Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle …...Requirements for middle-level teacher licensure...

Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 1

Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science:

Which Teachers Are Best Prepared?

Tammy Kolbe University of Vermont

Simon Jorgensen

University of Vermont

Please direct inquiries to corresponding author: Tammy Kolbe; [email protected]


Abstract

Science teachers are increasingly expected to incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in

their teaching. However, it is unclear whether teachers have the knowledge and skills to engage in

reform-oriented science instruction. In this study we draw upon data from the 2011 NAEP to

examine how 8th grade science teachers’ educational backgrounds impacted instructional practice.

We focus on aspects of teachers’ educational backgrounds that are most frequently used by teacher

education programs and state licensing agencies as proxies for teachers’ content knowledge and

professional preparation to teach. We find that teachers’ educational backgrounds – especially in

science and engineering disciplines and science education - translate into meaningful differences in

instructional practice. Furthermore, initial differences in content-related preparation do not decay

over time with additional teaching experience. Findings suggest that teachers’ educational

backgrounds are relevant considerations as efforts move forward to expand the use of inquiry-based

science instruction in middle-level classrooms.


Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science:

Which Teachers Are Best Prepared?

Teachers are increasingly expected to incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in

their science teaching. This approach emphasizes learning science concepts through sustained real-

world projects and deemphasizes fact memorization, recall, and prescriptive experimentation that

has been the historical norm for science education in the United States (National Research Council,

Council, 2000; Duschl, Schweinggruber, & Shouse, 2007; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). The

emphasis on inquiry-based instruction is evident in standards and frameworks guiding current K-12

science education reforms, including the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the

Framework for K-12 Science Education, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress’

(NAEP) science assessments (National Assessment Governing Board, 2008; National Research

Council, 2012; National Research Council, 2015). All call upon teachers to ground their instructional

practice in scientific investigation and inquiry.

As efforts to reform science instruction press forward, a key consideration will be how to

best prepare and license teachers capable of the types of instructional practices advocated by current

policies and reform efforts. Inquiry-based science instruction requires science teachers to have a

sufficient understanding of the content taught, a working knowledge of how scientific inquiry is

done in practice, and the instructional skills to develop and facilitate effective inquiry-based lessons

(Barron et al., 1998; Geier et al., 2008). While the idea that effective science teachers need both

content knowledge and instructional skills is not new, far less is known about how teachers’

educational backgrounds shape their capacity to incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in

their science teaching (Wilson, Floden, Ferrini-Mundy, 2001).


In this study, we examine whether and in what ways teachers’ educational backgrounds

impact eighth grade science teachers’ use of inquiry-based instructional practices in their teaching.

Science instruction in the middle grades plays a critical role in generating interest in and preparing

students for secondary-level science coursework (Chaney, 1995; Kanter & Konstantopoulos, 2010).

However, low levels of middle level student engagement and achievement in science have raised

questions about the aspects of middle-level teachers’ educational backgrounds and training that are

most likely to produce teachers who use inquiry-based instruction in their classroom (National

Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2015). Using data from the 2011 NAEP Grade 8 Science

Assessment’s Teacher Survey, we examine the relationship between teachers’ degrees and

coursework and the extent to which they engage in inquiry-based science instruction. Degrees and

coursework are frequently used by teacher education programs and state licensing agencies as

proxies for teachers’ content knowledge in science and professional preparation to teach science.

Background

Inquiry-based Science Instruction

Inquiry-based science instruction is grounded in the notion that “science is not just a body

of knowledge that reflects current understanding of the world; it is also a set of practices used to

establish, extend, and refine that knowledge. Both elements – knowledge and practice – are

essential” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 26). In doing so, inquiry-based science instruction

encourages students to develop scientific knowledge by experiencing the authentic practices of

science (National Research Council, 1996); that is, students learn science by doing science (Cuevas et

al., 2005; Krajcik et al., 2008). Inquiry classrooms are places where students “pursue solutions to

nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing

plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, communicating their

ideas and findings to others, asking new questions, and creating artifacts” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).


An inquiry-orientation to teaching science shifts instructional practice from an emphasis on

students’ abilities to recall discrete scientific facts and formulas and record information to

developing scientific literacy that is grounded in an understanding of and experience with how

scientists build, evaluate, and apply scientific knowledge (Fensham & Harlen, 1999; Krajcik, McNeill,

& Reiser, 2008; Oliveira et al., 2013; Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000). Compared to direct

instructional approaches, inquiry-based science instruction relies far less on strategies that require

students to acquire scientific facts passively through textbooks, teacher lectures, class drills, and

prescribed activities (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008; Sandoval & Reiser,

2004). Instead, the teacher’s role shifts from transmitting knowledge to a content and procedural

expert who facilitates learning through the process of scientific inquiry, frequently guided by student

questions and interests (Anderson, 2002).

Research suggests that science instruction grounded in inquiry promotes a deeper

understanding of science and engineering concepts and 21st century attitudes and skills for scientific

investigation and problem solving (Cuevas et al., 2005). Inquiry-based teaching can lead to

achievement test gains (Johnson, 2009; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Oliveira et al., 2013;

Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002; Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski, & Carlson, 2010), particularly

for historically underserved students (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Geier et al., 2008; Kahle, Meece, &

Scantlebury, 2000; Kanter & Konstantopoulos, 2010; Krajcik et al., 2008; Schneider et al., 2002). It

also has been shown to generate positive attitudes toward science (Kanter, 2010; Oliveira et al.,

2013), increased interest in scientific careers (Gibson & Chase, 2002), and higher levels of

engagement and motivation (Lynch et al., 2005; Oliveira et al., 2013). Research further suggests that

young adolescents are best engaged in learning science through meaningful, hands-on activities that

involve peer collaboration with active, meaningful experiences (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001; Needles &

Knapp, 1994; Faulkner & Cook, 2006).


NGSS is the most recent effort to instigate a shift in how teachers teach science. Intended to

reframe K-12 science education, NGSS focuses on teaching students cross-cutting scientific

concepts, the scientific process, and the ability to critically develop and test ideas in ways that mirror

how STEM professionals do their work. NGSS builds on nearly two decades of efforts by the

National Research Council (NRC) to promote an inquiry-orientation to science instruction. Starting

with the NRC’s Framework for K-12 Science Education (1996) ) and, more recently, the NRC’s seminal

education research and practitioner reports, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in

Grades K-8 (2007) and Ready, Set, Science? Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms (2007),

science and educational professionals articulated a new instructional framework focused on scientific

inquiry as the foundation for science instruction. More recently, the NAEP underwent substantial

revisions to emphasize students’ conceptual understanding and their ability to use scientific inquiry.

As the flagship national assessment, the NAEP sets the bar for science education in grades 4, 8, and

12.

Despite widespread encouragement for teachers to adopt an inquiry-oriented approach to

science instruction, implementation in classrooms has fallen short of expectations (Roehrig, Kruse,

& Kern, 2006). Professional associations, science education experts, and others have questioned

whether teachers have the requisite content and pedagogical expertise to effectively incorporate

inquiry based instructional practices in their science teaching (Banilower et al., 2013; Council, 2000;

Education, 2009; National Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2015; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Surveys

with teachers suggest that many feel unprepared to engage in reform-oriented science teaching

(Nollmeyer & Bangert, 2015; Trygstad, Smith, Banilower, & Nelson, 2013). Teacher licensure and

preparation standards also have been criticized for their poor alignment with what science teachers

need to know and be able to do (Quality, 2010).


Moving forward, ensuring that teachers have sufficient content knowledge and pedagogical

skills to incorporate inquiry-oriented instructional practices will continue to be a pressing issue

facing state policymakers and teacher preparation programs. This is particularly the case at the

middle grades where teacher licensure and preparation has been characterized as a “hodgepodge” of

requirements, lacking uniformity or consensus in the field about what credentials contribute to

effective middle level teaching (Curran Neild, Nash Farley-Ripple, & Byrnes, 2009).

Middle-level Teacher Preparation & Licensure

There is a long history of uncertainty and disagreement about how to best prepare middle-

level teachers (grades 6-8) (Curran Neild et al., 2009; Hechinger, 1993; Preston, 2016). To some

extent, this circumstance reflects ongoing debates in the field about the nature of early adolescent

education and the middle-level curriculum, as well as changing notions about how schools and

classrooms should be configured for students in grades 5-9 (McEwin, Dickinson, & Smith, 2004).

As a result, nationwide, teacher preparation programs and state certification requirements articulate

different expectations for the amounts and types of science- and education-related coursework and

degrees middle-level science teachers should have.

Over time, a particular point of contention has been whether middle level curricula should

be subject-based, akin to the secondary education model, or whether it should be integrated and

taught by interdisciplinary teams of teachers. This tension is apparent in recent policies and

frameworks guiding middle-level teacher preparation and licensure. For instance, federal and state

policy initiatives now require middle-level teachers to demonstrate subject matter competence

through advanced degrees or subject-matter competency tests, such as a state-licensure or PRAXIS

II examinations. At the same time, Association for Middle Level Education/Council for the

Accreditation of Educator Preparation (AMLE/CAEP) accreditation standards for preparing middle

level teachers stress the importance of “broad and integrative” subject matter knowledge and


teachers’ capacity to make interdisciplinary connections in teaching ("AMLE," n.d.). In science, the

National Science Teachers Association’s (NSTA) Preservice Science Standards also stress the

importance of teachers’ knowledge and practices in contemporary science, as well as content

pedagogy to help students learn and develop scientific knowledge (NSTA, 2012). However,

AMLE/CAEP and NSTA standards allow teacher preparation programs to identify institutional-

specific coursework and learning experiences as evidence that teachers meet competency

requirements, contributing to differences in teachers’ educational background in science and

content-related pedagogy.

Requirements for middle-level teacher licensure or certification also differ among states

(Howell, Faulkner, Cook, Miller, & Thompson, 2016). Although most include some form of

professional training or degree in education, subject matter competency, and practice teaching, the

specific academic qualifications differ across states. For instance, depending on the state, a teacher

might demonstrate subject-matter competency through a graduate or undergraduate major or minor

in a related field, coursework, or by passing a state or national test of subject matter knowledge.

Additionally, most states offer elementary- and secondary-level certifications, with some also

offering auxiliary teaching endorsements that correspond with the middle grades (AMLE, 2014;

Howell et al., 2016).i States’ practices of overlapping credentials has led to middle level teachers

entering the profession with very different orientations to instruction and subject-matter preparation

(Gaskill, 2002; McEwin & Greene, 2011). For instance, middle level teachers with elementary-level

certification typically are prepared as generalists, with broad-based content knowledge across core

subject areas and training in educating young children, whereas middle-level teaches with secondary-

level certification customarily are prepared to teach specific academic subjects with pedagogical

training specific to content areas.


The net result has been substantial differences in middle-level science teacher qualifications.

The National Science Board reported that during the 2007-08 school year nearly one-quarter of

science teachers were teaching with general education backgrounds, without a content-related degree

or other credential in science, while just about half of middle level held a secondary level

certification to teach science (National Science Board, 2012). In a separate study, the U.S.

Department of Education found that about 45% of middle-level science teachers had an academic

major in a science-related field, but only about one-third had an academic major and state

certification in science (Baldi, Warner-Griffin, Tadler, & Owens, 2015). Such differences in teacher

qualifications among middle-level science teachers raise questions about whether such variation in

middle level teachers’ educational background translate into meaningful differences in how teachers

go about teaching science. In the following section, we summarize what is known about the

relationship between science teacher qualifications, instructional practice, and student achievement.

Teacher Qualifications & Science Instruction

Inquiry-oriented instruction requires teachers to possess a level of content knowledge and

instructional skill sufficient to help students learn and apply scientific knowledge (Blumenfeld et al.,

1991; Geier et al., 2008; Krajcik et al., 2008; Mervis, 2013). Teachers need to understand the

concepts, theories, laws, principles, history, and explanatory frameworks that organize and connect

major ideas in science, as well as frameworks for thinking about laboratory work, that extends

beyond a set of prescribed exercises for students that happen in a place and time separate from the

rest of science teaching (Windschitl, 2004). They also need general content-specific pedagogical

knowledge that provide them with the skills for teaching and classroom management as well as how

to help students understand the subject matter and engage in scientific practice (Clough, Smasal, &

Clough, 2000) (Windschitl, 2004).


Research indicates that science teachers who have received formal training in both content

and instruction are more effective in the classroom. Teachers with degrees and coursework in

science have been linked with higher levels of student achievement in secondary-level science

(Druva & Anerson, 1983; Monk, 1994), with more prior coursework and higher degree attainment

leading to progressively higher levels of student achievement (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1998; Monk &

King, 1994). Middle grades teachers with secondary level certifications in science (inclusive of grades

6-12) had higher levels of student achievement compared to students who had teachers that were

not certified in science or who held an elementary certification (Curran Neild et al., 2009). Teachers

with limited content knowledge in science also are more likely to emphasize fact memorization and

algorithms; rely on textbooks for building student knowledge and understanding and as a guide for

planning lessons; and use lower-level questioning and rule-constrained activities, limiting classroom

discourse in ways that constrain students’ abilities to develop conceptual connections (Windschitl,

2004).

In addition, subject-specific methods courses have been show to contribute to increased

levels of student achievement in mathematics, science, and literacy across grade levels (D. J. Boyd,

Grossman, Lankford, & Loeb, 2009; Monk, 1994). Students whose teachers majored in science or

science education – with presumably more training in how to develop laboratory skills and engage

students in hands on learning – performed better on the NAEP science assessment than their peers

taught by teachers without backgrounds in science or science education (Wenglinsky, 2000).

Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) also suggest that what certified teachers learn about teaching through

education-related degrees and coursework adds to their effectiveness attributable to strong subject-

matter backgrounds.

The relative contributions of subject matter expertise and pedagogical skills to student

learning have been a recurrent theme in teacher preparation discourse. Darling-Hammond (2000)


concluded that subject matter knowledge contributes to good teaching up to a certain point, beyond

which it does not seem to have an impact. Other studies examining secondary science educators’

effectiveness also reached the conclusion that subject knowledge is a necessary, but insufficient

condition, for student learning, with teachers’ professional preparation sometimes having more

influence than additional preparation in content (Monk, 1994; Monk & King, 1994).

While evidence points toward meaningful links between teachers’ preparation and their

effectiveness, few studies have investigated the relationship between science teachers’ educational

backgrounds and their use of inquiry-based instructional practices. In their national study of nearly

3,500 K-6 teachers, Supovitz and Turner (2000) found that teachers’ perceptions of their content

preparation in science was the strongest predictor for the extent to which they incorporated inquiry-

based teaching practices and established an investigative culture in their classrooms. However, other

studies found little-to-no relationship between content preparation and inquiry-based instruction

(Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Hayes & Trexler, 2016; Marshall, Horton, Igo, & Switzer, 2009).

Smith and colleagues (2007) used data from previous iterations of the NAEP to examine

relationships between teacher qualifications and teachers’ use of inquiry-based teaching in science

and mathematics. Using data from the 2000 NAEP, Smith et al. (2007) found that eighth grade

science teachers’ use of reform-oriented teaching practices were linked to their educational

backgrounds. Teachers with graduate-level majors in science were more likely to incorporate hands-

on learning activities, conceptual activities, and reporting and writing about science in their lessons.

Similarly, teachers with undergraduate majors in science and those with a science education major or

minor also were considerably more likely to incorporate hands on activities in their science teaching.

They found no association between teachers’ education-related degrees, including science education,

and their use of instructional practices aligned with inquiry-based science teaching. In similar work

using the NAEP, Smith et al. (2005) found that eighth grade mathematics teachers with academic


majors or minors in mathematics were more likely to emphasize conceptual learning goals, rather

than procedural strategies, and that certification in mathematics was not, in and of itself, associated

with reform-oriented instruction.

Teachers also may gain knowledge and skills through experience in the classroom that

offsets initial differences in instructional practice attributable to differences in educational

backgrounds. However, the effects of science teaching experience on teachers’ implementation of

inquiry-based instruction also is both limited and inconclusive. In a mixed-methods study of 26

highly-qualified teachers in grades 5-9, Capps and Crawford (2013) identified just four teachers who

demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry, all of whom had taught science for a minimum

of 10 years and had taken seven or more university science courses. Smith et al. (2005) found that

inexperienced middle school mathematics teachers were more likely to use procedural teaching

strategies, rather than conceptually-based instructional practices, and that patterns for teaching

experience were not linear over time. By contrast, Hayes and Trexler (2016) found that teachers’ use

of inquiry-based instruction varied not according to science teaching experience but to school-based

accountability pressures. Similarly, in a survey-based study of 1,222 K-12 mathematics and science

teachers, Marshall et al. (2009) found no correlation between years of teaching experience and the

percentage of time a science teacher devoted to inquiry during a typical lesson.

Altogether, there is very little research that explicitly examines the relationship between

middle-level science teachers’ educational backgrounds – both in science content and pedagogy –

and their use of inquiry-based instructional practices in their teaching (Wilson et al., 2001).

Moreover, it is unclear whether initial differences in teachers’ educational backgrounds might be

mitigated with additional teaching experience. These limitations pose a considerable challenge for

policymakers responsible for teacher licensure and teacher education programs as they move

forward with efforts to expand the use of inquiry-based science instruction.


Study Overview

Existing education policies and practices reflect a widely-held belief that teachers with higher

levels of educational attainment, content knowledge, pedagogical training, and teaching experience

are more effective teachers (Rice, 2003). However, as noted above, existing research has been

inconclusive regarding how teachers’ educational backgrounds and experience impact student

learning, particularly in the middle grades and science education. One possible explanation for the

inconsistency in the links between qualifications and student outcomes is the role instructional

practice plays in mediating the relationship between teachers’ qualifications and student achievement

(see Figure 1). That is, teacher qualifications in and of themselves do not influence student learning,

but rather they influence how and what teachers teach. Comparatively little attention, however, has

been paid to how teachers’ educational backgrounds impact instructional practice.

This study investigates the relationship between eighth grade science teachers’ educational

backgrounds and the extent to which they incorporated inquiry-based instructional practices in their

teaching. Specifically, we ask: Do middle-level science teachers with different educational

backgrounds use inquiry-based instructional practices to greater or lesser extents?

We also consider whether the relationship between teachers’ educational backgrounds and

their use of inquiry-based instruction changes over time as teachers gained more teaching

experience. Especially early in their careers, teachers gain knowledge and skills on the job that

influence how they teach. Teachers also participate in ongoing professional development intended to

affect practice. These factors may make initial differences in instructional practice due to teacher

preparation less important over time (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013; Rice, 2010). That is,

teachers are more likely to display measurable and relevant preparation differences early in their

careers, but subsequently continue to develop their instructional practices with additional years of

teaching experience. As such, differences in instructional practice attributable to teachers’


educational backgrounds could be mitigated over time with teaching experience. Therefore, we also

examined: To what extent does teacher experience affect the strength of the relationships between

teachers’ educational backgrounds and their use of inquiry-based instructional strategies?

To answer these questions, we used data from a large national sample of eighth grade science

teachers who participated in the 2011 NAEP Grade 8 Science Assessment. In our analysis, we

focused on two aspects of teachers’ educational backgrounds: 1) degrees, majors, and course taking

in science- and engineering-related fields; and 2) education-related degrees and course taking

patterns. These aspects of teachers’ educational backgrounds are most frequently used by teacher

education programs and state licensing agencies as teaching prerequisites.

Data & Methods

Data

The 2011 NAEP Grade 8 Science Assessment included a survey with teachers whose

students participated in the assessment. This survey collects information about teachers’

qualifications, including their educational backgrounds and experience, and measures intended to

gauge the extent to which teachers incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in their teaching

(NAGB, 2008). While other national surveys include teacher samples (e.g., Schools and Staffing

Survey), the NAEP is the only survey that includes information about how teachers teach science

and their qualifications.

NAEP restricted use data for the eighth-grade science assessment are organized as student-

and school-level data files, with teacher questionnaire responses appended to student-level

observations. To create a teacher-level data file we collapsed teacher-level responses so that one

observation per teacher remained. Although the NAEP sample was designed to provide nationally

representative estimates of students, its national coverage coupled with the relatively large number

of teacher responses supports estimates that could be expected to represent the characteristics of


eighth grade teacher population (Smith et al., 2005; T. M. Smith et al., 2007). We restricted our

analysis to include teachers in non-charter public schools and excluded teachers who entered the

field through alternative routes to certification. We appended school information from the NAEP

school-level data file to each teacher-level observation. The resulting analytic sample included 9,500

teachers in 1,260 public schools.

Measures

Measures used in our analysis fell into four broad categories: 1) a composite measure that

described the extent to which teachers incorporated of inquiry-based instructional practices; 2)

teachers’ degrees and coursework in science disciplines and education-related fields; 3) teacher

experience; and 4) teacher- and school-level controls (Table 1).

Inquiry-based science instruction. Inquiry teaching has been characterized in terms of

how teachers go about engaging students and the types of learning activities in which students participate

(Anderson, 2002). The dual focus on the characteristics of teaching and activities in which students

participate is embodied in the National Research Council’s (NRC) list of essential practices for

inquiry-based classrooms: 1) asking scientific questions and defining problems; 2) developing and

using models; 3) planning and carrying out investigations; 4) analyzing and interpreting data; 5) using

mathematics and computational thinking; 6) constructing scientific explanations and designing

solutions; 7) engaging in arguments based on science; and 8) obtaining, evaluating and

communicating information (National Research Council, 2012).

Acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of inquiry-based science instruction, we developed

a composite measure to describe teachers’ instructional practice. To do so, we built upon an earlier

composite measure developed by Smith et al. (2007) using the 2000 NAEP eighth grade science

teacher questionnaire. Specifically, the authors developed a measure of science teachers’ instructional

practice that described four dimensions of teachers’ instructional practice: 1) how frequently


teachers used procedural activities; 2) reporting and writing activities; 3) use of hands-on activities in

class; and 4) teachers’ emphasis on conceptual knowledge.

Our composite measure incorporated 18 items, including both carry-over items from Smith

et al.’s (2007) measure as well as several new questions that asked teachers about how and to what

extent they integrated scientific problem solving in their teaching (Appendix A).ii Given the ordinal

structure of the response variables, we used principal components analysis with polychoric

correlations to group items into subscales corresponding to different dimensions of inquiry teaching.

Varimax rotation was used to differentiate variables by extracted factors so that each variable was

identified with a single factor.

Selected items loaded onto four components, each with eigenvalues greater than one.

Altogether, the resulting components explained 65.3% of the variance across the items (Appendix

A). Three of the four components were consistent with the constructs included in Smith et al.’s

(2007) measure: 1) emphasis on conceptual objectives; 2) use of hands-on activities; 3) reporting and

writing activities. The conceptual emphasis component was comprised of eight items (α =.83) that

describe different aspects of what students were taught and how teachers went about teaching these

concepts. The hands on activities component was comprised of four items that describe the extent to

which teachers employed methods that involved student activities related to doing science (α =.79).

The third component, reporting and writing activities, included three items that capture the extent to

which teachers emphasized scientific and report writing in their assessments and classroom activities

(α =.62). We were unable to replicate Smith et al.’s fourth factor – teachers’ use of procedural

activities. Instead, we identified a new fourth dimension: scientific problem solving (α =.76). This new

factor included items added to the 2011 NAEP questionnaire that describe the extent to which

teachers asked students to engage in scientific problem solving, identify questions for investigation,

and discuss problems that scientists and engineers are asked to solve (α=.76).


We combined the four components into a single scale based on the unweighted average of

the four separate factors (α=.89). To facilitate interpretation, the composite measure was

standardized to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. A key strength of the resulting

composite measure is that it includes multiple aspects of teacher practice that are conceptually

aligned with how inquiry-oriented instruction has come to be defined and understood. This

multidimensional measure equips us to identify teachers who have integrated inquiry-oriented

science instructional practices in their teaching to greater and lesser extents.

Teacher degrees in science disciplines and education. Teachers reported whether they

had a degree in a science-related discipline, including biology or other life sciences, earth or space

science, physics, chemistry, physical science, or engineering. We created indicator variables that

classified teachers according to the highest degree held in a science-related discipline: 1) graduate

degree; 2) undergraduate major; 3) undergraduate minor; and 4) no degree. We viewed teachers with

graduate degrees as having the strongest preparation in science content, undergraduate majors and

minors the next strongest potential, and those without a degree in a science discipline with the

weakest preparation. Teachers need not have received a degree to have completed advanced

coursework in science or engineering. To examine differences among teachers in their course taking,

we constructed indicators to describe the number of advanced science courses a teacher has

completed (i.e., no courses, 1-2 courses, 3-4 courses, 5 or more courses).

Similarly, we constructed measures that classified teachers according to their highest

professional degree: 1) graduate degree; 2) undergraduate degree; 3) undergraduate minor; and 4) no

education-related degree. We also constructed an indicator for whether a teacher’s education-related

degree was specific to science education. As was the case with advanced coursework in science, we

constructed indicators for the number of education-related coursework a teacher completed (i.e., no

courses, 1-2 courses, 3-4 courses, 5 or more courses).


Slightly more than half (58%) of teachers in our sample had science content and education-

related degrees. To understand the extent to which teachers with both types of preparation used

inquiry-based instruction, we constructed eight indicators that captured overlaps in teacher

qualifications: 1) no science- or education-related degree; 2) any education degree, graduate degree in

science; 3) any education degree, undergraduate major in science; 4) any education degree,

undergraduate minor in science; 5) any education degree, no degree in science; 6) no education

degree, graduate degree in science; 7) no education degree, undergraduate major in science; and 8)

no education degree, undergraduate minor in science.

Experience teaching science. Teachers reported the number years they taught science at

any school according to four experience categories: 1) <5 years; 2) 5-9 years; 3) 10-19 years; and 4)

20+ years.

Teacher- and school-level controls. For teachers, our models included an indicator for

whether a teacher was certified by his/her state to teach. We also controlled for teacher-reported

characteristics of the classroom environment: 1) class size; 2) whether students were assigned to a

class based on “ability”; and 3) whether teachers had at least three hours of instructional time for

science in a given week. For parsimony, we recoded the class size variable using the median value

(midpoint) of each category: 1) <15 students; 2) 16-20 students; 3) 21-25 students; and 4) 26 or

more students.

For schools, we accounted for student demographics and organizational context. We

controlled for school size, as measured by student enrollment; and school location, using indicators

for whether a school resided in a city, suburb, town or rural area. We recoded the student enrollment

variable using the midpoint for each category (1) 1-399 students; 2) 400-599 students; 3) 600-799

students; 4) 800-999 students; 5) 1,000 or more students. As a proxy for the extent to which a school

served economically disadvantaged students, we included two indicator variables – one for schools


with the greatest concentrations of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (top

25% of the distribution), and a second for low poverty schools (bottom 25% of the distribution). In

addition, the models included three indicators that captured aspects of schools’ decisions related to

science curriculum and instruction – the extent to which a school’s science program was: 1)

structured around state standards; 2) structured around state or district assessment results; and 3)

focused on preparing for state assessments.

Analytic Approach

We used state fixed effects models to examine the relationships between teacher preparation,

experience, and teachers’ instructional practice. Such an approach effectively limits comparisons to

teachers who work within the same state. This is an important consideration given state-specific

differences in teacher preparation requirements and the nature of teacher labor markets. Teachers

must fulfill state licensure requirements, which differ among states. As a result, there is a potential

for teachers within a state to be more similar to one another than to teachers who work in other

states. Teacher labor markets also are place based, with teachers typically attending school and

working in the same state where they received their credentials (D. Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2005; Reininger, 2012). Where these conditions exist, teacher observations within a state

cannot be considered independent of one another. If these factors disproportionately affect teacher

preparation and are uncontrolled for by the covariates included in our models a state fixed effect can

mitigate these sources of bias.

The following equation summarizes the approach used to estimate the effects of educational

background on teachers’ use of inquiry-oriented instructional practices:

!"# = % + '"#( + )"#* + +"#, + -# + ."#

Where y represents teachers’ use of inquiry-oriented instruction (as described by our composite

measure) of teacher i, in state s. E is a vector representing teachers’ educational background (e.g.,


highest education-related degree). T is a vector of other teacher and classroom characteristics,

including teacher experience, certification status, class size, class ability grouping, and instructional

time. S is a vector of school controls, including enrollment, high and low poverty, percent white

students, science curriculum and alignment with district and state standards, and school location.

The α represents the intercept, -#is an indicator for the state fixed effects, and ."# represents the

error term. We adjusted our sample using the NAEP’s school-level sampling weights. While

imperfect, this weighting strategy provides teacher-level estimates that approximate a nationally

representative sample of eighth grade public school science teachers (Smith, 2007).

We estimated three models. The first two models correspond with our first research

question and examine the relationship between the extent to which teachers used inquiry-oriented

instructional practices and teachers’ educational backgrounds both with and without the vectors for

our teacher- and school-level controls. The third model corresponds with our second research

question and included interaction terms between indicator variables for teachers’ educational

backgrounds and teacher experience.

Findings

We report findings in three parts. First, we describe the educational backgrounds of the

eighth-grade science teachers in our sample. In separate sections, we report findings corresponding

to the study’s two research questions.

8th Grade Science Teachers’ Educational Backgrounds

Most eighth-grade science teachers had some form of education-related degree (87%), and

about two-thirds of teachers reported a concentration or emphasis in science education (Table 1).

Regardless of whether they held an education-related degree, most teachers completed coursework

in science education, albeit to varying extents. About 42% of teachers completed five or more


science education courses, with another 24% completing 2-4 courses. About one-quarter completed

1-2 courses and 8% of eighth grade science teachers had no prior coursework in science education.

Teachers’ educational background in science suggests two distinct teacher profiles – teachers

with very little formal education in science or engineering and, at the other end of the continuum,

those with degrees and substantial coursework. About half of teachers had either an undergraduate

major or minor in science, and another 15% held a graduate degree. Slightly more than one-third of

teachers did not have a degree in a science discipline. One quarter of teachers had no science

coursework at the undergraduate or graduate levels, while nearly 40% of teachers had completed five

or more advanced science courses.

Many middle-level teachers had both education-related and content-specific degrees. The

two most common overlaps were: 1) education related degree and graduate degree in science (24%);

and 2) an education-related degree and an undergraduate major in science or engineering (21%).

That said, about 28% of eighth grade science teachers had only an education-related degree, with no

degree in science content. Additionally, just about 7% of teachers reported having neither education

nor science degrees.

Do teachers with different degrees and credentials in science and education use inquiry-

based instructional practices to greater or lesser extents?

Tables 2 and 3 present regression results for our first two models that examine the

relationships between teachers’ educational backgrounds and the extent to which eighth grade

science teachers used inquiry-based instructional practices. We present results for the two models to

show differences in the relationships between teachers’ educational backgrounds and instructional

practice, with and without accounting for teacher experience and teacher- and school-level controls.

On average, there were only small differences between the models for the coefficients of interest –


usually in magnitude, but not direction. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to the findings from the

null model with controls (Model 2).

Education-related degrees, specializations, and coursework. The comparison category

in our models was teachers with an undergraduate minor in education - the most frequently held

education-related degree held by eighth grade teachers (56%). We found that teachers with graduate

degrees in education used inquiry-oriented instructional practices to the greatest extent ((=.22;

p<0.001), and teachers with an undergraduate major were more likely to incorporate these practices

than their peers with undergraduate minors ((=.14; p=0.029). Interestingly, there was no difference

in instructional practice between teachers with an undergraduate minor in education and those

without an education-related degree. We subsequently tested for differences between coefficients for

teachers with graduate degrees and those with undergraduate majors. We were unable to reject the

hypothesis that the coefficients were equivalent (F=3.89; p=0.05); that is, teachers with graduate

degrees used inquiry-based instructional practices to a greater extent than teachers with an

undergraduate major.

Among teachers with education degrees, those with a science education major, minor, or

concentration were more likely to incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in their teaching

than teachers without specializations (( =.31; p<0.001). Teachers also could complete science

education-related coursework, regardless of whether they sought a degree specialization. In fact,

most eighth grade science teachers (92%) completed at least one science education course. Teachers

who completed science education courses were more likely to incorporate inquiry-based

instructional practices in their teaching than those who had not, with more coursework associated

with teachers using inquiry in their teaching to even greater extents. For instance, there was a .56

standard deviation difference between teachers with 5 or more science education courses and those

with no coursework, whereas the difference between teachers with 1-2 courses and those with none


was .18 standard deviations. We also tested for differences among our science coursework

coefficients and found that with additional increments of coursework teachers tended to use inquiry-

oriented instructional practices to greater extents (e.g., difference between 5 or more courses and 3-4

courses was significant, F=31.2, p<0.001).

Science content. We compared teachers with degrees in science at the graduate and

undergraduate levels to those without a degree in a science discipline (about 35% of eighth grade

teachers). Teachers with graduate degrees in science incorporated inquiry-oriented instructional

practices to a much greater extent – nearly 40% of a standard deviation more – than teachers

without a degree in science (( =.41, p<0.001). Similarly, teachers with undergraduate majors or

minors in science also used these practices to a greater extent than teachers without degrees (( =.23,

p<0.001 and ( =.27, p<0.001, respectively). As we did with education-related degrees, we tested for

differences among the content degree coefficients. Teachers with graduate degrees in a science were

more likely to use inquiry-oriented instructional practices than those with undergraduate majors or

minors (F=13.2, p<0.001 and F=6.2, p=0.013); there was no difference between the coefficients for

teachers with undergraduate majors and minors (F=.45, p=0.502).

Teachers who completed a greater number of advanced science courses incorporated

inquiry-based instructional practices to a greater extent than those with fewer courses. There was a

.42 standard deviation in the extent to which teachers used inquiry-based instructional practices

between teachers that completed five or more advanced science courses and those without advanced

science coursework. Even having completed 1-2 advanced science courses increased the extent to

which inquiry-based teaching occurred by 20% of a standard deviation, and the extent to which

teachers incorporated inquiry-based instructional practices increased with additional course taking

(e.g., difference between 3-4 courses and 5 or more courses was significant, F=44.62, p=0.000).


Overlap in education and science degrees. Since most teachers in our sample had an

education-related degree (87%), we were interested in whether a degree in a science, in combination

with an education degree, increased the likelihood that teachers incorporated inquiry-based

instructional practices in their teaching. For our analysis, the comparison category was teachers with

any type of education-related degree, but who did not have a science degree. This group comprised

the largest share of teachers in our sample (28%).

Teachers with education and science degrees incorporated inquiry-based instructional

practices to a greater extent than who only had an education degree (Table 4). For instance, teachers

with an education-related degree and a graduate degree in science incorporated inquiry-oriented

instructional practices more frequently than their peers with education degrees and no science

degree – nearly a .38 standard deviation between the two groups. Having an undergraduate major or

minor in science along with an education degree also increased the extent to which inquiry teaching

was used (( =.20, p<0.000 and (=.26, p<0.000, respectively). However, interestingly, subsequent

testing found there was no difference in the coefficients for majors and minors (F=1.1, p=0.294).

Teachers without degrees in education or science were somewhat less likely to use inquiry-oriented

instructional practices than teachers that only had an education-related degree ((=.14; p=0.067).

That teachers with degrees in education and science used inquiry-oriented instructional

practices to a greater extent than those without content degrees raised a related question: What is the

potential value added of teachers having both an education and content degree, as opposed to a

content-only degree? A much smaller share of teachers in our sample (about 7%) had a content

degree, but no education-related degree. Teachers with a graduate degree or undergraduate major in

science, but no education degree, were slightly more likely to incorporate inquiry-oriented

instructional practices in their teaching than teachers with only an education-related degree (( =.28,

p=0.045 and ( =.18, p=0.082, respectively). But, there was no difference between teachers with only


an undergraduate minor in science and teachers with an education-related degree and no degree in

science.

To what extent does teacher experience affect the strength of the relationships between

teachers’ educational backgrounds and their use of inquiry-based instructional strategies?

Table 5 presents results our models that included interaction terms between teachers’

backgrounds and experience teaching science. Taken together, these results suggest that the effects

of teaching degrees (education or content) on teachers’ instructional practice vary across teachers’

careers. To better understand and interpret these associations, we plotted the predicted means for

our inquiry-oriented instructional practices scale across our various indicators for teachers’ highest

education and science degrees.

Figure 2 considers the interactions between teachers’ degrees in science, years of experience

teaching science, and the extent to which they used inquiry-oriented instructional practices. Among

novice teachers (<5 years of experience) we see initial differences, according to degree type, in their

use of inquiry-oriented science instruction. Teachers with higher degrees incorporated inquiry

teaching to greater extents than their peers with lower or without degrees in science. Overtime,

among teachers with graduate degrees and undergraduate majors in science we see little change in

the extent to which teachers incorporate inquiry-oriented science instruction. In contrast, teachers

with undergraduate minors steadily increased their use of these practices with more years of science

teaching experience, reaching levels on par with teachers with graduate degrees in science. But, for

teachers without science degrees, teaching experience did not appear to offset initial differences that

were in place at the time they begin teaching science.

Figure 3 considers the interactions among teachers’ degrees in education, teaching

experience, and instructional practice. Here, we find fewer initial differences among teachers with

different education-related degrees during their first five years teaching science. Teachers with


graduate degrees and undergraduate majors and minors in education appear to incorporate inquiry-

oriented instructional practices in their teaching to similar extents, while novice teachers without

education-related degrees were less likely to do so. Over time, there was some growth among

teachers with graduate degrees and undergraduate majors. While, at least initially (between 0-4 years

and 5-9 years), teachers without education degrees see sharp growth in the extent to which they

incorporate inquiry instruction in their teaching this trend levels off over time and even very

experienced teachers without education-related degrees are less likely to engage in inquiry-oriented

science instruction than teachers with degrees. The pattern among teachers with undergraduate

minors in education is somewhat different, with an apparent drop in the extent to which teachers

use these practices between 5-9 years of experience, and then growth thereafter. This finding is

unexpected and warrants further research to understand this trend.

Discussion

Inquiry-based science instruction has long been characterized as good science teaching. Yet,

few studies have examined in what ways science teachers’ educational backgrounds – especially in

science and engineering disciplines and content pedagogy – might influence the extent to which

teachers adopt inquiry-based instructional practices. Understanding these relationships is especially

relevant at the middle grades where preparation and licensure requirements differ among states and

teacher education programs.

Using a national sample of eighth grade teachers, we found that the different approaches and

standards for preparing middle level teachers across the United States have translated into

substantial differences in science teacher qualifications. While most eighth grade science teachers

have an education-related degree, there is substantial variation in the types of degrees held and the

extent of exposure to content-specific pedagogy. Moreover, we find two contrasting profiles for

middle level teachers’ subject-specific preparation: teachers with limited or no post-secondary


education in science, and those with post-secondary degrees in science or who completed advanced

coursework in science or engineering. Such differences in middle-level science teachers’ educational

backgrounds set the stage for asking and answering questions about whether differences in

qualifications translate into differences in instructional practice.

Taken together, our findings suggest that middle level science teachers’ educational

backgrounds translate into meaningful differences in instructional practice. Teachers with higher-

level degrees in science or engineering disciplines were more likely to engage in inquiry-based science

instruction. Teachers with graduate degrees incorporated inquiry-based instruction to the greatest

extent; even so, having an undergraduate major or minor in science increased the extent to which

inquiry-based instructional practices were used. On the one hand, these findings appear consistent

with recommendations made by the National Research Council and others about the importance of

teachers having both disciplinary knowledge and experience with to scientific investigation (NRC,

2007). That said, the findings go one step further to clarify the relative differences in instructional

practice associated with the additional knowledge and skills that come with progressively higher

degrees in science or engineering. For example, an undergraduate minor in science may represent a

sampling of science courses that are not bound by coherent or unifying themes and which provide

fewer opportunities to engage in scientific investigation. Whereas higher level degrees increasingly

expose teachers to key ideas and experiences that comprise epistemological and methodological

frameworks that guide scientific inquiry, and that contribute to a stronger disciplinary knowledge

base of how skills and ideas fit in the context of scientific investigation (Windschitl, 2004).

Our findings also affirm the contribution of professional preparation in education to middle-

level science teachers’ capacity and inclination to engage in inquiry-based science instruction.

Teachers with education-related undergraduate majors and graduate degrees incorporated inquiry-

based instructional practices most frequently. However, on average, there was no difference in


instructional practice between teachers with undergraduate minors in education and those without an

education-related degree. This latter finding is particularly interesting given that 55% of eighth grade

science teachers reportedly held an undergraduate minor in education. The relative differences in

instructional practice among teachers with higher-level education-related degrees suggest that the

pedagogical and general preparation for teachers with undergraduate majors and graduate degrees

positively contributes to their capacity to engage in reform-oriented science teaching.

Experts in the field also cite the importance of content-specific pedagogical training (Ball,

Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Loughran, 2014) and good science teaching – particularly that which

incorporates inquiry-based instructional practices – has been tied to pedagogical content knowledge

grounded in the science and engineering disciplines (National Research Council, 2000). Our findings

lend further support. We found that among eighth grade science teachers with education-related

degrees those specializing in science education engaged in inquiry-based teaching more so than

science teachers without a similar specialization. Moreover, teachers who completed more post-

secondary science education-specific coursework incorporated inquiry-based instructional practices

in their teaching to greater extents. Given that most middle-level science teachers have an education-

related degree, a key consideration is the extent to which having companion degrees in science and

education differentiates among teachers’ instructional practice. We found that teachers with both

content and education-related degrees engaged in inquiry-based science instruction to greater extents

than their peers with standalone degrees in education or content. Teachers with content degrees but

without an education-related degree, however, incorporated inquiry-based instructional practices to

greater extents than their peers that only have an education degree. These findings suggest that, on

average, we might expect to see teachers with undergraduate majors or graduate degrees in science,

but without an education-related degree, incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices to similar


extents and more frequently than their peers with education-related degrees, but without a degree in

science or engineering.

A possible counterpoint to the importance of teachers’ educational backgrounds has been

that teachers can acquire necessary knowledge and skills on the job – either through experience in

the classroom or other professional development opportunities that occur during teachers’ tenure in

the profession. However, we found that teacher experience may not offset initial differences in

instructional practice, especially those attributable to potential disparities in teachers’ content

knowledge. Teachers with more exposure to disciplinary knowledge and scientific practice (as

evidenced by higher degrees) generally engaged in inquiry teaching to greater extents throughout

their careers, and initial differences in the extent to which inquiry-based science instruction occurred

did not decay over time with additional teaching experience. In contrast, initial differences in

instructional practice associated with teachers’ education-related degrees were mitigated over time as

teachers gained science teaching experience.

The study’s findings are not without limitations. First, although teachers’ educational

backgrounds are widely used by teacher preparation programs and state agencies that certify teachers

as a proxies for teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills, there can be considerable

differences in degree requirements among higher education institutions granting these degrees and,

by extension, what teachers may have been taught. As a result, our indicators for teachers’ highest

degrees in science and education should be considered with this heterogeneity in mind. That said,

the fact that we found consistent relationships between teachers’ degree status and their instructional

practice, suggests that teachers’ educational backgrounds in science and education-related training

are relevant considerations as efforts move forward to expand the use of inquiry-based science

instruction in middle-level classrooms.


Second, our composite measure describing the extent to which teachers engaged in inquiry-based

science instruction considers teachers’ instructional practice relative to that of other teachers;

however, the scale does not establish a threshold or acceptable standard. Rather, we consider

teachers engagement in inquiry-based science instruction compared to nationwide averages. Such

comparisons, however, are useful for characterizing differences in the associations between teachers’

degrees and the extent to which they incorporate inquiry-based instructional practices in their

science teaching. Finally, cross sectional data, such as those collected by the NAEP, are insufficient

evidence for establishing causal relationships between teachers’ educational backgrounds and

instructional practice. Rather, the study’s findings are descriptive and point toward productive areas

for future causal research.

Implications

For several decades there have been repeated calls to reform how science is taught in the

United States, emphasizing the importance of shifting to an inquiry-based orientation. Now, as

educators work to implement NGSS and prepare students to engage in STEM-related careers the

pressure is on to better understand the factors that facilitate or constrain teachers’ use of inquiry-

based science instruction in their classrooms. This study provides further evidence that teachers’

educational backgrounds – both with respect to content knowledge and pedagogy, generally and

specific to science education – contribute to differences in the extent to which teachers engage in

inquiry-based science instruction. For middle level education, this conclusion is particularly notable

given the disjointed nature of middle level teacher preparation and licensure nationwide. In fact, our

findings point toward the disparate nature of middle level teachers’ educational backgrounds as a

possible leverage point for change.

First, the study’s findings call into question existing policies and programs that minimize

content knowledge requirements for middle-level teachers. For instance, state policies that allow


elementary-level certification or licensure to overlap with the upper middle grades represent one

source of concern, as do state policies and practices that do not require post-secondary degrees or

substantial advanced coursework in science as qualifications for middle level science teachers.

Subject matter tests that limit their assessment to topics covered by the curriculum also may be

problematic, by providing weak signals for whether teachers have the breadth and depth of

knowledge needed to facilitate student learning and investigation (Wilson, 2016). Efforts are

underway by AMLE/CAEP, ASTA, and others to develop more robust frameworks for what

middle-level science teachers must know and be able to do as well as guidelines for middle-level

teacher qualifications. However, as conceptualized, these efforts continue to provide state

policymakers and teacher preparation institutions with considerable flexibility as to how they align

coursework, degrees, and pre-service teaching experiences with recommendations.

Second, the study’s findings point toward professional development opportunities for

existing teachers. Our national profile suggests that a large share of middle level teachers may not

have the content knowledge and content-specific pedagogical training needed to fully engage in

inquiry-based science instruction. Smith et al. (2007), Supovitz & Turner (2000), and others find that

sustained professional development activities focused both on scientific inquiry and inquiry-based

instructional practices may be an effective tool for expanding inquiry teaching.

Finally, our findings suggest that efforts to understand how teachers’ educational

backgrounds influence instructional practice may be a productive direction for future research.

Much more attention has been paid to the influence of teachers’ qualifications on student

achievement – but, with mixed results regarding the relative productivity of different degrees and

pathways into the profession. Examining how teachers’ educational backgrounds influence teachers’

instructional practice may offer new opportunities for understanding those aspects of teacher

qualifications that support effective teaching and, by extension, improved student learning.


References

Association for Middle Level Education. (n.d.). Professional Preparation Standards. Retrieved from

http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/AMLEStandards.aspx

Association for Middle Level Education. (2014). Certification/licensure by state. Retrieved from

http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/Certification-

LicensurebyState.aspx

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

Baldi, S., Warner-Griffin, C., Tadler, C., & Owens, C. (2015). Education and Certification Qualifications of

Public Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence From the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey.

(NCES 2015-815). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015815.pdf.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it

special? . Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.

Banilower, E., Smith, S., Weiss, I., Malzahn, K., Campbell, K., & Weis, A. (2013). Report of the 2012

National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541798.pdf

Barron, G., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. (1998). Doing

with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 7(3), 271-311.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, P., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating

project-based learning: Sustaining the oing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist,

26(3/4), 369-399.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The Draw of Home: How Teachers’

Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage Urban Schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

24(1), 113-132.

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., & Loeb, S. (2009). Teacher preparation and student

achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.

Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of

science: Are they happening? . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 497-526.


Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. (2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming

mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. Carnegie Insitute for Advanced

Study. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/80/c8/80c8a7bc-c7ab-

4f49-847d-1e2966f4dd97/ccny_report_2009_opportunityequation.pdf

Curran Neild, R., Nash Farley-Ripple, E., & Byrnes, V. (2009). The Effect of Teacher Certification

on Middle Grades Achievement in an Urban District. Educational Policy, 23(5), 732-760.

doi:10.1177/0895904808320675

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

evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Druva, C., & Anerson, R. (1983). Science teacher characetrstics by teacher behavior and by student

outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 467-479.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and

Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. J., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J.

(2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers' prior knowledge for

teaching in an altnerative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357-

383.

Gaskill, P. E. (2002). Progress in the certification of middle level personnel. Middle School Journal,

33(5), 33-40.

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J.

(2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the

context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.

Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1998). When should we reward degrees for teachers? Phi Delta Kappan,

80(2), 134-138.

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

certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-

145.

Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher

preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.011

Hayes, K. N., & Trexler, C. J. (2016). Testing predictors of instructional practice in elementary

science education: The significant role of accountability. Science Education, 100(2), 266-289.


Hechinger, F. (1993). Schools for teenagers: A historic dilemma. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 524-

539.

Howell, P. B., Faulkner, S. A., Cook, C. M., Miller, N. C., & Thompson, N. L. (2016). Specialized

Preparation for Middle Level Teachers: A National Review of Teacher Preparation Programs.

RMLE Online, 39(1), 1-12. doi:10.1080/19404476.2015.1115322

Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge

handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing

curriclum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy.

Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.

Loughran, J. (2014). Developing understandings of practice: Science teacher learning. In N. G.

Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 811-829). New

York: Routlecge.

Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics

teachers' beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education, 7, 575-596.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T., & Smith, T. (2004). The role of teacher preparation, licensure, and

retention in creating high-performing middle schools. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Reforming middle level

education: Considerations for policymakers (pp. 109-129). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.

McEwin, C. K., & Greene, M. (2011). The status of programs and practices in America's middle schools:

Results from two national studies. Retrieved from Westerville, OH:

http://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/status_programs_practices_amle.pdf

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

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

Monk, D., & King, J. (1994). Mutilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in secondary

mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject-matter preparation. In R. Ehrehnberg

(Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary Policy Issues in Education. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2015). Science Teachers' Learning: Enhancing

Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Asssessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2008). Science Framework for the 2009 National

Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC Retrieved from


http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/science/200

9-science-framework.pdf.

National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). (2010). The All-Purpose Science Teacher: An Analysis of

Loopholes in State Requirements for High School Science Teachers. Retrieved from Washington, DC

http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/The_All_Purpose_Science_Teacher_NCTQ_Report

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The

National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for

Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,

and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2015). Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 (NSB 12-01). Arlington, VA:

National Science Foundation. Retrieved from:

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf

Nollmeyer, G., & Bangert, A. (2015). Assessing K-5 elementary teachers understanding and

readiness to teach the new framework for science education. The Researcher, 27(2), 7-13.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2012). 2012 NSTA Standards for Science Teacher

Preparation. Retrieved from

http://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/2012NSTAPreserviceScienceStandards.pdf

Preston, C. (2016). University-Based Teacher Preparation and Middle Grades Teacher Effectiveness.

Journal of Teacher Education, 0022487116660151. doi:10.1177/0022487116660151

Reininger, M. (2012). Hometown Disadvantage? It Depends on Where You're From: Teachers'

Location Preferences and the Implications for Staffing Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 34(2), 127-145.

Rice, J. (2003). Teacher Quality Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes. Washington, DC:

Economic Policy Institute.

Rice, J. (2010). The impact of teacher experience: Examining the evidence and policy implications. Washington,

DC: The Urban Instittute. Retrieved from:

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/1001455-The-Impact-of-

Teacher-Experience.PDF


Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). RESEARCH REPORT. International Journal of Science Education,

26(1), 3-24. doi:10.1080/0950069022000070261

Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanaion-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and

epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.

Smith, T., Desimone, L., Zeidner, T., Dunn, A., Bhatt, M., & Rumyantseva, N. (2007). Inquiry-

oriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

29(3), 169-199.

Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). “Highly Qualified” to Do What? The

Relationship Between NCLB Teacher Quality Mandates and the Use of Reform-Oriented

Instruction in Middle School Mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 75-

109. doi:10.3102/01623737027001075

Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., Zeidner, T. L., Dunn, A. C., Bhatt, M., & Rumyantseva, N. L.

(2007). Inquiry-oriented instruction in science: Who teachers that way? . Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 169-199.

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

practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Trygstad, P. J., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E., & Nelson, M. (2013). The Status of Elementary Science

Education:

Are We Ready for the Next Generation Science Standards? Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Retrieved from:: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548249.pdf

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teching matters: Bringing the classrooms back into disussions of teacher quality.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps,

and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved from:

https://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf

Wilson, S. M. (2016). Measuring the quantity and quality of the K-12 STEM teacher pipeline. Menlo Park,

CA: SRI International. Retrieved from: https://www.sri.com/work/publications/measuring-

quantity-and-quality-k-12-stem-teacher-pipeline

Windschitl, M. (2004). What types of knowledge do teachers use to engage learners in "doing science"? Rethinking

the continuum of preparation and professional development for secondary science educators. High School

Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Seattle, WA: University of Washington


Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Teacher- & School-level Variables Weighted M SE Teacher-level Independent Variables

Highest Education Degreea

No education degree 12.65% 0.001

Undergraduate minor in education 55.45% 0.001

Undergraduate major in education 23.99% 0.001

Graduate degree in education 7.91% 0.001

Science Education Specialization (Undergraduate or Graduate)b 61.42% 0.001

Number of Science Education Courses (Undergraduate or Graduate)

No science education courses 7.91% 0.001

1-2 courses 26.17% 0.001

3-4 courses 24.30% 0.001

5+ courses 41.62% 0.001

Highest Degree in Sciencec

No degree in science content 34.59% 0.001

Undergraduate science minor 25.96% 0.001

Undergraduate science major 24.27% 0.001

Graduate science degree 15.17% 0.001

Number of Advanced Science Courses (Undergraduate or Graduate)

No science education courses 25.13% 0.001

1-2 courses 18.99% 0.001

3-4 courses 16.67% 0.001

5+ courses 39.21% 0.001

Overlap between education & science content degrees

No education degree, no content degree 6.78% 0.001

Any education degree, graduate degree in science 23.75% 0.001

Any education degree, undergraduate major in science 21.08% 0.001

Any education degree, undergraduate minor in science 13.75% 0.001

Any education degree, no science degree 28.03% 0.001

No education degree, graduate degree in science 1.69% 0.000

No education degree, undergraduate major in science 3.39% 0.000

No education degree, undergraduate minor in science 1.54% 0.000

Teacher-level Control Variables Years of science teaching experience

0-4 years (Novice teacher) 23.80% 0.001

5-9 years 23.91% 0.001

10-19 years 32.85% 0.001

20+ years 19.44% 0.001

Certified teacher 95.79% 0.000


Science class size

< 15 students 8.98% 0.001

16-18 students 6.85% 0.001

19-20 students 7.39% 0.001

21-25 students 30.74% 0.001

26 or more students 46.03% 0.001

Students assigned to science class according to ability 24.92% 0.001

Less than 3 hours/week of instructional time for science 6.25% 0.001

School-level Control Variables School enrollment

1-399 students 26.25% 0.001

400-599 students 20.37% 0.001

600-799 students 21.20% 0.001

800-999 students 16.86% 0.001

1,000 or more students 15.33% 0.001

Student demographics

High poverty school 17.51% 0.001

Low poverty school 20.59% 0.001

% White students 62.63% 0.086

Standards and assessments

Science program structured to a large extent around state standards 87.61% 0.001

Science program structured to a large extent around state or district assessment results 55.09% 0.002

Science curriculum focused to a large extent on preparation for state assessments 71.34% 0.001

School location

City 23.44% 0.001

Suburban 30.59% 0.001

Town 13.45% 0.001

Rural 32.52% 0.001 a. From the NAEP Teacher Questionnaire: Did you have a major, minor, or special emphasis in any of the following subjects as part of your [graduate/undergraduate] coursework? (d) mathematics or mathematics education (e) Science education (f) engineering or engineering education (g) elementary or secondary education (h) special education (including students with disabilities) (Major, Minor or special emphasis, No) (1=major or minor in any education-related field listed at graduate or undergraduate level; 0= no major or minor in education-related field) b. From the NAEP Teacher Questionnaire: Did you have a major, minor, or special emphasis in any of the following subjects as part of your [graduate/undergraduate] coursework? (e) Science education (Major, Minor or special emphasis, No) (1 = major or minor in science education at graduate or undergraduate level; 0 = no major or minor in science education at any level). c. From the NAEP Teacher Questionnaire: Did you have a major, minor, or special emphasis in any of the following subjects as part of your [graduate/undergraduate] coursework? (a) Biology or other life science (b) Physics, chemistry, or other physical science (c) Earth or space science (f) Engineering or engineering education


Table 2: 8th Education-related Degrees and Coursework & Teachers’ Use of Inquiry-based Science Instruction

Highest Education Degree Science Education Specialization Science Education Course Taking

(Model 1) (Full Model) (No Controls) (Full Model) (No Controls) (Full Model)

B SE Sig B SE Sig B SE

Sig B SE

Sig B SE Sig B SE Sig

Highest Education Degree

(Reference: Undergraduate minor in education)

Graduate degree 0.26 (0.06) *** 0.22 (0.06) ***

Undergraduate major 0.15 (0.06) * 0.14 (0.06) *

No education degree 0.03 (0.07)

0.00 (0.07)

Science Education Degree

(Reference: Teachers without a science education major/minor)

Science education major/minor

0.37 (0.04) *** 0.31 (0.04)

***

Science Course Taking

(Reference: Teachers with no science education courses)

1-2 courses

0.22 (0.07) ** 0.18 (0.07) *

3-4 courses

0.44 (0.07) *** 0.40 (0.07) ***

>=5 courses

0.62 (0.07) *** 0.56 (0.07) ***

Teacher & Classroom Characteristics

Years of experience (Reference <5 years)

5-9 years

0.08 (0.05)

0.05 (0.05)

0.03 (0.05)

10-19 years

0.14 (0.05) **

0.13 (0.05) **

0.09 (0.05) †

20+ years

0.14 (0.06) *

0.14 (0.06) *

0.12 (0.06) *

Certified teacher

0.09 (0.07)

0.07 (0.07)

0.10 (0.07)

Class size(categorical medians)

0.04 (0.01) ***

0.02 (0.01)

***

0.02 (0.01) ***

Ability grouping

-0.03 (0.04)

-0.02 (0.04)

-0.02 (0.04)

Less than 3 hours/week of instructional time for science

-0.36 (0.08) ***

-0.28 (0.08)

***

-0.30 (0.07) ***

School Characteristics

School enrollment (categorical medians)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

High poverty school

-0.11 (0.07) †

-0.07 (0.07)

-0.07 (0.07)


Highest Education Degree Science Education Specialization Science Education Course Taking

(Model 1) (Full Model) (No Controls) (Full Model) (No Controls) (Full Model)

B SE Sig B SE Sig B SE

Sig B SE


Low poverty school

0.09 (0.04) *

0.10 (0.04) *

0.13 (0.04) **

% White students

0.00 (0.00) †

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

Science program structured to a large extent around state standards

0.07 (0.05)

0.07 (0.05)

0.07 (0.05)

Science program structured to a large extent around state or district assessment results

0.01 (0.04)

0.02 (0.04)

0.03 (0.04)

Science curriculum focused to a large extent on preparation for state assessments

-0.12 (0.04) **

-0.11 (0.04) **

-0.13 (0.04) ***

School location (reference = suburban)

City

-0.02 (0.05)

0.02 (0.05)

0.02 (0.05)

Town

-0.05 (0.06)

-0.06 (0.06)

-0.02 (0.06)

Rural

-0.07 (0.05)

-0.09 (0.05) †

-0.09 (0.05) †

Constant -0.26 (0.05) *** -1.08 (0.18) ***

-0.3

1 (0.03) *** -0.82 (0.18) *** -0.47 (0.07) *** -1.03 (0.18) ***

Observations 8,640

7,880

7,830

7,140

8,260

7,540

Note. Standardized coefficients are shown with robust standard errors in parentheses. School enrollment and class size coefficients reflect based on categorical medians. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 42Table 3: Degrees and Coursework in Science & Teachers’ Use of Inquiry-based Science Instruction

Highest Degree in Science Discipline Advanced Science Coursework

(No Controls) (Full Model) (No Controls) (Full Model)

B SE Sig B SE


Highest Degree

(Reference: No degree in science content)

Graduate degree 0.50 (0.04) *** 0.41 (0.05) ***

Undergraduate major 0.31 (0.05) *** 0.23 (0.05) ***

Undergraduate minor 0.33 (0.05) *** 0.27 (0.05) ***

Advanced Science Coursework

(Reference: Teachers with no advanced post-secondary science

coursework)

1-2 courses

0.26 (0.05) *** 0.20 (0.05) ***

3-4 courses

0.46 (0.05) *** 0.38 (0.05) ***

>=5 courses

0.52 (0.04) *** 0.42 (0.05) ***

Teacher & Classroom Characteristics

Years of experience (Reference <5 years)

5-9 years

0.06 (0.05)

0.06 (0.05)

10-19 years

0.09 (0.05) †

0.12 (0.05) *

20+ years

0.07 (0.06)

0.13 (0.06) *

Certified teacher

0.05 (0.07)

0.06 (0.07)


0.04 (0.01) ***

0.03 (0.00) ***

Ability grouping

-0.05 (0.04)

-0.03 (0.04)


-0.27 (0.08) ***

-0.29 (0.08) ***

School Characteristics


0.00 (0.00)

-0.00 (0.00)

High poverty school

-0.09 (0.07)

-0.06 (0.06)

Low poverty school

0.09 (0.05) †

0.10 (0.04) *

% White students

-0.00 (0.00)

-0.00 (0.00)


0.04 (0.05)

0.07 (0.05)




0.01

(0.04)

0.02 (0.04)


-0.09 (0.04) *

-0.11 (0.04) **


City

0.01 (0.05)

-0.01 (0.05)

Town

-0.05 (0.06)

-0.04 (0.06)

Rural

-0.08 (0.05)

-0.08 (0.05)

Constant -0.34 (0.03) *** -1.03 (0.18) *** -0.40 (0.04) *** -1.05 (0.17) ***

Observations 8,270

8,270

9,170

8,360


Table 4: Overlapping Degrees & Teachers’ Use of Inquiry-based Science Instruction

Model 1 Model 2

Variables (No Controls) (Full Model)

B SE Sig B SE Sig Overlap Between Science Content & Education Degrees

(Reference, any education degree, no science degree)

No education degree, no content degree -0.18 (0.09) * -0.16 (0.09) †

Any education degree, graduate degree in science 0.46 (0.05) *** 0.38 (0.05) ***

Any education degree, undergraduate major in science 0.27 (0.05) *** 0.20 (0.05) ***

Any education degree, undergraduate minor in science 0.31 (0.05) *** 0.26 (0.06) ***

No education degree, graduate degree in science 0.40 (0.13) *** 0.28 (0.14) *

No education degree, undergraduate major in science 0.25 (0.10) ** 0.18 (0.11) †

No education degree, undergraduate minor in science 0.12 (0.14)

0.08 (0.16)

Teacher Controls

Years of experience (reference = <5 years)

5-9 years

0.07 (0.05)

10-19 years

0.09 (0.05) †

20+ years

0.06 (0.06)

Certified teacher

0.05 (0.07)


0.03 (0.01) ***

Ability grouping

0.05 (0.04)


-0.28 (0.08) ***

School Controls


0.00 (0.00)

High poverty school

-0.10 (0.07)

Low poverty school

0.07 (0.05)

% White students

0.00 (0.00)


0.05 .05111+7


0.01 (0.04)


-0.10 (0.04) *


City

0.00 (0.05)

Town

-0.05 (0.06)

Rural

-0.08 (0.05) Constant -0.30 (0.03) *** -0.97 (0.19) ***

Observations 8,170

7,460



Table 5: Coefficients for Interaction Terms Between Teachers’ Education & Experience

Years of Experience (Reference <5 years of experience)

Interactions

5-9 Years 10-19 Years 20+ Years

B t Sig B t Sig B t Sig B t Sig Highest Education-related Degrees

(Reference: No degree education)

Graduate degree 0.27 (2.15) * -0.16 -(0.89)

0.02 -(0.13)

0.03 -(0.17)

Undergraduate major 0.25 (2.13) * -0.22 -(1.16)

-0.17 -(1.00)

-0.02 -(0.09)

Undergraduate minor 0.22 (1.51)

-0.50 -(2.24) * -0.27 -(1.27)

-0.07 -(0.32)

Highest Science Content Degree

(Reference: No degree in science content)

Graduate degree 0.52 (3.53) *** -0.14 -(0.83)

-0.17 -(1.05)

-0.04 -(0.24)

Undergraduate major 0.41 (4.40) *** -0.17 -(1.41)

-0.28 -(2.50) ** -0.18 -(1.14) Undergraduate minor 0.18 (1.65) † -0.03 -(0.24) 0.02 (0.39) 0.42 (2.44) *

Note: Results based on main regression models (Model 2 above), incorporating interaction terms for teachers’ degrees and a dummy variable for whether a teacher was a novice (with <5 years of experience). Coefficients are not show for space. Significance: ***p<0.001; **p<0.01; * p<0.05; †p<0.10


Figure 1: Hypothesized Relationships Between Teachers’ Educational Backgrounds, Teaching Experience & Use of Inquiry-oriented Instructional Practices

Teachers’Educational

Backgrounds

Teachers’UseofInquiry-orientedInstructional

Practices

Yearsof

ExperienceTeachingScience


Figure 2: Figure 1: Predicted Use of Inquiry-oriented Instructional Practices, by Teachers’ Highest Degree in Science and Years of Science Teaching Experience

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0-4Years 5-9Years 10-19Years 20+Years

Nocontentdegree Graduatecontent Undergraduatecontentmajor Undergraduateminor


Figure 3: Predicted Use of Inquiry-oriented Instructional Practices, by Teachers’ Highest Education-related Degree and Years of Science Teaching Experience

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0-4Years 5-9Years 10-19Years 20+Years

Noeducationdegree Graduatedegreeineducation

Undergraduatemajorineducation Undergraduateminorineducation

Meeting the Demand of New Standards 49

Appendix A: Polychoric Factor Analysis of Inquiry-Oriented Instruction Composite Measure Factor Loadings

Item/a

Factor 1: Conceptual Emphasis

Factor 2: Hands-on Activities

Factor 3: Scientific Problem Solving/d

Factor 4: Reporting

and Writing Activities

To what extent do you emphasize each of the following objectives in teaching science to your eighth-grade class? (Response categories: Not at all, small extent, moderate extent, large extent)

Teach scientific facts and principles/c

-0.4568

Develop systematic observation skills 0.2798 Develop problem-solving (design) skills 0.2063 Increase student's interest in science 0.3201 Develop inquiry skills/b 0.2529 Increase awareness of the importance of science in daily life/b 0.3320 Prepare students for further study in science/b 0.4072 Teach scientific methods/b 0.3586

About how often do your science students: (Response categories: Never or hardly ever, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, every day or almost every day)

Work with other students on a science activity or project

0.4940

Do hands-on activities or investigations in science 0.5807 Talk about the measurements and results from students' hands-on activities 0.5090

To what extent do you emphasize each of the following objectives in teaching science to your eighth-grade class? Develop skills in lab techniques (Response categories: Not at all, small extent, moderate extent, large extent)

0.2836

About how often do your science students: (Response categories: Never or hardly ever, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, every day or almost every day)

Figure out different ways to solve a science problem/b

0.5219

Identify questions that can be addressed through scientific investigations/b 0.4793

Discuss the kinds of problems that engineers can solve/b 0.5692 How often do you use each of the following to assess student progress in science? Long written responses (Response categories: Never or hardly ever, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, every day or almost every day)

0.6722

About how often do your science students prepare a written science report? (Response categories: Never or hardly ever, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, every day or almost every day)

0.4888

To what extent do you emphasize each of the following objectives in teaching science to your eighth-grade class? Develop scientific writing skills (Response categories: Not at all, small extent, moderate extent, large extent)/b

0.4818

Composite Measure Reliability (α =)

.83

.79

.76

.62

/a Five items included in Smith et al.’s (2007) composite measures were not included on the 2011 NAEP’s 8th grade science teacher survey, and were not included in our composite measures. Specifically, 1) how often students: a) undertook an individual/group project that took a week or more and b) used lab notebook/journal; 2) how often teachers: a) evaluated students based on hands-on activities; and 3) how much emphasis teachers placed on: a) knowing how to communicate ideas in science effectively; and b) developing data analysis skills.

Meeting the Demand of New Standards 50

/b Item was included on 2011 NAEP eighth-grade science teacher survey, but was unavailable on 2000 NAEP teacher survey and not included in Smith et al.’s composite measures. /c Item was reverse coded prior to analysis. /d This factor was not included in Smith et al.’s (2007) approach to measuring inquiry-oriented instruction. The factor is comprised entirely of items that were included on the 2011 NAEP, but were unavailable the earlier NAEP surveys on which Smith et al. relied for their work.

Notes

iWhile some states have explicit mandates for middle level certification, licensure or endorsement, nearly half of institutions that prepare teachers for grades 5-9 do not offer coursework or experiences specific to the middle level (Howell et al., 2016).ii Smith et al.’s (2007) factor analysis incorporated 19 items from the 2000 NAEP Grade 8 Teacher Assessment. Given changes to the NAEP questionnaire, we were unable to replicate their scale; specifically, our analysis included three new items from the updated NAEP questionnaire and did not include one item included in Smith et al.’s earlier work (see Appendix A).

Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle …...Requirements for middle-level teacher licensure...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle …...Requirements for middle-level teacher licensure...