ERIC EJ851873: Elementary Science Specialists: A Pilot Study of Current Models and a Call for Participation in the Research

2008·0.24 MB·English

by  ERIC

Reneé S. Schwartz and Julie Gess-Newsome
Elementary Science Specialists:
A Pilot Study of Current Models
And a Call for Participation in
The Research
The authors report an empirical pilot study of current models of elementary
science instruction that utilize science specialists, and make a call for the
participation of schools and districts that use a specialist model to assist
in collecting the descriptive data needed to create the foundation for future
research on the use and impact of elementary science specialists.
What learning experiences communication among students as when answering questions,
do elementary students need to they build expertise and confidence. relying on data, being skeptical of
achieve scientific literacy? How are This inquiry instructional approach explanations while being open to
these experiences best provided? places demands on the elementary new ideas, and respecting reason
These questions have long been teacher beyond science content and honesty.” (p. 2)
the focus of research and reform knowledge and traditional pedagogical
(2) Pedagogical knowledge and
(AAAS, 1993; Appleton, 2007; knowledge. Gess-Newsome (1999)
skill: Teachers need to plan,
NRC, 1996). Paramount among the describes four attributes required of
implement, and assess student
recommendations is that children teachers to provide effective science
active involvement in science
should be active learners, constructing instruction:
instruction. “Activities should
science understanding through hands- (1) Content knowledge and be inquiry-oriented, support the
on/minds-on inquiry experiences. attitudes: “… understanding of social construction of accurate
Young learners should engage in the four elements of scientific science knowledge, and develop
science investigations wherein they literacy: conceptual knowledge, classroom community” (p. 2).
ask questions, collect and make sense nature of science, integration, and
(3) Knowledge of students: This
of data, and come to conclusions relevance. Attitudes that support
category includes knowledge of
that are supported by evidence science teaching include an
student development; student
(NRC, 2000; 2007). Students should enthusiasm and a willingness to
misconceptions; and students in
investigate “authentic questions create time for science instruction
one’s class such that the teacher
generated from student experiences” and recognize that all students
recognizes opportunities to
(NRC, 2000, p. 31). Students should have the right to be engaged in
garner interest and make relevant
experience science inquiry such meaningful science instruction.
connections (p. 2).
that they develop positive attitudes, Teachers with positive attitudes
skills, and knowledge about science toward science will encourage (4) Knowledge of
and the relationship between science similar attitudes in their students curriculum: “… allows a
and society. These experiences by modeling curiosity, using teacher to select, adapt, or create
should involve collaboration and problem solving approaches instructional materials to meet
FALL 2008 VOL. 17, NO. 2 19
student needs and recognize how perhaps even holding a degree in a
these materials combine to create science area and specialize in science
The importance of early
a coordinated program of science teaching (Abell, 1990). A specialist’s
quality science learning
both across grade levels … and main emphasis in a school or district
across the curriculum …” (p. 2) experiences and demands is science instruction. They could
Teachers are not only expected from high-stakes testing develop curriculum, provide resources,
to have expertise in all these areas has created a dilemma in offer professional development,
regarding science, elementary teachers elementary settings. deliver science instruction alone or in a
are also expected to have expertise co-teaching model, and serve as coach
in all these areas regarding the other or mentor to classroom generalists to
subjects they teach. Few would doubt their minimal science background, enhance science instruction. Advocates
the importance of science education for with more than two-thirds of their for elementary science specialists
today’s society. However, in the age sample reporting they did not feel well argue that the more substantial science
of No Child Left Behind, elementary prepared to teach science; whereas content and pedagogical knowledge
science instruction has been given 77% reported feeling well prepared and high priority and support for
lower priority than reading and to teach language arts and reading. science teaching will result in higher
mathematics, resulting in even less Other constraints of poor facilities, quality science learning experiences
time devoted to science (Griffith & overcrowded curriculum, limited for elementary children (Abell, 1990;
Scharmann, 2008; Sandler, 2003). The time and resources, and limited Gess-Newsome, 1999; Hounshell
importance of early quality science administrative support contribute & Swartz, 1987; Jones & Edmunds,
learning experiences and demands to the de-emphasis of science at the 2006; Nelson & Landel, 2007;
from high-stakes testing has created elementary levels (Appleton, 2007; Neuman, 1981; Schwartz et al., 2000;
a dilemma in elementary settings. Ramsey-Gassert et al., 1996; Rhoton, Williams, 1990).
What type of elementary science Field, & Prather, 1992; Tilgner, Even though specialist-led models
instructional model will help meet the 1990). The persistence of these have been in place for decades, there
needs of today’s learner? constraints, and the added constraints have been few published descriptions
Most elementary classroom due to No Child Left Behind (Griffith of models (e.g. Abell, 1990; Gess-
teachers have limited experience with & Scharmann, 2008), cannot be Newsome, 1999; Hounshell & Swartz,
science in general, let alone scientific overlooked in the planning and 1987; Jones & Edmunds, 2006; Nelson
investigations (Smith & Anderson, implementation of quality elementary & Landel, 2007; Neuman, 1981;
1999). Lack of content knowledge science instruction. Schwartz et al., 2000; Williams, 1990),
and investigation experience has and even fewer empirical studies of
Elementary Science
been linked to teachers’ lack of self- existing models and their effectiveness
confidence in teaching science and, Specialists on student achievement (Jones &
in turn, lack of science emphasis in In response, many schools and Edmunds, 2006; Schwartz et al.,
their elementary classroom (Appleton, school districts across the United States 2000). Schwartz et al. (2000) provides
2007; Ramsey-Gassert et al., 1996; have sought the expertise of elementary one empirical study that compared
Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & science specialists. In 2000, as many instructional planning between science
Lederman, & 2000; Tilgner, 1990). as 15% of elementary students in the specialists and generalists; and student
The 2000 National Survey of Science United States received some science achievement between a specialist-led
and Mathematics Education (Weiss, instruction from science specialists district and a non-specialist district.
Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001) in addition to their regular classroom This study demonstrated the science
revealed that 40% of K-5 teachers teacher, and 12% received instruction instructional planning of the science
have had four or fewer semesters of solely from a science specialist (Weiss specialists better aligned with reform-
college level science. The survey also et al., 2001). Specialists have many based practices in comparison with
showed that K-5 teachers’ perceptions roles and faces, but typically they have the regular classroom teachers in the
of their own preparedness reflected greater science content background, same district. Further, students taught
20 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
by the elementary science specialists Education Development Center, science specialists (see also the article
were engaged in inquiry-oriented Inc. (EDC) organized an invitational by Century in this issue of the Science
activities and demonstrated critical conference “Exploring the impact Educator). The discussion during the
thinking abilities. In comparison of elementary science specialists,” conference made it abundantly clear
to students in the non-specialist funded by the National Science that there are multiple models, multiple
district, students taught by the science Foundation. The conference was roles, and multiple descriptions of
specialists were not significantly held in Boston, MA, in the fall of elementary science specialists. The
different in achievement on state 2007. The purpose of the conference purpose of this paper is to begin
science tests. The study lends support was to discuss the current state of clarifying some of these features by
to the effectiveness of the district’s affairs regarding how elementary examining current practices.
science specialist model in enhancing science specialists are utilized and
Problem
learners’ inquiry and critical thinking to set a research agenda to study the
skills, while maintaining content effectiveness of these programs. In this As described in the EDC article
achievement as measured on state issue of the Science Educator, (EDC, (this issue) articulating the research
tests. The study also demonstrated the 2008) presents the findings from the agenda, descriptive studies about the
exclusive use of science specialists conference and has organized the more use of elementary science specialists
for all science instruction, the model than 50 research questions generated are needed in order to develop a
implemented in the targeted district, at the conference in a proposed common vocabulary and to act as a
may have diminished science teaching research agenda. At the close of the foundation for an empirical literature
abilities of the regular classroom conference, we proposed to conduct base. This descriptive study is an
teachers in that district. In their study an initial descriptive study of science initial attempt to provide some of
of three schools employing science specialist programs represented at the the needed information. The purpose
specialists, Jones and Edmunds conference. The findings of this study of this study was to test the validity
(2006) found similar results regarding are reported here, along with a call for of the elementary science specialist
instructional approach employed by participation in a larger comprehensive model descriptors as developed from
science specialists. These results were study. Before we can begin addressing the literature, educational practice,
consistent whether the specialist was the practical issues of impact on and discussion at the EDC conference.
the sole deliverer of science instruction student achievement, we must have As a result of this investigation, we
or if the specialist was a curriculum an understanding of how elementary anticipate three outcomes: 1) the
leader who worked with the classroom science specialists are currently being pilot testing of a set of questions that
generalists on science instruction. utilized in various districts and schools. can be used in surveys and interviews
We must develop common language to capture information about the use
Developing a Research as well as common understanding of of elementary science specialists, 2)
Agenda the phenomena related to elementary the identification of a set of potential
Policy, curricular, and instructional school or district sites for further
decisions regarding elementary and more in-depth investigation,
science must be informed by and 3) an initial trial of data analysis
research. The studies described above strategies for use with an expanded
suggest that science specialists can Lack of content knowledge data base. The ultimate purpose of this
enhance elementary science learning and investigation experience article is to invite the participation of
experiences. To date, however, has been linked to teachers’ elementary schools and districts that
sufficient research on current practices lack of self-confidence use a science specialist model to assist
and effectiveness of elementary us in collecting the descriptive data that
in teaching science and,
science specialists is sorely lacking. we need to create the foundation for
in turn, lack of science
In response to the interest and need future research on the use and impact
for understanding and research, the emphasis in their elementary of elementary science specialists.
classroom.
Center for Science Education at the
FALL 2008 VOL. 17, NO. 2 21
Method respondents, representing six large
This study was conducted in three urban districts.
In 2000, as many as 15%
phases. First, the elementary science In the third phase of the study, an
of elementary students in
specialist models discussed in the initial descriptive analysis of the data
the United States received
literature were synthesized, vetted at was conducted, resulting in Table 1
the EDC science specialists conference and the qualitative results that are some science instruction
(EDC, this issue), and then organized presented in this paper. Based on from science specialists
as an initial framework for capturing this analysis, a second e-mail survey in addition to their regular
the use of specialists in schools. This was sent to the 12 respondents (see classroom teacher, and 12%
synthesis was built upon a model note 1 for web access to the survey).
received instruction solely
initially proposed by Gess-Newsome The second survey sought to clarify
from a science specialist
(1999), with the added reference to the initial responses with questions
Nelson and Landel (2007) who used focused on the variation in model
the term “collaborative specialist” use within a district, the variation
All indicated a willingness to be
as a model consistent with the in time spent in science instruction,
interviewed or to provide additional
departmentalized model. Based on the and the perceived challenges to
information.
discussion at the EDC conference, the implementation (organized around
All six of our predetermined
specialist-led models were categorized the themes of financial support,
instructional models were represented
as Student Instructional Models or school-level support, district-level
in the sample (Table 1), lending support
Teacher Mentoring Models, depending administrative support, the impact
for the conceptual organization. We
upon the focus of the program. For of state testing, and issues related to
were initially surprised to find districts
instance, the Student Instructional implementation such as scheduling
indicating that they used several
Models all relate to variations in and curriculum materials). Six of the
of the models described and were
the use of specialists in the direct respondents, representing three of the
concerned that the multiple indications
teaching of students, where the districts, responded to this e-mail.
were a result of a poor conceptual
Teacher Mentoring Models use This data was qualitatively analyzed
organization or insufficient model
specialists to assist classroom teachers using open coding (Krathwohl,
descriptors. The second survey helped
in science instruction as opposed to 1998), looking for themes across the
clarify this issue: districts often used
direct instruction. Programs utilizing respondents that might illuminate
different models in different schools.
classroom generalists only, without further refinement of survey questions
For instance, within a single district,
hiring of a specialist, are classified or prompt additional forms of data
some schools followed a generalist
under “Generalist Models.” The collection and analysis.
model while others used one of the
conceptual organization for this study
Results and Discussion specialist models. District 1 described
can be found in Table 1.
a slight variation of the science
In order to test the conceptual Elementary Science Specialist
specialist pull-out model whereby
organization, in the second phase, Models
the classroom teachers signed up for
34 school-based participants who
Answers to the initial survey a 4-6 week block of time to take their
attended the EDC conference were
were received from 12 respondents students to the science laboratory
e-mailed a survey listing the model
representing six large urban districts where the science specialist engaged
types and asking them to indicate the
in six different states (California, the students in an extended unit. Other
models that most closely-match their
Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, times during the year the classroom
school or district. They were also
New York, and Washington). The teacher was responsible for science
asked to provide information about
individuals who responded fulfilled instruction, with support from the
model variation within their district
the following roles: six were school- specialist (support team model).
and the number of hours dedicated
based science specialists, four were This finding suggests that it will be
to elementary science instruction.
district-level science specialists, and important to determine, beyond the
Answers were received from 12
two were elementary school principals. science specialist model in use, the
22 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
level of responsibility for science may devote more time to science It is up to the individual site
instruction retained by the classroom instruction. administrator to decide whether
teacher in addition to instruction The follow up survey (see note 1 for or not to use school funds (Title
provided by the specialist. Such web access to the survey) attempted I funds, grant money, other staff
information will help determine if the to clarify the reasons for variation in allotment funds) for a specialist.
prevalence of the classroom generalist the use of specialists within districts, Reading and math specialist
model is isolated from or in addition as well as identify obstacles and positions are funded by the
to a science specialist. In looking at facilitating factors associated with district. Each school gets at least
the Teacher Mentoring Models, the specialist-led models, and elicit two reading positions and one
level of organizational support (school perceived impacts of the models on math position. (science specialist)
or district) varied with our sample, teachers and students. Six of the initial
Funding, I think, is the major
indicating a need to specifically ask 12 volunteers responded to our follow
cause [of variation across the
about the level at which the specialist up request, representing three of the
district]. While I am officially the
is employed. Based on this initial districts (Districts 1, 2, & 6). The
science specialist at our school,
analysis, the conceptual organization results presented below are based on
our administrator can not afford
of elementary specialist models both sets of surveys. to use any more discretionary
was supported by this pilot sample funds for a math specialist, so I
Source of Variation: Site-based
and, with minor modifications and now fill both roles as best I can.
Decision-making
clarification, will be used for further Some schools can not afford
Within district variance in the use
data collection efforts. either of these positions so in
of specialist models was attributed to
In this initial survey, we also lieu, develop a lead teacher, lab
administrative decisions and funding
sought to gain insight on the amount teacher, or other such support
issues at the school level. In general,
of time spent in science instruction. role that would see more students
schools were empowered to make
With variation by school in the use and have less “free” time to work
site-based decisions in terms of the
of a model, it was quickly apparent with individual teachers on their
use of specialists. Funding constraints,
that more categories were needed to own implementation of science.
however, seem to be the controlling
accurately capture this information. (science specialist)
factor in the hiring of specialists
In Table 1, we modified our original
Within our pilot sample, only
and the breadth of their service
question to assess the amount of time
two districts employed district-level
responsibility (a single school versus
spent in science on average across the
science resource specialists; all other
multiple schools in a district), as can
district, and asked for a comparison
science specialists were hired and
be seen in the following quotes:
of time spent on science when a
funded on the school level. As a
specialist model was in use. Based Within our district, decisions
larger data set is collected across more
on the information provided by our are made on a site-by-site basis.
schools, it will be interesting to see
informants, we also included a grade This largely depends on the
how funding issues and administrative
level breakdown, with time spent on funding they have or the beliefs
commitments to science come into
science varying between grades K-2, of the administrator. I happen
play in the selection of a specialist
and grades 3-5. In reflection, a more to be at a Title [I] school where
model.
accurate set of questions may be to the administrator believes that
ask about the time spent on science in science is important and allocates Obstacles and Facilitators
schools with and without specialists (as Title money towards my position. Respondents were asked about
opposed to an average) and to break For the entire district there is one specific obstacles and facilitators
these estimates down by grade level coordinator and project facilitator associated with their elementary
to service over 200 elementary
bands. As can be seen from this pilot science specialist models. We
schools. This is most likely due
data, the instructional time devoted sought to identify factors leading to
to a lack of funding support.
to science varied widely within and implementation and sustainability
(science specialist)
across districts, with the suggestion of the existing programs. As was
that schools with science specialists true for the selection of a specialist
FALL 2008 VOL. 17, NO. 2 23
ecialists 6 ! ! 60 60-120 450 11
p
S
e 0
nc 5 ! ! !d) 25
e ( -
i 0
c
S
y
ntar ct 4 ! ! ! 135 180
me tri
s
le Di
E 3 ! ! ! 0-
6 l.
e
n
n
0 o
2 ! ! ! !(d) 150 0-30 pers
8 d
e
s
1 ! ! ! ! ! ! -250 250 ol-ba
0 o
h
c
Table 1. Models of science instruction represented in the sample. Table 1. Models of science instruction represented in the sample. Model (Gess-Newsome, 1999) Classroom generalist model(Traditional model): The classroom teacher has ta self-contained class and is responsible for all the science instruction. s sillClassroom science specialist model: One of the classroom teachers in the aedreoschool takes the lead with science curriculum selection, obtaining supplies, andnMeplanning science instruction. All classroom teachers are responsible for Gdelivery of science instruction within their self-contained classrooms. Departmentalized model, or Collaborative specialist (Nelson & Landel, s lt2007) (within grade levels): Science instruction is delivered by one of the endeoclassroom teachers who has specific interest and expertise in science. The dMu teachers (or students) rotate for certain classes, such as science, mathematics, tl Slea dor social studies. The “science teacher” is also responsible for the other :ntosoMiacademic subjects within the otherwise self-contained classroom. iltaciuScience specialist (pull-out model): The science specialist is responsible for cretpplanning and delivery of all science instruction, which typically takes place in sSnIa science laboratory or dedicated classroom. Resource/Coaching model: The science specialist provides leadership and rsresources for science instruction, but is not responsible for delivery. The elehdspecialist aids in curriculum development, professional development, and coaMeleadership for the science program. Instruction takes place in the regular T g classroom by the classroom teacher. :ntsiirScience support team model: The science specialist works with the classroomloatiteacher to assist with planning and delivering science instruction within the nceepMregular classroom. Instruction is the shared responsibility of the specialist and Sclassroom teachers. Other Science Instructional Time in Minutes District Average Specialist schools: Average of All Grade Levels Specialist Schools: Grades K-2 Specialist Schools: Grades 3-5 (d) indicates district-level personnel fulfill this role of specialist. All others are s
24 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
model, the most common themes were student … in the school gets a
administrative support and financial 40-50 minute shot of science
Policy, curricular, and
support. Interestingly, these features once a week outside of the
instructional decisions
were considered to be obstacles as regular classroom context, there
well as facilitators. regarding elementary is almost no room for meaningful
School-level Administration. When science must be informed by experiences that develop over
decision-making about personnel research. time or that develop as an integral
and curriculum emphasis occurred part of the curriculum. This
at the school level, the school organization serves to reinforce
administration played a critical to provide a preparation time for the notion of science as an
role in setting the expectations and each classroom teacher. This prep unconnected, unimportant part
providing opportunities for a science time was accomplished through the of the elementary curriculum
emphasis. Those who understood the use of a pull out model for science … Having science “covered”
value of science instruction and had instruction. Unfortunately, without in this way may give classroom
the leadership skills to extend those an accompanying philosophical teachers at the school an excuse
values to their teachers promoted commitment to, support of, or for not taking time to do science
an atmosphere conducive to science expectations for science instruction, as part of their regular program,
learning. the pullout model failed to promote a practice that further impedes
a science focus across the school and their development as teachers
[School administrators] are
resulted in disconnected and limited of elementary science. Site
essential in most cases and most
exposure to science. As described by administrators may point to this
often follow district and region
one specialist: kind of science specialist program
leadership/focus. We found that
as proof that they support science
teachers’ level of implementation The support of site administrators
instruction at their site, when the
closely followed the principals’ in securing the necessary
reality of the situation is much
level of interest, knowledge, and funding is critical to the
different. (science specialist)
excitement for science. (science success of a specialist model.
specialist) Without the money and In contrast, a school principal
space needed to implement who values science instruction for
[School administration] has a
and maintain any model, the all students can build on the positive
huge impact. In some buildings,
program dies. Furthermore, momentum provided by specialists:
administrators tell teachers not
the site administrator’s vision In [our district], each elementary
to worry about science. (science
of the role of science in the school had a trained science
specialist)
elementary curriculum can specialist and most schools
When considering the role of a promote or discourage science use this specialist to train other
science specialist, the administration instruction at the school. … If elementary teachers within that
often determined the purpose of the the specialist is providing prep school. This was done so that all
position and the model employed. time for teachers at a particular students would receive improved
If the role of the specialist was to school, then they are helping science instruction. However,
provide support and leadership to teachers get the time they need at [our school] we felt like that
enhance science instruction, and if the to plan, grade papers, contact model was not getting quality
administrator provided the necessary parents, etc. However, programs science to students quickly
leadership and support, the employed built around this organization enough. Therefore, in addition
model was likely to be described as present science instruction in to having our science specialist
successful. In some cases, however, such a way that it very often work with teachers in first and
the use of science specialists was becomes a series of shallow, second grade, we changed our
compromised by other influences. For discrete “activities” designed to structure so that all students in
instance, one informant described an address specific district grade- grades 3-5 would receive daily
administrative contractual obligation level objectives. Because every instruction from the science
FALL 2008 VOL. 17, NO. 2 25
specialist … .I provide resources subject over time. Other regions We now have a new
to support a science professional started a science focus, following superintendent and he would
learning community. (elementary his lead … . Science was on the like to see the science come
school principal) map and some principals became back to more like it used to be.
advocates for science. Principals I am working with him and
Clearly, the school principal has
picked teachers who taught community partners to see what
a tremendous influence on the level
science to become the science will be possible in the next
of science instruction at the school
specialists … . (retired district few years. So the bottom line
level (Appleton, 2007). With the
science coordinator) is that without the supervision
opportunity for site-based decision
of classroom instruction or
making, principals can dedicate funds Some principals are better than
science support people to help
for specialists, determine the model others at using their budget. …
the classroom teacher, very
that best meets their needs, and create They attract/hire staff that can
little science is being taught.
an academic atmosphere that promotes handle new structures, [including]
(elementary principal & district
science teaching and learning by all. teachers better prepared to teach
science coordinator)
District-level Administration. The science. More important is the
apparent role and impact of district- principal that values science and
level administration varied across makes it a school priority. Region
districts in our sample. Some report superintendents also have an Funding constraints,
that district level administrators impact when they value science. however, seem to be the
provide nominal support through It also helps when these leaders
controlling factor in the
affirming that science should be know and understand what it
hiring of specialists and
taught, but fail to take action or provide takes to improve science teaching
the breadth of their service
supportive measures. In these cases, and learning. (science specialist)
responsibility.
unless school-level personnel take This respondent reported that
initiative, science instruction remains when teachers and administrators left
unchanged. Others state that without schools where science was a focus, Financial Support. Financial
district support, science specialists the science priority diminished. This support is necessary for all curricular
would not exist. Regardless, the finding highlights the fragile position programs. Employing a science
decision-maker, be it at the district held by science in many elementary specialist may require additional
level or building level, must be schools, and the centralization of funding or a reallocation of existing
supportive of science and establish science enthusiasm in a small number monies. Two of the six districts in
support structures for the effective of individuals rather than across our sample reported that federal
utilization of a science specialist. As dispersed leadership capacity. A grant funds were used to initiate
one science coordinator elaborated: similar situation was reported by a their specialist model by providing
support for new hires and professional
In the late 1980s, one of the five district science coordinator, who was
development. The momentum built
regional superintendents started also an elementary school principal.
through participation in the science
a focus on science … . He hired In her case, she had been responsible
grants, however, only lasted as long
an excellent university science for setting schedules, refurbishing and
as the administration’s advocacy for
education professor who was distributing science instructional kits,
science instruction.
an early advocate for a “doing and working with school administrators
science approach.” She worked and resource teachers on building When we had the [grants],
with six teachers … . They science instruction. When budget cuts schools involved became
became region teacher leaders resulted in loss of financial support for committed to the project goal
who worked with teachers resource teachers and supplies, science of improving/enhancing teacher
during the school day … . This instruction diminished. However, she knowledge of science, how
region started slowly and with saw possibilities for change with a children learn, instructional
the superintendent’s leadership, change in personnel: strategies, and leadership
science became a respected potential. Multiple changes
26 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
during and after the grant ended initiate and pursue opportunities.
contributed to mixed messages With just a few exceptions, most
Mandated science testing
and areas of focus: new reported that the science specialists
drives much of what is
superintendents, reconfiguration have district-sponsored meetings for
of district management, NCLB. taught, and how science is dispensing information about kits
The new superintendent taught. or curricular materials. A couple of
commented that there was no districts offered workshops for pay or
time for science. (retired science grant program run by a local university. university credit, but space and time
coordinator) The benefit of this model was that were limited such that relatively few
The district has cut the budget it did not require additional funding teachers were able to take advantage
for many resource teachers, by the school or district to initiate or of the opportunities.
materials people, or kit builders, sustain. The administration, however, There is little to no funding
and doesn’t have a way to really supported the model through the allocated for after school
monitor science instruction. This allocation of existing funds and sought professional development for
means most of the schools have additional funds for resources and our teachers. If I want to provide
a classroom teacher, and if it gets additional professional development something after school, I must
taught, great. Some schools have for the teachers involved. A principal go to outside sources to look
teacher teams … . (elementary at one of these schools commented on for forms of compensation. If
principal & district science his need to be flexible and supportive we need extra materials, I must
coordinator) of the program. Key school-based find resources for those as well.
changes championed by the principal (science specialist)
One school (from District 1)
included establishing a science
reported that their science specialists Space in the workshops is
professional learning community that
were supported through Title I limited, and we are a rather
met twice a month, moving to block
funds: large district, so there are many
scheduling to enable extended time for
We are able to use some of our individuals who are going
specialist classes, and garnering the
textbook money to participate in without professional development
support of parents and the community
our district’s kit replenishment in the area of science. The
for science instruction.
program, so that helps fact that the district actually
Professional Development
tremendously, as we get fully offers very little professional
Opportunities. A majority of
stocked kits and all teachers at a development opportunities for
the respondents felt there were
grade level have the same kit at teachers is also troublesome.
insufficient professional development
the same time (within the school). (science specialist)
opportunities for science specialists
In terms of funding for a science District 2 is divided into regions
as well as generalists. For example,
specialist, [funding] is huge. The that provide science professional de-
while the school in District 6 that
only reason I have my job [as velopment. These opportunities occur
followed the collaborative specialist
science mentor] is because we are once a month for some areas, fewer
model had established a science
a Title school. (science specialist) for others. Curriculum workshops are
professional learning community
Of the 13 elementary schools in also provided throughout the year. As
for its teachers, they reported that
District 6, two used a collaborative with other districts in our sample, it
professional development for the
specialist model where a team of three is reported that the science specialists
generalists in the schools not following
teachers each teach in their area of tend to take advantage of the profes-
a specialist model was sorely lacking.
expertise (science, mathematics, or sional development opportunities
Those teachers received one half-day
literacy). This model was adopted more often than the classroom general-
kit training each time a new kit was
following professional development ists. District-level support in District 2
adopted by the district. They and others
of the teachers in their respective is demonstrated through the provision
attributed the situation to insufficient
areas. The professional development of specified district-level personnel
district and state funds, lack of science
was provided through an NSF-funded and professional development. Each
priority, and lack of leadership to
FALL 2008 VOL. 17, NO. 2 27
Mandated testing in science is they are actually getting science
viewed by the fifth grade teachers [instruction]. Our students love
While the impacts of the
as just punishment for teaching at science and talk with me about
various specialist models
the intermediate level. They use science each day in the lunch
are anecdotal, they provide a [standards] … lists of things that room. We also have a high daily
glimpse into the perceptions are going to appear on the test rate of attendance (around 96%)
of those most closely … as the basis of their science that we attribute at least in part
instruction. They see the use of to the excitement of science.
involved.
science texts and worksheets Students have said they don’t
as the most efficient tools for want to miss because they will
region has its own Math/Science
teaching to these tests and are miss out and not know what
Coach that coaches the specialists
using them as the core of their happens next. (science specialist)
within each school.
science program … . Because the
For a school-based resource/coach
Our area meets once a month and science test is really a reading test
within District 2, the impact of the
looks at the math and science (no teacher help with directions
specialists across the district was seen
curriculum. We meet in different or translations allowed with
in science pedagogy.
schools each time to see what/ test items), these [instructional]
Those schools with specialists
how others are implementing the practices often lead to passing
seem to have a more consistent
program. We also discuss focus test scores … . [The fear is
use of the science curriculum and
points to address with teachers that] test scores will be used to
a better understanding of what
within our individual schools. illustrate that science specialists,
inquiry-based science looks like.
Citywide there used to be more professional development in
Students are therefore exposed
specialist meetings than there are science, and reform-based
to a greater amount of hands-
now. (science specialist) instructional practices, are not
on science content. Schools in
For our pilot sample, district necessary to the success of
[our district] who have been
level support most often evinced elementary students in learning
implementing the program have
itself as professional development science. (science specialist)
seen gains in their science scores
opportunities for specialists as well as
Impact of Science Specialist to a greater degree than those
generalists and, in some cases, district
Models schools who have not used the
level personnel to facilitate such
program. (science specialist)
While the impacts of the various
opportunities. Overall, support for
specialist models are anecdotal, they This statement is supported by our
specialists appears to be concentrated
provide a glimpse into the perceptions data on instructional time (Table 1)
at the school level.
of those most closely involved. The where science classroom instruction
State Testing. We cannot ignore the
most common impacts relate to teacher ranges from none to 7.5 hours per week.
realities that pressure and prioritize
attitudes toward science, instructional The participants in this study attributed
K-12 education. Mandated science
style, instructional time, and state test the variation to science specialists
testing drives much of what is taught,
achievement. These impacts are most who are thought to spend more time
and how science is taught. For schools
closely associated with the benefits of supporting quality science instruction
that have science specialists, there
the resource/coaching, support team, in their schools. The explanation
is some indication that the methods
and collaborative specialist models. for this increase is attributed to
of instruction are more likely to
For instance: teachers’ amplified comfort with
engage students in meaningful
science content and pedagogy as a
learning, though such tendencies are I believe the teachers at my
result of the collaboration with the
not guaranteed. It will be important school feel fortunate to have a
science mentor. In schools using
to monitor the ongoing impacts specialist within their building
the resource/coach model, teachers
of mandated testing on the use of and teach more science as a
reported spending more time in science
specialists, as is noted below: result. This [attitude] ultimately
instruction since the employment of
impacts the students because
the science specialist. For example,
28 SCIENCE EDUCATOR