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.
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;
Hodson, 2003) and socioscientific issues (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Kolstø, Bungum, & Ulvik,
2006; Sadler, 2006; Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006; Sadler, Barab, &
Scott, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).
In both environmental education and science education, there are contemporary trends
that increasingly recognize the social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions of science
2
and environmental issues. For environmental education, there has been a move towards
education for sustainable development (ESD) as a more holistic context for environmental
education (Gonzalez-Gaudiano, 2005; Hopkins & McKeown, 1999; McKeown & Hopkins,
2005). Environmental education and ESD share many similar characteristics. Both are
multidisciplinary, emphasize behavior change, often address controversial issues, and wrestle
with the same challenges associated with their inclusion in the school curriculum. However,
while a clear compatibility exists between environmental education and ESD, the trend towards
ESD represents an explicit shift in focus from particular environmental issues to the broader
context in which they exist, as well as the ultimate goals of their resolution. Exploring the often
subtle difference environmental education and ESD is not the purpose of the study here.
However, this defining discourse within the field of environmental education does show that
there is growing recognition that it is critical to not only emphasize the environmental
dimensions of a given issue, but social, cultural, economic, and political ones as well.
Similar trends can be seen within science education, both historically and in recent years.
Current science education reform efforts are heavily oriented towards promoting students’
understanding of scientific concepts and content by providing them with opportunities to engage
in scientific inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National
Research Council, 1996, 2000). Scientific inquiry and its constituent practices are grounded in
the same epistemological commitments as those of science. These practices include engaging in
scientifically-oriented questions, making predictions, designing and conducting investigations,
collecting and analyzing data and evidence, making evidence-based explanations, and comparing
explanations. Knowledge developed through inquiry can also be used to engage in relevant
problem-solving, such as those of technological design, through another related but distinct set of
3
inquiry practices. These practices include identifying problems, proposing, implementing, and
evaluating solutions, and communicating proposed solutions.
These inquiry practices support students to construct knowledge through classroom
practice and use that knowledge effectively in real-world contexts. The latter of these two goals,
using scientific knowledge in everyday life, is important for students’ participation in an
increasingly scientific and technological world, and alludes to the notion of scientific literacy
articulated in science education reform. In the National Science Education Standards, scientific
literacy is defined as follows:
Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to
questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a
person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena.
Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about
science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the
validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify
scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that
are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to
evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the
methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose
and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such
arguments appropriately. (NRC, 1996, pg. 22)
This definition illustrates the priority placed on students’ abilities to not only learn science, but
also how to apply knowledge of scientific concepts and practices to social, cultural, political, and
economic facets of life outside of school. This goal is very similar to that advocated in education
4
for sustainable development. What is required, then, is a comprehensive science- and
environmental education program that involves 1) learning the discipline’s core knowledge (i.e.,
scientific concepts), 2) learning the epistemological practices within the discipline (i.e., scientific
practices) 3) engaging in those practices, and 4) learning to use knowledge and practices in
everyday life (Hodson, 2003; NRC, 2009).
Current science education reform largely prioritizes and emphasizes the first three of
these principles. It is often implicitly assumed that once students have gained proficiency with a
particular disciplinary knowledge base, they will be able to apply that knowledge to novel
situations where it is relevant. For example, it is assumed that by engaging in inquiry practices
in the classroom to construct knowledge about science, students will be able to apply their
scientific understandings and epistemological practices to real-world problems. Unfortunately, it
is a false assumption that student learning about environmental issues, or about science in the
context of environmental issues, inherently leads to students’ development of environmental and
scientific literacy, even if grounded in effective teaching and learning practices. This issue of
transfer remains one of, if not the greatest challenges facing science educators and science
education researchers (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The fundamental challenge of
transfer is evidenced by the fact that, despite decades of reform in science and environmental
education, classroom teaching and learning looks much as it did thirty years ago (Duschl, 1994;
Grandy & Duschl, 2007) and little headway has been made in leading the world to a more
environmentally-responsible and sustainable future.
Teachers play a crucial role in the treatment of environmental issues and other
socioscientific issues, including in school science (Oulton, Dillon, & Grace, 2004). They must
engage students in inquiry practices to not only support their learning about environmental
5
issues, or about science in the context of environmental issues, but also for environmental
decision-making and action. In many ways, the elementary classroom is particularly well-suited
for teaching and learning about and for the environment. Elementary teachers, for example,
have the capacity to more easily teach across subjects, which capitalizes on the interdisciplinary
nature of environmental issues. Engaging students in these issues is, however, difficult for
teachers precisely because of their multidisciplinary and often controversial nature (Gayford,
2002; Tal & Argaman, 2005). Elementary teachers already face many additional challenges,
such as limited subject-matter knowledge, a lack of effective curriculum materials, and an
institutional context in which science is largely deprioritized as a subject (Abell, 2007; Davis,
Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Marx & Harris, 2006; Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita,
2001).
Teachers’ beliefs about supporting student learning about and for the environment
through scientific inquiry remain relatively unexplored. Specifically, there is no existing
research that examines how elementary teachers differentiate between the use of inquiry to
support student learning about environmental issues, or about science in the context of
environmental issues, and for decision-making and action about environmental issues. More
research is needed to understand the goals teachers articulate for environmental education, the
ways in which they pursue those goals through instruction, and the factors influencing their
teaching practice. In this study, we investigate both how practicing elementary teachers
differentiate between using scientific inquiry to promote student learning about the environment
and environmental issues and for environmental decision-making and action (referred to as
‘learning about and for the environment’ in the remainder of this paper). We also describe
teachers’ beliefs, perceived capacities, and reported engagement in these inquiry-based
6
instructional strategies. This study, which builds upon existing research in both science
education and environmental education, is an important contribution that further informs the
efforts of teacher educators and curriculum developers in supporting elementary teachers’
science teaching practice.
Literature Review
Rickinson’s (2001) recent review of students’ learning through environmental education
summarizes research relevant to students’ learning about and for the environment. To support
students’ learning about and for the environment, as well as their development of scientific and
environmental literacy, the fields of science education and environmental education must also
synthesize and summarize relevant research on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and teaching
practices. This is an effort that demands consideration of research across disciplines and
professional fields, in this case science education and environmental education. These two
fields, while maintaining separate identities, conferences, and professional publications, also
share a great deal in common. If we are to advocate changes in the way teachers and students
engage in teaching and learning about and for the environment in the context of science, such
positions need to be informed by the work in which both science educators and environmental
have engaged.
Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Orientations toward Teaching
There is a long history of educational research focused on science teachers’ knowledge,
beliefs, attitudes, and general orientations as related to teaching (Abell, 2007; Pajares, 1992;
Richardson, 1996). In terms of knowledge, teachers must possess sufficient subject-matter
knowledge, or knowledge of the content to be taught, as well as pedagogical knowledge, or
knowledge of general instructional strategies and methods. However, as has now become a
7
paradigmatic perspective in the field of educational research, it is the fusion of these forms of
knowledge, referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), that is the essential
knowledge base that defines teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is essentially
teachers’ understanding of how to teach particular content so as to maximize student learning.
This perspective on PCK implies that it is a specialized knowledge form unique to teachers in
light of the subjects they teach. Consistent with this perspective, science teachers possess a form
of PCK unique to science teaching (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999).
There remains ongoing debate as to the distinction between knowledge and beliefs and
implications of this epistemological and ontological discussion for teaching and learning.
Whatever their inherent differences may be, both knowledge and beliefs are reified truth
statements about the material world, symbolic encapsulations of lived experience (Barab & Roth,
2006; Greeno et al., 1998). More broadly defined as personal characteristics, teachers’
knowledge, beliefs, and orientations are important parts of science teachers’ PCK and teachers’
capacity for instruction and pedagogical design (Brown, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,
1999). As such, and most importantly, they serve as symbolic tools that actually can mediate
teachers’ classroom practice (Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007). Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
are also important influences on their environmental education-related practices, as shown in this
review. In the three sections that follow, we first discuss teachers’ beliefs about and attitudes
toward environmental education, their subject matter knowledge and environmental education
practice, and, finally, teachers’ perceived barriers to engaging in environmental education
practices.
Teachers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward environmental education practice. Previous
research shows that teachers generally want to incorporate environmental education and teaching
8
about socioscientific issues into science instruction (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Kim & Fortner,
2006; Plevyak, Bendixen-Noe, Henderson, Roth, & Wilke, 2001; Sadler et al., 2006). In
addition, teachers recognize that engaging in teaching and learning about the environment
requires that they assume many roles similar to those described by highly effective science
teachers in inquiry-oriented, project-based classrooms (Crawford, 2000; Dresner, 2002; May,
2000). Teachers at different stages of their careers support inquiry-based investigations about
environmental issues differently (Tal & Argaman, 2005). In addition, given the current policy
environment of schools, teachers often feel they are better able to teach about environmental
issues than to provide students opportunity to engage in resolving them (Kim & Fortner, 2006).
Teachers with higher degrees of confidence in implementing environmental education
practices are more likely to do so and their attitudes toward environmental education influence
whether or not they engage in teaching and learning about the environment (Plevyak et al.,
2001). Teachers who report being interested in environmental education-related teaching
practices report engaging in these practices more (Zint & Peyton, 2001). Existing research
suggests teachers do not lack an interest in environmental education and their interests are not a
barrier to their environmental education-related practices (Kim & Fortner, 2006). This interest in
environmental education, and infusion of environmental education practices into science
teaching, is based on numerous different factors (Gayford, 1998; Sadler et al., 2006). Positive
attitudes toward environmental education, however, may not be best predictor of current teaching
practice but rather of a teacher’s interest in going beyond current practice (Kim & Fortner,
2006). The most significant predictor of teachers’ environmental education practices are an
intent to engage in these practices and a self-perceived capacity to do so (Hsu & Roth, 1999).
9
Because environmental issues are situated within social, cultural, and economic concerns,
these too must be addressed. However, teachers often shy away from value- and ethics-laden
dimensions of science in their teaching (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Gayford, 2002; Sadler et al.,
2006) and express a relative lack of interest in social and philosophical dimensions of scientific
research (Kyburz-Graber, 1999). Their orientations are often mediated by identities constructed
around scientific disciplines and through which perceived integrity of various disciplines are to
be maintained in classrooms (Gayford, 2002). For example, Zint and Peyton (2001) found that
health teachers, who teach about science in a more pragmatic context, are most interested in
environmental education-related teaching practices while physics teachers, with strong ties to a
particular scientific discipline, are often the least interested. Even when teachers ground science
instruction in environmental issues that are of importance to the community, they often rely on
‘far away’ issues when discussing controversy (Christenson, 2004). Despite these limitations,
teachers can come to view the benefits of exploring multiple viewpoints as outweighing possible
drawbacks/controversy (Forbes & Davis, 2008; Sadler et al., 2006).
Subject matter knowledge and environmental education practice. For elementary
teachers, insufficient subject-matter knowledge and a lack of confidence in their subject-matter
knowledge is an often-cited and well-researched issue (Abell, 2007; Anderson & Mitchener,
1994). Similarly, teachers report being concerned about their subject matter knowledge
impacting their ability to engage in environmental education-related practices. Just as teachers
who find environmental issues interesting and relevant are more likely to engage in such
instruction, so too are teachers with more substantial subject matter knowledge (Littledyke,
1997; Sadler et al., 2006). In fact, teachers with particularly strong subject-matter knowledge for
particular topics and concepts will emphasize them in teaching and learning about the
10
environment (Fortner & Meyer, 2000). Preservice teachers with more limited subject-matter
knowledge, especially preservice elementary teachers, may not apply conceptual understanding
of science concepts to environmental issues in practice (Ekborg, 2003; Forbes & Davis, 2008).
Subject-matter knowledge about science and scientific inquiry is also related to teachers
environmental education-related instructional practice. As Littledyke (1997) found in his study
of elementary teachers in the UK, perspectives on science, science teaching, and environmental
education were fundamentally intertwined. Teachers who viewed science as primarily a body of
facts and scientific knowledge as static also tended to be those who possessed a less child-
centered and more process-oriented view of science teaching, as well as having little interest in
environmental issues and viewing them as unrelated to science. Teachers who were confident in
their science subject-matter knowledge and valued scientific practice as a means of knowledge
construction tended to be interested in environmental issues and teaching about the environment.
Perceived barriers to environmental education. While teachers generally express a
relatively high interest in environmental-based science instruction, they acknowledge that
environmental education is not prioritized in school curricula and is therefore more difficult to
teach. This presents a number of challenges for teachers seeking to engage in environmental
education, particularly within science (Gayford, 2002; Kim & Fortner, 2006; Meichtry & Harrell,
2002; Zint & Peyton, 2001).
As is argued by many science educators, science curricula in the U.S. have often focused
too heavily on addressing a wide variety of topics superficially rather than targeting a more
limited number more substantially. While teachers can learn to draw on science standards to
support environmental education (Christenson, 2004) rather than view them as a barrier, the
‘breadth vs. depth’ issue is one that persists, especially at the secondary level (Sadler et al.,
11
2006). Due to the already packed science curricula, as well as increasing measures aimed at
increasing accountability and improving standardized test scores, there is often little time left for
teaching and learning about the environment.
Elementary teachers often face a different challenge than a prescriptive science
curriculum. While flexibility in elementary science curricula can more readily facilitate
environmental education in contrast to secondary science curricula, it is increasingly apparent
that science has become deemphasized at the elementary level in recent years (Marx & Harris,
2006; Spillane et al., 2001). If environmental education goals are prioritized at the elementary
level, this could serve to reopen doors in the elementary curriculum for science. However, while
certain environmentally-related topics are often taught at the elementary level (e.g., recycling,
habitats, etc.) it is often the case that environmental education is not a fundamental dimension of
the elementary curriculum either. Here, then, both science and the environment are somewhat
deprioritized, neither providing a rich context for the teaching of the other.
In addition to time and curriculum limitations, teachers cite other challenges related to
engaging in environmental education practices. First, instructional materials specifically geared
towards environmental education are rarely available to teachers. Curriculum materials can be
an important support in this regard. Science curriculum materials often deprioritize
socioscientific issues and the ethical, moral, and cultural dimensions of science, even in STS-
based science curricula (Hughes, 2000). Because of this, flexibly-adaptive curriculum materials
are crucial in integrating environmental education in science (May, 2000). Teachers are more
likely to transition to environmental education-related practices if curriculum materials are
designed to supplement existing curricula (Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003).
12
Second, while teachers often cite an interest in teaching about the environment, they
often express concerns related to their limited understanding of environmental education
practices. These concerns often trace back to perceived inadequacies in their own preparation
and ongoing preparation. Third, the availability of funding can serve to limit teachers’ abilities
to engage in environmental education-oriented instruction. Finally, in an acknowledgement of
the importance of informal and nonformal learning environments in supporting environmental
education teaching and learning in formal education environments, they often note their limited
access to off-site resources (Dresner, 2002).
Summary. Previous research suggests that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about, as well as
interests in, the environment and environmental education have important implications for their
likely and actual environmental education-related practices in the classroom. Engaging in
environmental education-related practices is largely dependent on two broad factors: their beliefs
about these practices and perceived capacity to engage in them. Existing research suggests and
many teachers do want to support student learning about and for the environment. In order to do
so, however, they require requisite pedagogical content knowledge for environmental education,
subject-matter knowledge, effective curriculum materials, and a school context in which
environmental education is valued and supported.
Environmental Education through Teacher Education and Professional Development
While the discussion thus far has focused on teachers’ environmental education-related
orientations, practices, and factors influencing both, another body of research has also focused on
the role of environmental education in teacher education and professional development. Results
from this research indicate that environmental education-focused teacher education and relevant
13
inservice/professional development are important factors in teachers’ implementation of
environmental education (Plevyak et al., 2001).
Teacher education. Traditional 4-5 year undergraduate teacher education programs
remain a primary means through which individuals enter the U.S. teaching corps. An explicit
focus on environmental education in teacher education can help promote teachers’ environmental
education-related orientations and practice (Alvarez, de la Fuente, Perales, & Garcia, 2002;
Plevyak et al., 2001). In various studies on teacher educators (Heimlich, Braus, Olivolo,
McKeown-Ice, & Barringer-Smith, 2004; Powers, 2004), researchers found that teacher
educators generally want to incorporate environmental education into their teacher education
courses and programs. They also show awareness of the relationship between environmental
education and environmental literacy and the importance of the latter as a learning goal for
students. Teachers have acknowledged the importance of teacher education and professional
development in learning how to engage in environmental education-related practices. Rather
than being an explicit focus of teacher education, however, environmental education is most
often incorporated into existing programmatic elements. The two most often utilized integration
points for environmental education are methods courses, particularly science methods courses,
and associated content courses that preservice teachers take (Heimlich et al., 2004).
One particularly important dimension of science teacher education is a focus on learning
to teach science as inquiry. As such, formal teacher education programs often focus on various
inquiry practices, such as asking questions, making predictions, using evidence, and, most
importantly, constructing explanations. Argumentation is a crucial feature of scientific sense-
making as well as decision-making about related issues, is often promoted as a foundational
element of teacher education (Sadler, 2006). However environmental education and
14
environmental education -related practices factor in to formal teacher education, it is clear that
one-shot learning experiences may not do much to promote preservice teachers’ environmental
education learning. To truly support preservice teachers to develop the confidence and capacity
to engage in environmental education -related practices, a sustained focus is required (Moseley,
Reinke, & Bookout, 2002).
Focusing on environmental education in teacher education, however, is a challenging
task. Many of the barriers teachers describe in implementing environmental education practices
in the classroom are mirrored in teacher educators’ descriptions of their courses and programs.
These include an already crowded curriculum, the impact of state and national content standards
and teacher education mandates, among others (Powers, 2004). Even when environmental
education-related practices are prioritized, they may result in perceived incongruence between
teacher education experiences and actual classroom practice. For example, a predominant
culture of teaching may promote preservice teachers’ need for consensus rather than challenging
one another’s ideas (Ekborg, 2003) as required by scientific inquiry. Most teacher educators
acknowledge that they are not well-preparing teachers to teach environmental education
(McKeown-Ice, 2000).
Professional development. Professional development has also emerged as an important
context for promoting teachers’ learning about environmental education and the implementation
of environmental education in science classrooms. Unlike teacher education programs, inservice
professional development is often focused more specifically on particular pedagogical and
content domains. As a result, such programs can be designed explicitly around environmental
education -related topics and practices. Examples of such programs include ENVISION (Bell,
Shepardson, Harbor, Klagges, Burgess, Meyer, & Leuenberger, 2003; Shepardson, Harbon, Bell,
15
Meyer, Leuenberger, Klagges, & Burgess, 2003; Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007),
Students as Scientists: Pollution Prevention through Education (Comeaux & Huber, 2001), and
Teachers in the Woods (Dresner, 2002).
Environmental education focused professional development experiences are also
uniquely suited to simultaneously support teachers’ learning about authentic scientific inquiry
and their implementation of inquiry practices in their classrooms (Bell et al., 2003). This is
important, since many studies have shown that teachers struggle to translate ideas about inquiry
into classroom practice (Bryan & Abell, 1999; Crawford, 1999; Southerland & Gess-Newsome,
1999; Zembal-Saul, Blumenfeld, & Krajcik, 2000). Through participation in authentic scientific
investigations, teachers develop both better understandings about the nature of scientific research
and capacity to support their students in undertaking such investigations (Haefner & Zembal-
Saul, 2004; Windschitl, 2003). These findings are supported by environmental education
research reviewed here.
What, then, are important features of such professional development programs? First,
authentic scientific investigations, often designed, planned, and undertaken by teachers, helps
them develop more robust knowledge of relevant scientific concepts and content. Second,
modeling inquiry pedagogy in environmental education context, and providing teachers with an
opportunity to develop these abilities on their own, helps promote transfer of these methods into
classrooms with students (Kenney, Militana, & Donohue, 2003). Finally, as many studies in
science education and other areas have indicated, teachers benefit greatly from collaboration
with their peers. In learning environmental education-related subject matter and to engage in
environmental education practices, teacher community matters (Christenson, 2004; Kenney,
16
Militana, & Donohue, 2003; Pruneau, Dayon, Langis, Vasseur, Ouellet, McLaughlin, Boudreau,
& Martin, 2006).
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
factors.
26
Factor Number302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
Eige
nval
ue
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 1. Scree Plot for Factor Analysis of 30 Survey Items (3 Sets of 10 questions)
Second, we performed Monte Carlo simulation to calculate Eigenvalues for 1000
randomly generated samples (30 items, 86 respondents). Random Eigenvalues and actual
Eigenvalues from the sample are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of Eigenvalues from Factor Analysis and Parallel Analysis
Factor Actual Eigenvalue Randomly-generated Eigenvalue Decision 1 6.928 2.3191 accept 2 6.894 2.1062 accept 3 6.834 1.9531 accept 4 1.248 1.8250 reject
27
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
xabout xfor t p d Aggregate 5.35 5.32 0.646 0.52 0.034 Dimension 1 - Teachers’ Beliefs 5.97 5.88 1.69 0.09 0.102 Dimension 2 - Perceived Capacity 5.26 5.28 -0.36 0.72 0.023 Dimension 3 - Classroom Practice 4.80 4.79 0.61 0.95 0.019
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
Beliefs Perceived Capacities
Reported Practice
Pearson Correlation .302(**) .411(**) .506(**)Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000 .000N 85 85 85
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Not surprisingly, teachers who reported spending more time teaching about and for the
environment through scientific inquiry also reported more often engaging students in the 10
37
inquiry practices as part of their instruction (reported practice). However, this trend was also
consistent for teachers’ beliefs and perceived capacities, though these correlations were less
strong than for teachers’ reported practice. In short, then, elementary teachers who reported
more time spent teaching about and for the environment tended to a) believe doing so was more
important, b) perceive themselves to be more capable of doing so, and c) more often reported
engaging students in inquiry practices as part of their teaching.
Teachers were also asked to report how many years of teaching experience they had.
Results from the survey suggest relationships between general teaching experience and perceived
capacities and actual classroom practice, though not for their beliefs, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Correlations Between Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Capacities, and
Reported Classroom Practice
Beliefs Perceived Capacities
Reported Practice
Pearson Correlation .064 .251(*) .253(*)Sig. (2-tailed) .559 .021 .020N 86 85 85
* 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
(Barab & Luehmann, 2003; Crawford, 2000; Polman, 2004; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, &
Soloway, 2001) in hopes of maximizing student motivation and engagement and making more
50
explicit the connections between often abstract science ‘content’ and the real-world in which
scientific concepts are constructed and used. This illustrates a congruence between current trends
in science education and goals of environmental education. It also suggests that environmental
education can, essentially, find increasingly open avenues into the science curriculum by
piggybacking onto current trends in science education reform.
Unfortunately, existing research highlights the challenges faced not only by
environmental educators, but also science educators promoting inquiry-oriented, project-based
approaches to science teaching and learning. As institutions, schools are highly resilient and
resistant to change. Despite science education reform initiatives over the last 20 years, much
classroom science teaching and learning remains traditional in nature (Duschl, 1994). Grandy
and Duschl (2007) note that the crucial question is whether we try to fit research findings into the
current structures and culture of schools or advocate institutional change such that reformed
schools come to reflect what research says is best practice. This suggests that while further
research on teachers’ beliefs, capacities, and practice can further illuminate these issues, there is
also a need to advocate for a policy and institutional context in which students’ development of
scientific and environmental literacy through scientific inquiry is explicitly prioritized in
curriculum standards and valued as an outcome for student learning.
51
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy,
Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Abell, S.K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman
(Eds). Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective’.
In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds). STS education: International perspectives on
reform. (pp. 169-186). New York: Teachers College Press.
Alvarez, P., de la Fuente, E.I., Perales, F.J., & Garcia, J. (2002). Analysis of a quasi-
experimental design based on environmental problem solving for the initial training of
future teachers of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2),
19-21.
Anderson, R.D. & Mitchener, C.P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D.L. Gabel
(Eds). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. (pp. 3-44). New York:
Macmillan.
Barab, S.A. & Luehmann, A.L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging
and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.
Barab, S.A. & Roth, W-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an
ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.
Bell, C., Shepardson, D., Harbor, J., Klagges, H., Burgess, W., Meyer, J., & Leuenberger, T.
(2003). Enhancing teachers' knowledge and use of inquiry through environmental science
education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 49-71.
52
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
Brown, M. (2008). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-
tool relationship. In B. Herbel-Eisenman, J. Remillard, and G. Lloyd (Eds). Mathematics
teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. (pp. 17-
37). New York: Routledge.
Bryan, L.A. & Abell, S.K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach
elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
Christenson, M.A. (2004). Teaching multiple perspectives on environmental issues in elementary
classrooms: A story of teacher inquiry. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 3-16.
Comeaux, P. & Huber, R. (2001). Students as Scientists: Using interactive technologies and
collaborative inquiry in an environmental science project for teachers and their students.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(4), 235-252.
Couper, M.P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based
classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the
past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 87-98.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.
53
DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dillman, D. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology,
17, 225-249.
Dresner, M. (2002). Teachers in the woods: Monitoring forest biodiversity. Journal of
Environmental Education, 34(1), 26-31.
Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Eds).
Handbook of research in science teaching. (pp. 443-465). New York: Macmillan.
Ekborg, M. (2003). How student teachers use scientific conceptions to discuss a complex
environmental issue. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 126-132.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Forbes, C.T. & Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and
adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science &
Education, 17(8-9), 829-854.
Fortner, R.W. & Meyer, R.L. (2000). Discrepancies among teachers' priorities for and
knowledge of freshwater topics. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 51-53.
Gayford, C. (1998). The perspectives of science teachers in relation to current thinking about
environmental education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(2), 101-
113.
Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional
development of teachers. International Journal of Science Education,(24), 11.
54
Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E. (2005). Education for sustainable development: Configuration and
meaning. Policy Futures in Education, 3(3).
Grandy, R. & Duschl, R.A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school
science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141-166.
Greeno, J. and the Middle School Mathematics Through Application Project Group. (1998). The
situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
Haefner, L.A. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers'
developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
Heimlich, J.E., Braus, J., Olivolo, B., McKeown-Ice, R., & Barringer-Smith, L. (2004).
Environmental education and preservice teacher preparation: A national study. Journal of
Environmental Education, 35(2).
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
Hopkins, C. & McKeown, R. (1999). Education for sustainable development. Forum for Applied
Research and Public Policy, 14(4), 25-29.
Hsu, S-J & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting Taiwanese secondary teachers' responsible
environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. Journal of
Environmental Education, 30(4), 11-18.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society
science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426-440.
55
Kenney, J.L., Militana, H.P., & Donohue, M.H. (2003). Helping teachers to use their school's
backyard as an outdoor classroom: A report on the watershed learning center program.
Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 18-26.
Kim, C. & Fortner, R.W. (2006). Issue-specific barriers to addressing environmental issues in the
classroom: An exploratory study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 15-22.
Kolstø, S., Bungum, B., & Ulvik, Erik Arnesen Anders Isnes Terje Kristensen Ketil Mathiassen
Idar Mestad Andreas Quale Anne Sissel Vedvik Tonning Marit. (2006). Science students'
critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science
Education, 90(4), 632-655.
Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education as critical education: How teachers and
students handle the challenge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 415-432.
Littledyke, M. (1997). Science education for environmental education? Primary teacher
perspectives and practices. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 641-659.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In In J. Gess-Newsome & N.
Lederman (Eds). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its
implications for science education. (pp. 95-132). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Marx, R. & Harris, C. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities,
challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477.
May, T.S. (2000). Elements of success in environmental education through practitioner eyes.
Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 4-11.
56
McKeown-Ice, R. (2000). Environmental education in the United States: A survey of preservice
teacher education programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 4-11.
McKeown, R. & Hopkins, C. (2005). EE and ESD: Two paradigms, one crucial goal. Applied
Environmental Education and Communication, 4, 221-224.
Meichtry, Y. & Harrell, L. (2002). An environmental education needs assessment of k-12
teachers in Kentucky. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(3), 21-26.
Morton, B.A. & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hour in four subjects by public
school teachers in grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved August 21,
2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007305.
Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor environmental
education on preservice teachers' attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.
Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9-15.
North American Association for Environmental Education (2000). Excellence in environmental
education: Guidelines for learning (k-12). Rock Spring, GA: North American
Association for Environmental Education.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places,
and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B.
57
Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, & M.A. Feder (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Nunnaly, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oulton, D., Dillon, J., & Grace, M.M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial
issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322.
Plevyak, L.H., Bendixen-Noe, M., Henderson, J., Roth, R.E., & Wilke, R. (2001). Level of
teacher preparation and implementation of EE: Mandated and non-mandated EE teacher
preparation states. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 28-36.
Polman, J.L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments.
Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431-466.
Powers, A.L. (2004). Teacher preparation for environmental education: Faculty perspectives on
the infusion of environmental education into preservice methods courses. Journal of
Environmental Education, 35(3), 3-11.
Pruneau, D., Dayon, A., Langis, J., Vasseur, L., Ouellet, E., McLaughlin, E., Boudreau, G., &
Martin, G. (2006). When teachers adopt environmental behaviors in the aim of protecting
the climate. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 3-12.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery, &E. Guyton (Eds). Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 102-119).
New York: Macmillan.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the
evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208-320.
58
Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their
influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7),
883-907.
Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.
Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K.M. (2006). Socioscience and
ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376.
Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2006). What do students gain by engaging in
socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of
socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-
138.
Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2001). Performance of students in
project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
Shepardson, D.P., Harbon, J., Bell, C., Meyer, J., Leuenberger, T., Klagges, H., & Burgess, W.
(2003). ENVISION: Teachers as environmental scientists. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(2), 8-11.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
59
Southerland, S.A. & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers' views of inclusive science
teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Science Education,
83, 131-150.
Spillane, J.P., Diamond, J.B., Walker, L.J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school
leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an
undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918-940.
Tal, R. & Argaman, S. (2005). Characteristics and difficulties of teachers who mentor
environmental inquiry projects. Research in Science Education, 35, 363-394.
Turner, S. & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakotas in the lab: Science educators
confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 24(1), 5-
30.
Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry:
Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 18(1), 63-89.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative
experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science
Education, 87(1), 112-143.
Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning,
teaching and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content
representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.
Zint, M. & Peyton, R.B. (2001). Improving risk education in grades 6-12: A needs assessment of
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin science teachers. Journal of Environmental Education,
32(2), 46-54.
60
Appendix A Survey Instrument (Hard Copy)
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Appendix B Survey Instrument (Online Version)
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77