Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment Cory T. Forbes Michaela Zint School of Natural Resources & Environment School of Education, University of Michigan Contact: [email protected]Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April, 2009, Garden Grove, CA.
78
Embed
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities ... · Michaela Zint School of Natural Resources & Environment School of Education, University of Michigan Contact: [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April, 2009, Garden Grove, CA.
1
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment
In this study, we explore elementary teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities for, and reported use of scientific inquiry to promote students’ learning about environmental issues and for environmental decision-making. We developed and administered a survey to a randomly-selected sample of elementary teachers (n=250). Findings show that elementary teachers do not differentiate between inquiry practices that promote student learning about and for the environment. Teachers’ beliefs were most consistent with teaching about and for the environment, followed by their perceived capacities and, finally, their reported classroom practices. These findings have important implications for supporting teachers to engage in effective, inquiry-based science teaching about and for the environment at points along the teacher professional continuum.
Introduction
Education about the environment is crucial to promoting sustainability in society.
However, due to the interdisciplinary nature of environmental education and its somewhat
devalued status in the American school curriculum, it has historically struggled not only to
define itself as a field, but, more importantly, to find a niche in classrooms through which to
engage students in environmental issues. Of the commonly-taught subjects in U.S. schools, the
science curriculum has often been the most welcoming to teaching and learning about the
environment because environmental issues inherently possess substantial scientific dimensions
(i.e., DeBoer, 1991). An explicit focus on human relations with the environment remains a
cornerstone of perspectives within the field of science education (DeBoer, 1991; Turner &
Sullenger, 1999), such as those that emphasize science-technology-society (Aikenhead, 1994;
Summary. Previous research suggests that environmental education can be effectively
promoted in teacher learning contexts such as formal teacher education and professional
development. Promoting teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for scientific inquiry is
already a primary goal of science teacher education and professional development. These same
skills are also crucial for teachers in supporting students’ engagement in project-based
environmental education. As such, promoting teacher learning for teaching science as inquiry in
formal teacher education is already indirectly supporting teachers’ learning to address
environmental and sustainability issues through inquiry-oriented science instruction. However, a
more explicit focus on environmental education presents many challenges to science teacher
educators. Professional development remains the most direct route to providing teachers
opportunities to engage in inquiry-oriented, project-based investigations about environmental
issues and to develop their capacity to engage students in similar learning experiences.
Study Design and Methods
The goal of this study is to investigate how elementary teachers support student learning
about and for the environment through scientific inquiry. Toward that end, we asked the
following questions in this study:
1. How do elementary teachers differentiate between inquiry practices designed to
support student learning about and for the environment?
2. How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and
use of scientific inquiry to support student learning about and for the environment?
17
3. What relationships exist between elementary teachers’ professional experiences (e.g.,
teacher education, professional development, and classroom experience) and their
beliefs about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to support student
learning about and for the environment?
Understanding how teachers learn to teach environmental science and engage in
environmentally-oriented teaching practices, as well as relevant mediating factors, will help
science teacher educators and environmental educators better support them to do so.
To address these questions, we developed a survey instrument and administered it to a
random sample of elementary teachers in the university community school district and
surrounding school districts. In the sections that follow, we first describe the survey instrument,
the sampling methods used to administer it, and the quantitative methods used to analyze the
resulting data.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument (Appendices A and B), which was developed specifically for this
study, was designed around three sets of 10 parallel questions (30 items total). These 10
questions are explicitly aligned with scientific inquiry practices articulated in current science
education reform (NRC, 1996, 2000). First, five of the 10 questions represented the five
essential features of inquiry articulated in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards
(NRC, 2000). These include engaging students in scientifically-oriented questions, gathering
and organizing data and evidence, making evidence-based explanations, evaluating explanations,
and communicating explanations. These five questions were meant to provide a measure of
teachers’ use of inquiry to support student learning about environmental issues. Second, we
included 5 additional questions to represent the five features of design in science (NRC, 1996).
18
These included identifying and describing environmental issues, as well as proposing,
implementing, evaluating, and communicating proposed solutions to environmental issues.
These five questions were meant to provide a measure of teaching for environmental decision-
making. These two sets of survey items are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Survey Items for Inquiry Practices to Promote Student Learning about and for the Environment
Learning About Learning For 1. …ask questions and make predictions
about environmental issues. …identify and describe environmental issues.
2. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues.
…propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues.
3. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues.
…implement proposed solutions to environmental issues.
4. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their own or those in the wider community.
…evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues.
5. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them.
…communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues.
Together, these two sets of questions provide a measure of inquiry practices to promote student
learning both about and for the environment and were the primary focus of research question #1.
The survey was also designed to measure teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities,
and actual practices related to the use of inquiry to engage students in learning about and for the
environment. Previous education research has shown teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities
to be important factors in their classroom practices (Hsu & Roth, 1999; Pajares, 1992;
Richardson, 1996; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007; Tal & Argaman, 2005). Additionally, more
broadly defined, they are constituent elements of teachers’ capacity for pedagogical design
(Brown, 2008), or teachers’ capacities to mobilize requisite resources (knowledge, beliefs,
19
curriculum materials, etc.) in light of context dependent affordances and constraints to
effectively promote student learning. .
Teachers were asked to respond to the same 10 survey items from Table 1 separately in
regard to their beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices. First, respondents were
asked to respond to the statement, “As part of my science teaching, I should support my students
to…”, which was included as a measure of teachers’ beliefs. Second, they were asked to respond
to the statement, “I have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to support my students
to…”, which was included as a measure of perceived instructional capacity. Finally, in the third
set of 10 questions, they were asked to respond to the statement “As part of my science teaching,
I currently support my students to…”, which was included as a measure of self-reported
classroom practice. These three sets of these 10 survey items provide a measure of teachers’
beliefs about the use of these practices, perceived capacities to engage students in them, and
frequencies with which they report engaging students in them. These constructs are the primary
focus of research question #2.
In addition to these three sets of 10 questions, the survey also included a series of general
questions related to teaching about and for the environment. Specifically, it contained
demographic questions to characterize the grade levels respondents teach, their years of teaching
experience, how much time they devote to teaching about the environment and environmental
issues in the context of science, as well as others. The survey items about teachers’ professional
preparation, teaching experience, and professional development opportunities provide a series of
independent variables through which to investigate relationships with the other two sets of
constructs (research questions 1 and 2). These relationships are the primary focus of research
question #3.
20
Once developed and made available online, we invited five elementary teachers to test
the survey and provide feedback on the content and organization of the survey. These five
teachers were randomly selected from members of the population who were not selected to be in
the survey sample. They were each contacted via email and asked to record their feedback and
comments on the survey. In addition to more general feedback, they were specifically asked to
document any technical problems they experienced with the online survey and highlight any
survey items that were confusing, unclear, or otherwise problematic. These three teachers
reported finding the content, wording, and organization of the survey items to be effective.
However, they identified a number of technical problems with the online survey that were
subsequently resolved. These five teachers were provided a small stipend for their assistance.
Data Collection
In this study, the survey population was defined as all elementary teachers (k-5) in the
university school district and those school districts immediately adjacent to it. In order to create
the population from which to draw a sample, we referred to publicly-available faculty listings in
the summer of 2007. First, we identified all elementary schools in the school districts of interest.
Second, we visited individual websites for these schools and, in most cases, was able to obtain
faculty lists and other relevant information. In cases where faculty information was not included
on school websites, searchable directories on school district websites were used to identify
elementary teachers in particular schools. We also contacted building administrators to obtain
this information and confirm faculty listings. As a result, we were able to create a sampling
frame of all elementary teachers in the population (N=752), thereby minimizing errors due to
noncoverage (Couper, 2000; Dillman, 1991).
21
Using simple random sampling, we selected 250 teachers from the sampling frame who
were invited to complete the survey. On three separate occasions, these teachers were sent an
invitation email and letter. These invitation attempts occurred in October and November of
2007, and then in February of 2008. Mailings were sent to their school addresses and emails
were sent to their school email addresses. As an incentive for completing the survey, teachers
were entered into a drawing. From the survey respondents, six teachers were randomly selected
to receive $50. These teachers were selected and mailed checks to their school addresses in May
of 2008.
The teachers were able to complete the survey online or in hard copy form and return it in
the mail. In the first and second invitation, the teachers were asked to complete the survey
online. In the third and final invitation, teachers were given the opportunity to complete a paper
version of the survey and return it using a self-addressed, stamped envelope. In effect, this
approach became a mixed-mode design with choice of completion method (Couper, 2000),
meaning the survey was available in multiple formats and respondents were given a choice of
which they preferred to complete. The content and design of both surveys were identical, though
there were some aesthetic differences simply due to affordances and constraints of the two
modes used. Both version of the survey are included in Appendices A and B.
Of the initial 250 teachers in the sample, 13 had moved out of the sample population.
These teachers were identified by undeliverable email and mail and responses from colleagues,
school staff, or administrators. Of the remaining 237 teachers, we received 121 responses for a
52% response rate. Of these 121 responses, 72% of teachers completed the survey online while
28% completed the paper version. Of the 121 teachers who completed the survey, 10 chose not
to have their responses included in the dataset. An additional 25 teachers reported not teaching
22
science in their particular school and curricular contexts. The data for this study is therefore
drawn from 86 elementary teachers from the sample population who completed the survey and
reported teaching science.
Data Analysis
To analyze the survey data, we first performed factor analysis to confirm the theoretical
foundations of the constructs around which the survey was designed. Next, we obtained
reliability coefficients that to assess the unidimensionality or multidimensionality of the data.
Finally, we performed statistical analyses on the survey data to answer my research questions.
Specifically, we addressed my research questions by examining differences in means between
constructs of interest using independent- and paired-samples t-tests, as well as ANOVA.
Factor Analysis. We performed a factor analysis on the 30 survey items to assess the
degree to which the three sets of questions measured teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and
reported use of inquiry to promote students’ learning about and for the environment. The factor
analysis method used was principal axis factoring with varimax rotation. A high Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.863) confirmed that observed correlations between pairs
of variables could be explained by the other variables. The null hypothesis in factor analysis is
that there is no correlation between variables of interest. Bartlett's test of sphericity is used to
test the null hypothesis. Here, Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), suggesting
that the relationship between the variables is strong and factor analysis is appropriate given the
survey data.
Results from the factor analysis of these 30 items identified three distinct factors of 10
items each, consistent with the survey’s design of three unique sets of 10 questions each
designed to measure teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacity, and class practice. The rotated factor
23
matrix for these questions, which illustrates survey item loading on individual factors, is shown
in Table 2.
24
Table 2
Rotated Factor Matrix for 3 Sets of 10 Questions
Factor 1 2 3 As part of my science teaching, I should support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .701 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .665 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .871 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .888 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their
own or those in the wider community. .821
6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .782
7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .664 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .702 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .746 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .856 I have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .693 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .742 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .763 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .792 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their
own or those in the wider community. .776
6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .700
7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .740 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .766 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .833 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .641 As part of my science teaching, I currently support my students to… 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. .7062. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. .7673. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. .7054. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. .8285. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental issues, whether their
own or those in the wider community. .773
6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them. .769
7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. .8318. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. .7779. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .77710. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. .636
Rotation converged in 7 iterations. Values < 0.5 have been suppressed
25
Together, these three factors accounted for 68.85% of the variance in the survey results, as
shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained
Factor Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 6.928 23.093 23.0932 6.894 22.979 46.0723 6.834 22.778 68.8504 1.248 4.160 73.0105 1.085 3.616 76.626
Two additional factors are shown in Table 3 with Eigenvalues greater than 1 (factors 4 and 5).
These account for only an additional 8% of variance. In addition, these two factors were found
not to be significant to the findings. First, as shown in the scree plot in Figure 1, the fourth
factor forms the elbow of the plot, suggesting the first three factors are the only significant
For the first, second, and third factors, actual Eiganvalues from the survey sample were higher
than randomly generated ones, confirming these first three factors should be retained for
analysis. The fourth randomly generated Eigenvalue was greater than the fourth actual
Eigenvalue from the sample, suggesting it and all subsequent factors should not be included.
This analysis confirms the presence of three unique factors that correspond to the three sets of 10
questions around which the survey instrument was designed.
Reliability analysis. Reliability analyses were also performed to assess internal reliability
of the three sets of 10 questions. We obtained Cronbach’s alpha values for each of the three sets
of 10 individually. In each of these four cases, the Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.95 or above.
We also performed reliability analyses for each of the 10 individual questions about inquiry
practices across the three sets in which they were used. Cronbach’s α values for these items are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5
α Values for Inquiry Practices Survey Items
Survey Item α 1. …identify and describe environmental issues. 0.737 2. …ask questions and make predictions about environmental issues. 0.761 3. …perform investigations and gather data about environmental issues. 0.682 4. …construct explanations from evidence about environmental issues. 0.682 5. …connect their explanations to existing ideas about environmental
issues, whether their own or those in the wider community. 0.714
6. …defend explanations about environmental issues and explore differing viewpoints about them.
0.695
7. …propose reasonable solutions to environmental issues. 0.711 8. …implement proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.756 9. …evaluate proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.698 10. …communicate proposed solutions to environmental issues. 0.626
These values provide a measure of how reliable each of the inquiry practices were across the
three dimensions for which they were used (teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and
28
classroom practice). Although five of the ten values for individual inquiry items are below 0.70,
these reliability statistics suggest that these constructs were internally-consistent and reasonably
reliable measures of the constructs of interest (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994).
Finally, in the survey, the term ‘environmental issues’ was defined as “problems such as
pollution (air, water, and soil), biodiversity loss and endangered species, resource depletion, and
habitat loss”. In the survey, teachers were asked the degree to which they agreed with this
definition (item 3a.) and, if they so chose, to describe any differences in this and their own
definition of environmental issues (item 3b.). A majority, 89.9%, indicated they ‘strongly agree’
or ‘agree’ with this definition. Only 3 teachers utilized question 3b to further describe how their
own definitions of the term ‘environmental issues’ differed from that provided in the survey. In
short, the teachers’ responses to items 3a and 3b. indicate a strong agreement on the fundamental
construct of interest in this research.
Results
In the sections that follow, we first provide an overview of the characteristics of teachers
who completed the survey and then present findings by research question.
Characteristics of Teachers in the Study Sample
The elementary teachers who completed the survey were from 37 schools spread across 8
school districts in and around a university community. The teachers were asked to report which
grade(s) they taught. The most commonly taught grade-level was fourth grade (47%), while
kindergarten (14%) and fifth-grade (10%) were least commonly taught. Additionally,
approximately 20% of the teachers reported teaching more than one grade.
The teachers were asked to report the number of years that they had been teaching. The
mean number of years teaching experience was 15.8 (SD=9.12) with a range from three to 38
years. However, the median number of years teaching experience was 13 and the mode was 8.
29
This indicates that the sample of teachers was skewed toward the lower end of the distribution.
In short, respondents tended to be less experienced teachers, though no teachers in the sample
were first- or second-year teachers.
Teachers were also asked to approximate how many hours each year they teach about
environmental issues in the context of science. The mean number of hours reported was 15.1
(SD=15.2) though this value ranged from one hour to 80 hours. The median number of hours
was 10 and the mode was 20 hours, again suggesting that the distribution was skewed towards
the lower end of the range. Over half of the respondents therefore reported teaching about the
environment in the context of science less than 10 hours per year (55%) while 79% reported
doing so 20 hours or less per year.
Teachers were also asked to report whether or not they had taken an environmental
education methods course, how many environmental science/studies courses they had taken, and
how many environmental education professional development experiences they had participated
in. Many teachers reported having taken at least one environmental science course as part of
their postsecondary education and/or teacher education (60%). Relatively fewer teachers,
however, reported completing a course on environmental education teaching methods (20%) or
participating in a professional development experience focused on environmental education
(40%).
These descriptive statistics provide important insight into the respondents’ professional
contexts and experiences. Also, as shown in subsequent sections, they proved important for
identifying trends in the teachers’ reported beliefs about, perceived capacities, and actual use of
scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.
30
Research Question 1 – Differentiating Between Promoting Student Learning About and For the
Environment
A primary purpose of this study was to ascertain the degree to which elementary teachers
emphasized using scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.
In research question 1, we asked ‘How do elementary teachers differentiate between inquiry
practices designed to support student learning about and for the environment?’.
First, in survey item #4, the teachers were asked to respond to the statement “It is
important for elementary students to not only learn about environmental issues but also how to
act on and attempt to solve them”. Over half of the teachers (57%) indicated they strongly
agreed with this statement. An additional 35% indicated they ‘agree’ while an additional 7%
indicated they ‘somewhat agree’. Together, these responses accounted for all but one of the
teachers who completed the survey. This finding suggests that the elementary teachers in this
study overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for students to not only learn about
environmental issues, but also to learn how to act on and attempt to solve them.
Further analyses for research question 1 involved comparing responses to the 10 survey
items for inquiry practices that were consistent across the 3 dimensional question sets that
measured teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported use of scientific inquiry to
promote student learning about and for the environment. One set of these 10 inquiry practices
focused on learning about the environment (5 items) while the other emphasized learning for
decision-making and acting upon environmental issues (5 items), as shown previously in Table
5. We compare findings from these two sets of five inquiry practices in the aggregate (across
measures of teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practice), as well as within
31
each of the three sets of 10 questions for teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual
practices. Statistics from these analyses are shown in Table 6.
32
Table 6
Results from Paired-Samples T-tests Comparing Elementary Teachers’ Inquiry Practices to
Support Student Learning About and For the Environment
As shown in Table 6, there were no significant differences between the teachers’ responses to the
set of inquiry practices focused on supporting student learning about and for the environment
through scientific inquiry. This finding was consistent for teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities,
and reported classroom practices, as well as an aggregate measure across these three categories.
This suggests that the elementary teachers in this study did not draw a fundamental distinction
between, on one hand, inquiry practices to support students’ learning about environmental issues
and scientific concepts and, on the other, for decision-making about environmental issues.
Additionally, there were statistically-significant relationships observed between the
teachers’ beliefs about, perceived capacities for, and reported use of inquiry to support student
learning about and for the environment. First, there was a strong correlation between the
teachers’ responses to the two sets of 5 items focused on supporting student learning about
(xabout) and for (xfor) the environment through scientific inquiry in the aggregate findings as well
as each of the dimensional scores. These correlations are shown in Table 7.
33
Table 7
Correlations between Elementary Teachers’ Inquiry Practices to Support Student Learning
About and For the Environment
Aggregate Beliefs Perceived Capacities Reported Practice Pearson Correlation 0.876 0.840 0.875 0.863 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001 N 86 86 85 85
Second, recall that in survey item #4, the teachers were asked to respond to the statement “It is
important for elementary students to not only learn about environmental issues but also how to
act on and attempt to solve them”. Teachers who reported agreeing more strongly with item #4
also reported beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices that were more oriented
toward the use of inquiry to promote student learning about environmental issues, F(3,84) = 4.6,
p = 0.005, ω2 = 0.13, and for decision-making and action F(3,84) = 4.3, p = 0.007, ω2 = 0.12. In
short, elementary teachers who reported more strongly agreeing that students should learn about
and for the environment also reported beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices that
were more aligned with these goals.
In sum, these results suggest that teachers did not fundamentally distinguish between
engaging students in scientific inquiry to promote learning about and for the environment.
Additionally, there were positive, significant relationships between these variables. Teachers
who prioritized engaging in inquiry to promote student learning about the environment tended to
similarly prioritize engaging in inquiry to promote student learning for environmental decision-
making.
Research Question 2 –Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of
Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning About and For the Environment
34
We also sought to investigate the degree to which elementary teachers believe they
should support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry, their
perceived capacity to do so, and how often they reported engaging in these practices. In research
question 2, we asked, ‘How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs about, perceived
capacities, and actual classroom practices for the use of inquiry practices to support student
learning about and for the environment?’. To answer research question 2, we drew upon the
combined scores for the 10 inquiry practices within each of the three dimensions measuring
teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual classroom practice.
Scores for teachers’ beliefs were highest, followed by teachers’ perceived capacities and,
finally, teachers’ actual classroom practices. The mean scores were 5.94 (SD=0.90), 5.26
(SD=1.08), and 4.8 (SD=1.31), respectively. Differences between these three scores were
significant. Scores for teachers’ beliefs were significantly higher than scores for their perceived
capacities, t(86) = 6.45, p < .001, d = 0.31, and their reported actual classroom practices, t(85) =
8.36, p < .001, d = 0.92. Similarly, scores for perceived capacity were significantly higher than
for their reported teaching practices, t(86) = 4.07, p < .001, d = 0.70.
These findings suggest that teachers most strongly believe that they should engage in
scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment. However, they also
felt less capable of doing so (perceived capacities), suggesting a mismatch between the practices
in which they felt they should engage and their perceived capacities to engage in them. Finally,
the teachers’ actual reported classroom practice was lower than both their beliefs and perceived
capacities. This finding suggests that the degree to which they report engaging students in these
inquiry practices is significantly less than their perceived capacities and beliefs.
35
Research Question 3 - Relationships between Teacher Characteristics and Teachers’ Beliefs
About, Perceived Capacities for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student
Learning About and For the Environment
Last, we also investigated relationships between specific teacher characteristics and their
beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practices as discussed in the previous sections. In
research question 3, we asked, ‘What relationships exist between elementary teachers’
professional characteristics (e.g., teacher education, professional development, and classroom
experience) and their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and actual classroom practices for the
use of inquiry practices to support student learning about and for the environment?’. To answer
research question 3, we again drew upon the combined scores for the 10 inquiry practices within
each of the three dimensions measuring teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported
classroom practice. We then analyzed differences in these scores based on teachers’ responses to
demographic questions. Before discussing findings in detail, we present a brief summary of
statistically-significant relationships in Table 8.
36
Table 8
Summary of Statistically-significant Relationships (x) Between Demographic Variables and
Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and Reported Use of Inquiry to Promote Students’
Learning About and For the Environment.
Beliefs Perceived Capacities
Reported Practice
# hours/year teaching about environmental issues x x x # years teaching experience x x Environmental education teaching methods course x # environmental science/studies courses # professional development focused on environmental issues.
x
As shown in the table, statistically-significant relationships were observed in four of the five
demographic variables measured in the survey.
Recall that teachers were asked to estimate how many hours each year they teach about
environmental issues in the context of science. Results suggest strong relationships between
teachers’ experience in the classroom and their beliefs, perceived capacities, and actual
classroom practice, as shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Correlations Between Time Spent Teaching About Environmental Issues in the Context of
Science and Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and Reported Classroom Practice
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). As shown in Table 10, there was not a statistically-significant correlation between years teaching
experience and teachers’ beliefs about engaging students in inquiry practices to promote learning
about environmental issues and scientific concepts or for decision-making and action. However,
there was a relatively weak, albeit significant relationship between, on the one hand, teaching
experience and, on the other, teachers’ perceived capacities and actual classroom practices. In
short, more experienced teachers felt they were more capable of engaging in inquiry to promote
student learning about and for the environment. They also reported engaging students in these
practices more often.
38
There were important observed relationships between teachers’ opportunities for
learning, both preservice and inservice, and their beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported
engagement in inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment. First,
elementary teachers were asked to report whether or not they had taken an environmental
education methods course. One out of five (20%) teachers reported having taken such a course.
For elementary teachers who reported taking an environmental education methods course, there
was no statistically-significant relationship between their perceived capacities, t(83) = 1.56, p =
0.12, d = 0.21, or reported classroom practices, t(83) = 1.18, p = 0.24, d = 0.19. However, those
who reported taking an environmental education methods course believed more strongly that
they should support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry
than respondents who had not taken such a course, t(83) = 2.22, p = 0.03, d = 0.49.
Teachers were also asked how many professional development experiences they had
participated in which had focused on environmental education. The teachers reported having
taken anywhere from 1 to 5 such courses (M=1.85, SD=1.35). There were no significant
relationships between the number of such professional development experiences the elementary
teachers reported and either their beliefs, F(4,80) = 1.55, p = 0.20, ω2 < 0.01, or reported
classroom practice, F(4,81) = 2.42, p = 0.055, ω2 = 0.06. However, elementary teachers who
reported having more professional development experiences focused on environmental education
(M=1.85, SD =.15) reported a greater perceived capacity to engage students in inquiry practices
to learn about the environment and for environmental decision-making, F(4,81) = 3.24, p =
0.016, ω2 = 0.10. This finding suggests that the more professional development experiences
teachers participate in that are specifically focused on environmental education, the more capable
they reported feeling in their knowledge, skills, and resources to engage students in inquiry
39
practices to promote learning about environmental issues and scientific concepts, as well as for
decision-making and action.
Teachers were also asked to report the number of environmental science and/or studies
course they had taken. The teachers reported having taken anywhere from 1 to 5 such courses
(M=2.34, SD=1.4). However, there were no significant relationships between the number of
environmental science and/or studies courses elementary teachers had taken and either their
beliefs, F(4,80) = 1.11, p = 0.36, ω2 = 0.06, perceived capacities, F(4,80) = 2.48, p = 0.051, ω2 =
0.09, or classroom practices, F(4,80) = 2.33, p = 0.063, ω2 = 0.02. These findings suggest that
there were no significant differences in teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported
engagement of students in inquiry practices to promote learning about environmental issues and
scientific concepts, as well as for decision-making and action, based on the number of
environmental science and/or studies courses they had taken.
Summary of Results
Findings from this study are threefold. First, the elementary teachers in this study did not
articulate a statistically-significant difference between, on the one hand, engaging students in
scientific inquiry to promote their learning about the environment and, on the other, for
environmental decision-making and action. However, second, their beliefs, perceived capacities,
and degree to which they reported engaging students in inquiry to promote student learning about
and for the environment did differ. Scores for the elementary teachers’ beliefs were highest,
followed by their perceived capacities and, finally, their reported classroom practices. Finally,
third, important, statistically-significant relationships were observed between demographic
variables and the elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported use of inquiry
to promote students’ learning about and for the environment. Both teaching experience and the
40
number of hours spent teaching about the environment were positively related to teachers’
beliefs, perceived capacities, and classroom practice. Results also showed that environmental
education methods courses were positively-related to elementary teachers’ beliefs and that
professional development focused on environmental education were positively-related to
elementary teachers’ perceived capacities.
Discussion
Teachers play a crucial role in supporting students’ development of scientific and
environmental literacy. In science, they must engage students in inquiry practices to not only
support their learning about environmental issues, or about science in the context of
environmental issues, but also for decision-making and action about environmental issues in the
context of science. However, this is a challenging task for elementary teachers who, particularly
if they are inexperienced, may not possess requisite beliefs and/or capacities to engage in
effective and substantive science teaching practice (Abell, 2007; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006;
Morton & Dalton, 2007). The specific purpose of this study was to further investigate
elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported classroom practice about and for
the environment, as well as observed relationships between these and other important factors. In
the following sections, we revisit main findings from this study, discuss recommendations for
supporting teachers to engage in inquiry-oriented science teaching to support student learning
about and for the environment, and articulate questions for future research.
Research Question 1 – Differentiating Between Promoting Student Learning About and For the
Environment
In research question 1, we asked ‘How do elementary teachers differentiate between
inquiry practices designed to support student learning about and for the environment?’.
Findings suggest that the elementary teachers in this study considered both to be important and
41
did not differentiate between the two goals in terms of their beliefs, perceived capacities, or
reported teaching practices. On the one hand, this finding supports previous research, which has
shown that teachers want to teach about the environment (Kim & Fortner, 2006; Plevyak et al.,
2001; Sadler et al., 2006). However, previous studies have also shown that teachers often feel
less able to engage students in decision-making and action about environmental issues than they
do to support students’ learning of science content. Findings here extend existing research on
teachers and environmental education by illustrating the compatible goals teachers hold for not
only supporting student learning about environmental issues and their underlying scientific
dimensions, but also for supporting the development of students’ decision-making capacities.
Research Question 2 –Teachers’ Beliefs About, Perceived Capacities For, and Reported Use of
Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning About and For the Environment
In research question 2, we asked, ‘How do elementary teachers describe their beliefs
about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to support student learning about and
for the environment?’. Significant differences existed between teachers’ beliefs, perceived
capacities, and reported classroom practice. Scores for teachers’ beliefs were highest, followed
by perceived capacities and, finally, classroom practices. These findings suggest that elementary
teachers do not report possessing the knowledge, skills, and resources to engage students in
inquiry practices to learn about and for the environment in the ways that they believe they
should. Furthermore, they report actually engaging students in these inquiry practices less often
then they believe they have the capacity to do so. We next discuss teachers’ perceived capacities
and classroom practice.
Teachers’ perceived capacities. Hsu and Roth (1999) found that the most significant
predictors of teachers’ environmentally-oriented teaching practices were, on one hand, teachers’
42
intentions to engage in such practices and, on the other, their perceived capacity to do so. As
previously discussed in research question #1 regarding promoting student learning about and for
the environment, the elementary teachers in this study reported beliefs and intentions to engage
in inquiry to promote student learning. However, they reported perceived capacities to engage in
these practices that were lower than their desired practices. These findings illuminate a
disconnect between the teaching practices these teachers believe they should be engaging in and
their perceived capacities to actually engage in those practices.
Previous research provides some evidence as to what limitations teachers perceive in
their capacities to engage in environmental education practices. Even if teachers believe strongly
that they should support student learning about and for the environment, they view
environmental education as a deprioritized component of school curricula (Christenson, 2004).
As such, they of often also report lacking effective curriculum materials to support student
learning about and for the environment (Hughes, 2000; Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003;
May, 2000). Finally, even if teachers are expected to teach about and for the environment, and
have curriculum materials that enable them to do so, they often report a lack of confidence in
their subject-matter knowledge (Ekborg, 2003; Fortner & Meyer, 2000; Littledyke, 1997) or
abilities to use effective instructional strategies to support student learning about the
environment. For teachers’ perceived capacities to be brought into alignment with their beliefs,
they need to be supported with relevant goals for student learning, effective curriculum
materials, as well as opportunities to develop appropriate knowledge of content and an
understanding of how to engage students in inquiry to promote their learning about and for the
environment.
43
Teachers’ reported practice. Finally, teachers’ reported actual use of inquiry practices to
promote student learning about and for the environment were lower than both their beliefs and
perceived capacities. In short, they reported engaging students in these practices far less than
they believed they should and than they reported feeling capable of. Specifically, the teachers in
this study reported teaching about the environment an average of 15.11 hours each year. Recent
research (Morton & Dalton, 2007) suggests that k-4 teachers devote approximately 2.3 hours per
week to science, or around 82.8 hours of science per year. This is approximately 7.1% of the
average school week and suggests that 18% of instructional time these teachers devoted to
science each year involves teaching about the environment. This number represents
approximately 1.3% of elementary students’ total time in school - a miniscule percentage of total
school time being devoted to students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy.
More recent elementary-focused research has shown that a disproportionate amount of
instructional time and resources being allocated to certain subjects, such as mathematics and
literacy, while science is increasingly deprioritized (Marx & Harris, 2006; Spillane et al., 2001).
The statistics provided here illustrate how this trend is influencing the amount of instructional
time being devoted to students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy.
Research Question 3 - Relationships between Teacher Characteristics and Teachers’ Beliefs
About, Perceived Capacities For, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student
Learning About and For the Environment
Finally, in research question 3, we asked, ‘What relationships exist between elementary
teachers’ professional characteristics (e.g., teacher education, professional development, and
classroom experience) and their beliefs about, perceived capacities, and use of scientific inquiry
to support student learning about and for the environment?’. Teachers who reported a greater
44
number of years teaching experience and number of hours each year teaching about
environmental issues in science also reported feeling more strongly that teachers should engage
students in these inquiry practices, reported a greater perceived capacity to do so, and also
reported doing so more often. Teachers who reported taking an environmental education
methods course believed more strongly that inquiry practices should be used to teach about
environmental issues than respondents who had not taken such a course. Finally, respondents
who reported having more professional development experiences focused on environmental
education reported a greater perceived capacity to engage students in inquiry practices to learn
about environmental issues. These findings have important implications for how elementary
teachers may best be supported to engage in inquiry to promote student learning about and for
the environment.
Implications
Based on the findings for each of my research questions, we next provide
recommendations for fostering elementary teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities to engage in
inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment.
Fostering Beliefs and Intent
Teachers’ beliefs are an important mediating influence on their classroom practice
(Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007). To support student learning
about and for the environment through scientific inquiry, teachers need to believe these are
important goals. Findings from this study, as well as previous research, show that teachers do
want to teach about the environment (Kim & Fortner, 2006; Plevyak et al., 2001; Sadler et al.,
2006). Based on this evidence, it appears that teachers’ beliefs and intent are not significant
barriers to engaging in instruction about and for the environment.
45
Moreover, this study’s findings illustrate how teachers might be further supported to
develop beliefs and intent that are consistent with engaging students in inquiry practices to
support their learning about and for the environment. Our findings suggest, first, that actually
engaging in classroom teaching about and for the environment is positively related to teachers’
beliefs about doing so. Second, methods courses for preservice teachers specifically focused on
environmental education are positively related to teachers’ beliefs about using inquiry practices
to engage students in learning about the environment. Further research should be carried out to
establish causal relationships between these experiences and teachers’ beliefs about, perceived
capacities, and actual use of inquiry practices to engage students in learning about and for the
environment.
There are important implications of these findings. First, the more experience teachers
have teaching about and for the environment in the context of science, they more they prioritize
these practices. Especially for practicing teachers, the frequency with which they teach about the
environment is largely determined by local standards, available curriculum materials, access to
on- and off-site settings, and available instructional time (Gayford, 2002; Hughes, 2000; Kim &
Fortner, 2006; May, 2000; Meichtry & Harrell, 2002; Zint & Peyton, 2001). For preservice
teachers, however, gaining teaching experience is problematic as many teacher education
programs do not provide such opportunities and, even when they do, they are limited.
Additionally, adding required environmental education methods courses to teacher education
programs further crowds an already crowded curriculum (Heimlich et al., 2004). For formal
teacher education to place greater emphasis on environmental education, and for practicing
teachers to support student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry,
46
students’ development of scientific and environmental literacy must be reprioritized alongside
goals for their subject-matter learning.
Fostering Capacity
In addition to supporting teachers to develop beliefs and intentions that support teaching
about and for the environment, they must also be supported to develop the capacity to do so.
Teachers’ capacities for pedagogical design (Brown, 2008) are a function of their own personal
resources (knowledge, skills, etc.), the physical tools at their disposal, and features of the
contexts in which they work. To develop their subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge, as well as learn how to mobilize knowledge resources, curricular resources,
and activity settings, teachers need long-term, sustained, coherent opportunities for learning
through teacher education and ongoing professional development.
To effectively support student learning about and for the environment through inquiry,
teachers must not only develop knowledge and skills, have access to effective curriculum
materials, and be supported by the teaching contexts, but also learn how to use these resources
effectively in light of context to accomplish particular instructional goals. As such, this is a
highly situated process, meaning these elements of any given teacher’s pedagogical design
capacity will be unique. Therefore, teachers’ learning to effectively mobilize these resources in
light of their unique school and classroom contexts will also be highly dependent on how
contextualized opportunities for learning are.
Findings from this study reinforce this perspective. First, as with teachers’ beliefs, actual
experience using inquiry in the classroom to support students’ learning about and for the
environment was related to teachers’ perceived capacity to do so. In short, the more time
teachers spend engaging in these practices, they more confident they reported feeling in their
47
capacity to do so. Additionally, professional development opportunities focused on teaching
about and for environmental issues was positively related to teachers’ perceived capacities, or
their requisite knowledge, skills, and resources, to engage students in relevant inquiry practices.
Unlike many teacher education experiences, inservice professional development is often focused
more specifically on particular pedagogical and content domains. As such, they are often
designed to explicitly address issues and practices relevant to a subset of teachers with similar
needs (Dresner, 2002; Wee et al., 2007). It is encouraging, then, that these experiences can
increase teachers’ perceived capacities to support student learning about and for the environment
through scientific inquiry.
Interestingly, however, these results do not indicate a relationship between the number of
environmental science courses teachers reported having taken and their beliefs about engaging
students in inquiry to learn about environmental issues, their perceived capacities to do so, or
their reported teaching practice. While robust subject-matter knowledge is important for
teachers to effectively engage in teaching about the environment (Ekborg, 2003; Fortner &
Meyer, 2000; Littledyke, 1997; Sadler et al., 2006), this finding suggests that traditional science
content courses may not be the most effective method for supporting teachers’ subject-matter
learning.
Limitations and Future Research
While this study contributes to our understanding of teachers’ beliefs, perceived
capacities, and use of scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the
environment, it has limitations and lead to additional questions for investigation. First, the
survey data upon which these findings are self-report. Such data is widely used and appropriate
as a measure of teachers’ expressed knowledge, beliefs, orientations, self-efficacy, and other
48
personal characteristics. However, it is more problematic for characterizations of the teachers’
practice, in this case environmentally-oriented teaching practice, as it does not allow for data
triangulation through observation. Future research exploring teachers’ use of scientific inquiry
to promote student learning about and for the environment should draw upon observations of
classroom activity. Such observations should be carried out extended periods of times in an
effort to further illuminate how and to what extent teachers are engaging in these teaching
practices. This is especially crucial for establishing links between personal teacher
characteristics and what they actually do in their classrooms.
Second, this study is limited by the 52% response rate achieved in the survey
administration. This response rate is acceptable given typical response rates on mail-
administered surveys (Dillman, 1991). It is also not surprising given the downward trend in
survey response rates that has been discussed at length by survey researchers (Curtin, Presser, &
Singer, 2005). Nonetheless, it is possible that non-respondents in this study exhibited
significantly different beliefs and characteristics than did respondents. Every attempt was made
to maximize teacher response rates until funds for this study were exhausted. To maximize
survey response rates, researchers need to, first, draw upon previous survey research with
teachers to identify effective administration techniques and incentives. Second, survey research
needs to be sufficiently funded so that appropriate funds can be allocated so as to maximize
response rates. More research is needed to investigate how to best employ research resources in
survey research with teachers to as to maximize coverage and minimize response error.
Findings from this study yield many more questions that merit further investigation.
Overall, results from the survey suggest that teaching experience, specifically experience
teaching about and for the environment, is significantly related to beliefs about and perceived
49
capacities to promote student learning about and for the environment through scientific inquiry.
However, more research is needed to better understand how to bring teachers’ beliefs, perceived
capacities, and actual teaching practice into alignment. For example, because taking an
environmental methods course was positively related to teachers’ beliefs, additional research
should explore how environmental education methods can be integrated into existing science
teaching methods courses. However, since environmental science courses were not significantly
related to teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, or teaching practices, more research is needed
to explore how preservice and inservice teachers’ subject-matter learning can be optimally-
supported. Professional development was also shown to be positively related to teachers’
perceived capacities. Further research should explore how to leverage these experiences to not
only increase teachers’ beliefs about and perceived capacities for inquiry-based teaching about
environmental issues, but also their actual engagement in these classroom practices.
Conclusion
Current reform in both science education and environmental education call for students’
development of scientific literacy and environmental literacy (NAAEE, 2000; NRC, 1996,
2009). To become scientifically- and environmentally-literate, students need to engage in
scientific inquiry to learn about environmental issues, or about science in the context of
environmental issues, and for decision-making and action about environmental issues. One way
for this to occur is through integrated, substantive, project-based approaches to science education
that are already being argued for (Grandy & Duschl, 2007). Many contemporary science
curriculum development projects have designed science curricula around this driving principle