Meeting Instructional Standards for Middle-Level Science: Which Teachers Are Most Prepared?

An exploration of Illinois students' attitudes toward science using multivariate multilevel modeling with a cross‐sectional sample of responses from grades 5 through 10

“…Yet, from this cross‐sectional perspective, intrinsic predictor variables collected from students were judged to be more effective in explaining variation in their responses to the BRAINS. Group‐level variables relating to the science teacher, ranging from practices to characteristics, have been identified through empirical studies, and remain widely supported as having a tremendous impact on students' enthusiasm for science (e.g., Kolbe & Jorgenson, ; Maltese & Tai, ; Palmer et al, ). Null findings related to these variables in this study may reflect measurement issues associated with the Science Teacher Survey used.…”

“…The study of students' attitudes toward science has naturally gravitated toward considerations of the teacher and the quality of science instruction as forces that shape attitudes toward science (Haladyna & Shaughnessy, ; Osborne et al, ; Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, ; Patrick & Yoon, ). The capacity for teachers to influence students has been shown to relate to quality variables, such as the academic preparation of the teacher in the specific field of science (Kolbe & Jorgenson, ), and teaching practices (Ebenezer & Zoller, ). Martin () contended that teachers who had the greatest positive effect on students' attitudes and achievement in science were those with the most experience, scientific training, and interest in science.…”

“…Researchers have also looked to extrinsic variables, including parental involvement and peer influence, to help explain variation in students' attitudes toward science and related dispositions (Aschbacher et al, ; George, ; George & Kaplan, ). Differences among learning environments have also been considered, such as teacher preparation and experience (e.g., Kolbe & Jorgenson, ), and pedagogical practices (e.g., Ornstein, ), but these influences warrant further study (Potvin & Hasni, ). Informed by this review of the literature, the present study was designed to explore these variables to meet the following aims: (a) To capture a cross‐sectional landscape of students' attitudes toward science across Grades 5 through 10; and (b) To explore the influence of individual and school characteristics, including the attributes of classroom teachers, on students' attitudes toward science.…”

Time to Teach: Instructional Time and Science Teachers’ Use of Inquiry-Oriented Instructional Practices

“…Despite the press for instructional reform, evidence suggests that teachers struggle to engage in inquiry-oriented science instruction (Roehrig et al, 2007). Factors such as teacher preparation to teach scientific inquiry (Banilower et al, 2013;Kolbe & Jorgenson, 2018), insufficient professional development (Smith et al, 2007), and access to instructional resources necessary for project-based learning (Barron et al, 1998;Fogleman et al, 2011;Roth et al, 2007) all have been identified as impacting the extent to which teachers incorporated inquiry-based instructional practices in their teaching. Other research suggests that the advent of rigid content standards and standards-based testing pressures may also discourage teachers from engaging in inquiry-oriented science instruction (Faulkner & Cook, 2006;Tretter & Jones, 2003).…”

Content-Specific Leadership: Identifying Literature-Based Implications for Principal Preparation

“…Given the rising expectations for principals to evaluate classroom instruction across content areas and provide feedback to promote teacher growth, this traditional assumption of instructional leadership has become somewhat problematic because it obscures leadership actions that potentially differ by content areas. Furthermore, this conception is misaligned with many teaching models, which have more explicitly considered the salient connection between classroom teacher’s subject matter expertise and pedagogical understanding (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008; Kolbe & Jorgenson, 2018). Thus, a growing number of scholars have challenged a one-size-fits-all conception of instructional leadership (Lochmiller, 2016; Burch & Spillane, 2003; Nelson & Sassi, 2000; Rigby et al, 2017; Stein & Nelson, 2003).…”