proficiency (that

is, at a maximum, students demonstrate partial mastery of science content

knowledge and reasoning skills necessary to be proficient in science at a given

grade level) increased from grades four to eight and again when students were tested

at grade twelve. These results suggest that a majority of elementary and middle

school students lack important foundational knowledge to become proficient in

science in advanced grades. Moreover, research indicates students’ attitudes toward

science already show decline by the time they reach middle school grades (Johnson

and Johnson 1982).

In light of the 2005 NAEP results, conclusions from the U.S. National Commissionon Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (also known as the Glenn

Commission) (Glenn 2000) are not surprising. The commission asserted that K-12

students receive ‘unacceptable’ preparation in mathematics and science and called for

highly qualified teachers in these domains in all grade levels. The commission

charged, ‘‘Astonishingly, in no other profession is so much of such ultimate worth

entrusted to people with such uneven qualifications’’ (Glenn 2000, p. 19). Taken

together, these findings suggest further reform in the preparation and continuing

education of the nation’s preservice and inservice elementary and middle school

science teachers is crucial in order to improve K-12 student achievement in science.

Research on K-8 students’ and teachers’ understanding of science concepts over

the past three decades has revealed that inservice elementary and middle school

teachers and students hold similar alternative science conceptions (Driver et al.

1985; Harlen and Halroyd 1997; Osborne and Freyberg 1985; Rice 2005;

Wandersee et al. 1994). It is not surprising that elementary and middle school

teachers have conceptual difficulties in science, considering most of the science

course work taken by these teachers consists of large survey courses typically taught

in the lecture format, which often fails to engage students deeply enough to help

them achieve conceptual understanding (Anderson and Smith 1987; McDermott

1991; McDermott et al. 2006).

Unfortunately, researchers have also found that many elementary teachers have

very weak science backgrounds, which can manifest as poor attitudes toward

science (Appleton 1995; Harlen 1997; Harlen and Halroyd 1997; Smith 1997;

Stevens and Wenner 1996; Tilgner 1990; Watters and Ginn 1997). In fact, in their

42 R. M. Krall et al.

123

study of high school students’ performance in mathematics and science using data

from the National Educational Longitudinal Studies (NELS) of 1988, Goldhaber

and Brewer (2000) found that fully certified teachers and teachers with a

mathematics or mathematics education degree have a statistically significant

positive impact on student test scores compared to other teachers not certified in

their subject area. It is not surprising that researchers have found that teachers with

poor science backgrounds negatively affect their students’ understanding of science

concepts (Gess-Newsome and Lederman 1995; Johnson 1998; Nott and Wellinton

1996).

Given the responsibility inservice elementary and middle school science teachers

have in improving K-8 science education, professional development has become an

area of growing interest (Cohen 1995; DeSimone et al. 2003). In order to develop

effective professional development programs for science teachers at these levels and

to maximize program effectiveness, the major conceptual needs of inservice science

teachers must be determined and addressed. The research base on K-12 students’ and

preservice teachers’ understanding of life science concepts is growing. However,

few studies have surveyed inservice elementary or middle school teachers’

understanding of life science concepts. The purpose of this study was to identify

central Appalachian elementary and middle school teachers’ current understanding

of basic concepts foundational to understanding photosynthesis and respiration.

Conceptual Framework

The intent of recent reform efforts in science education has been to improve student

achievement in science. Teacher content knowledge is one of the three domains of

content knowledge Shulman (1986) identified as inherent to teacher classroom

effectiveness. Previous research studies have underscored the importance of

teachers’ content knowledge on determining student achievement (Darling-

Hammond 2000; Perkes 1967; Sanders and Rivers 1996; Wright et al. 1997).

For example, Perkes (1967) studied 32 junior high school teachers and their

students from the same school district in order to identify possible effects of teacher

behaviors on student achievement. Through classroom observations, student

assessments, and teacher surveys, he found that classes showing the greatest

student achievement in science had teachers who had recently enrolled in science

courses, had higher GPAs in science courses, and/or had taken a greater number of

science education courses. In addition, these teachers tended to integrate laboratory

activities regularly into their instruction and fostered class discussions challenging

students to speculate using science content learned in class.

Recent studies have continued to find a relationship between teachers’

preparedness to teach science and student achievement. For example, in their study

of teacher effects on student achievement using the Tennessee Value-added

Assessment System, Wright et al. (1997) found teacher effects had the greatest

impact on student achievement in comparison to other factors including class size

and group heterogeneity. Ferguson (1991) asserted that, of the many policy-

controllable inputs for improving student achievement (e.g., teacher quality, class

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration 43

123

size), ‘‘improving the quality of teachers in the classroom will do more for students

who are most educationally at risk, those prone to fail, than reducing the class size

or improving the capital stock by any reasonable margin, which would be available

to policy makers’’ (p. 47).

The logical first step in improving student achievement is identifying inservice

teachers’ understanding of the science concepts they are expected to teach. Life

science concepts outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES)

(NRC 1996) and the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS 1993) provide

frameworks to guide the development of state science education standards and local

science curriculum. These standards also provide a logical outline of science content

elementary and middle school teachers should understand in order to teach science

effectively. Photosynthesis and respiration are essential in understanding the

movement of energy and raw materials in an ecosystem. In the elementary grades,

students are expected to develop an understanding of the dependency of animals on

plants for food in the NSES K-4 life science standard, Organisms and theirEnvironment. Subsequently, the NSES 5–8 life science standard, Populations andEcosystems, and the Benchmarks standard, Flow of Matter and Energy, require

upper elementary and middle school students to understand the role photosynthesis

plays in plants as they transform energy from the sun into chemical energy used to

make carbohydrate. This chemical energy is then passed from organism to organism

through food webs.

Several studies have documented conceptual difficulties of elementary and

middle school students regarding photosynthesis and respiration (Canal and Garcia

1987; Simpson and Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983). More importantly, other studies

have found that preservice elementary (Cakiroglu and Boone 2002) and middle

school teachers (Mak et al. 1999; Ratcliffe 1999) have difficulties with these

concepts as well.

Considering preservice elementary and middle school teachers still have

troublesome difficulties when they graduate from their teacher education programs,

it would be reasonable to expect inservice teachers to have similar conceptual

difficulties. Additional research is needed to determine whether inservice elemen-

tary and middle school teachers do in fact have poor understanding of

photosynthesis and respiration. Clearly, teachers who have a sound conceptual

understanding of their subject will be more effective teachers (Gess-Newsome and

Lederman 1995; Nott and Wellinton 1996; Shulman 1986) and it seems

unreasonable to expect teachers who do not have a firm understanding of the

content to be able to help students construct a scientifically accepted understanding.

Identifying limitations of elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptual

understanding of photosynthesis and respiration could be an important step toward

developing effective inservice professional development programs that address

these concepts. Improving teachers’ content knowledge could in turn improve

teachers’ effectiveness in helping students develop a scientifically accepted

understanding of these concepts. Considering these potential benefits, the question

that guided this study in taking the initial step was: What conceptions do rural

inservice elementary and middle school teachers have about the role of photosyn-

thesis and respiration in an ecosystem?


123

Method

Participants

Participants in this study included 76 self-selected inservice elementary and middle

school teachers from rural school districts in the central Appalachian region. During

summer 2005, teachers enrolled in one of Four two-week life science institutes

offered through the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership project. Institutes

focused on standards-based life science concepts addressed in grades 4–7 curricula

in the region. These grade levels are critical years for state science accountability

assessments in the school districts represented in the study and are of great interest

to science educators, teachers, and administrators concerned about improving

student achievement in science. A majority of institute participants were upper

elementary inservice teachers (grades 4–5). Due to the limited number of middle

school teachers in the institutes, it was not possible to differentiate between middle

school and elementary teachers’ responses without jeopardizing participants’

anonymity. Therefore, study findings do not differentiate between the elementary

and middle school teachers’ responses.

Assessment Tasks

The four forced-choice tasks utilized in this study were part of a 25-item instrument

employed to survey teachers’ understanding of standards-based life science topics.

The instrument was aligned with the NSES (NRC 1996) in life science for grades

K-8 and state standards represented in the central Appalachian region. The

instrument addressed four general life science topics: photosynthesis and respira-

tion, energy flow in an ecosystem, heredity and natural selection, and experimental

design. A group of science educators and biologists constructed the instrument

based on the four main topics listed above. Tasks were inspired by the ConceptualInventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson et al. 2002) and the DiagnosticTeacher Assessment in Mathematics and Science (DTAMS) (Tretter et al. 2005).

Commonly held non-scientific conceptions summarized from the research literature

(Eisen and Stavy 1988; Munson 1991, 1994; Ozay and Oztas 2003; Simpson and

Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983) were embedded in distracter options to assess

teachers’ conceptual understanding. A panel of science educators and biologists

reviewed the instrument for content validity. The forced-choice format was well

suited for the testing time limitation that existed during the institutes. The

assessment instrument was completed anonymously to relieve teachers’ anxiety

about potential negative effects of poor test results.

Data Analysis

Frequencies and percentages were determined for responses from each of the four

assessment tasks. Teachers who answered questions correctly demonstrated a

scientific conceptual understanding. Conversely, incorrect responses helped illumi-

nate teachers’ alternative conceptual understanding. Response frequencies were


123

further divided into three subgroups depending upon how teachers performed on the

entire instrument. Teachers scoring in the top third on the entire instrument were

placed in the high performance subgroup. Teachers scoring in the midrange on the

entire instrument were placed in the middle performance subgroup, and teachers

scoring in the lower third were placed in the low performance subgroup. Subgroup

frequencies were used to identify the extent of inaccurate conceptions demonstrated

by the subgroups in the sample that could be masked in the results of the entire

sample.

Findings and Discussion

In the elementary and middle school grades, students are expected to identify the

sun as the major source of energy for the ecosystem. Photosynthesis serves as the

transformation process carried out in green plants in which light energy from the sun

is transformed into chemical energy (NRC 1996). Therefore, to understand energy

flow through an ecosystem, teachers must understand how plants take inorganic

materials from the environment and, utilizing energy from sunlight, transform them

into useable organic matter for plants and, ultimately, animals. The tasks assessing

foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration focused on the nutrient

needs of plants and seeds, inorganic materials that plants utilize in the greatest

quantities for growth, and respiration in plants.

Assessment tasks and response summary tables are presented and discussed in

this section. Summary tables provide a frequency distribution for each option, A–D,

with the correct answer identified in bold faced type. As previously discussed, task

responses were further divided into three subgroups according to how teachers

performed on the entire assessment instrument. The first three rows of the summary

tables delineate responses from the high, middle, and low performance subgroups,

respectively. The fourth row presents the total number of responses for each option

and the fifth row expresses the frequencies as percents for each option and for the

total.

The first task considered here assessed nutrient needs of seeds. The task and

corresponding summary table are presented in Table 1. It is inferred that in order to

select the best answer for this task, one would need to understand that requirements

for seed germination are different than the requirements for typical plant growth.

More specifically, while most plants require water, sunlight, and nutrients from the

soil for continued growth, a germinating plant embryo inside the seed requires only

water, since carbohydrates and other nutrients required for embryonic growth are

stored within the seed. Some seeds do require a small amount of light to trigger

germination. However, in such seeds, the light required is far less than what is

needed to support photosynthesis and seedling growth. Temperature also is a factor

in seed germination, but it was not included as an option in this task.

Eighteen of the 25 teachers (72%) in the high performance subgroup selected the

correct response. In comparison, only 3 of the 25 teachers (12%) in the low

performance subgroup selected this option. Option D was the favorite choice for this

subgroup (42%). For the total sample, Table 1 indicates the total group of teachers


123

were nearly evenly divided between option A, selected by 47%, and option D,

selected by 42%. The bimodal distribution suggests that nearly half of the teachers

did not understand the difference between the essential nutrient requirements of

germinating seeds compared to the growth of young plants.

This interpretation of results for Task 1 assumes respondents focused on the word

seed and differentiated between a plant embryo very early in its development inside

the germinating seed and a plant later in its development. Seeds generally germinate

in the darkness of the soil where photosynthesis cannot take place. Hence, the plant

embryo relies on nutrients stored in the seed. For this reason, sunlight (option B) and

nutrients from the soil (option C) are not required; only water (option A) must be

provided from the environment. Perhaps some of the teachers in the sample did not

realize the question was about seeds and not plants, or as intended, they did not

understand the different needs of germinating seeds compared to growing plants

later in the life cycle. Selection of sunlight have been influenced by teachers’

understanding that temperature plays a role in seedling growth, too.

Teachers’ conceptions of nutrient requirements of seeds were further explored in

Task 2. The task and summary table of the responses are presented in Table 2.

In Task 1, 42% of teachers’ responses indicated the alternative notion that

germinating seeds must obtain all of their resources (water, sunlight, and nutrients)

from the environment. In contrast, results from Task 2 indicate that 64.5% of the

teachers sampled correctly identified the cotyledon (a seed structure) as the food

source for germinating seeds. The remaining 35.5% were divided in their responses

among options A, C, and D. In contrast, only 40% of the low performing subgroup

selected the correct responses. Incorrect responses from the sample were nearly

equally divided among the three distracter options. Note that the 60% of teachers in

the low performing subgroup selecting incorrect responses were equally divided

between options A and C while teachers selecting incorrect responses in the high

and middle performing subgroup most often selected option D. Option C was

selected most frequently (13.2%) among the incorrect responses, suggesting these

Table 1 Response frequencies by performance subgroup for Task 1

Task 1: The most essential requirement for seeds to germinate is

A. Water

B. Sunlight

C. Nutrients from the soil

D. All of the above

Subgroup Answer options Omit Total

A B C D

High 18 0 1 6 0 25

Medium 15 1 1 9 0 26

Low 3 4 1 17 0 25

Total 36 5 3 32 0 76

Percent 47.4 6.6 3.9 42.1 0 100


123

teachers hold the view that seeds obtain food from the soil to grow and develop.

Teachers selecting options B and C may have associated the term cotyledon with

the concept of seed germination without fully understanding the function of the

cotyledon. These findings further suggest that, of the resources listed in the

assessment tasks, many teachers held the incorrect understanding that seeds need

more than water to germinate.

It is troubling that these responses mirror those reported in several studies

investigating elementary students’ conceptions of essential nutrients for seed

germination (Jewell 2002; Russell and Watt 1990). Although students in these

studies most often identified water as an essential resource for seeds, Jewell (2002)

found that older elementary students (grades 3–5) develop the still inaccurate notion

that seeds needed soil, sunlight, and water to grow. Through student interviews,

Jewell learned that these ideas arise from students’ classroom experiences planting

seeds and subsequently observing the growth and development of plants over time.

Teachers in the current study also could have developed these alternative

conceptions through growing seeds in the classroom or in the garden. Directions

on most seed packets recommend the proper depth to plant seeds in the soil and

the amount of sunlight and water needed to promote germination and growth. In the

present study, interviews would have been beneficial to uncover more about

the teachers’ understanding of these concepts, but circumstances did not permit the

exercise of this option.

Task 3 queried which substance trees use in the greatest quantities for growth of a

large trunk. The task and accompanying summary table of results are presented in

Table 3. In order to select the correct answer for this task, presumably one must

understand that carbon dioxide gas is turned into biomass as it reacts with water

during photosynthesis. Results indicate most teachers sampled had great difficulty

with this concept. Only 5% of the teachers identified the correct option as carbon

dioxide. Fifty percent of the teachers selected option D and 38% selected option B.

Teachers in the high and middle performing subgroups were divided nearly equally


Task 2: What is the source of food needed for germination of a seed?

A. Seeds make their own food through photosynthesis

B. Seeds obtain food from internal storage structures called cotyledons

C. The cotyledons of seeds absorb nutrients from the soil

D. Food is not needed by the young plant until several days after the plant begins to grow


A B C D

High 0 21 1 3 0 25

Medium 1 18 2 5 0 26

Low 7 10 7 0 1 25

Total 8 49 10 8 1 76

Percent 10.5 64.5 13.2 10.5 1.3 100


123

between options B and D, whereas teachers in the low subgroup most frequently

selected option D.

These results are similar to findings from previous studies on middle school

students, university students, and preservice teachers. Eisen and Stavy (1988)

reported biology majors and non-majors alike had difficulty believing gases

constituted the primary source of weight for growing seedlings into larger plants.

Similar to teachers’ responses in the current study, the researchers have noted that

university students most often cited the combination of carbon dioxide, sunlight,

and water as sources for a plant’s weight. In a study of university students in a non-

majors biology laboratory, Kuech et al. (2003) found that after completing an

investigation with Brassica, most students thought plants absorbed food from soil or

from water, since the students provided these resources to the plants on a regular

basis throughout the investigation. Other studies have reported similar alternative

conceptions held by K-12 students (Simpson and Arnold 1982; Barrass 1984),

preservice elementary teachers (Cakiroglu and Boone 2002), and university students

(Ozay and Oztas 2003).

In their study of 33 eighth and ninth grade students, Stavey et al. (1987) found

that 83.3% of the eighth graders and 40% of the ninth graders knew plants absorbed

carbon dioxide from the air and over half of all the students identified carbon

dioxide as one of the gases included in photosynthesis and respiration of plants.

However, many of the students (60%) viewed photosynthesis as a form of

respiration. That is, a process of inhaling and exhaling air similar to gas exchange in

animals. Furthermore, they held the notion that plants inhaled carbon dioxide and

exhaled oxygen during the day and reversed this processes at night during

respiration. The students did not associate carbon dioxide with the development of

biomass in plants. In fact, few students could identify plants as producers and even

fewer (33%) could explain what plants produced.

Findings from the current study suggest the teachers understood that plants

develop biomass from resources absorbed from the environment. Additional


Task 3: Considering an old tree with an enormous trunk, the substance the tree used in the largestquantities to develop the large trunk was

A. Carbon dioxide gas

B. Nutrients from the soil

C. Packets of sunlight

D. All of the above


A B C D

High 2 11 3 9 0 25

Medium 1 10 1 14 0 26

Low 1 8 1 15 0 25

Total 4 29 5 38 0 76

Percent 5.3 38.1 6.6 50 0 100


123

research is needed to determine teachers’ conceptions of how plants use resources to

develop biomass. It is unclear from the current findings what role they thought

photosynthesis played in the development of biomass in plants. Also unclear is

whether they considered all listed resources (carbon dioxide, nutrients from the soil,

and sunlight) were used in equal quantities to make up the tree trunk, or if they

thought these resources performed different roles in developing biomass for the tree.

The fourth task assessed teachers’ understanding of the notion that, like animals,

plants consume oxygen during respiration. Table 4 presents the task and a summary

of the results. A nighttime environment was purposefully selected in order to limit

plant metabolism to respiration in the absence of photosynthesis, making the process

of gas consumption and production less complicated.

The data indicate 25% of the teachers chose the correct response that plants

consume oxygen during respiration at night (option C). Option B was the most

popular distracter selected by nearly half of the teachers sampled (49%). Although

more gases dissolve in colder water, any difference in the amounts of carbon

dioxide and oxygen absorbed would not account for the sharp increase in carbon

dioxide noted in this task. Selection of this option might be due to experiences

teachers have had when a soda pop is left out to warm to room temperature. As it

warms it goes flat, losing its tangy carbon dioxide bubbles. Teachers in the high

subgroup were essentially divided in their responses between option B and C, while

teachers in the middle and low subgroups found option B the most favorable choice.

These findings are discouraging since studies investigating elementary and

middle school students’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration have found

that students develop the incorrect idea of inverse photosynthesis (Canal 1999), or

the erroneous notion that plants only carry out photosynthesis and animals respire

(Canal and Garcia 1987; Simpson and Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983). Canal (1999)

has documented the development of inverse photosynthesis through the elementary

grades and the subsequent development in the middle school grades and beyond of


Task 4: At night the oxygen level in a pond filled with water plants and a few fish can drop sharply and

the carbon dioxide levels can rise sharply because

A. Fish use much more oxygen at night and give off much more carbon dioxide

B. As the water cools at night more carbon dioxide can dissolve in water than oxygen

C. The green plants are using oxygen at night and releasing carbon dioxide

D. Carbon dioxide is much more stable in the dark and oxygen is much more stable in the light


A B C D

High 3 10 9 3 0 25

Medium 2 16 5 3 0 26

Low 4 11 5 5 0 25

Total 9 37 19 11 0 76

Percent 12 49 25 14 0 100


123

the alternative conception that plants respire only in the absence of light (Amir and

Tamir 1994; Barrass 1984; Eisen and Stavy 1988; Ozay and Oztas 2003).

Responses from the current study suggest few of the teachers demonstrated an

understanding that plants even respire in the absence of light. It would be expected

that even fewer of the teachers would understand that plants respire 24-hours a day

both in the presence and absence of light. Curiously, the teachers preferred a

physical explanation of the change in carbon dioxide content in the water, based on

an altered rate of gas solubility with the decrease in temperature, instead of a

biological explanation.

Outcomes from these four tasks reveal serious conceptual difficulties the teachers

had with foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration. Many responses

suggest that, like many of the students they teach, they hold inaccurate notions

about seed germination. Furthermore, many teachers did not understand how plants

use resources from the environment to produce biomass, nor that plants consume

oxygen during respiration. Summarizing the results across the four tasks, only 108

correct responses (35.5%) of a possible 304 were selected. In comparison, only 18

correct responses (18%) were selected in the low performing subgroup of a possible

100. Clearly the majority of teachers in the sample did not hold scientifically

accepted conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration.

Conclusions and Implications

The germination of seeds is commonly observed in elementary and middle school

classrooms to serve as an activity for experimentation. Outcomes from Tasks 1 and

2 reveal that far too few teachers sampled held an accurate understanding of the

basic nutrient needs for seeds to germinate. Findings also suggest that a majority of

the teachers in the sample did not have an accurate understanding of the

foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration outlined in the NSES (NRC

1996) and Benchmarks (AAAS 1993) for grades 5–8. In too many cases, teachers in

the current study demonstrated alternative conceptions that have been shown to be

held by elementary and middle school students. Thus, this study adds to the growing

body of research on teachers’ understanding of standards-based science concepts,

suggesting that far too often elementary and middle school teachers have not been

prepared adequately to teach science (Appleton 1995; Harlen 1997; Harlen and

Halroyd 1997; Smith 1997; Stevens and Wenner 1996; Tilgner 1990; Watters and

Ginn 1997; Atwood et al. 2006). With such limited conceptual understanding, it is

unreasonable to expect the teachers sampled to help their students construct an

accurate scientific understanding of these standards-based concepts.

For example, NSES (NRC 1996) and Benchmarks (AAAS 1993) state that

elementary and middle school children are expected to understand that plants utilize

sunlight to transform inorganic materials from the ecosystem into useable organic

products for plants and other organisms through the process of photosynthesis.

Students are also expected to understand that plants transform light energy from

sunlight into chemical energy contained in the carbohydrates they produce. Previous

research studies have shown that many elementary students develop the alternative


123

understanding of inverse photosynthesis (Canal 1999), the dichotomous notion that

plants carry out photosynthesis but do not respire, and animals carry out respiration.

These studies have shown that students do not understand the role photosynthesis

plays in energy flow in an ecosystem. More specifically, students do not understand

how, through the process of photosynthesis, plants manufacture food they and other

organisms in the ecosystem consume, nor that plants respire as they utilize some of

the carbohydrates they produce. While middle school students begin to develop an

awareness of respiration in plants in the absence of light, they tend to consider

photosynthesis and respiration as two comparable forms of ‘breathing’ or gas

exchange processes in plants (Simpson and Arnold 1982; Canal and Garcia 1987;

Stavey et al. 1987; Wandersee 1983). It is disturbing that far too few teachers in the

current study demonstrated knowledge of respiration in plants even in the absence

of light.

As noted earlier, the 2005 NAEP results (Grigg et al. 2006) indicate that only

29% of elementary and middle school students demonstrated a proficient level of

understanding in science. Furthermore, a comparison of 1996 and 2005 NAEP

results indicates a negative change in middle school students’ proficiency levels in

physical science—a troublesome finding in the midst of science reform efforts over

the past decade. As global competition increases in science and technology, the U.S.

requires a scientifically literate workforce. The continued poor student performance

in science demonstrated by NAEP results over the past decade suggests more must

be done to improve scientific literacy of K-12 students.

The first step toward this goal is the adequate preparation of preservice and

inservice elementary and middle school science teachers. These teachers must have

a sound conceptual understanding of standards-based concepts they are expected to

teach in order to promote conceptual understanding among their students (Darling-

Hammond 2000; Sanders and Rivers 1996; Wright et al. 1997). Findings from the

current study have identified fundamental alternative conceptions elementary and

middle school teachers in the Central Appalachian region hold about standards-

based life science concepts. Unfortunately, the forced-choice format used in this

study likely results in false positives (Atwood et al. 2002; Griffard and Wandersee

2001) suggesting the conceptual understanding of teachers in the sample may well

be lower than the results indicate. In addition, low K-12 student proficiency in

science reported in findings of the 2005 NAEP (Grigg et al. 2006) support the

likelihood that elementary and middle school teachers in other parts of the nation

share similar alternative understandings with the teachers sampled in the current

study. Research investigating this possibility is suggested, and the researchers from

the current study would be interested in working with others to that end.

Data from the current study were used to inform the development of subsequent

summer life science institutes for teachers in the central Appalachian region. More

specifically, summer institutes developed for elementary and middle school teachers

placed greater emphasis on energy flow through an ecosystem, heredity and natural

selection, and experimental design. Findings from the current study also influenced

the activities selected for the energy flow segment of the institutes. Investigations

were selected to provide teachers with inquiry-based opportunities to investigate the

nutrient needs for germinating seeds and for growing plants. Further, study


123

outcomes informed the instructional sequence developed for investigating how

plants affect the concentration of carbon dioxide in water in both dark and light

environments. Additionally, the data were used to inform the development of a

biology course for preservice elementary teachers from the region that will be field

tested by AMSP partners during the fall semester 2007.

The authors of the current study acknowledge the need for in-depth interviews to

complement the present study, particularly to clarify inservice elementary and

middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Interviews,

admittedly very difficult to arrange, would provide more complete descriptions of

teachers’ conceptual frameworks for these important topics.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). In-depth analysis of misconceptions as a basis for developing research-

based remedial instruction: The case of photosynthesis. American Biology Teacher, 56, 94–100.

Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Normal, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual

inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952–978.

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York, NY: Longman.

Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary

to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357–369.

Atwood, R., Christopher, J., & McNall, R. L. (2006, January). Elementary and middle school teachersunderstanding of selected light concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association

of Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.

Atwood, R., Christopher, J., & Trundle, K. (2002, January). Standards-based light concepts for middleschool science: Are teachers adequately prepared? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.

Barrass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings perpetuated by teachers and textbooks

of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18, 201–206.

Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their

conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(1),

1–14.

Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ‘‘Inverse respiration’’ in plants: An inevitable misconception?

International Journal of Science Education, 21, 363–371.

Canal, P., & Garcia, S. (1987). La nutricion vegetal un ano desues: un estudio de caso en septimo de

EGB. (Plant nutrition one year later: A case study in seventh grade primary education).

Investigacion en la Escuela, 3, 55–60.

Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17, 31.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy

evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v8(n1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Retrieved 28

January 2007.

Desimone, L., Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A., & Yoon, K. S. (2003). Improving teachers’ in-

service professional development in mathematics and science: The role of postsecondary

institutions. Educational Policy, 17, 613–649.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes,

England: Open University Press.

Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1988). Students’ understanding of photosynthesis. American Biology Teacher, 50,

208–212.

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.

Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465–498.


123

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers’ perceptions of subject matter structure

and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 301–325.

Glenn, J. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission onMathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: US Department of

Education. http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf. Retrieved 2 August 2005.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher

certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2),

129–145.

Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it

diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1039–1052.

Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006-466). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Researchin Science Education, 27, 323–337.

Harlen, W., & Halroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understandings of concepts of science: Impact on

confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105.

Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children’s models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 116–122.

Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a ‘‘basic’’ particle theory: A longitudinal

study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 393–412.

Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1982). What research says about student–student interaction in science

classrooms. In M. Rowe (Ed.), Education in the 80’s: Science. Washington, DC: National Science

Teachers Association.

Kuech, R., Zogg, G., Zeeman, S., & Johnson, M. (2003). Technology rich biology labs: Effects ofmisconceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

Mak, S. Y., Yip, D. Y., & Chung, C. M. (1999). Alternative conceptions in biology-related topics of

integrated science teachers and implications for teacher education. Journal of Science Educationand Technology, 8, 161–170.

McDermott, L. C. (1991). Milikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned: Closing the gap.

American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.

McDermott, L., Heron, P., Shaffer, P., & Stetzer, M. (2006). Improving the preparation of K-12 teachers

through physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 74, 763–767.

Munson, B. H. (1991). Relationships between an individual’s conceptual ecology and the individual’sconceptions of ecology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 30–34.

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

Academy Press.

Nott, M., & Wellinton, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it

and where should we be looking? In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in scienceeducation in Europe (pp. 283–295). London: Falmer Press.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. London: Heinemann.

Ozay, E., & Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition.

Journal of Biological Education, 37, 68–70.

Perkes, V. A. (1967). Junior high school science teacher preparation, teaching behavior, and student

achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 121–126

Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Science subject knowledge of pre-service postgraduate science teachers. Paper

presented at annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston,

MA.

Rice, D. C. (2005). I didn’t know oxygen could boil! What preservice and inservice elementary teachers’

answers to ‘‘simple’’ science questions reveals about their subject matter knowledge. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 27(9), 1059–1082.

Russell, T., & Watt, D. (1990, March). Growth. Primary SPACE project research report. Paper presented

at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future studentacademic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment

Center.


123

http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4–14.

Simpson, M., & Arnold, B. (1982). The inappropriate use of subsumers in biology learning. EuropeanJournal of Science Education, 4, 173–183.

Smith, R. G. (1997). ‘Before teaching this I’d do a lot of reading’: Preparing primary student teachers to

teach science. Research in Science Education, 27, 141–154.

Stavey, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13–15 understand photosynthesis.

International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 105–115.

Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding

science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 2–9.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421–431.

Tretter, T. R., Moore, B. D., Brown, S. L., Saderholm, J. C., Kemp, A. C., & Bush, W. S. (2005, January).

Structure and characteristics of physical science assessments designed for middle school teachers.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science,

Colorado Springs.

Wandersee, J. H. (1983). Students’ misconceptions about photosynthesis: A cross-age study. In H. Helm

& J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international seminar ‘‘Misconceptions in science andmathematics’’ (pp. 441–466). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University (ED242553).

Wandersee, H. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, D. J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science.

In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New

York: Macmillan.

Watters, J. J., & Ginn, I. S. (1997). Impact of course and program design features on the preparation ofpreservice elementary science teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 411158).

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student

achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,11(1), 57–67.


123

Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers’.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers’.pdf