A summary on the paper attached. Must included the following.

• Brief summary of article
• Key points discussed
• Purpose and Research Questions
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusion
• Personal Opinion Regarding Article

Urban Elementary School Teachers 1
A version of this paper was published as:
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Buxton, C., Penfield, R. D., & Secada, W. G. (2009). Urban elementary
school teachers’ perceived knowledge, practices, and organizational supports and barriers in science
instruction with English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3). 263-286.
Abstract
This descriptive study examined urban elementary school teachers’ perceptions of their science
content knowledge, science teaching practices, and support for language development of English
language learners. Also examined were teachers’ perceptions of organizational supports and
barriers associated with teaching science to nonmainstream students. The study involved 221
third through fifth grade teachers from 15 urban elementary schools in a large school district.
The teachers completed a survey in the spring of 2005. The internal consistency reliability
estimates, Cronbach α, for scales created from the survey items were within an acceptable range.
The teachers reported that they were generally knowledgeable about science topics at their grade
level and that they taught science to promote students’ understanding and inquiry. In contrast, the
teachers reported rarely discussing student diversity in their own teaching or with other teachers
at their schools. The teachers identified specific organizational supports and barriers in teaching
science with diverse student groups at both the school and classroom levels.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 2
Urban Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on Teaching Science to English Language Learners
As the school-aged population of the United States continues to grow more
racially/ethnically and linguistically diverse, teachers face the challenge of making science
content and processes accessible and meaningful for students from a broad range of
backgrounds. Despite this urgent need, most elementary teachers are not prepared to teach
science effectively in terms of content knowledge and teaching practices (Kennedy, 1998;
Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). Additionally, most teachers are inadequately
equipped to meet the learning needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1999). Adding to the challenge, elementary classrooms
often lack appropriate science instructional materials and supplies. This state of affairs is
exacerbated in urban schools, in which nonmainstream students tend to be concentrated, because
of a more generalized lack of resources and funding (Hewson, Kahle, Scantlebury, & Davies,
2001; Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita, 2001). Science
instructional time in low-performing urban elementary schools is often limited and tightly
regulated due to the urgency of developing basic literacy and numeracy in the context of highstakes
assessment and accountability policies that do not include science (Lee & Luykx, 2005;
Settlage & Meadows, 2002; Shaver et al., in press). Furthermore, urban elementary school
teachers often do not receive sufficient support from school administrators or colleagues for
teaching science to nonmainstream students (Knapp & Plecki, 2000; Spillane et al., 2001).
Unlike the existing literature that has addressed science education and student diversity
separately, this study examined urban elementary school teachers’ perceptions of their
knowledge of science content, science teaching practices, and support for language development
of English language learners or ELL students simultaneously. Furthermore, unlike the existing
Urban Elementary School Teachers 3
literature that has addressed school organization and student diversity separately, this study
examined teachers’ perceptions of organizational supports and barriers associated with their
classroom practices in science. While teachers’ perceptions may distort their actual teaching
practices, their perceptions need still be taken into account when designing interventions as
teachers are more likely to enact changes when those changes reflect their beliefs Additionally,
while it is not possible to produce a fixed list of recommendations for professional development,
understanding current science teaching practices in the context of organizational supports or
barriers is important for designing and implementing professional development aimed at
promoting reform-oriented practices. The results of this study hold particular significance, given
that the high-stakes testing policy in science will start nationally in 2007 under the No Child Left
Behind [NCLB] Act.
Literature Review
Teaching practices are influenced by teachers’ knowledge of academic content and
strategies to teach this content with diverse student groups. Beyond factors residing with
individual teachers, features of school organization, such as the interactions between school
administrators and teachers, also influence teaching practices.
Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge and Practices in Science Instruction with ELL Students
Teachers’ knowledge of science content. It seems self-evident that teachers must know
the subject matter they are required to teach (Kennedy, 1998). Teachers should have deep and
complex understandings of science concepts, be able to make connections among science
concepts or topics, and be able to apply science concepts to explain natural phenomena or real
world situations. In addition, teachers should be able to engage in inquiry related to the practice
of science, as they generate questions, design and carry out investigations, analyze and draw
Urban Elementary School Teachers 4
conclusions, and communicate findings using multiple formats (National Research Council,
2000). Furthermore, teachers should be able to develop arguments and justify their ideas or
solutions based on evidence (Lemke, 1990).
Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter is a particularly important issue in science
education, as many science teachers have only limited preparation in the science disciplines.
They often have the same misconceptions or alternative frameworks about science as do their
students (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman,1998, Lonergan, 2000; Smith & Neale, 1989).
Teachers who possess subject matter expertise and the ability to represent the subject matter to
their students are more likely to engage in conceptually rich, inquiry based activities that
facilitate student learning, whereas teachers with weak subject matter knowledge are more likely
to rely heavily on the textbook as the primary source of subject matter content (Carlsen, 1991;
Tobin & Fraser, 1990). This is problematic for student learning, since science textbooks
generally fail to address students’ misconceptions and teachers with weak science knowledge are
unable to clarify students’ confusions (Donovan, 1997).
Teaching science and English language development of ELL students. Many elementary
school teachers have difficulty adopting reform-oriented practices because they have insufficient
knowledge of science content and content-specific teaching strategies (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). Cohen and Hill (2000)
and Knapp (1997) found that teachers who had engaged in large-scale professional development
often blended reform-oriented practices with traditional practices. For example, teachers might
engage students in hands-on activities or ask them to pose their own questions, but fail to help
students make sense of the data they collected or ask the students for evidence-based
explanations.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 5
Many elementary school teachers have additional difficulties teaching science to ELL
students (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005). They assume that ELL students
must acquire English before learning science, are unaware of cultural/linguistic and cultural
influences on science learning, do not consider “teaching for diversity” as their responsibility, or
overlook linguistic differences and accept inequities as a given condition.
With ELL students, English language and literacy development should be seen as integral
to subject area instruction (August & Hakuta, 1997; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Lee & Fradd,
1998). ELL students confront the demands of academic learning through a yet unmastered
language. Subject area instruction provides a meaningful context for English language and
literacy development, while language processes provide the medium for understanding academic
content (Casteel & Isom, 1994; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002). Hands-on, inquirybased
science is particularly effective for ELL students, as it bridges contextualized exploration
of natural phenomena, authentic language activities, and communication of ideas in a variety of
formats, including written, oral, gestural, and graphic (Lee, Deaktor, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders,
2005; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). Doing so fosters the creation of classroom
environments that promote ELL students’ development of general and content-specific academic
language (August & Hakuta, 1997; Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2002).
Organizational Supports and Barriers in Teaching Science for Student Diversity
Organizational supports. School leadership is one source of organizational support for
the teaching of science, particularly in a context in which other subjects (i.e., reading, writing,
and mathematics) command the bulk of the resources by virtue of tradition and formal policy.
Spillane et al. (2001) examined how the school leadership (i.e., administrators and lead teachers
in science) at one urban elementary school successfully identified and activated resources for
Urban Elementary School Teachers 6
promoting change in science education. The researchers argue that promoting change in science
education involves the identification and activation of: (a) physical resources (i.e., money and
other material assets); (b) human capital of teachers and school leaders (i.e., the individual
knowledge, skills, and expertise that form the stock of resources available in an organization);
and (c) social capital (i.e., the relations among individuals in a group or organization, and such
norms as trust, collaboration, and a sense of obligation). The researchers emphasize the
importance of “distributed leadership,” in which administrators and teacher leaders support and
sustain the professional community.
Collaboration among teachers within a school is another source of organizational support
for the teaching of science. Gamoran and his colleagues (2003) argued that successful efforts to
enable students to learn mathematics and science with understanding entailed the strategic use of
human, social, and physical resources to promote change among teachers, including those
teachers who would otherwise resist change. Challenges to such strategic use of resources are
more formidable in urban schools where funding tends to be limited (Hewson et al., 2001; Knapp
& Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001).
In secondary schools that maintained a strong academic focus on student achievement
and provided students with strong supportive learning environments, compared to schools that
lacked either or both, mathematics and science achievement was significantly higher (i.e.,
schools were more effective) and achievement gaps among students from different SES
backgrounds were reduced (i.e., schools were more equitable) (V. Lee & Smith, 1995). In these
schools, teachers had strong professional communities that focused on the quality of the content
of instruction, and all students took a highly academic curriculum with limited tracking options
(V. Lee, Smith, Croninger, & Robert, 1997). These professional communities were characterized
Urban Elementary School Teachers 7
by strong working relationships among teachers in their respective departments and a shared
sense of purpose focused on student learning of mathematics and science (V. Lee & Smith,
2001).
Studies involving schools that enroll large numbers of ELL students have produced
findings that are consistent with those of school restructuring, although science is seldom the
focus in the literature (as exceptions, see Fradd & Lee, 1995; Garcia & Lee, in press; Minicucci,
1996; Secada & Lee, 2003). Effective schools for ELL students highlight language development
both in students’ home languages and in English as a key feature of the school’s instructional
program. Minicucci (1996) reported that four middle schools offering exemplary science and
mathematics programs to ELL students gave them access to challenging and stimulating science
and mathematics curricula by teaching them either in their home languages or via sheltered
English instruction. In their study contrasting mathematics and science instruction between
highly effective and typical elementary schools with high student diversity, Secada and Lee
(2003) found that teachers in highly effective schools relied on their similar ethnic and linguistic
backgrounds to encourage students to engage in classroom tasks.
Organizational barriers. In addition to organizational supports, schools present
organizational barriers to the teaching of science. Typically, barriers are more than simply the
absence of supports. Some barriers are internal characteristics residing within the school with
regard to students (e.g., poor academic skills in reading, writing, and math), personnel (e.g.,
administrator turnover, teacher turnover, low morale among teachers), and other school-level
constraints (e.g., shortage of science supplies, large class size, lack of time to teach science,
pullout programs during science). In their review of literature on schools as social organizations,
Gamoran, Secada, and Marrett (2000) argued that teachers would sometimes resist, if not work
Urban Elementary School Teachers 8
directly against, programmatic changes that are supported by other teachers in their school,
thereby revealing organizational divides within the school. Such tension is felt more acutely in
urban schools due to limited resources and funding (Hewson et al., 2001; Knapp & Plecki, 2001;
Spillane et al., 2001).
Barriers also include external forces that impinge on school functioning. In the current
policy environment, accountability measures influence instructional practices both in subject
areas that are tested and in those that are not tested. When science is not part of accountability, it
may be taught only minimally in the elementary grades (Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al.,
2001). When science is part of accountability, this may force schools to introduce the teaching of
science in ways that take away from other subject areas. In other words, school subjects end up
competing against one another for time, resources, and quality. This tension may be experienced
more acutely in low-performing urban schools due to the urgency of developing basic literacy
and numeracy. Furthermore, urban school teachers face added challenges, as sanctions against
poor academic performance are disproportionately leveled against them, their students, and their
schools (Secada & Lee, 2003; Settlage & Meadows, 2002; Wideen, O’Shea, Pye, & Ivany,
1997).
Barriers from parents, family, and community also impinge on school functioning. In
their review of literature on science teachers’ beliefs about student diversity, Bryan and Atwater
(2002) report that teachers tend to ascribe problems associated with nonmainstream students’
learning to the students’ lives outside of school involving parents, family, and community, rather
than to teachers’ beliefs and actions toward students in the classroom. Such perceptions conflict
with the “funds of knowledge” possessed by parents, family, and community that have the
potential to serve as valuable resources for school-based science learning (Gonzalez & Moll,
Urban Elementary School Teachers 9
2002; Moll, 1992). Thus, a challenge facing urban schools is to build connections between
schools and nonmainstream students’ lives outside school.
Research Purpose and Questions
The existing literature indicates that elementary teachers experience a range of
difficulties in teaching science to ELL students and other nonmainstream students in urban
schools. These difficulties can be traced in part to their insufficient knowledge of science content
and inadequate skills in using content-specific teaching strategies and addressing the academic
language needs of ELL students. Beyond these factors and others residing at the level of
individual teachers, organizational supports and barriers within and outside the school influence
teaching practices with nonmainstream students.
This study is part of a five-year research project designed to simultaneously promote
urban elementary school teachers’ knowledge of science content, practices in teaching science,
and practices for supporting English language development of ELL students in a large urban
school district. As initial efforts to design effective professional development interventions, this
descriptive study presents descriptive results about urban elementary school teachers’
perceptions with regard to (1) their own knowledge of science content and their practices in
teaching science and English language development of ELL students and (2) organizational
supports and barriers to teaching science for student diversity.
This study contributes to the existing literature by examining how urban elementary
teachers perceive challenges at both the school and classroom levels in teaching science and
English language development to nonmainstream students, especially ELL students. The results
both establish a baseline for our own interventions using a longitudinal design and help others
Urban Elementary School Teachers 10
consider the role of teacher perceptions in their efforts to develop professional development
interventions in elementary science instruction with diverse student groups.
Method
Research Setting and Teacher Participants
The research was conducted in a large urban school district in the southeast U.S. with a
student population displaying a high level of linguistic and cultural diversity. During the 2004-
2005 school year, the ethnic makeup of the student population in the school district was 60%
Hispanic, 28% Black (including 7% Haitian according to the district data on students’ home
language), 10% White Non-Hispanic, and 2% Asian or Native American. Across the school
district, 72% of elementary students participated in free or reduced price lunch programs, and
24% were designated as limited English proficient (LEP), the state’s term for ELL students in
ESOL programs.
In late May 2004, elementary schools were selected based on three criteria: (a)
percentage of ELL students (predominantly Spanish or Haitian Creole-speaking students) above
the district average, (b) percentage of students on free and reduced price lunch programs above
the district average, and (c) a minimum of four years getting school grades of C or D according
to the state’s accountability plan. This plan, which started in the 1998-1999 school year, assigns
grades of A, B, C, D, and F to each school. In other words, we wanted to work with schools that
were above the district average in concentration of poverty and ELL students and that were
academically low performing. We avoided working with so-called failing (or F) schools because
the district was focusing many resources and programs on those schools.
Of the 199 elementary schools in the district, 35 schools met these criteria. Two schools
were excluded because they had been part of our previous research, resulting in a pool of 33
Urban Elementary School Teachers 11
schools. Our letter of invitation was sent to the principals of these schools to ascertain their and
their faculty’s interest in and commitment to a five-year professional development intervention
project. Of the 33 schools, 17 volunteered to participate. Eight schools initially received the
intervention and 9 schools served as comparison schools. Shortly after the project commenced,
one treatment and one comparison school withdrew, for a total of 15 schools participating in the
larger project.
For our school-wide initiative, we invited every third through fifth grade teacher in each
of the 15 participating schools. Table 1 presents the demographic makeup of the third through
fifth grade students in these 15 schools. The students were predominantly Hispanic and Black
(including many Haitian) from low SES backgrounds. Close to 40% of the students were
currently in ESOL programs or had exited from ESOL programs within the previous two years.
Table 1
Student Demographics in the 15 Participating Schools (n = 5,577)
Variables Demographic Groups %
Ethnicity Hispanic 52.4
Black (including Haitian and Caribbean immigrants) 43.5
White Non-Hispanic 3.0
Asian .2
Other .9
Socioeconomic
status (SES)
Free and reduced price lunch programs 91.7
English language
learners (ELL)
ESOL levels 1 through 4 15.8
Exited from ESOL within 2 years 22.5
Exited from ESOL over 2 years or never in ESOL 61.7
Exceptional student
education (ESE)
Exceptional students (not including gifted students) 12.9
Table 2 presents the demographic makeup of the third through fifth grade teachers in the
15 participating schools. The majority of the teachers identified themselves as being from
racial/ethnic nonmainstream backgrounds, which reflected the overall teacher demographics of
Urban Elementary School Teachers 12
the school district. The nearly 40,000 teachers in the district consisted of 41% Hispanic, 34%
Black, 24% White Non-Hispanic, and 1% Asian/Pacific Islander. Approximately one third of the
teachers in the project reported languages other than English as their native language. Almost
half of the teachers reported graduate degrees beyond a bachelor’s degree. Their teaching
experience ranged from 1 to 40 years, with an average of 12.5 years. They had been teaching at
their current schools for an average of 9.1 years.
Table 2
Teacher Demographics in the 15 Participating Schools (n = 221)
Variables Demographic Groups %
Grade Third 39.4
Fourth 29.9
Fifth 23.5
Mixed 5.8
Missing response 1.4
Gender Male 14.0
Female 83.3
Missing response 2.7
Ethnicity Hispanic 43.9
Black Non-Hispanic 33.9
White Non-Hispanic 13.1
Haitian 3.2
Asian 1.8
Other 1.4
Missing response 2.7
Native Language(s)* English 64.7
Spanish 30.8
Haitian Creole 2.7
French 1.8
Missing response 5.4
Degrees Bachelor’s 55.2
Master’s 38.5
Specialist 4.5
Doctorate .5
Other .5
Missing response .9
* Multiple native languages could be selected.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 13
Data Collection and Analysis
Instrument. A survey instrument was developed based on relevant literature, our previous
research (Author, 1995, 2003, 2004), and extensive field-testing during fall 2004. The
instrument is unique in that: (a) it includes scales to measure latent constructs (see Appendix and
the results section) rather than individual items, (b) it considers science instruction and student
diversity simultaneously, (c) it examines both classroom-level and school-level variables, and (d)
it addresses issues pertinent to nonmainstream students in urban schools.
In addition to the items about teachers’ demographic and professional history, the survey
included background questions about professional development during the 2004-2005 school
year. The majority of the survey items were categorized according to the following sections: (1)
teachers’ knowledge of science topics according to the state science content standards, (2)
teaching practices to promote science learning, (3) teaching practices to support English
language development, (4) organizational supports in teaching science among the school
administrators and teachers, and (5) organizational barriers in teaching science for student
diversity. To help teachers think about their actual classroom practices and guard against their
responding impressionistically, items inquiring into teacher “practices” were framed in terms of
specific time periods (such as “in the last month”) and were focused on practices that teachers
engaged in for sustained periods of time (such as “for at least 10 minutes.”) The survey items
relevant to this study are presented in the Appendix.
Data collection. Data collection occurred in two ways. First, as a part of a professional
development intervention, 45 third grade teachers from the seven treatment schools started their
participation in the intervention in the fall of 2004. These teachers completed the questionnaire
during the final workshop of the school year in May 2005. The remaining 176 teachers in the
Urban Elementary School Teachers 14
study completed the questionnaire at their school sites in May 2005. Administration varied at
each of the 15 school sites. At most of the schools the questionnaire was administered to teachers
in a separate session for each grade. At some schools the questionnaire was administered to all
third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers at the same time. Of the 230 teachers in the pool, 221
teachers (96%) completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire took 30 – 45 minutes to
complete. A small compensation was offered to participating teachers.
Data analysis. The questionnaire consisted of items that were grouped together to form a
total of 15 scales. The scales used a four-point rating system for each item. The score for each
scale was computed using the average of the responses to the items that comprised the scale. Use
of the average item response, as opposed to the summated score, ensured that missing responses
would not lead to a systematic negative bias of the scale scores. A scale score was computed
only for those respondents who had valid responses for at least 75% of the items in the scale. If
someone answered fewer than 75% of a scale’s items, the respondent’s scale score was set to be
missing and omitted from that particular scale. The reliability of the obtained scale scores was
estimated using Cronbach alpha (α).
Results
The results are reported with regard to three domains: (a) background information about
teacher preparation and professional development in science, science education, ESOL, and
student diversity, (b) teacher knowledge of science content, science teaching, and English
language development of ELL students, and (c) organizational supports and barriers in teaching
science to nonmainstream students in urban schools.
Teacher Preparation and Professional Development in Science and Student Diversity
Urban Elementary School Teachers 15
Table 3 presents the average number of science courses that the teachers reported taking
at the undergraduate and/or graduate level. This question was asked to get an idea of the science
background of the teachers. On average, they took two elementary science methods courses and
one course each of physical, earth/space, and life science.
Table 3
Number of Science Courses Taken at Undergraduate and/or Graduate Level (n = 221)
Topic M SD
Methods of teaching science in elementary school 1.95 1.47
Methods of teaching science in secondary school .30 .74
Physical science 1.02 1.22
Earth/space science 1.05 1.22
Life science 1.46 1.35
The teachers’ training in ESOL is presented in Table 4. Over 50% of the teachers had
ESOL training through college courses, including degree-bearing coursework at the
undergraduate or graduate level. Additionally, close to 50% completed ESOL training offered by
the school district. Slightly over 10% of the teachers did not have any ESOL training.
Table 4
ESOL Training (n = 182)
%
Bachelor’s degree in ESOL 4.9
Master’s degree in ESOL 7.1
ESOL endorsement through college coursework 41.2
ESOL endorsement through school district 48.4
Grandfathered in through teaching limited English
proficient students
8.8
No preparation for ESOL 11.5
Note. Teachers could check more than one response, and thus the percentages add up to more
than 100%.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 16
Teachers were asked to report their participation in professional development activities
(aside from our intervention from the larger project) related to (a) science or science education
and (b) student diversity. The results are presented in Table 5. The majority of the teachers never
or rarely participated in professional development activities in either science/science education
or student diversity during the school year.
Table 5
Teacher Professional Development (Percentage of Teachers Based on n = 221)
Science or Science
Education (%)
Student Diversity (%)
Frequency During Past Twelve Month
Never 39.8 48.9
Once 25.8 26.2
Twice 15.4 13.6
3-4 Times 10.4 6.3
More than 4 times 8.6 3.6
Missing Response 0 1.4
Total Hours During Past Twelve Months
N/A 34.8 44.8
1-6 hours 27.6 26.7
7-15 hours 10.0 11.3
16-35 hours 11.8 5.9
More than 35 hours 6.3 3.6
Missing Response 9.5 7.7
Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge and Practices in Science Instruction with ELL Students
The items for this scale asked teachers to rate their level of knowledge in teaching the
eight science topics according to the state science content standards (see Table 6). Cronbach α
for the score of this scale was .95, indicating strong reliability. The mean for this scale was 2.81,
indicating that teachers reported they were generally knowledgeable about science topics at their
grade level. Teachers’ responses were largely consistent across the science topics, ranging from
the mean of 2.74 for the topic of force and motion to the mean of 2.92 for the topic of processes
of life.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 17
Table 6
Teachers’ Knowledge of Science Content
Science Topics Cronbach α M SD n
All science topics .95 2.81 .64 219
Nature of matter 2.86 .78 218
Energy 2.75 .73 216
Force and motion 2.74 .72 218
Processes that shape the earth (earth science) 2.76 .74 217
Earth and space 2.80 .75 218
Processes of life 2.92 .73 217
Environment (environmental science) 2.88 .74 219
Nature of science 2.78 .78 218
Note. The responses are based on a four-point rating system (1 = not knowledgeable; 2 =
somewhat knowledgeable; 3 = knowledgeable; 4 = very knowledgeable).
Teachers’ self-reported practices for teaching science while supporting English language
development of ELL students are presented in Table 7. These scales had a smaller number of
respondents because only those teachers teaching science when the survey was administered
were asked to answer these items. Faculty departmentalization at certain grade levels and in
certain schools meant that some teachers were not asked to teach science during some academic
years. As a result, we included only those teachers teaching science during this particular school
year for this analysis. The scales included scientific understanding, scientific inquiry,
traditional/conventional practices in teaching science, use of ESOL strategies, and use of ELL
students’ home language. Cronbach α for the scores of these scales ranged from .71 (acceptable
but fairly low) to .86 (strong). The mean for the scale of teaching science for understanding was
2.90 and the mean for inquiry was 2.86, indicating that teachers claimed that they taught science
to promote students’ understanding and inquiry in most science lessons. In some lessons, they
Urban Elementary School Teachers 18
taught science using traditional/conventional approaches (M = 2.32). They reported that they
used ESOL strategies to promote English language development in only some of the science
lessons, (M = 2.04) and used ELL students’ home languages in few lessons (M = 1.85).
Table 7
Teaching Science and English Language Development of ELL Students
Scales Cronbach α M SD n
Scientific understanding .77 2.90 .59 183
Scientific inquiry .86 2.86 .65 180
Traditional/conventional practices in science .71 2.32 .50 179
ESOL strategy use .84 2.04 .84 166
Home language use .83 1.85 .81 164
Note. The responses are based on a four-point rating system (1 = never or almost never; 2 = some
lessons; 3 = most lessons; 4 = every lesson).
Organizational Supports and Barriers in Teaching Science for Student Diversity
Teachers’ perceptions of organizational supports for teaching science are presented in
Table 8. The scales included principal support for science, teacher collaboration in science
practices, teacher collaboration in science tasks, and teacher discussion of how to address student
diversity. Cronbach α for the scores of these scales ranged from .74 to .89, indicating moderate
to strong reliability. Teachers generally agreed that their principals supported science instruction
(M = 2.90) and that teachers at their schools collaborated for teaching science (M = 2.93).
However, teachers infrequently shared teaching materials and activities, assessment tasks,
students’ work, or stories about teaching experiences in science (M = 1.60). Furthermore,
teachers rarely discussed inclusion of girls, ESE students, ELL students, or culturally diverse
students in teaching science (M = .86).
Urban Elementary School Teachers 19
Table 8
Organizational Supports in Teaching Science for Student Diversity
Scales Cronbach α M SD n
Principal support of science a .84 2.90 .73 212
Teacher collaboration in science practices a .74 2.93 .61 215
Teacher collaboration in science tasks b .85 1.60 1.02 213
Teacher discussion of student diversity b .89 .86 1.03 211
a The responses are based on a four-point rating system (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat
disagree; 3 = somewhat agree; 4 = strongly agree).
b The responses are based on a five-point rating system (“for at least 15 minutes during the last
month,” 0 = never; 1 =1 time; 2 = 2 – 3 times; 3 = 4 – 8 times; 4 = more than 8 times).
As a counterpart to the organizational supports, teachers reported their perceptions of
organizational barriers to teaching science (see Table 9). The scales included barriers due to
internal characteristics including (a) school-level constraints, (b) school personnel, and (c)
students’ poor academic skills. The scales also included barriers due to external forces including
(a) statewide assessments and (b) parents, family, and community. Cronbach α for the scores of
these scales ranged from .74 to .92, indicating moderate to strong reliability. Teachers reported
that emphasis on statewide assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics was a moderate
barrier to teaching science (M = 3.06). Similarly, they reported the following as moderate
barriers—students’ poor academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics (M = 2.92);
school-level constraints (M = 2.75); and parents, family, and community (M = 2.75). In contrast,
teachers reported school personnel as a minor barrier (M = 1.91).
Urban Elementary School Teachers 20
Table 9
Barriers to Teaching Science for Student Diversity
Scales Cronbach α M SD n
School-level constraints .77 2.75 .69 210
School personnel .74 1.91 .79 198
Students’ poor academic skills in reading,
writing, and math
.92 2.92 .85 214
Statewide assessments in reading, writing, and
math
.90 3.06 .96 214
Parents, family, and community .80 2.75 .88 211
Note. The responses are based on a four-point rating system (1 = not a barrier; 2 = minor barrier;
3 = moderate barrier; 4 = major barrier).
Discussion and Implications
Our nation’s teachers are called upon to teach academic subjects to a student population
that is becoming (ever) more culturally and linguistically diverse. This presents multiple
challenges for elementary school teachers teaching science to nonmainstream students in urban
schools. The literature indicates a multitude of difficulties facing these teachers. This study
examined how the teachers themselves perceived the challenges, at both the classroom and
school levels, of teaching science to diverse student groups. Specifically, as part of a larger
research project, the study involved all third through fifth grade teachers from 15 urban
elementary schools with high proportions of cultural and linguistic student diversity in a large
urban school district. The majority of the teachers in these schools were from racial/ethnic and
linguistic minority backgrounds, and many reported languages other than English as their native
language. While these teacher demographics approximate the teacher demographics of the school
district as a whole, both present a stark contrast to the science teaching force nationally which is
close to 90% White (Smith, Banlilower, McMahon, & Weiss, 2002, p. 3).
Urban Elementary School Teachers 21
Discussion
The teachers in the study took, on average, two elementary science methods courses and
one course in physical, earth/space, and life science, respectively. This preparation is basically in
line with the recommendation by the National Science Teachers Association (1998) for
elementary teachers—to be adequately prepared to teach science, elementary teachers should
have taken a course in science education teaching methods and one course each in the life
sciences, earth/space sciences, physical sciences, and environmental sciences. Over the course of
the school year during this study, however, a majority of the teachers never or rarely participated
in professional development activities in science or science education. This finding is consistent
with a national survey involving elementary school teachers (Smith et al., 2002, p. 24) as well as
the literature indicating inadequate professional development of elementary school teachers in
science content knowledge and science teaching (Garet et al., 2001; Kennedy, 1998; LoucksHorsley
et al., 1998). We believe that ongoing professional development in science content and
pedagogy is at least as important for teachers as university courses, which were often taken many
years in the past and which rarely address the science content or the pedagogy relevant to
elementary science teaching.
Most teachers in this study had ESOL endorsement through college coursework or
through the school district. This was to be expected, given a state mandate that teachers working
with ELL students be endorsed in ESOL. After achieving ESOL endorsement, however, half of
the teachers reported never or rarely to have participated in professional development activities
concerning student diversity in the last 12 months. This finding is consistent with the national
survey of full-time public school teachers—51% of the teachers working at schools with more
than 50% of minority enrollment participated in professional development activities addressing
Urban Elementary School Teachers 22
the needs of ELL students or cultural diversity in the last 12 months (NCES, 1999, pp. 21-23).
Given the cultural and linguistic diversity of the teachers in our study, our work could be seen as
taking place in a best case environment for teaching diverse student groups. If the teachers in this
study are not engaged in ongoing efforts to learn to better meet the learning needs of their
nonmainstream students, it seems unlikely that teachers in more mainstream educational
environments will do so.
The teachers reported that they were generally knowledgeable about science topics at
their grade level. They reported teaching science to promote students’ understanding and inquiry
in most science lessons, while also using traditional/conventional approaches in some lessons.
Furthermore, the teachers generally agreed that their principals supported science instruction and
that teachers at their schools collaborated for teaching science. In contrast, the teachers reported
infrequently using ESOL strategies or ELL students’ home languages to promote English
language development. Additionally, they rarely discussed student diversity (i.e., inclusion of
girls, ESE students, ELL students, or culturally diverse students) in teaching science with other
teachers at their schools. The teachers’ lack of attention to student diversity is a concern,
considering that the majority of the students were from nonmainstream backgrounds and that the
majority of the teachers themselves were from nonmainstream backgrounds.
The teachers in the study generally felt supported by their school administrators and other
teachers regarding teaching science. However, they reported that school-level constraints (e.g.,
shortage of science supplies, large class size, lack of time to teach science, pullout programs
during science) were moderate barriers to teaching science. They also reported the emphasis on
statewide assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics, accompanied by students’ poor
academic skills in these subjects, as moderate barriers to teaching science. Furthermore, they
Urban Elementary School Teachers 23
reported parents, family, and community as moderate barriers. These results are consistent with
the literature on elementary science instruction in urban schools, indicating a lack of science
instructional materials and supplies (Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001), limited
science instructional time due to the urgency of developing basic literacy and numeracy within
the context of high-stakes assessment and accountability policies (Settlage & Meadows, 2002;
Shaver et al., in press), and teachers’ tendency to ascribe problems associated with
nonmainstream students’ learning to the students’ lives outside of school involving parents,
family, and community (Bryan & Atwater, 2002).
Implications for Further Research
The results of this study need to be interpreted with caution. Self-reports are subject to
social desirability response tendency. Since the sample was not randomly selected, there is a
limitation in the generalizability of the results. Additionally, this study presents only descriptive
results of teacher perceptions. Despite these limitations, there are significant reasons why these
results are worth reflecting upon. This exploratory study provides baseline results for further
longitudinal investigations within our own research and in other similar studies. The results of
our longitudinal research will contribute to the emerging knowledge base on teacher professional
development for science instruction with diverse student groups, including ELL students, in
urban elementary schools.
A major contribution of the study is the construction of the survey instrument. Unlike
most of the existing survey instruments for large-scale research, we developed scales, rather than
individual items, to measure latent constructs, for example, what constitutes “teaching science
for understanding” or “ESOL strategy use.” Our survey instrument also considers science
instruction and student diversity simultaneously, while examining both classroom-level and
Urban Elementary School Teachers 24
school-level variables. Additionally, it addresses issues pertinent to nonmainstream students,
including ELL students, in urban schools.
Because we surveyed all third through fifth grade teachers in the participating schools
(rather than just volunteer teachers) and because of the very high response rate to the survey
(96%), we can be confident that the teacher perceptions speak to the pressing issues in the
culturally and linguistically diverse urban schools in which we are situating our work.
Extending the descriptive results of teachers’ responses in this exploratory study, our
further research will establish a theoretical model of relationships among the constructs in terms
of teaching practices and organizational supports and barriers. Further research will offer insights
into what key variables shape teachers’ perceptions, how these variables are related to one
another, and how these variables are related to their classroom practices.
Most teachers in the study felt generally knowledgeable about science topics at their
grade level, taught science for understanding and inquiry in most lessons, and collaborated with
other teachers for teaching science. In contrast, they reported infrequent use of ESOL strategies
or ESOL students’ home languages and infrequent discussion with other teachers about
nonmainstream students in science instruction. These self-report results will be compared with
classroom observation results for the subset of participating teachers who will carry out our
professional development intervention during the five-year period of the project. Our further
research will examine whether teachers’ perceptions reflect their actual teaching practices in
their classrooms and actual collaboration with administrators and other teachers in their schools.
Using a longitudinal research design, further research may examine the impact of our
professional development intervention on changes in teachers’ perceptions over the years of their
participation in the intervention. Further research may also examine the impact of our
Urban Elementary School Teachers 25
intervention on the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices over the
years. Additionally, further research may examine the relationship between changes in teachers’
perceptions and practices, on one hand, and students’ achievement outcomes on the other.
A particularly promising line of research involves how the forthcoming high-stakes
testing environment influences teachers’ perceptions. In this study, teachers’ perceptions of
barriers to teaching science are telling—they identified the emphasis on statewide assessments in
reading, writing, and mathematics, accompanied by students’ poor academic skills in these
subjects, as moderate barriers. Teachers’ perceptions may change as science becomes part of
school accountability in 2006 in the state in which this research takes place and in 2007
nationally as part of the NCLB Act.
We conclude that the results indicate both strengths and limitations in teachers’
responses. As year-one baseline results, this study indicates that elementary school teachers
entered our professional development intervention with a set of practices which, while
problematic, showed promise. Even as they managed the multiple pressures of high-stakes
testing and accountability in reading, writing, and mathematics, they perceived organizational
supports to draw upon when it came to teaching science to nonmainstream students, including
ELL students. Our hope through our ongoing intervention is to lower what the teachers see as
barriers, to strengthen their organizational supports, and to enhance their teaching practices, so
that the impacts of our intervention are sustained in the long term.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 26
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and
instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Author. (1995).
Author. (2003).
Author. (2004).
Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for
science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821-839.
Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective.
In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Vol. 2: Teachers’ knowledge of
subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The
Reading Teacher, 47, 538-545.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
Donovan, M. P. (1997). The vocabulary of biology and the problem of semantics. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 26(6), 381-382.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 27
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1995). Science for all: A promise or a pipe dream for bilingual students?
Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 261-278.
Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S.
(2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can
support change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gamoran, A., Secada, W. G., & Marrett, C. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching
and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of
research in the sociology of education (pp. 37-63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
García, E. E., & Lee, O. (in press). Science instruction for all: Creating a responsive learning
community. In A. S. Rosebery, & B. Warren (Eds.), Language, culture, and science
education: Teaching science to students from diverse linguistic and cultural
backgrounds. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge.
Educational Policy, 16(4), 623-641.
Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science education
in urban middle schools: Do reform efforts make a difference? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(10), 1130-1144.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research
and Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 28
Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom:
The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 227-266.
Knapp, M. S., & Plecki, M. L. (2001). Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1089-1100.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional
intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and
linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(8), 857-887.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12-21.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction with
nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3),
411-438.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in
achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of
Education, 68, 241-247.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What
works. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, V., Smith, J., Croninger, J. B., & Robert, G. (1997). How high school organization
influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of
Education, 70, 128-150.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 29
Lonergan, T. A. (2000). The photosynthetic dark reactions do not operate in the dark. American
Biology Teacher, 62(3), 166-67,169-70.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Minicucci, C. (1996). Learning science and English: How school reform advances scientific
learning for limited English proficient middle school students. Santa Cruz, CA: National
Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. CREDE.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation
and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (1998). CASE draft standards for the preparation of
teachers of science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Rodríguez, A., & Kitchen, R. S. (Eds.). Preparing prospective mathematics and science teachers
to teach for diversity: Promising strategies for transformative action. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse:
Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21,
61-94.
Secada, W. G., & Lee, O. (2003). A study of highly effective USI schools in the teaching of
mathematics and science: Classroom level results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 30
Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences:
Implications for science education within America’s urban schools. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127.
Shaver, A., Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (in press). Teachers’ perceptions of policy
influences on science instruction with culturally and linguistically diverse elementary
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D, C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary
science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 1-20.
Smith, P. S., Banlilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Weiss, I. R. (2002, May). The national
survey of science and mathematics education: Trends from 1977 – 2000. Chapel Hill,
NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
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.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and
language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(8), 664-687.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3-25.
Wideen, M. F., O’Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of
science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428-444.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language.
Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Urban Elementary School Teachers 31
Appendix
Teacher Survey Instrument
Section I: Teacher Knowledge and Practices in Science Instruction with ELL Students
Science Knowledge Scale
Please indicate how knowledgeable you feel in teaching each of the following science topics at
your grade level.
Question Not
knowledgeable
Somewhat
knowledgeable
Knowledgeable Very
Knowledgeable
1 Nature of Matter 1 2 3 4
2 Energy 1 2 3 4
3 Force and Motion 1 2 3 4
4 Processes that Shape the Earth
(Earth Science)
1 2 3 4
5 Earth and Space 1 2 3 4
6 Processes of Life 1 2 3 4
7 Environment (Environmental
Science)
1 2 3 4
8 Nature of Science 1 2 3 4
Teaching Science for Understanding Scale
(Item 1) During the last month, how often did YOU do the following in your
science lessons?
(Items 2, 3, and 4) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do
following in your science lessons?
(Item 5) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do the
following in your science lessons for at least 10 minutes?
Question
Never or
almost
never
Some
lessons
Most
lessons
Every
lesson
1 Use students’ mistakes to generate class discussion 1 2 3 4
2 Explain the reasoning behind an idea 1 2 3 4
3 Apply science concepts to explain natural events or
real world situations 1 2 3 4
4 Talk about things they do at home that are similar
to what we do in science class (e.g., measuring,
boiling water, freezing water)
1 2 3 4
5 Discuss their prior knowledge or experience related
to the science topic or concept 1 2 3 4
Urban Elementary School Teachers 32
Teaching Science for Inquiry Scale
(Items 1, 2, 3) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do
following in your science lessons?
(Items 4, 5) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do the
following in your science lessons for at least 10 minutes?
Question
Never or
almost
never
Some
lessons
Most
lessons
Every
lesson
1 Use science process skills (e.g., hypothesize,
organize, infer, analyze, evaluate, describe patterns,
make models or simulations)
1 2 3 4
2 Use basic measurement tools (e.g., ruler,
thermometer, scale/balance, timer, graduated
cylinder)
1 2 3 4
3 Use everyday, household items (e.g., plastic cups or
containers, food coloring, light bulbs, batteries) 1 2 3 4
4 Analyze relationships using tables, charts, or graphs 1 2 3 4
5 Write about what was observed and why it
happened 1 2 3 4
Traditional/Conventional Practices in Teaching Science Scale
(Items 1 through 6) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do
following in your science lessons?
(Item 7) During the last month, how often did you ASK STUDENTS to do the
following in your science lessons for at least ten minutes?
Question
Never or
almost
never
Some
lessons
Most
lessons
Every
lesson
1 Lecture to explain science concepts 1 2 3 4
2 Conduct an experiment and have students watch
rather than do it 1 2 3 4
3 End an experiment early (for reasons such as
classroom management or time running out) 1 2 3 4
4 Strictly follow district guidelines for pacing of
benchmarks 1 2 3 4
5 Use worksheets to reinforce basic skills 1 2 3 4
6 Present science facts quickly and efficiently 1 2 3 4
7 Memorize science vocabulary 1 2 3 4
Urban Elementary School Teachers 33
ESOL Strategy Use Scale
During the last month, how often did YOU do the following in your science lessons?
Question
Never or
almost
never
Some
lessons
Most
lessons
Every
lesson
1 Revise science materials in English to make them
accessible to ESOL students 1 2 3 4
2 Reduce difficult language to key science
vocabulary in English with ESOL students 1 2 3 4
3 Talk with an ESOL student one-on-one in English
to assess his or her communication of science ideas 1 2 3 4
4 Purposefully create small groups of English
proficient and ESOL students to work together in
science class
1 2 3 4
Home Language Use Scale
During the last month, how often did YOU do the following in your science lessons?
Question
Never or
almost
never
Some
lessons
Most
lessons
Every
lesson
1 Use science vocabulary in ESOL students’ home
language 1 2 3 4
2 Allow ESOL students to discuss science using
their home language 1 2 3 4
3 Encourage small groups of bilingual and ESOL
students to use their home language in science
class
1 2 3 4
4 Allow ESOL students to write about science ideas
or experiments in their home language 1 2 3 4
Urban Elementary School Teachers 34
Section II: Organizational Supports and Barriers in Teaching Science for Student Diversity
Principal Support of Science Scale
We would like to know how you feel about teaching science in your school. Please indicate
how strongly you agree or disagree by circling one response for each statement.
Question Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
1 The principal actively supports finding time for
science instruction 1 2 3 4
2 The principal allocates enough funding for
science supplies 1 2 3 4
3 The principal clearly communicates the
importance of teaching science 1 2 3 4
4 The principal encourages faculty to do planning
for science instruction together 1 2 3 4
Teacher Collaboration in Science Practice Scale
We would like to know how you feel about teaching science in your school. Please indicate
how strongly you agree or disagree by circling one response for each statement.
Question Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
1 Most teachers in this school agree about how to
teach science
1 2 3 4
2 When I have questions about teaching science, I
can get good advice from other teachers in this
school
1 2 3 4
3 I can rely on other teachers in this school to help
me try out new teaching techniques in science
1 2 3 4
4 There is a lot of disagreement among teachers in
this school about how to teach science
1 2 3 4
Teacher Collaboration in Science Tasks Scale
During the last month, how often did YOU do the following with other teachers in your school
for at least 15 minutes? Please circle one response for each statement.
Question Never 1 time 2-3
times
4-8
times
More than
8 times
1 Share teaching materials and activities for science 0 1 2 3 4
2 Share stories about teaching experiences in
science 0 1 2 3 4
3 Analyze a specific student’s work in science 0 1 2 3 4
Urban Elementary School Teachers 35
4 Work together to develop the goals or objectives
for science instruction 0 1 2 3 4
5 Share assessment tasks that reveal how students
understand science 0 1 2 3 4
Teacher Discussion of Student Diversity Scale
During the last month, how often did YOU do the following with other teachers in your school
for at least 15 minutes? Please circle one response for each statement.
Question Never 1 time 2-3
times
4-8
times
More than
8 times
1 Discuss inclusion of girls in teaching science 0 1 2 3 4
2 Discuss inclusion of ESE students in teaching
science 0 1 2 3 4
3 Discuss inclusion of ESOL students in teaching
science 0 1 2 3 4
4 Discuss inclusion of culturally diverse students in
teaching science 0 1 2 3 4
School-Level Constraints as Barrier to Teaching Science Scale
How much of a barrier is each of the following factors to your teaching science?
Question Not a
barrier
Minor
barrier
Moderate
barrier
Major
barrier
Policies and Practices
1 Shortage of science supplies 1 2 3 4
2 Too many science topics to cover 1 2 3 4
3 Science topics too difficult 1 2 3 4
4 Large class size 1 2 3 4
5 Lack of time to teach science 1 2 3 4
6 Pullout programs during science 1 2 3 4
School Personnel as Barrier to Teaching Science Scale
How much of a barrier is each of the following factors to your teaching science?
Question Not a
barrier
Minor
barrier
Moderate
barrier
Major
barrier
Policies and Practices
1 Administrator turnover 1 2 3 4
2 Teacher turnover 1 2 3 4
3 Low morale among teachers 1 2 3 4
Urban Elementary School Teachers 36
Students’ Poor Academic Skills as Barrier to Teaching Science Scale
How much of a barrier is each of the following factors to your teaching science?
Question Not a
barrier
Minor
barrier
Moderate
barrier
Major
barrier
1 Poor math skills 1 2 3 4
2 Poor reading skills 1 2 3 4
3 Poor writing skills 1 2 3 4
Statewide Assessment as Barrier to Teaching Science Scale
How much of a barrier is each of the following factors to your teaching science?
Question Not a
barrier
Minor
barrier
Moderate
barrier
Major
barrier
Policies and Practices
1 Emphasis on [statewide assessment] in reading 1 2 3 4
2 Emphasis on [statewide assessment] in math 1 2 3 4
3 Emphasis on [statewide assessment] in writing 1 2 3 4
Parents, Family, and Community as Barrier to Teaching Science Scale
How much of a barrier is each of the following factors to your teaching science?
Question Not a
barrier
Minor
barrier
Moderate
barrier
Major
barrier
1 Lack of participation in school activities (e.g.,
parent-teacher conferences, returning phone calls)
1 2 3 4
2 Parents’ (or guardians’) limited English proficiency 1 2 3 4
3 Lack of supervision and support for homework 1 2 3 4