View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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; tkolbe@uvm.edu
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 2
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 3
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 4
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 5
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 6
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 7
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 8
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 9
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 10
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 11
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)
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 12
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 13
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 14
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’
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 15
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 16
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 17
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 18
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 19
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 20
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.,
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 21
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 22
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 –
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 23
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 24
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).
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 25
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 26
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 27
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 28
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 29
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 30
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 31
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 32
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 33
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 34
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.
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 35
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 36
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 37
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 38
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 39
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 40
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)
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 41
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
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
Sig B SE Sig B SE Sig
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)
Class size(categorical medians)
0.04 (0.01) ***
0.03 (0.00) ***
Ability grouping
-0.05 (0.04)
-0.03 (0.04)
Less than 3 hours/week of instructional time for science
-0.27 (0.08) ***
-0.29 (0.08) ***
School Characteristics
School enrollment (categorical medians)
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)
Science program structured to a large extent around state standards
0.04 (0.05)
0.07 (0.05)
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 43
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
Science program structured to a large extent around state or district assessment results
0.01
(0.04)
0.02 (0.04)
Science curriculum focused to a large extent on preparation for state assessments
-0.09 (0.04) *
-0.11 (0.04) **
School location (reference = suburban)
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 44
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)
Class size(categorical medians)
0.03 (0.01) ***
Ability grouping
0.05 (0.04)
Less than 3 hours/week of instructional time for science
-0.28 (0.08) ***
School Controls
School enrollment (categorical medians)
0.00 (0.00)
High poverty school
-0.10 (0.07)
Low poverty school
0.07 (0.05)
% White students
0.00 (0.00)
Science program structured to a large extent around state standards
0.05 .05111+7
Science program structured to a large extent around state or district assessment results
0.01 (0.04)
Science curriculum focused to a large extent on preparation for state assessments
-0.10 (0.04) *
School location (reference = suburban)
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
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 45
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 46
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 47
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
Meeting the Demand of New Standards for Middle-Level Science 48
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).
Recommended