The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

NSF
NSF
  • Home
  • The Program
    • NSF Noyce Program Directors
    • NSF Noyce Program Solicitation
    • Consider Becoming an NSF Noyce Principal Investigator
    • Become a Noyce Scholar or Teacher Leader
      • Noyce Scholar Profiles
      • Noyce Alumni Profiles
    • Voices From the Field Videos
  • Project Locator
    • Select from Map
    • Advanced Search
    • Submit Information
  • In the News
    • In the News
  • Meetings
    • 2022 Noyce Summit
    • 2021 Noyce Summer Events
    • 2020 Virtual Noyce Summit
    • Archived Noyce Summit Materials
    • Noyce Regional Meetings
  • Resources
    • Noyce Track 4 Research Book
    • Proposal Preparation Toolkit
    • Noyce Project Videos
    • Noyce Summit Abstract Catalogs
    • Reports
    • Toolkits
    • ARISE Research Community
  • Contact

Beginning Science Teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge, Misconceptions, and Emerging Inquiry-based Teaching Practices

  • Year 2018
  • NSF Noyce Award # 1540797
  • First Name Elizabeth
  • Last Name Lewis
  • Discipline Other: Science teacher education
  • Co-PI(s)

    Daniel Claes, UNL, dclaes@unl.edu
    ; David Harwood, UNL, dharwood1@unl.edu
    ; Tiffany Heng-Moss, UNL, thengmoss2@unl.edu

  • Presenters

    Elizabeth B. Lewis
    , University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    , elewis3@unl.edu
    Co-authors: Ana M. Rivero, Aaron A. Musson, Lyrica L. Lucas, and Amy Tankersley
    , University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    , Seattle University

Need

The landscape of teacher preparation is complex and from a research perspective presents itself as a multilevel, multivariable puzzle. For decades, federal and state policy-makers, teacher education institutions, educational researchers, school districts, administrators, and other stakeholders have tried to determine and measure the key, malleable factors that result in effective teaching. While all U.S. states regulate science teacher certification, there has been no empirically derived minimum levels of subject matter knowledge available to inform such policies. Thus, problematically even when minimal SMK state certification requirements are met teachers may still hold persistent misconceptions. Our research of our two teacher preparation programs contribute a reliable design for producing highly-qualified teachers who can provide active, engaging, constructivist learning opportunities for diverse students while addressing rigorous national science education standards.

Goals

There are few comprehensive studies of beginning science teachers that correlate aspects of teacher preparation programs (TPPs) with enacted teaching practices (NRC, 2010). Our work addresses this research gap. The two TPPs we studied focused on developing preservice teachers’ inquiry-based science instruction, classroom discourse, knowledge of student diversity, and curriculum development in accordance with reform-based science education standards and practices. We compare the undergraduate program to the graduate program, which is more rigorous in terms of requiring more science and more education coursework. We explored how program factors, including subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, affected beginning science teachers? instruction. By studying how individual aspects of teacher qualifications and teaching interact, we can better understand how to prepare teacher candidates during the induction period to reduce attrition and accelerate professional growth.

Approach

We used a longitudinal, multi-method approach to investigating beginning science teachers’ SMK, science misconceptions, self-efficacy, and instructional practices in two TPPs. Teachers’ SMK was examined through an analysis of Misconceptions-Oriented Standards-Based Assessment Resources for Teachers (MOSART) test scores and transcript analysis. We used the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, a 24-item survey instrument with a five-point scale developed by Tschannon-Moran and Hoy (2001), to investigate teachers’ self-efficacy. We conducted a 4-year longitudinal study undergraduate and master’s level science TPP graduates (Lewis, Rivero, Musson, Lu, & Lucas, 2016). We coded and analyzed science lessons to describe teachers’ enacted practices. We coded the lessons using two instruments, the EQUIP instrument (Marshall, Horton, Smart, & Llewellyn, 2008) and the Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms (DiISC) (Baker, et al, 2009) to measure the quality of inquiry-based instruction.

Outcomes

When we investigated the relationship of science subject matter knowledge with subsequent inquiry-based instruction, we found on average that over the induction period the MAT teachers taught lessons using more inquiry-based instruction at twice the rate of the average teacher prepared in the undergraduate program without an undergraduate degree in science. Specifically, new science teachers from the MAT program with an undergraduate degree in chemistry were better prepared to use an inquiry-based approach to teaching chemistry. Our research of our two teacher preparation programs contribute a reliable design for producing highly-qualified teachers who can provide active, engaging, constructivist learning opportunities for diverse students while addressing rigorous national science education standards.

Broader Impacts

Our work has provided evidence that factors such as science content area credit hours, science GPA, and test scores are indicative of teachers? content knowledge and possible misconceptions. Policy makers can look at these and other findings to refine state guidelines for teacher certification to ensure that teachers are strongly prepared. For secondary science teachers, state departments of education that set teacher certification policy should consider making a careful distinction among specific science disciplines, as all sciences are not the same in their learning progressions, degree of linear accumulation of knowledge, and diversity of topics. The project has informed other TPP designs and the findings have been presented at various stages at NARST and ASTE conferences with a new book chapter in press (2018).

What’s New

  • 2023 Noyce Summit
  • 2022 Noyce Summit
  • Noyce by the Numbers: 20 Years of Noyce
  • Proposal Preparation Webinars
  • Frequently Asked Questions for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
  • Become a Noyce Scholar or Teacher Leader
  • Consider Becoming an NSF Noyce Principal Investigator
  • Noyce Alumni: Where Are They Now?

Check out our ARISE website for research & opportunities!

Checking In

NSF

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Numbers DUE-2041597 and DUE-1548986. Any opinions, findings, interpretations, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of its authors and do not represent the views of the AAAS Board of Directors, the Council of AAAS, AAAS’ membership or the National Science Foundation.

AAAS

The World's Largest General Scientific Society

  • About Noyce Program
  • AAAS ISEED
  • Subscribe to ARISE
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
© 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science