Angelita 2010

THE INTERACTION OF MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
CURRICULUM, SCIENCE TEACHERS' PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT

KNOWLEDGE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMPETENCE
VOLUME I
By
Angelita P. Alvarado
A DISSERTATION
Submittedto
Michigan StateUniversity
in partial fulfillment of therequirements
for thedegreeof
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Fisheries and Wildlife
2010
UMI Number: 3435267
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TOALL USERS
Thequality of this reproduction is dependent uponthequality of thecopy submitted.
In theunlikely event that theauthor did not sendacompletemanuscript
andtherearemissing pages, thesewill benoted. Also, if material hadto beremoved,
anotewill indicatethedeletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3435267
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of thework is protected against
unauthorizedcopying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
By
Oneof the main goals of Environmental Education (EE) is to develop
people's environmental stewardship, which includes people's capacity to take
environmental action- their action competence(AC). The purposes of my study
wereto characterizethe interactions found in an EE curriculum, science
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge(PCK), and their useof AC, and to
identify factors that appear to be associatedwith theuseof AC in curriculumand
instruction.
My study was divided into threeparts: (1) content analysis of theWater
Quality Unit of theMichigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport
(MEECS, ninelessons); (2) asurvey of MEECS training participants (N=131
[28.4%responserate]); and (3) an in-depth examination of pedagogical content
strategies and useof AC of four scienceteachers using class observations
(December 2007- April 2008: N=38), semi-structured interviews (October 2007
- April 2008: N=20), Content Representations (CoRes: N=6), and surveys (N=4).
Theextent that individual elements of AC occurred in eachdatasource
wasvariable; that is, someelementswere more prevalent in onedatasource
than another. Of thefive elements of AC, knowledge/insight, planningandaction
experiences, andcritical thinkingandreflectionweremoreprevalent than
commitment and visions in two of thethreedatasources, namely, theWater
Quality Unit (EE curriculum) and thefour teachers. Visions was consistently the
least prevalent element of AC in eachof thethreedatasources.
In general, thetypesof and/or extent that goals and beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, student skills foci, and manifestations of PCK
occurred helped explaintheprevalenceof individual elements of AC across the
datasources. For example, useof activity-driven, project-based, andprocess-
orientedpedagogical approaches appeared important for engaging students in
real world planningandaction experiences. Other factors that appearedto be
associatedwith theuseof AC includecontent taught, personal conviction of
teachers, barriers or constraints in teaching context, characteristics of students,
and teacher education and professional development experiences. To strengthen
useof AC in EE curriculaand by teachers, somerecommendations include:
1) changing standards and assessmentsto includetheuse, development and
measurement of AC; 2) emphasizing equally all theelements of AC in curriculum
development and instruction; and 3) training teachers on theuseof multiple
approaches and methods for applyingAC in and outsideof theclassroom, as
well astheimportanceof being intentional and reflectiveabout one'steaching, to
help build one's PCK for teaching EE and fostering students' AC.
Copyright by
ANGELITA P. ALVARADO
2010
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I amindebted to numerous individuals and groups who provided help,
support, inspiration, and encouragement in theconceptualization,
implementation, and completion of my dissertation research: My advisors,
Geoffrey Habron and Shari Dann, for their incrediblededication, patience, and
guidance; my committee, ChristinaSchwarz, Gail Vander Stoep, and Tracy
Dobson, for their uniqueperspectives and questionsthat enhancedthequality of
my work; all theteachers and studentswho participated in my study; The
GraduateSchool, Bailey Scholars Program, and theCollegeof Agricultureand
Natural Resourcesfor providing funding; Mary Gebbia-PorticefromtheOfficefor
International Students and Scholars at MSU; TomOcchipinti fromthe Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment; Denice Ball; Karen Springer;
Trang Thi Dang; Chip Kosloski; J o Trumble, J oni Baker, and Margaret Holtschlag
fromtheGRAND Learning Network; Frank Fear; J ohn Schwartz; Glenn Sterner;
B'Onko Sadler, Silvia Calanchi, and other MSUE colleagues andfriends; Kathy
Koch; RebeccaChristoffel; Glocel Ortega; Mar Guidote; RieTorres J r.; J essica
Garcia; Harrison Huang; J oy Locson andfamily; J hody Digal and family; my
family - Mercy (mom), J oseph (dad), J ojo (brother), Ding (sister), and J oshua
(nephew); and Sandeep Namilikonda. THANK YOU all. I hopeto seeyou all
again very soon.
?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES x
LISTOFFIGURES xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION 1
1.1. VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND NEEDS
AND ISSUES WITHIN THE FIELD 1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (EE) CURRICULUM
IN MICHIGAN: MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION CURRICULUM SUPPORT (MEECS) 5
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 7
1.4THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 7
1.5 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 8
1.6 DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION 9
1.7 REFERENCES 12
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, ACTION COMPETENCE
AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: REVIEW OF
RELATED LITERATURE 16
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (EE) 16
2.1.1 Historical Background 16
2.1.2 Reviewof EE Research 18
2.1.3Theoretical Perspectives in EE Research 20
2.2 MY UNIQUE RESEARCH FOCUS AND THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVE 23
2.3THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 28
2.3.1 Theories of Environmental Education 28
2.3.1.1 Environmental CitizenshipBehavior (ECB) 28
2.3.1.2Action Competence(AC) 33
2.3.1.3 ComparingEnvironmental CitizenshipBehavior (ECB)
andAction Competence(AC) 40
2.3.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge(PCK) 44
2.3.2.1 Issues with PCK 49
2.3.2.2My UniqueFocusandContribution to PCK 53
2.4 REFERENCES 57
CHAPTER 3
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM
SUPPORT (MEECS): PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES,
INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS, STUDENT SKILLS, AND
ACTION COMPETENCE 68
vi
ABSTRACT 69
3.1 INTRODUCTION 71
3.1.1 Michigan Environmental Education Curriculum
Support (MEECS) 72
3.2 METHODS 78
3.2.1 Data Sources and DataAnalysis 78
3.2.1.1 Codingfor Pedagogical Approaches 79
3.2.1.2 Codingfor Instructional Methods 83
3.2.1.3Codingfor Student Skills 86
3.2.1.4 CodingforAction Competence(AC) 86
3.3 RESULTS 90
3.3.1 Pedagogical Approaches 90
3.3.2 Instructional Methods and Student Skills 90
3.3.3Action Competence(AC) 91
3.4 DISCUSSION 93
3.4.2 Instructional Methods and Student Skills 95
3.4.3Action Competence(AC) 96
3.5ASSOCIATIONS AMONG PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES,
INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS, AND STUDENT SKILLS 104
3.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 107
3.8 REFERENCES 108
CHAPTER 4
SURVEY OF MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
CURRICULUM SUPPORT (MEECS) TRAINING
PARTICIPANTS: PCK AND ACTION COMPETENCE 1 1 1
ABSTRACT 112
4.1 INTRODUCTION 114
4.2 METHODS 115
4.2.1 Selection of Respondents 115
4.2.2 DataCollection Tools 116
4.2.3 Survey Instruments 116
4.2.3.1 Mail Survey 118
4.2.3.2 Web Survey 118
4.2.4Variables of interest 119
4.2.4.1 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 119
4.2.4.2Action competence(AC) 126
4.2.5 DataAnalysis 128
4.2.5.1 QuantitativeAnalysis 128
4.2.5.2 QualitativeAnalysis 128
4.3 RESULTS 135
4.3.1 Characteristics of Survey Respondents 135
4.3.2 Primary Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science 138
4.3.3Action Competence 138
vii
4.3.5 Instructional Methods 143
4.3.6 Student Skills 144
4.4 FURTHER INTERPRETATION OF AND REFLECTION
ONRESULTS 145
4.4.1 Survey Respondents 145
4.4.1.1 Teaching Orientations- Goals andBeliefs 145
4.4.1.2 TeachingOrientations- Pedagogical Approaches 146
4.4.1.3Instructional Methods 150
4.4.1.4 Student Skills..... 151
4.4.1.5ElementsofAction Competence(AC) 152
4.4.2 Survey Respondentsversus Water Quality Unit 153
4.4.2.1 Pedagogical Approaches 153
4.4.2.2Instructional Methods 155
4.4.2.3Student Skills 156
4.4.2.4 ElementsofAction Competence 158
4.5 DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 166
4.6 REFERENCES 172
CHAPTER 5
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION
COMPETENCE: AN IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION OF
FOUR SCIENCE TEACHERS IN MICHIGAN 177
ABSTRACT 178
5.2 METHODS 180
5.2.1 Selection of Teachers and Classes 180
5.2.2 Consent andAssent Forms 181
5.2.3 Data Collection 182
5.2.3.1 Class Observations 182
5.2.3.2Semi-structuredInterviews 184
5.2.3.3 Content Representations (CoRes) 185
5.2.3.4 Surveys 186
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS 187
5.3.1 Coding Process in Detail 189
5.3.1.1 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 189
5.3.1.2Elementsof Action Competence 198
5.4 RESULTS and DISCUSSION 199
5.4.1 Teacher Profiles 199
5.4.2 Elements of PCK 202
5.4.2. 1 TeachingOrientations- GoalsandBeliefs
about TeachingScience 203
5.4.2.2 TeachingOrientations- Pedagogical Approaches 218
5.4.2.3 Instructional Methods 229
5.4.2.4 Student Skills 241
viii
5.4.3 Manifestations of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge(PCK) 253
5.4.4 Action Competence(AC) 268
5.5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH 309
5.5.1 Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science... 309
5.5.3 Instructional Methods 312
5.5.4 Student Skills 313
5.5.5 Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge 315
5.5.6 Action Competence 316
5.5.7 Other Factors That Possibly Influenced the
Occurrenceor Useof AC 318
5.5.8 Recommendationsfor Future Research
and EE Practice 319
5.6 REFERENCES 323
CHAPTER 6
INTERACTIONS IN EE CURRICULUM, PCK, AND AC:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 328
6.2ACTION COMPETENCE (AC) 330
6.3 PCK AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH AC 334
6.3.1 Goalsand Beliefs andAC 334
6.3.2 Pedagogical Approaches and AC 336
6.3.3 Instructional Methods and AC 339
6.3.4Student Skills and AC 340
6.3.5 PCK Manifestations and AC 342
6.4OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF AC 344
6.5 DELIMITATIONS 347
6.6 LIMITATIONS 348
6.7 REFERENCES 355
APPENDICES 357
APPENDIXA: NON-RESPONSE ANALYSES 358
APPENDIX B: COMPARISONS BETWEEN MAIL AND
WEB SURVEY RESPONDENTS 362
APPENDIX C: ACTION COMPETENCE 372
APPENDIX D: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND
PROTOCOLS 376
APPENDIX E: CODING INSTANCES AND INCONSISTENCIES
IN TEACHER DATA 422
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table2.1. Environmental Citizenship Behavior Model: Entry level,
Ownership Level, and Empowerment Variables
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990, pp. 11-13) 31
Table2.2. Summary of J ensen& Schnack's (1997) Conception of
Environmental Action 35
Table2.3. Comparing ECB andAC 43
Table2.4. PCK Variables Examined in My Study 56
Table3.1. MEECS Water Quality Unit: Essential Questions and
CoreLessons 75
Table3.2. "Big Ideas or Enduring Understandings" of the MEECS
Water Quality Unit 77
Table3.3. Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches, Instructional Methods,
Student Skills, and Elements of Action Competencein theWater
Quality Unit 92
Table3.4. Action CompetenceOccurrences in theMEECS Water
Quality Unit by Lesson Section 93
Table4.1. Categories of Goals and Beliefs of Teachers about
Teaching Science 121
Table4.2. Pedagogical Approaches 124
Table4.3. Elements of Action Competence 127
Table4.4. Data Sourcesfor CodingVariables of Interest, Number of
Instances, and Inconsistencies in Coding 134
Table4.5. Survey ResponseRates 137
Table4.6. Teachers' Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Sciencein the
Mail and Web Surveys 140
Table4.7. Teachers' Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science
Representing Action Competence 141
?
Table4.8. Teachers' Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science
Representing Individual Elements of Action Competence 142
Table4.9. Pedagogical Approaches Cited by Teachers 143
Table4.10. Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teachers 144
Table4.11. Most Prevalent Student Skills Foci of Teachers 144
Table4.12. IncongruenceBetween Pedagogical Approaches and
Goalsand Beliefs 148
Table4.13. Factors That May InfluenceTeachers' Goals and Beliefs
about Teaching 149
Table4.14. Factors That May InfluenceTeachers' Selection and Useof
Pedagogical Approaches 154
Table4.15. Comparing Pedagogical Approaches of Survey
Respondents and theApproaches Included in theWater
Quality Unit 155
Table4.16. Comparing Instructional Methods of Survey Respondents
and Methods Included in theWater Quality Unit 156
Table4.17. Comparing Student Skills of Survey Respondents
and theWater Quality Unit 158
Table4.18. Comparing Elements of Action Competence Mentioned
by Survey Respondents andAC Elements Included in the
Water Quality Unit 159
Table4.19. Teachers' Goals and Beliefs within theGlobal/Real World
Connections Category that EmbodiedAC 161
Table4.20. KnowledgeAcquisition Goalsand Beliefs of Teachers 162
Table4.21. Social Reform/Good Citizenship Goals and Beliefs
of Teachers 163
Table5.1. Class Observations Schedule 183
Table5.2. Coding Steps Followed for EachTeacher 189
Table5.3. PCK Manifestations 196
xi
Table5.4. Teacher Profiles 201
Table5.5. Three Most Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching
Science: Teacher A 203
Science: Teacher B 204
Table5.7. ThreeMost Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching
Science: Teacher C 205
Science: Teacher D 206
Table5.9. ThreeMost Prevalent Categories of Goals and Beliefs
of Four Teachers 207
Table5.10. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Individual Goals and
Beliefs of Four Teachers 208
Table5.11 . Similarities and Differences of Goals and Beliefs Regarding
Teaching ScienceAmong Four Teachers 209
Table5.12. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher A 219
Table5.13. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher B 220
Table5.14. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher C 221
Table5.15. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher D 221
Table5.16. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches
Table5.17. Similarities and Differences of Pedagogical Approaches
Table5.18. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher A 230
Table5.19. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher B 230
Table5.20. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher C 231
Table5.21. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher D 232
xii
Table5.22. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods
Table5.23. Similarities and Differences of Instructional Methods
Table5.24. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher A's Class 241
Table5.25. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher B's Class 242
Table5.26. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher CsClass 243
Table5.27. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher D's Class 243
Table5.28. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Student Skills Across the
Four Teachers 244
Table5.29. Similarities and Differences of Student Skills Emphasized
by theFour Teachers 245
Table5.30. Similarities and Differences of the Four Teachers in Terms
of their Goals and Beliefs, Pedagogical Approaches,
Instructional Methods, and Emphasis on Student Skills 252
Table5.31. Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher A 253
Table5.32. Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher B 254
Table5.33. Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher C 255
Table5.34. PCK Manifestations of Teacher D 256
Table5.35. Summary of Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Four
Teachers 259
Table5.36a. Occurrenceand Frequency of Action Competencein Three
Teachers* 272
Table5.36b. Prevalenceof AC Elements Across ThreeTeachers*
Based on Occurrenceand Frequency of Use 273
Table5.36c. Prevalenceof AC Elements Across ThreeTeachers*
Based on Mean Percents and Mean Ranks 274
Table6.1. Comparing Results of PCK and AC in theWater Quality
Unit (MEECS), MEECS Survey, and Four Teachers 351
xiii
Table A.1. Non-ResponseAnalysis: ComparingAge Group,
Gender, and Education Level Between Respondents (R)
and Non-Respondents (NR) 358
TableA.2. Non-ResponseAnalysis: Comparing Primary Goals
and Beliefs Between Respondents (R) and
Non-Respondents (NR) 359
TableA.3. Non-ResponseAnalysis: Comparing Instructional
Methods Between Respondents (R) and
Non-Respondents (NR) 360
TableB.1. Summary Chi SquareTableComparing Mail and Web
Survey Respondents 362
TableB.2. Combined Occurrences of Primary Goals and Beliefs
in the Mail and theWeb Surveys 364
TableB.3. Categories of Goals and Beliefs that Represented
Action Competence(AC) 369
TableB.4. Occurrenceof Individual Elements of Action
Competence(AC) 370
Table D.1. InterviewSchedules 400
TableD.2. Content Representations (CoRes) 401
Table D.3. Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge 403
Table D.4. Teacher and School Profiles 407
TableE.1. Variables of Interest and Number of Instances and
Inconsistencies in Coding 411
XlV
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure2.1. Environmental Citizenship Behavior Model
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 11) 30
Figure2.2. Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledgefor Science
TeachingAdapted fromMagnusson et al. (1999) 51
Figure3.1. Coding of Five Instances of "discussion" as an Instructional
Method in Lesson 1 of theWater Quality Unit 85
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION
1.1 VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND NEEDS AND ISSUES
WITHIN THE FIELD
Environmental Education (EE) increasingly plays acrucial role in finding
solutions to environmental and developmental issues. This is seen in the
proliferation of EE programs in thelast twenty to thirty years (Athman & Monroe,
2001; McClaren, 1997; Monroe, 1999; Orr, 1995; Palmer, 1998; Tilbury, 1995;
UNDESD, 2005a). In general, theseprograms areaimed at improving
awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation of all agegroups inside
and outsidetheschool system, as well as in local and international settings and
contexts (Athman & Monroe, 2001; Palmer, 1998; UNESCO, 1977). Many
believetheseoutcomes (e.g., awareness, knowledge, attitudes) result in a
heightened concernof peopleabout their environments, changein personal
lifestyles and behaviors, participation in finding solutions to environmental
problems or issues, and eventual support for the increasing global agendato
reconcileenvironment with development (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Tilbury,
1995; UNDESD, 2005b).
However, despitethis recognition of thevalueof EE, thefield is confronted
with several contentions, arguments, or questions. First, debates about "What
works in EE?" and "Does EE matter?" emerged, and haveincreased (J ensen,
2002; J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Lee& Williams, 2001; Palmer, 1998; Payne,
2006). An abundanceof EE studies haveensued.
1
Although there is alarge increasein thenumber of EE studies, aquick
survey of theliterature reveals that studies conducted in the past thirty years
focused predominantly on examining theimpact of EE programs on students'
knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors (Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003;
Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Leeming tal., 1997; Roth, 1992). Thesetypes of
outcomes arecharacteristically thefocus of behaviorist theories, oneof which is
theenvironmental citizenship behavior model of Hungerford & Volk (1990). This
model suggests that "the ultimategoal of education is to shapehuman behavior"
(p. 8). Someof thebehaviorist researchers havesuggested that environmental
issues arearesult of personal lifestylechoices, and therefore, to solvethese
problems or issues, education needs to focus on changing individual behaviors
(J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Lee& Williams, 2001). Behaviorist theories such as
theenvironmental citizenship model haveshaped recent EE researchand
practice.
I would arguethat answering "What works in EE?" or "Does EE matter?"
should go beyond measuring changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and
behaviors. This is not to saythat thesetypes of outcomes do not count; they do
(Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003; Hockett et al., 2004; Hsu, 2004; Orams, 1997). But I
would arguethat more important than changein behaviors is building capacity for
taking action, or thecapacity to changeliving conditions. This is adifferent
direction - adifferent way of viewing, practicing, and studying EE - that some
researchers urge EE practitioners and researchersto consider (J ensen, 2000a;
J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Wals, 1994).
2
Onealternative EE theory that was proposed in theearly 1990s is the
action competence(AC) theory. According to this theory, theultimategoal of
education is to developstudents' capacity to takeaction or to changetheir living
condition (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; J ensen& Schnack, 1997). This theory also
suggests that environmental issues arearesult of both personal lifestylechoices
andliving conditions (social forces), and therefore, solutions haveto be
addressed both at thepersonal and structural (societal) levels (J ensen, 2002;
J ensen & Schnack, 1997; Mogensen, 1997).
My dissertation researchwasgrounded in AC theory, and I conducted this
research in responseto thepersistent concerns about theprocesses, materials,
outcomes, and efficacy of EE, and to respond to thecall for viewing, practicing,
and studying EE differently. In particular, I undertook this researchto examine
and characterizethe interactions found in an EE curriculumand science
teachers' focus on AC, andto identify factors that appear to beassociatedwith
focus on AC in curriculumand instruction.
Thefocus on developing students' capacity to takeaction is accompanied
by another need, and that is to identify thestyles and content of teaching that
helpto developthis capacity. This needwas expressed by two of theleading
proponents of theAC theory - J ensen& Schnack (1997). To date, there is only
oneother study besides my dissertation researchthat investigated the kinds of
pedagogical approaches that promoteAC (Eames et al., 2006).
A second issueis that EE research has given moreattentionto student
outcomes than to studiesfocusing on teachers and their teaching practices. I see
3
this prevalenceof studies looking only at student outcomes as resulting in ahuge
gap in our understanding of what effective EE involves and if wearemaking an
impact. Howdowe knowwhat student outcomes to measureif wedon't know
what, how, and why teachersteach EE? In response, my researchdid not
measurestudent outcomes. Rather, my researchfocused on theteachers and
askedwhether theyfostered students' capacity tofind solutions or to takeaction.
Through this research, I askedwhether teachers encouraged students'
willingness to participate in finding solutions to environmental issues, or whether
teachers integrated students' ideas about their future into theprocess of finding
alternatives and solutions. Thesequestions go beyond easily observableor
verifiablevariables (Marcinkowski, 1990 cited in Palmer, 1998) such as
knowledge, attitudes, skills, or behaviors.
Third, in many parts of the United States, EE is not required in theK-12
curriculum, and many schools do not offer it. EE is not amandated component of
Michigan's K-12 curriculum(DEQ, 2002). In schoolswhere EE is taught, it is
often incorporated into scienceeducation (Littledyke, 2008; Ross, eia/., 2005;
Roth & Lee, 2004; Slingsby & Barker, 2003). This connection between EE and
scienceeducation has prompted meto usethe pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) framework to examinehowteachersteach EE and their focus on AC in
theclassroom. PCK, awidely acceptedframework in scienceeducation research
and practice, refers to thetypeof teacher knowledgethat enables theteacher to
find themost useful forms of representation of topics, analogies, examples,
illustrations, explanations, and demonstrationsto teach a particular content to a
4
particular groupof students in a particular context (Shulman, 1986). PCK's focus
on howteachersteach a particular content and why fits perfectlywith the
purposeof my study.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (EE) CURRICULUM IN MICHIGAN:
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM SUPPORT
(MEECS)
In November 1998, Michigan citizens approved a$665 million Clean
Michigan Initiative (CMI) Bond, which would be usedfor various environmental
improvements in thestate. TheBudget Appropriations Committeeset aside$1
million of theCMI funds for EE curriculumdevelopment and taskedthe
Department of Environmental Quality to lead the project. Consequently, a
Technical Advisory Groupwasformed to guidethecurriculumdevelopment
project. This groupconsisted of theDepartment of Environmental Quality,
Department of Education, and ateamof scientists and educators having
technical expertiseand practical experiencerelevant to developing and using a
science-based environmental curriculum. Theadvisory group intended the EE
curriculumto providesupplementary materials to scienceand other subject areas
(DEQ, 2002, 2006).
Thecurriculumdevelopment project was based on theassumption that
today's youths play abig role in thefutureof Michigan's environment and natural
resources (DEQ, 2002). Consequently, thegoal of theproject wasto help
students makedata-based choicesthrough improved knowledgeof basic science
principles associatedwith theenvironment, role of government, economic and
5
ecological sustainability, stewardshipand pollution prevention, and impacts of
individual decisions (DEQ, 2002; Vail, 2006). Thus, eachof thefive MEECS
Units (Energy and Resources, Ecosystemand Biodiversity, Land Use, Air
Quality, and Water Quality) aimed to providestudentswith science-based,
accurate, data-based, balanced, and Michigan-specific lessons that arealigned
with statebenchmarks and standards and GradeLevel Content Expectations
(GLCEs). Thecurriculumdevelopment project started in 2003and underwent a
series of pilot tests and reviews beforeit was completed in 2006.
Despitealargefunding allocationfromthestateand thesupport of many
stateagencies and partners, the MEECS has received little research attention.
Onestudy consisted of an evaluation of thecomponents of thecurriculum
development project, including educator workshops and apreliminary impact
study that examined (1) differences in lesson quality betweenteacherswho
taught MEECS and thosewho taught other materials and (2) student learning as
a result of studying theunits (SAMPI, 2007). But morestudies areneeded to
assesscurriculumcontent and characteristics of MEECS users. My study
contributes in thesetwo areas.
6
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Theneeds and issueswhich I described abovehaveled meto explorethe
following questions in my research:
1) Towhat extent do thescienceand environmental education curriculaand
content materials used by scienceteachers represent elements of action
competence?
2) To what extent doesteachers' pedagogical content knowledgein using
scienceand environmental education curriculaand content materials
represent elements of action competence?
In my study, "extent" simply means the prevalenceof individual elements
of AC and theprevalenceof elements and manifestations of PCK. To address
thesequestions, my researchwas divided into three parts: (1) analysisof the
Water Quality Unit of the MEECS (DEQ, 2005); (2) asurvey of MEECS training
participants; and (3) an in-depth examination of pedagogical content strategies
and useof AC by four scienceteachers in Michigan.
1.4THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
My researchoffers alternativetheories or frameworks to view, practice,
and study EE by combiningtwo theories- AC and PCK. A quick search in the
literature reveals that, to date, alargenumber of EE programs focus on
increasing people's knowledgeor changing their attitudes and behaviors. In
terms of EE research, asimilar trend is observed- alargenumber of studies
7
have been based upon behavior modification models. In the United States more
specifically, EE studies consisted largely of investigating impacts of EE on
people's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; useof AC as aframework for
viewing, practicing, and studying EE is almost absent (Agyeman, 2006 and WaIs,
1994areexceptions).
My researchwill, therefore, advancethetheory of AC as an alternative EE
theory- to go beyond shaping human behavior into developing a person's
capacityto takeaction or to changehis or her living condition- both in research
and practice. Furthermore, theexact extent of theAC literature is difficult to
definedueto thedifficulty of finding related references. I found only afewstudies
that haveattempted to measureAC empirically (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999;
Eames etal., 2006; Fien & Skoien, 2002). Most published references arelimited
only to theoperationalization of theAC concept. Therefore, my researchwill add
to thecurrent body of literature. My research alsowill advancePCK by testing its
utility in evaluating EE. I adopted PCK to examineteachers' goals and beliefs
about teaching science, pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, and
other possiblefactors that influencetheir useof AC.
1.5 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
This study provides insights into teachers' useof EE in theclassroomand
their useof AC by conducting an in-depth examination of howteachersteach a
particular content andwhy. Specifically, this study identifies thepedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, content or subject matter taught, and other
8
possiblefactors that may havecontributed to teachers' useof AC in the
classroom. This research can help informand improveteacher training and/or
professional development programs (EE and/or Science) by including astrong
focus on pedagogical strategiesfor EE in general, and for AC in particular. This
research also identifies possiblerelationships between elements of AC and
content or subjects in acurriculum, which is an unexplored areafor future
research.
This study can informus about thenatureof theintegration of EE with
scienceeducation, including thebarriers or challenges associatedwith this
process. This study also canguidefuturedevelopment of environmental
education or sciencecurriculafor K-12 schools in Michigan that aimto develop
AC, or improveor align existing curriculawith AC by assessingan EE curriculum
in terms of howit matches characteristics of AC and thetypes of pedagogical
strategies that promoteuseof AC. Finally, this study also serves as an example
for using alternativetheories or frameworks in conducting EE research and
provides suggestions and recommendations for future research.
1.6 DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION
My dissertation consists of six chapters, beginning with this introductory
chapter that describes theneeds and issueswithin EE that helped framemy
research.
9
In Chapter 2, I review related literatureon EE, PCK, andAC. I also
discusstheories of research and practicewithin EE and my theoretical
perspectivein conductingthis study. My discussions on EE research and
practice includeacomparison of two theories- theenvironmental citizenship
behavior model of Hungerford & Volk (1990) and theAC theory of J ensen&
Schnack (1997). I also present onecommonly cited PCK framework and
describe how I utilize it in my dissertation.
In Chapter 3, I address my research question#1: "To what extent do the
scienceand environmental education curriculaand content materials used by
scienceteachers represent elements of action competence?" I also report on the
extent to which theWater Quality Unit of the MEECS matches characteristics of
AC and thetypes of pedagogical strategiesthat promoteteachers' focus on AC. I
usecontent analysisto examinetheWater Quality Unit.
In Chapter 4, I partly address research question#2: "To what extent does
teachers' pedagogical content knowledgein using scienceand environmental
education curriculaand content materials represent elements of action
competence?" I report on characteristics of MEECS participants, including their
demographics and curriculumuse. I also examinepresenceof PCK andAC from
participants' responses to self-administered mail and websurveys. Finally, I
discuss PCK patternsthat aremore prevalent and seemassociatedwith certain
elements of AC.
In Chapter 5, I also address researchquestion#2 and report on four
teachers' PCK and useof AC. I used class observations, semi-structured
10
interviews, Content Representations (CoRes), and aself-administered mail
survey to examine PCK and AC. I comparethefour teachers in terms of goals
and beliefs about teaching science, pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, student skills emphasized in theclassroom, and manifestations of
PCK, and discuss possiblerelationships between their PCK and useof AC.
In Chapter 6, I summarizeand integrateresults fromprevious chapters
and discuss implications for EE research and practice.
11
1.7 REFERENCES
Agyeman, J . (2006). Experiences, behavior and technology: Why it'sjust not the
same? Environmental EducationResearch, 12(3-4), 513-522.
Athman, J . A., & Monroe, M. C. (2001). Elements of effectiveenvironmental
education programs. In A. Fedler (Ed.), DefiningBest Practicesin Boating,
Fishing, andStewardshipEducation (pp. 14): Recreational Boating and
Fishing Foundation.
Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action competenceand environmental
education. CambridgeJ ournal of Education, 29(3), 349-353.
Dimopoulos, D. I., & Pantis, J . D. (2003). Knowledgeand attitudes regarding sea
turtles in elementary students on Zakynthos, Greece. TheJ ournal of
Environmental Education, 34(3), 30-38.
Eames, C, Law, B., Barker, M., lies, H., McKenzie, J ., Patterson, R., et al.
(2006). Investigating teacher's pedagogical approaches in environmental
educationthat promotes students' action competence. Retrieved April 12,
2006, fromhttp://nzaee.org.nz/invapproach.htm
Fien, J ., & Skoien, P. (2002). I'mlearning...Howyou go about stirring things up -
in aconsultative manner: Social capital and action competencein two
community catchment groups. Local Environment, 7(3), 269-282.
Hockett, K. S., McClafferty, J . A., & McMullin, S. L. (2004). Environmental
concern, resourcestewardship, andrecreational participation: areviewof
theliterature (No. CMI-HDD-04-01): Recreational Boating and Fishing
Foundation and Conservation Management Institute.
Hsu, S.-J . (2004). Theeffects of an environmental education programon
responsibleenvironmental behavior and associated environmental literacy
variables in Taiwanesecollegestudents. J ournal of Environmental
Education, 35(2), 37-50.
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learning behavior through
environmental education. J ournal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
J ensen, B. B. (2000a). Health knowledgeand health education in thedemocratic
health promoting school. Health Education, 100(4), 146-153.
J ensen, B. B. (2000b). Participation, Commitment, and Knowledgeas
Components of Pupil's Action Competence. In B. B. J ensen, K. Schnack &
V. Simovska (Eds.), Critical Environmental andHealth Education:
ResearchIssuesandChallenges (pp. 219-238). Copenhagen, Denmark:
12
Research Center for Environmental and Health Education, The Danish
University of Education.
J ensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behavior.
Environmental EducationResearch, 8(3), 325-334.
J ensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). Theaction competenceapproach in
environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163-
178.
Lee, J . C. K., & Williams, M. (2001). Researching environmental education in the
school curriculum: An introduction for student and teacher researchers.
International Researchin Geographical andEnvironmental Education,
10{3).
Leeming, F. C, Porter, B. E., Dwyer, W. 0., Cobern, M. K., & Oliver, D. P.
(1997). Effects of participation in class activities on children's
environmental attitudes and knowledge .TheJ ournal of Environmental
Education, 28, 33-42.
Littledyke, M. (2008). ScienceEducationfor environmental awareness:
Approachesto integrating cognitiveand affectivedomains. Environmental
EducationResearch, 4(1), 1-17.
Marcinkowski, T. (1990). A contextual reviewof thequantitativeparadigmin EE
research. Paper presented at theAnnual Conferenceof theNorth
AmericanAssociationfor Environmental Education.
McClaren, M. (1997). Reflections on alternatives to National Standards in
environmental education: Process-based quality assessment. Canadian
J ournal of Environmental Education, 2, 35-46.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2002). RFP: CleanMichigan
Initiative Environmental CurriculumGrants. Retrieved April 04, 2010, from
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-assist-cmi-grantapp-
envedu.pdf
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2005). Michigan Environmental
Education CurriculumSupport: Water Quality, Curriculumfor Middle
School Scienceand Social Studies. Retrieved J une 10, 2008
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2006). Environmental Education
CurriulumDevelopment Project Timeline. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from
www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-exe-outreach-eectimeline.pdf
13
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: acentral element in developing action
competencein health and environmental education. Health Education
Research, 12(4), 429-436.
Monroe, M. (Ed.). (1999). What Works: A Guideto Environmental Educationand
CommunicationProgramsfor Practitioners andDonors. Gabriela Island,
BC: NewSociety Publishers.
Orams, M. B. (1997). Theeffectiveness of environmental education: canweturn
tourists into "greenies?" Progressin Tourismandhospitalityresearch, 3,
295-306.
Orr, D. W. (1995). Educatingfor theenvironment: Higher education's challenge
of thenext century. Change43-46.
Palmer, J . A. (1998). Environmental Educationin the 21st Century: Theory,
Practice, Progress, andPromise. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Payne, P. (2006). Environmental Education and CurriculumTheory. TheJ ournal
of Environmental Education, 37(2), 25-35.
Ross, K., Lakin, L., Burch, G., & Littledyke, M. (2005). ScienceIssuesandthe
National Curriculum. Cheltenham: University of Gloucestershire.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution, and directions in
the 1990s: ERIC/SMEAC Information ReferenceCenter.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Scienceeducation as/for participation in the
community. ScienceEducation, 88, 263-291.
SAMPI. (2007). Michigan Environmental Education Support: Summaryof
Findings fromExternal Evaluation 2003-2007: Scienceand Mathematics
ProgramImprovement. Western Michigan University.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Thosewho understand: Knowledgegrowth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Slingsby, D., & Barker, S. (2003). Making connections: biology, environmental
education, and educationfor sustainabledevelopment. J ournal of
Biological Education, 38(1), 4-6.
Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental Educationfor sustainability: defining the new
focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education
Research, 1(2), 195-212.
14
UNDESD. (2005a). UN Decadeof Educationfor Sustainable Development:
Background. Retrieved J uly 17, 2005, from
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=23279&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNDESD. (2005b). UN Decadeof Education for Sustainable Development:
Objectives and Strategies Retrieved May 25, 2005, from
URLJ D=23295&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNESCO. (1977). First intergovernmental conferenceon environmental
educationfinal report, Tbilisi, USSR. Paris: UNESCO.
Vail, J . (2006). Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport. Paper
presentedat theConference Name|. RetrievedApril 4, 2010, from
www.epa.gov/airnow/2006conference/mondayA/ail.ppt
WaIs, A. (1994). Action taking and environmental problemsolvingin
environmental education. In B. B. J ensen& K. Schnack (Eds.), Action and
Action CompetenceasKey Concepts of Critical Pedagogy(Vol. 12).
Copenhagen Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.
15
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, ACTION COMPETENCE AND
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE
In this chapter, I review related literature in Environmental Education,
Action Competence, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. I present theissues
and concernswithin EE that helpedframemy dissertation research and illustrate
howmy researchwill build upon existing knowledge. I alsodetail my theoretical
perspective, and describehowit guided theconduct of my research.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (EE)
2.1.1 Historical Background
Much of what has occurred in thefield of Environmental Education since
1978 has evolved fromtwo founding documents, theBelgradeCharter and the
Tbilisi Declaration (NEEAC, 2005; Palmer, 1998). TheBelgradeCharter was
produced by the International Environmental Education Programme(IEEP) in
1975, asthefirst inter-governmental statement on EE, listing its aims, objectives,
key concepts, and guiding principles (Palmer, 1998). Theobjectives for EE
statedwithin theBelgradeCharter aresummarized asfollows:
1. to foster clearawarenessof andconcernabout economic, social,
political, andecological inter-dependencein urbanandrural areas;
16
2. toprovideeveryperson with opportunities to acquiretheknowledge,
values, attitudes, commitment andskills neededtoprotect and
improvetheenvironment; and
3. to createnewpatternsof behavior of individuals, groups, andsociety
asawholetowards theenvironment.
(UNESCO, 1975)
TheTbilisi Declaration in 1977was built on theBelgradeCharter and
called on EE for theimprovement of awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and
participation for all agegroups, both insideand outsidetheschool system, and in
local and international settings and contexts (Athman & Monroe, 2001; Palmer,
1998; UNESCO, 1977). Ten years later, theBrundtland Report proposed the
reconciliation of development with environment in theglobal agenda. This
proposal was embracedduring the Earth Summit in 1992, and the resulting
document, Agenda21, called for a reorientation of EE toward "educationfor
sustainability" to bring about changestoward sustainablelifestyles (UNDESD,
2005a). This transformed EE into amultidisciplinary approachthat integrates
development education and EE through acknowledgement of social, cultural,
economic, and environmental dimensions (Eames etal., 2006; UNDESD, 2005a;
UNESCO, 1992).
Sincethe BelgradeCharter and theTbilisi Declaration, EE played an
increasingly crucial role in finding solutions to environmental and developmental
problems. This is seen in theproliferation of EE programs in thelast thirty years
(Athman & Monroe, 2001; McClaren, 1997; Monroe, 1999; Orr, 1995; Palmer,
1998; Tilbury, 1995; UNDESD, 2005a). Many practitioners believe EE programs
help promotepeople's concern about their environments, changein personal
17
lifestyles and behaviors, participation in finding solutions to environmental
problems, and eventual support for theincreasing global agendato reconcile
environment with development (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Tilbury, 1995;
UNDESD, 2005b).
More recently, EE is facing a process of continuous conceptual
reconstruction as aconsequenceof thecomplexity of thesocial and political
changes occurringthroughout theworld, in turn becauseof theenvironmental
crises and thedifferent perspectivesthrough which they areunderstood in
different contexts (Payne, 2006). In this conceptual reconstruction, debates about
"What works in EE?" and "Does EE matter?" emerged (J ensen, 2002; J ensen&
Schnack, 1997; Palmer, 1998).
2.1.2 Reviewof EE Research
My reviewof EE research revealed sometrends:
Quantitativestudies remain dominant in thefield (Hart & Nolan, 1999;
Lee& Williams, 2001; Palmer, 1998; Rickinson, 2001). Many of these
studies focus on impacts of EE on students.
Thereis aconsiderableincreasein thenumber of qualitativestudies,
althoughthere remains aneedto strengthen constructivist and critical
approachesto research (Ballantyne& Packer, 1996).
Therearepersistent concerns about theprocesses, materials,
outcomes, and efficacy of EE (Lee & Williams, 2001; Palmer, 1998;
Payne, 2006).
18
Thereis awidening rangeof themes pursued by EE researchers.
Emphasis is placed primarily on EE implementation acrossthe
curriculum, development of curriculumresources, influenceof EE, and
student assessments. Teaching about theenvironment throughthe
sciencecurriculumand effectiveness of teaching styles gained
momentumin theresearchfield (Lee& Williams, 2001; Palmer, 1998).
Global efforts in EE appear to bedominated by teacher education
models and development of responsibleenvironmental behavior, in
addition to integrating EE acrossthecurriculumand development of
curriculumresources (Palmer, 1998).
Recurring issues and concernswithin EE includeconflicts between
different paradigms of research and practice(rhetoric-reality gaps),
developmentally inappropriatecurricula, structural issues or barriers,
and dynamics of schooling, which makeit difficult to integrate EE into
thecurriculum(Barrett, 2006; Connell, 2006; Fridgen, 2005; Payne,
2006; Stevenson, 2007).
Therehas beenacall for theuseof multiple paradigms to enhanceEE
research, becausesomeauthors believethat different paradigms are
complementary and can enhanceunderstanding of EE theory and
practice better than any oneparadigmcan alone(Haggerson, 1986;
Marcinkowski, 1993).
19
Studies conducted in the past thirty yearsfocused predominantly on
examining theimpact of EE programs on students' knowledge, attitudes, skills,
and behaviors (Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Leeming,
tal., 1997; Roth, 1992). Thesetypes of outcomes arecharacteristically the
focus of theenvironmental citizenship behavior (ECB) model of Hungerford &
Volk (1990). This model suggests that "the ultimategoal of education is to shape
human behavior" (p. 8). The ECB model has largely shaped EE researchand
practicesinceits inception.
In addition to thefocus on measuring knowledge, attitudes, skills, and
behaviors, EE research has given moreattention to studentoutcomes than to
studiesfocusing on teachers or educators and their teaching practices. I seethe
prevalenceof studies looking only at student outcomes as resulting in a huge
gapin our understanding. Howdoweknowwhat student outcomes to measureif
wedon't knowwhat, how, and why teachers teach EE?
2.1.3Theoretical Perspectives in EE Research
Reviews of EE research alsofound threeleading paradigms, or what I call
theoretical perspectives, in EE research- positivism, interpretivism, and socially
critical theory. Although recent analyses of thefield of EE researchfound a rapid
increasein the number and diversity of researchstudies (Hart & Nolan, 1999),
and an encouraging attempt to usedifferent theories and perspectives other than
the positivist-objectivist paradigm, this perspectiveis still thedominant approach
to EE research (Rickinson, 2001).
20
Marcinkowski (1990) describedthe positivist-objectivist perspective in
research as reflecting thetradition of scientific inquiry. Thosewho adhereto this
perspectiveseek to describe, predict, and explain, and aregenerally required to
remain detachedfromthe research setting (including thesubjects or participants)
to maintain objectivity (Marcincowski, 1990 cited in Palmer, 1998). Themajority
of positivist-objectivist-oriented research studies in the 1970s and 1980s are
characterized by afocus on matching outcomeswith assumed goals, making
generalizationsfromempirical observations, and on identifying, measuring, or
controlling variables that were believed to influence responsibleenvironmental
behavior (Robottom& Hart, 1993cited in Palmer, 1998). In addition, positivist-
objectivist oriented studies are predominantly quantitative (lozzi, 1981;
Rickinson, 2001).
Calls for interpretivism(or constructivism, as synonymously used by some
researchers) in EE researchfirst emerged in a 1994 report by Robertsonwho
wroteabout thedirelack of constructivist-oriented studies at that time (Palmer,
1998). Robertson (1994 cited in Palmer, 1998) arguedthat constructivist
approaches to research areimportant becausethesecan provideacoherent
framework through which to understand learning, subjectiveexperiencesof
individuals, perspectives of participants, and socially constructed meanings,
categories and issues. Several years after Robertson's call, therewas an
upsurgein support for and interest in interpretivist research and for a more
broadly basedviewof EE (Palmer, 1998). Rickinson (2001) sawasimilar
21
increasein support in his literature reviewon learners and learning in primary
and secondary education.
Interpretivists do not believethat research is valuefree, as is theclaimof
positivists. Thus, instead of being detachedfromtheir subjects or fromthe
phenomenabeing investigated, researchers areactively anddirectly involved
(Cohen & Manion, 1989). Interpretivists alsodo not believethat human behavior
theories can beabstractedand generalized; rather, they believethat human
behavior is situation-specific (Fien & Hillcoat, 1996 cited in Palmer, 1998).
In contrast to positivists, interpretivists attempt for transferability of findings
(Palmer, 1998). Constructivist-oriented research studies also tend to be
qualitativeand includetheuseof casestudies, participant observation, semi-
structured interviews, and discourseanalysis (Green, 1990). For an exampleof a
constructivist modeof research, seePalmer's study (1993, 1995).
Thecritical tradition in EE researchemerged at about thesametimethat
calls for interpretivismsurfaced. Like interpretivism, socially critical theory
emerged in responseto critiques of thepositivist paradigm. Critical researchers
agreewith interpretivist researchers that their methods provide understanding
and meaningful dialogue (Palmer, 1998). Wherethereis adifference, however, is
in thebelief regarding howsubjectiveviews areconstructed. Interpretivists argue
that theseviews are internally constructed (constructivist); critical theorists, on
theother hand, arguethat they areinternally constructed andareinfluenced by
social forces; hencethey cannot beseparatedfromtheir social context (Fien &
22
Hillcoat, 1996 cited in Palmer, 1998). Theidentifying characteristic of socially
critical theory is captured by Robottom& Hart (1993) below:
"...becomingcritical means exposingone'sideological bases, penetrating
one'sideological assumptionsthrough critique...developingananalytic
posturetowards arguments, procedures, andlanguageusingalens
relatedto issuesof powerandcontrol in relationships, anddevelopingan
action-orientedcommitment to common welfare..." (p. 11).
Accordingto Robottom& Hart (1993 cited in Palmer, 1998), asocially
critical perspectiveto EE is participatory and collaborativein nature, so ideally it
should involvestudents, teachers, and thecommunity in framing and
investigating a real environmental issuein their local environment. The
participants should seek to uncover and makeexplicit thevalues and vested
interests of theindividuals and groupswho adopt positions with respect to the
issue. This supportsthe belief of critical researchers that subjectiveviews are
influenced by individual (internal) constructs aswell asoutsidesocial forces. Key
approachesfor datacollection and analysis that arebeing used in thecritical
tradition of EE researcharediscourseanalysis, ethnography, and action
research. An exampleof project using asocially critical approach is the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment
and School Initiatives Project (seeElliot, 1991; Posch, 1993).
2.2 MY UNIQUE RESEARCH FOCUS AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
My dissertation research is an attempt to addressvarious aspectsof EE
trends describedabove. First, this dissertation researchwas conducted in
responseto the persistent concerns about the processes, materials, outcomes,
23
and efficacy of EE. In particular, I undertook my dissertation researchto examine
and characterizethe interactions found in an EE curriculumand science
teachers' focus on action competence(henceforth referred to asAC), and to
identify factors that appear to beassociatedwith useof AC in curriculumand
instruction.
Second, in responseto thelack of focus on studying teachers' teaching
practices, my researchdid not attempt to measureoutcomes on students.
Rather, my researchfocused on teachers, and I askedwhether they fostered
students' capacity tofind solutions, to changeasituation, or to takeaction. My
research alsofocused on whether teachers encouraged students' willingness to
participate {commitment) in finding solutions to environmental problems, and
whether they integrated students' ideas about their future (developing visions)
into the process of finding alternatives and solutions. Thesequestions go beyond
easily observableor verifiablevariables (Marcinkowski, 1990cited in Palmer,
1998) such as knowledge, attitudes, skills, or behaviors.
Third, although theintegration of EE into scienceeducation is not a
primary areaof inquiry in this study, this research enhances our knowledgeabout
howthesetwo fields can be integrated. This areaof research is gaining interest
especially becausescienceeducation receives considerably higher curriculum
status compared to EE (Littledyke, 2008; Slingsby & Barker, 2003), although
relatively less compared to math and languagearts. Someresearchers believe
that becauseof this higher curriculumstatus, scienceeducation hastremendous
opportunity to support EE in various ways, e.g., help students apply science
24
conceptsto socially relevant questions (Slingsby & Barker, 2003), equip students
with skills that enablethemto participatein discussions or debates related to
lifestylesacrifices or political changes (Slingsby & Barker, 2003), developtheir
senseof relationshipwith theenvironment (Littledyke, 2008), develop
environmental awareness (Ross et al., 2005), and allowstudents to participatein
community life (Roth & Lee, 2004).
In many parts of theUnited States, however, EE is not included in the
formal K-12 curriculum, and despitethebenefits of teaching EE (Athman &
Monroe, 2004; Ernst, 2005; Pennock, 1994), incorporating it into theclassroom
has never beeneasyfor teachers (Kim& Fortner, 2006). Thus, my researchwill
contributeto our knowledgeabout thestructural issues or barriers, dynamics of
schooling, and other factors that makeit difficult to integrate EE into thescience
curriculum.
This connection between EE and scienceeducation has prompted meto
usethe PCK framework to examineteachers' useof AC. PCK, awidely accepted
framework in scienceeducation research and practice, refers to thetypeof
teacher knowledgethat enables him/her tofind themost useful forms of
representation of topics, analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations, and
demonstrationsto teach a particular content to a particular groupof students in a
particular context (Shulman, 1986). PCK's focus on howteachersteach a
particular content and why fits perfectlywith thepurposeof my study to examine
teachers' useof AC.
25
Fourth, and moreimportantly, I would arguethat weshould go beyond
measuring changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors when
answering "What works in EE?" or "Does EE matter?" This is not to saythat
thesetypes of outcomes do not count; they do (Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003;
Hockett, McClafferty, & McMuINn, 2004; Hsu, 2004; Orams, 1997). I would argue
that moreimportant than changein behaviors is building capacity for taking
action or thecapacity to changeacomplex situation, and I suggest EE research
and practiceought to look in this direction. Oneperspectivethat examinesthis
(other) direction is thetheory of action competence(AC). In this theory, the
ultimategoal of EE is to developstudents' capacity to takeaction or to changea
situation (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; J ensen& Schnack, 1997).
Theneedto focus on developing students' capacity to takeaction is
accompanied by aneedto identify thestyles and content of teaching that helpto
developthis capacity. This needwas expressed by two of theleading proponents
of theaction competencetheory- J ensenand Schnack (1997). To date, I found
only one previous study that investigated the kinds of pedagogical approaches
that promoteAC (Eames et al., 2006).
Whilethethreemajor researchtheoretical perspectives I havedescribed
above haveclearly shapedtheway EE research has been conducted in thepast
four decades, I agreewith Scott & Oulton (1999) that adopting only one
perspectivewould limit our views and understanding of environmentally-related
situations, thereby isolating and reducing EE instead of broadening its theory,
research, and practice. If I embraceonly thepositivist perspective, I will prevent
26
myself fromobtaining a profound and holistic understanding of thenatureof
environmental problems (J ensen, 2002; J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Wals &
Bawden, 2000). In this case, this perspectivewould belimiting my understanding
of howteachers teach EE and their useof AC in theclassroom.
If I embraceonly thesubjective interpretivist paradigm, I will overlook the
importanceof technical and applied knowledgethat could contributeto my
understanding of EE teaching, and useof this perspectivecan add richnessto
my work. Thus, an interpretivist viewalone is not completeeither.
Furthermore, if thesocially critical theory is to beaccepted as thesole
representation of EE, then thereis atendencyto perceive EE as atool to attack
society, thegovernment, and ourselves. This is becausesocially critical theory is
grounded on critiqueof any forms of oppression and power structures (Robottom
& Hart, 1993). Although this perspectivemay beuseful in understanding many
contexts related to EE, it may not beappropriatefor other contexts, and it may be
unacceptableto members of society whoviewtheroleof education as providing
only fundamental knowledgeand skills.
Thus, in this research, I assumeacritical pluralist perspective. This is in
responseto suggestions madeby someresearchers on theneed to beopen to
multipleperspectives (Scott & Oulton, 1999). I also agreewith other authorsthat,
becauseof the highly complex natureof thecontent that EE needsto address
and thedifferent ideologies in which EE is embedded (Palmer, 1998), aswell as
the multipleways that EE is theorized and practiced, adopting only oneresearch
27
theoretical perspectivewill be limiting and unjustified. This is certainly truefor my
investigation of teachers' useof AC in theclassroom.
As acritical pluralist, I valuethereliability and generalizability of findings
that apositivist theoretical perspectivecan generate, but I also appreciatethe
beauty of asubjectiveapproach (e.g., interpretivist or socially critical) becauseit
adds richnessto my work. This perspectivefit my research becausethegoal of
my researchwas not primarily to predict and generalizemy results, but to
examineand characterizeuseof AC in an EE curriculumand howteachers teach
EE and useAC in theclassroom. Adopting acritical pluralist perspectiveallowed
me, theresearcher, to adopt different but complementary perspectives (Scott &
Oulton, 1999).
2.3THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
I will nowdescribethetheories that frame my research. First, I will discuss
thetheory of AC and compareit with another theory - theenvironmental
citizenship behavior model. I believethesetwo theories arefundamentally
different and thereforeworthy of comparison and further discussion. Second, I
will discuss PCK and illustrate howit is used in my research.
2.3.1 Theories of Environmental Education
2.3.1.1 Environmental CitizenshipBehavior (ECB)
Many environmental educators believethat behavior changeresults from
making peoplemoreknowledgeableabout theenvironment and its associated
28
issues and that the"ultimateaimof education is shaping human behavior"
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 8). Theearliest assumptionwas that increased
knowledgeand awareness about environmental problems will result in
responsibleenvironmental behaviors1 (REBs) (Hungerford & Volk, 1990),
implying alinear relationship betweenvariables. It was also believed that
influencing learners' attitudes toward theenvironment will develop REBs.
Research hasfound, however, that thereareno strong direct causal
relationships between knowledgeand REBs, or attitudes and REBs (Gardner &
Stern, 1996; Orr, 1992; Stern, 2000; Volk era/., 1984). Instead, the relationships
amongthesevariables arecomplex (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995; Stern, 2000).
Fromtheearlier models of behavior modification, Hungerford & Volk's
(1990) Environmental Citizenship Behavior2 model evolved (seeFigure2.1),
henceforth referred to as ECB. In their model, Hungerford & Volk (1990), through
meta-analyses, demonstratedthat entry level variables, ownershipvariables, and
empowerment variables contributeto behavior and that thesevariablecategories
"act in moreor less of alinear fashion, albeit acomplex one" (Hungerford and
Volk, 1990, p. 10). They also noted that "whilethecategories of variables
probably operatein alinear fashion, thevariables within each category do not
necessarily operatein asimilar manner" (p. 1 1 ), and that thevariables probably
function synergistically. Subsequent research hasfurther developed our
1 Earlier researchers (e.g., Hines etal., 1986/87) referred to the"desired" behavior as
"responsibleenvironmental behavior."
2 Hungerford & Volk (1990) called their model Environmental Citizenship Behavior but used
"responsiblecitizenship behavior" when referringto behavior throughout their paper.
29
understandingof the relationship between thesevariables and behavior. Table
2.1 provides short descriptions for eachvariable.
Entry level
variables
Major variable
Environmental
Sensitivity
Minor variables
Knowledgeof
ecology
Androgyny
Attitudes toward
pollution,
technology and
economics
Ownership
variables
Major variables
In-depth knowledge
about issues
Personal investment
in issues and the
environment
Minor variables
Knowledgeof the
consequencesof
behavior - both
positiveand
negative
A personal
commitment to issue
resolution
Empowerment
variables
Major variables
Knowledgeof andskill
in using environmental
action strategies
Locus of control
(Expectancy of
reinforcement)
Intention to act
Minor variable
In-depth knowledge
about issues
Figure2.1. Environmental Citizenship Behavior Model
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 11)
30
Table2.1. Environmental Citizenship Behavior Model: Entry Level,
Ownership Level, and Empowerment Variables (Hungerford & Volk, 1990,
PP- 11-13)
Entry-level variables: goodpredictors of behavior, or appear to berelatedto responsible
citizenshipbehavior
Environmental sensitivity - defined asan empathetic perspectivetowardthe
environment; has shown dramatic relationshipto behavior
Androgyny [in apsychological sense] - refersto human beings who tendto reflect non-
traditional sex-rolecharacteristics (example: an androgynous male may beavery
sympathetic individual andableto cry in asad situation- atraditional female
characteristic); not as strong a predictor for behavior as environmental sensitivity
Knowledgeof ecology- refersto an ecological conceptual basisfor decisionmaking,
e.g., concepts associatedwith population dynamics, nutrient cycling, succession,
homeostasis, etc; does not in itself produceenvironmental behavior but is considered
almost always aprerequisitefor decision making
Attitudes toward pollution, technology, and economics- they did not providedefinition for
attitudes, but noted that someresearchfoundthat theseattitudes appearedto berelated
to behavior althoughtheextent of their involvement is still unknown
Ownership variables: thosethat makeenvironmental issues verypersonal, asin the
individual "owns" theissue, i.e., theissues areextremelyimportant atapersonal level to
him/her
In-depth knowledge(understanding) of issues- understandingthenatureof theissue
and its ecological and human implications, appears crucial beforeindividuals can engage
in responsiblecitizenship behavior
Personal investment (in an issueor an action) - much like "ownership" itself in that the
individual identifies strongly with theissuebecausehe/shehas aproprietary interest in it;
hypothesized as a major factor in ownership
Empowerment variables: givehumanbeings asensethat theycanmakechangesandhelp
resolveimportant environmental issues
Perceived skill in using environmental strategies- human beings believing that they
havethe"power" to usecitizenshipstrategiesto help resolveissues; probably dependent
on theknowledgeof environmental action strategies variableto agreat extent
Knowledgeof environmental action strategies- was not defined but was considered an
important part of theperceived skills in using environmental strategies
Internal locus of control -anindividual's belief in being reinforced or will experience
successfor acertain behavior
Intention to act - intentionof a personto takesomesort of action increases thechances
of that action occurring
31
Thefocus of theECB model on knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors
stemsfromthepositivist's assumptionthat environmental problems areexternal
to individuals and areaconsequenceof individual lifestylechoices (Mogensen,
2000; Palmer, 1998). This implies that solutions to environmental problems can
beattained by changing individual behaviors. It is also clear that this model
upheld a behaviorist learning theory, becauseit deemedthat shaping behavior is
theultimate aimof education.
Mogensen (1997) claimed that ECB model's assumption about the
existenceof environmental problems or issues3 has influenced EE'sfocus of
teaching on gathering information, developing knowledge, and increasing
awareness about environmental problems. Hefurther contends that learners
need to betaught about behaviors or actions that can improvethestateof the
environment. Critics saythat the ECB model, therefore, is moralistic and
engenders an expert-driven teaching and learning model, i.e., theteacher is the
expert who first judges andthen delivers information to thestudents; students
arepassiverecipients of knowledgeor "repositories" who collect and usethe
information (Greenall Gough & Robottom, 1993; J ensen, 2000a; Robottom&
Hart, 1993; Tilbury, 1994). Freircalls this the"banking" model of education
(Freir, 2000).
3 Hungerford & Volk (1990) distinguished between"problems" and "issues." They believed
""problems" exist when something is at risk, for example, ananimal beingendangered. An
environmental "issue" existswhen human beings havediffering beliefs and values concerning
what should bedoneabout theproblem; for example, peoplemay differ in their beliefs about what
should bedoneto managetheendangered animal" (p. 17).
32
2.3.1.2Action Competence(AC)
AC theory s themost notablealternative perspectiveto the ECB model
found in theliterature. AC played acentral role in thepedagogical discussion of
EE in Denmark in the 1990s and consequently shifted theoverall objectiveof EE
in this country (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999). Outsideof the United States, AC
has been adopted in NewZealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Scotland (Barrett, 2006; Eames etal., 2006; Fien & Skoien, 2002; Laing, 1998;
Palmer, 1998). Early proponents advanced theconcept of AC asa responseto
theincreasing preponderanceof behavior modification models in EE, oneof
which is the ECB model. AC researchers arecritical of focusing on changing
behaviors in our attempts to solveenvironmental problems. For them, focusing
on individuals alonedoes not and will not solveenvironmental problems (Bishop
& Scott, 1998).
Action competenceis referred to as aperson's ability to act on an
environmental problemor issue, and or his/her ability to influenceor change
his/her living conditions (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; J ensen& Schnack, 1997). The
focus, therefore, is developing capacity for action. AC is grounded in socially
critical theory and suggests that environmental problems or issues arearesult of
both lifestyle choices and living conditions (social forces). Thus, for proponents of
AC, thepurposeof education is to question and understand how individuals'
choices andsocial structures contributeto environmental problems or issuesto
attain solutions (J ensen, 2002; J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Mogensen, 1997).
Finding solutions requires a reconstructivist learningframework, which views
33
education as an avenuefor or agent of changeand social reformby emphasizing
creativeness, nonconformity, self-actualization, and providing learnerswith
"direct experiencein democratic living and political or social actionwhich
prepares studentsfor freedom" (Ornstein, 1991, p. 7).
Critics of theAC theory, however, regard this focus on social contexts as
too ambitious and believe it is dauntingto placethe responsibility on schools and
studentsto changesociety (Bishop& Scott, 1998). Opponents of AC arguethat,
often, thereis a mismatch between theproblemat hand and theeducational
intervention, i.e., "theenvironmental problemchosenwas insoluble by students'
action, in somecases, insolublesimply becausetheproblemwas too large"
(Walker, 1997 cited by Bishop & Scott, 1998, p. 227). Proponents of AC counter
theargument by saying that AC does not placetheresponsibility of social
changeon students. Instead, what AC emphasizes arestudents' critical thinking
skills (Mogensen, 1997).
J ensen& Schnack (1997) differentiated between action, behavior, and
activity. They stressedthat, in order for something to beconsidered an 'action,' it
hasto beperformed consciously and purposively. In other words, actions are
intentional, considered, and must betargetedto asolution of a problem(J ensen,
2002; J ensen& Schnack, 1997). This implies that AC equips an individual with
an ability to act in whatever way heor shechooses; it is democratic, not
prescriptive (Bishop& Scott, 1998; J ensen& Schnack, 1997). In contrast,
J ensen& Schnack (1997) arguethat behavior may be manifested with or without
an intention or personal worth to theperson exhibiting it. For example, students
34
may display acertain behavior becausetheteacher askedthemto do so. Thus,
theobserved behavior is not aresult of personal choice; it is predetermined or
prescribed (J ensen & Schnack, 1997). Schnack (1994) also suggests that a
behavior may bejust a habit, i.e., something performed or acquired by an
individual without thinking about it.
'Action' is alsodifferentiated from'activity.' An 'action' is focused on the
resolution of aproblemthat an individual regards as important (J ensen, 1994).
Action is also targetedto addressingthecauses, not theeffects or symptoms of
a problem(Bishop & Scott, 1998). In contrast, an 'activity' is being actively
engaged in alimited task; activity is 'doing something' (J ensen, 1994). J ensen&
Schnack (1997) further contend that an activity is not part of something bigger or
a moresubstantial goal (e.g., to resolvean environmental problem).
Furthermore, J ensen & Schnack (1997) assert that only actions that aredirected
toward solving an environmental problemcan becharacterized as environmental
actions. Table2.2summarizes the"action" component of AC according to
J ensen& Schnack (1997).
Table2.2. Summary of J ensen& Schnack's (1997) Conception of
Environmental Action
An action...
is conscious/intentional: it involves making up of one's mind beforeit is conducted
hasto bepurposive/targeted
is morethan activity (i.e., something being done)
must befocused on theresolution of aproblemwhich theactor seesas important
has to beaddressedto causes rather than effects or symptoms
AdaptedfromJ ensen(2000a) and Bishop & Scott (1998, p. 229)
35
Researcherswho haveused theAC theory in EE and health education
suggest thefollowing elements that compriseAC: knowledge/insight, visions,
commitment, actionexperiences, critical thinkingandreflection, trust in one's
power to act, social skills, investigativeskills, communicationskills, participation,
and emotional response(Bishop& Scott, 1998; Breiting & Mogensen, 1999;
Eames et al., 2006; Fien & Skoien, 2002; J ensen, 2000a, 2002; J ensen&
Schnack, 1997,1994; Laing, 1998; Otero & Mira, 2003). As might beexpected,
therelationships among thesecomponents arelargely unknown, although there
seemsto beaconsensusthat knowledge/insight and critical thinkingand
reflection arecentral toAC (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999; J ensen, 2000a; J ensen
& Schnack, 1997; Mogensen, 1997; Uzzell, 1994). Consequently, it cannot be
assumedthat alinear relationshipexists among thevariables (Uzzell, 1994). My
study is in part aresponseto thecall for further research into howthese
elements areconstructed and interconnected (J ensen & Schnack, 1997).
Furthermore, much of what is found in theliteratureconsistsof the
operationalization of AC, and structural and theoretical arguments. Therearetwo
exceptions. Oneis the Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project in Boston's
Roxbury District in the United States, which usesanAC framework to build
capacity and power of communities to attain environmental justice(see
Agyeman, 2006). Theother is theAR & CPS (Action Research- Community
ProblemSolving) model of EE used in the Piston Middle School Project in
Detroit, Michigan (United States), which followed AC-oriented stepsto help
36
middleschool students identify an issuein their school community and take
action to alleviate it (WaIs, 1994).
Only afewattempts havebeen madeto measureAC empirically; studies
haveincluded investigations on selected aspects of this concept (e.g., trust in
their own act, knowledgeof conflicting interests, action possibilities, types of
action experiences) (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999); documentation of emergence
ofAC in community groups (Fien & Skoien, 2002); examination of thetypes of
methods to engagestudents in learning about health (Simovska, 2007); and
investigation of teachers' pedagogical approaches in EE that promotestudents'
AC (Eames et al., 2006). Belowaredescriptions of theAC elements that I
examined in my study. Theseelements are limited to thosesuggested as central
to thedevelopment of AC, or thosethat have been used by other researchers in
the past.
1 ) Knowledge/Insight
Proponents of AC strongly suggest that four types of knowledge must be
present in any EE curriculato developAC (seebelow). Thesetypes of
knowledgearecharacterized as integrativeand arecrucial to giving students a
holistic perspectiveof aparticular environmental issueor problemin which they
areinterested (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; Uzzell, 1994).
a) Knowledgeof Effects: What kindof aproblemisit? This knowledgeis
about theexistenceandspreadof environmental problems. This formof
knowledgeismainlyscientific in natureanddoesnot giveanyexplanation
whyaproblemexists orhowpeoplecancontributeto solvingthem.
b) Knowledgeof Causes: Whydo wehavetheproblems that wehave?
Theseroot causesincludeassociatedsocial factors behindenvironmental
37
problems. This knowledgebelongsmainly to thesociological, cultural, and
economic areas.
c) Knowledgeabout ChangeStrategies: Howdo wechangethings? This
knowledgedeals with bothknowledgeabout howto control one'sownlife
andhowto contributeto changingliving conditions in society. Who do we
turn to, andwith whomcouldweallyourselves? This typeof knowledge
alsoincludesknowinghowto encouragecooperationandhowto analyze
powerrelations. It is often to befoundwithinpsychological, political, and
sociological studiesandis central to anaction-orientededucation.
d) KnowledgeaboutAlternatives and Visions: Wheredo wewant to go?
This knowledgedeals with thenecessityof developingone'sown visions-
one'sdreamsandideasfor thefuturein relationto one'sown life, work,
family, andsociety. Oneway to helpdevelop visions is to knowabout how
peoplegoabout things in other cultures andotherplaces.
2) Visions
J ensen& Schnack (1997) arguethat developing students' visions is
important becauseit allows studentsto think about thekinds of lifestyles or
environment they want, what they think will happen in their futureand theeffects
of environmental problems at hand on their future. Developing visions also lets
students ponder what alternativeways of development areavailable; thus, it is
closely tied with the'alternatives and visions' component of knowledge. J ensen
(2000a) maintains that students should begiven opportunities to build their
visions as they dialoguewith other students. Having avisionfacilitates taking
actions, becausestudentswill then haveatarget, a purposefor theskills and
knowledgethat they needto seek.
3) Commitment
Commitment ensuresthat any efforts that students make(e.g.,
development of skills, knowledge, and action) aredirected toward achieving their
38
visions (J ensen & Schnack, 1997). Tofoster commitment, students should be
encouraged to identify their own position regarding an environmental issueor
problem(Mogensen, 1997; WaIs & Bawden, 2000), and should begiven
opportunities to work in groups becausecommitment is often developedwithin a
social context (J ensen, 2000a, p. 149).
Students also should beencouraged to think about their feelings regarding
the issueor problemat hand. Thiswill go hand in hand with examiningtheir
positions. Someresearchers suggest that motivations go hand in hand with
commitment, suchthat students should beencouragedto reflect on their
motivations, i.e., thethings that underpin their desireto learntheskills and
knowledgeneeded to helpsolveenvironmental problems or issues (Fien &
Skoien, 2002). Students' commitment is also believed to influencetheir intention
or wish to act (J ensen& Schnack, 1997).
4) PlanningandAction Experiences
Students need real life experiencesfor acting individually and collectively
(J ensen, 2000a). J ensen& Schnack (1997) only referred to this element as
"action experiences," but I added"planning" and refer to it as"planningand
actionexperiences" becauseI believeplanning experiences arean important
piece beforetaking action. As Mogensen (2000) pointed out, theroleof the
teacher in creating opportunities that allowstudentsto takepart in problem
identification, planning, investigation, presentations of findings, and decision
makingis paramount. Thiswill teach studentsthevalueof co-influence(howtheir
thoughts, decisions, or actions affect other students) and co-responsibility
39
(assuming group responsibility to participating in theaction to (re)solvea problem
or an issue), aswell as howto identify difficulties or barriers to change, action
possibilities, or priorities for action. More importantly, studentswill begiven the
opportunity to decideon what actions to take(J ensen, 1994, 2000a).
5) Critical ThinkingandReflection
Proponents of AC called this element "critical thinkingskills," and because
they highlighted theimportanceof reflection in thinking critically, I refer tothis
element as "critical thinkingandreflection." Critical thinking skills arereferred to
asthestudents' ability to recognizedifferent points of view, work with conflicts of
interest through self-reflection, question values, perceptions, and opinions,
challengecurrent practices, and examineand analyzea problemor an issue
both at thestructural level of society and thescientific and personal level and the
connections between them(Mogensen, 1997; WaIs, 1994). Furthermore,
Mogensen (2000) andWaIs (1994) suggest that critical thinkingandreflection
generates knowledgethat presents concrete possibilities for empowering
students to transforman intention to act into actual action.
2.3.1.3 ComparingEnvironmental CitizenshipBehavior (ECB) andAction
Competence(AC)
It is difficult to compareand contrast ECB with AC becauseof differences
in thenames of variables, and someof thevariables in ECB were not defined.
For example, in ECB, in-depth knowledgeof issues included understanding of
"thenatureof the issueand its ecological and human implications" (Hungerford &
40
Volk, 1990, p. 12). This may embody both knowledgeof effects and knowledge
of causes(AC). Hungerford & Volk (1990) did not elaborateon the knowledgeof
consequences of behavior (both positive and negative) variable, but this could be
represented in ACs knowledgeof effects. Hungerford & Volk (1990) combined
knowledgeof environmental actionstrategieswith perceivedskill in using
environmental actionstrategies, which they referred to as peoplebelieving they
havethe"power" to usecitizenship strategiesto help resolve issues" (p. 12).
Action or citizenshipstrategies may besimilar toACs knowledgeof change
strategies. ECB's knowledgeof ecology is included in ACs knowledgeof effects,
throughwhich ascientific emphasis of aproblemor issue is emphasized.
Knowledgeabout alternatives andvisions is not found in the ECB model.
The critical thinkingandreflection variableis central to thedevelopment of
AC. In ECB, critical thinkingis not articulated explicitly, but it may beembodied in
thein-depthknowledgeabout issues(major ownershipvariable) or in the
knowledgeof andskill in usingenvironmental actionstrategies (major
empowerment variable). In addition, reflection is absent in ECB. Development of
visions in AC is also absent in the ECB model. Commitment is present in both,
although it is aminor variablein ECB. Both theories consider that participation in
resolving issues or problems is important, although thenatureof participation is
probably different.
Hungerford & Volk (1990) did not makeadistinction between action,
behavior, and activity. They used behavior and action synonymously (e.g.,
citizenshipaction and citizenship behavior) as clarified later by Hungerford that
41
he referred to "behavior as aseries of actions" or as "a pattern of actions"
(Simmons & Volk, 2002, p. 8).
In summary, although therearesomesimilarities between ECB and AC,
their differences aresubstantial and fundamental. Key differences includethe
following:
1) absenceof visions in ECB;
2) ECB's lack of recognition of other factors that may influencebehavior,
for examplesocial structures, cultures, and beliefs and personal
experiences (Hockett et al., 2004);
3) ECB does not takeinto account demographic, social contextual, and
external and internal factors that arealso strong influences on pro-
environmental behaviors4 (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002); and
4) ECB'sfocus on behavior changeversusACsfocus on capacity to take
action or changeasituation. This is aresult of both theories' difference
in assumptions about thereality of environmental issues. ECB
assumesthat environmental problems or issues areprimarily a result
of individual lifestyle choices, whereasAC assumesthat environmental
problems arearesult of both individual lifestylechoices and social
structures.
This last differencebetween thetwo theories is crucial because
assumptions about thenatureof environmental problems havesignificant
4 Hungerford later acknowledged that hewould include more'cultural' values into thestructure
nowthat weknowecological considerations arenot theonly ones that needto beaddressed
(Simmons & Volk, 2002).
42
implications on curriculumtheorizing, learning theories, and roles of teachers and
students. For example, theprimary purposeof ECB is to increase knowledgeand
awareness and to developskills (vocational/technical) necessary to enact
responsiblecitizenship behavior. As this theory's critics say, theend goal is still
behavior change. Critics also believethat, in the ECB model, students are
prescribedwith predetermined behaviors5 (behaviorist); hence, theteacher is
moreof an expert or authority (J ensen& Schnack, 1997). Thepurposeof AC, on
theother hand, is ideological critiquethrough critical thinkingandreflection
(socially critical) and empowerment of individuals to changetheir situation
(emancipatory). Additionally, students decidefor themselveswhat theywant to
do and howthey want to respond to an environmental issueor problem
(reconstructivist/emancipatory). I summarizethedifferences between ECB and
AC in Table2.3.
Table2.3. Comparing ECB and AC
ECB
AC
Theoretical perspective
Positivist
Socially critical
Goal of EE
Shapeenvironmental
citizenship behavior
Developaction
competence
Learningtheory
Behaviorist
Reconstructivist
Action focus Direct actions, individual,
collective
Direct and indirect actions,
individual and collective,
action capacity
Dominant curriculum
concern
Courseor subject content
Critical pedagogy or
action-orientation
Roleof theteacher
Expert and authority
Collaborativeparticipant
5 Hungerford respondedto his critics regarding theECB model's focus on behavior by clarifying
that thereis adifferencebetween behavior and behaviorist tactics (Simmons & Volk, 2002). The
latter, hesaid, arestrategies that "evoke manipulative instructional ploys designedto bring about
specific targeted behaviors" (p. 8). Hestrongly disagreedthat theECB model uses or refers to
behaviorist tactics.
43
Table2.3 Continued:
Assumption Environmental problems
or issues area result of
lifestylechoices
Environmental problems
or issues area result of
both lifestylechoices and
social conditions
Target solutions
Primarily at theindividual
level
Individual and
societal/collective
Major elements
Entry level: environmental
sensitivity
Ownership: in-depth
knowledgeabout issues,
personal investment in
issues andthe
environment
Empowerment: knowledge
of and skill in using
environmental action
strategies, internal locus
of control, intentionto act
Knowledge, visions,
commitment, planningand
actionexperiences, critical
thinking andreflection
(Extracted fromBreiting & Mogensen, 1999; Eames et al., 2006; Fien & Skoien, 2002; Hungerford
& Volk, 1990; J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; J ensen& Schnack, 1997, 1994; Lee& Williams, 2001)
2.3.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
LeeShulman (1986) first coined thetermpedagogical content knowledge
and identified it asaspecific formof knowledgefor teaching- different from
other domains of content knowledgesuch as subject matter knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, or curricular knowledge. Shulman defined PCK asthe
transformationof subject matter knowledgeper seinto subject matter knowledge
for teaching. He still spokeof PCK ascontent knowledge, but of particularly the
formthat "embodies theaspects of content that is most germaneto its
teachability" (p. 9).
44
PCK is widely embraced in theresearch community, especially in science
education, both for the improvement of scienceteaching and learning aswell as
teacher education (Bransford et al., 2000; Cochran, 1997; Lee, etal., 2007;
Magnusson et al., 1999). In thefield of science, PCK has been used most often
in researchand publications to refer to theknowledgethat teachers must haveto
teach science(Magnusson et al., 1994; NRC, 1996). Despitethis vast support,
however, therearefewsciencetopic-specific examples in theliteratureto
illuminate PCK (Loughran et al., 2004).
Many researchers haveattempted to redefine, reconceptualize, expand,
or elaborateon PCK. Researchers, however, differ in their conceptualizations.
Many believethat PCK is that knowledgethat resulted fromthetransformationof
subject matter6 knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and context knowledge
(Magnusson ef al., 1999; Shulman, 1986). Others prefer to usetheterm
"integrated" or "integration", that is, PCK is theintegration of the individual
knowledgedomains, including knowledgeof student learning, curricular
knowledge, goals, and orientations (Cochran, 1997; Femandez-Balvoa& Stiehl,
1995; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Loughran et al., 2001; Loughran et al., 2004;
Marks, 1990). Still others suggest that individual teacher knowledgedomains
contributetothedevelopment of PCK (Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999).
Whether it is theintegration, transformation, or contribution of individual
teacher knowledgedomains, many researchers seemto be in agreement that
6 Shulman (1987) and others refer to "subject matter knowledge" ascontent knowledge(per se).
To avoid confusion, I amusing subject matter knowledgeas knowledgeof a particular
subject/topic, and I amusing theterm"content knowledge" to refer to theoverarching "teacher
knowledge," of which subject matter knowledge is onetype.
45
PCK s auniquedomain of content knowledge, andthat it is highly concept-
specific, that is, it varies fromtopic totopic or disciplineto discipline(Bransford et
al., 2000; Cochran, 1997; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007; Van Driel et al., 1998).
Researchers also differ in their characterizations of therelationships
between various domains (and sub-domains) of teacher knowledge, and in the
elements that comprise PCK. For example, readerswill noticethat someof the
elementsthat are believed to contributeto thedevelopment of or that are
transformed into PCK are, in fact, thesamenames as thedomains of teacher
knowledgeitself. To illustrate, subject matter knowledgeis considered by many
authors asoneof thedomains of teacher knowledge. But others also suggest
that subject matter knowledge is an element of PCK. Thesameis truefor context
knowledge, curriculumknowledge, knowledgeof instructional strategies (part of
pedagogical knowledge), and afewothers. This means that theelements that
comprisePCK depend on how PCK is viewed or conceptualized.
It is important to remember, however, that, althoughthenamesof the
domains of content knowledge(teacher knowledge) and theelements of PCK are
thesame, their focus is different. Onecanthink of this in two parts. First, thereis
content knowledge, or what other researchers call "teacher knowledge," and PCK
is onetypeof teachers' content knowledge. Subject matter knowledgeand
pedagogical knowledgeareother types of content knowledge. Within PCK, one
will alsofind subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and context
knowledge, but theseelementsarespecific to aparticular topic because, as
mentioned earlier, PCK is concept- or topic-specific. In other words, only the
46
subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and context knowledgethat
arerelevant to aparticular topic is included in PCK.
In addition, therearealso differences in howthe PCK elements are
described or defined (Van Driel et al., 1998). I tend to view PCK froman
integrative perspective, and theelements belowaredrawnfromresearchwith
this viewof PCK. It is believed that thedifferent elements contributeto teachers'
PCK in varying degrees based upon their expertise; that is, all teachers have
many, if not all, of thesuggested elements, but theemphasis of each component
varies asateacher makes instructional decisions (Lee et al., 2007).
PCK elements suggested in theliterature include:
1 ) Knowledgeof science/subject matter knowledge- includes knowledge
of thenatureof science, scientific processes, and relationships among
various areas in scienceor making connections among scientific
concepts, units, and evenother subjects7 (Lee etal., 2007); includes
knowledgeof howconcepts and principles of scienceareorganized as
well astheways in which acceptedtruths arevalidated or legitimated
(Shulman, 1986).
2) Orientations toward teaching science- knowledgeand beliefs about
the purposes and goals for teaching scienceat a particular gradelevel
(Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 97); overall conceptions of teaching a
particular subject (Grossman, 1990), or ageneral way of viewing or
conceptualizing scienceteaching (Magnusson et al., 1999); serveas a
7 Leeet al., 2007 placed the"making connections among scientific concepts, and units, and even
other subjects" in "Knowledgeof sciencecurriculumorganization."
47
conceptual mapthat guides instructional decisions (Borko & Putnam,
1996 cited in Magnusson et al., 1999, p.97). Magnusson et al. (1999,
pp. 100-101) characterized teaching orientations basedontwo
elements- goals and natureof instruction. Schwarz & Gwekwerere
(2007, pp. 181-184) did not distinguish between orientations and
pedagogical approaches.
3) Knowledgeof student learning or understandingof science- this
includes knowledgeabout preconceptions or conceptions that students
bring (Shulman, 1986); knowledgeof abilities, skills, and prerequisite
knowledgethat students needto learn specific concepts; knowledge
about students' learning styles or preferences related to learning a
concept or topic; and knowledgeof areas or concepts that students
find difficult to learn (Leeetal., 2007; Magnusson et al., 1999).
4) Knowledgeof assessment - knowledgeof aspectsof student learning
that areimportant to assesswithin a particular unit of study (WHAT to
assess) and knowledgeof methods that might beusedto assess
specific aspectsof learning (HOW to assess) (Magnusson et al.,
1999).
5) Knowledgeof instructional representations or strategies- knowledge
of subject-specific or topic-specific strategies (Magnusson et al., 1999);
knowledgeof the most useful forms of representation of topics,
analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations, and demonstrations
(Shulman, 1986).
48
6) Context knowledge- knowledgeof specific or general educational
contexts (community, school, district, students) (Grossman, 1990;
Magnusson et al., 1999; Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999); teachers'
understanding of thesocial, political, cultural and physical
environments in which students' learning is embedded (Cochran, 1997;
Grossman, 1990).
7) Classroomreality/management - ways of organizing aclass and
resources sothat teaching and learning can proceed in an efficient and
safemanner (Carlsen, 1999).
8) Knowledgeof sciencecurriculum- knowledgeabout mandatedgoals
and objectives for students in thesubjectstaught, including what
students havelearned in previous years and what they areexpected to
learn in thecoming years aswell as knowledgeof specific curriculum
programs and materials relevant to aparticular sciencetopic8 (Lee et
al., 2007; Magnusson et al., 1999; Shulman, 1986).
2.3.2.1 Issues with PCK
Therearethreemain issues related to theproblemof PCK
conceptualization. First, there is no universally accepted conceptualization of
PCK (Hashweh, 2005; Van Driel et al., 1998). Researchers suggest different
definitions and structures of PCK, what it looks like, or what comprises it
(Fernandez-Balvoa& Stiehl, 1995; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Leeet al., 2007;
8 Leee al., 2007 placed "knowledgeof resources and materials" under "Knowledgeof
Resources."
49
Loughran tal., 2001; Loughran tal., 2004; Magnusson tal., 1999; Marks,
1990; Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999; Shulman, 1986; Van Dijk & Kattmann,
2007; Van Driel et al., 1998).
Figure2.2 shows Magnusson et al.'s (1999) transformation
conceptualization of PCK specific for scienceteaching. Notethat this model does
not showall theelementsthat I listed earlier assuggested by other researchers
as comprising PCK. In particular, it is interestingthat subject matter knowledgeis
not represented in this model for scienceteachingwhen it is supposedto bea
prerequisitefor thedevelopment of and transformation of other knowledge
domains into PCK (Van Driel et al., 1998). Magnusson etal. (1999) considers
subject matter knowledgeas oneof thedomains of teacher knowledge and that
PCK is a result of transformation of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical
knowledgeand context knowledge, but that, in turn, theseindividual domains are
also influenced by PCK.
50
PCK
Includes
Orientationto
Teaching Science
which shapes
which shapes
Knowledgeof
Science
Curricula
which shapes
Knowledgeof
Assessment of
Scientific
Literacy
including
Specific
science
curricula
/ \
Science
goals and
objectives
What to
assess
(dimensions)
Howto
assess
(methods)
which shapes
Knowledgeof
Students'
Understanding of
Science
Knowledgeof
Instructional
Strategies
/
^
For any topic
For specific
topics
/
Requirements
for learning
Representations
\
Activities
Areaof student
difficulty
Figure2.2. Componentsof Pedagogical Content Knowledgefor Science
TeachingAdapted fromMagnusson era/. (1999)
51
A second issueis thelack of clarity on how PCK develops, although there
seemsto bean agreement that PCK is developedthrough an integrative process
rooted in classroomand professional development experiences (Baxter &
Lederman, 1999; Bransford et al., 2000; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Grossman,
1990; Leetal., 2007; Magnusson tal., 1999; Van Driel & DeJ ong, 2001). A
third issueis thedifficulty in studying PCK becauseits boundaries areblurry
(Loughran et al., 2000), and what exactly comprises it is not always clear and
consistent (Leeet al., 2007; Van Dijk & Kattman, 2007).
Much of theresearchthat has been done in education explored individual
facets of PCK rather than thewholeof ateacher's PCK about a particular topic.
Examples of research studies conducted includeexploring what teachers know
and do not knowabout someaspect of teaching a particular topic; comparisons
of teacher knowledgebetween different teachers (Magnusson & Krajcik, 1993)
and between noviceand experiencedteachers (Clermont et al., 1994);
evaluation of sometypeof interventions (e.g., workshops, pre-servicecourse)
(Smith & Neal, 1989; Van Driel et al., 1998; Veal et al., 1999); and relationship
between teachers' subject matter knowledgeand PCK about aparticular topic
(Ebert, 1993; Geddis et al., 1993; Parker & Heywood, 2000 cited in Loughran et
al., 2004).
Attempts to study PCK haveused methods suchas convergent and
inferential techniques9, concept mapping and card sorting10, and mixed methods
9 Likert-typeself-report scales, multiple choices, short answers (Baxter & Lederman, 1999)
10 A teacher is provided with aset of cards; each card has a particular concept, idea, or principle.
Theteacher is thenaskedto arrangethecards based on what best illustrates therelationship
amongtheitems on thecards (Baxter & Lederman, 1999).
52
(Haciomeroglu, 2006; Monet, 2006; Van Driel & De J ong, 2001). Mixed methods
seemto be most commonly used by researchers becauseof theinherently
complex natureof the PCK construct (Van Driel & DeJ ong, 2001). Examples of
methods used arepre- and post-tests, journals, classroomobservations, semi-
structured interviews, questionnaires, lesson plan analyses, video-recorded
teaching, artifacts, casestudies, and cognitivetasks (Dawkins etal., 2003;
Haciomeroglu, 2006; Loughran tal., 2001; Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997; Monet,
2006; Shannon, 2006; Shulman, 1992; Woodrow, 2007). Recently, Loughran et
al. (2001) developed CoRe(Content Representations) and PaPeR (Pedagogical
and Professional ExperienceRepertoire) in an attempt to both study and
represent PCK.
Additionally, thenumber of teachers observed or classrooms studied,
durationof observations or study asawhole, and methods of analysis or models
or theories usedvaried greatly. For example, Haciomeroglu (2006) worked with
two high school mathteachers comparedto twenty-four beginning secondary
scienceteachers used by Lee etal. (2007). Onestudy lastedfor six weeks
(Haciomeroglu, 2006) and another lasted for two years (Dawkins ef al., 2003). In
terms of theanalysis, content analysis of curricula, interviews, and observations
seemwidely adopted (Lee era/., 2007; Woodrow, 2007).
2.3.2.2My UniqueFocus andContribution to PCK
In my study, I did not measuretheteachers' individual knowledgedomains
per se(e.g., "What or howmuch do teachers knowabout an approach, method,
53
or skills?"). Rather, I identified (1) theelements of PCK (goals and beliefs about
teaching science, pedagogical approaches, instructional methods and student
skills) and (2) manifestations of PCK (seeTableD.3) that wereused and/or cited
to characterizetheteachers' overall PCK.
I usedtheelements of PCK identified in theliteratureas aguidein
examining elements of PCK and manifestations of PCK of my teachers (see
Table2.4). I did not examineteachers' knowledgeof scienceper se. Instead, I
identified thestudent skills on which theteachersfocused and examinedwhether
thoseskills alignedwith thecontent that they taught. In contrast to Magnusson et
al. (1999) and Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007), I distinguished between goals and
beliefs and pedagogical approaches and examined theseboth aselements of
PCK (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005, p. 228) andfor manifestations of PCK. I
referred to knowledgeof instructional representations or strategies as
instructional methods and examined it as both a PCK element and for PCK
manifestations. I examined context knowledge, knowledgeof student
understanding, and knowledgeof curriculumfor PCK manifestations. I did not
examineteachers' knowledgeof assessment and classroommanagement.
Following frompast studies, I used mixed methods (class observations, semi-
structured interviews, Content Representations [CoRes], and survey) to study
PCK.
In my study, I used PCK to examinehowscienceteacherstaught EE and
usedAC in theclassroom. PCK is important becauseit guidesteaching and it
provides anopportunityfor teachers to be moreeffective in theclassroom
54
(Bransford et al., 2000), i.e., to successfully achievethegoals that areset out
both for thestudents andfor theteacher. Using PCK as my investigative lens
allowed meto examinewhether teachers' goals and beliefs about teaching
science, pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, and their student skills
aswell as knowledgeof student learning, knowledgeof curriculum, context
knowledge, and other topic-specific knowledgewereassociatedwith their useof
AC. As with theuseof PCK in scienceeducation, my study's useof the PCK
framework provides insights into scienceteachers' useof EE and AC in the
classroom, and contributes to developing or improving EE and Sciencecurricula
in Michigan, especially thoseaimed at developing students' AC. My study
contributes to teacher training programs for EE in Michigan in terms of
suggestingways to strengthen teachers' PCK and howto integrateAC into the
sciencecurriculumand practice.
55
s
zs
4-
CO
>-
?
CO
(?
CO
O
CL
co
?
co
?
L-
CU
CO
2
S-
\
O
Cl
1 1
X J D
LU O
C
CU
E
j)
f
\
O
Cl
to
co
XJ
cu
C
co
X
LU
co
*. F
XJ co
S o
CO Q
S -?-
? ?
1^ CO
"d Sui
o " a
co C Oj
P-S 8
J 2
S-js
J 2 -e tS
co g. cu
CD F co
co
co ?
= OJ ,_
U) XJ f
=O)S
-S "> CO
o E
C C=
-55
II!
LU CO O
XJ
ZJ
-t
_(0
XJ
?
l-
o
O
f
e
co"
f
-C
u
co
S
co
l.
CO
3
CJ
5
co
Q.
OJ
.C
co
e =>
J S^
? co
co f
o co
Q. tr
y
OJ O
O co
OJ co
co F
XJ *-
cu ?
CL C-
L-
co
?
e
co
Q.
co
co
.F
Dj co
co -2
2 S -8
'- <a
l
* io
co
f
co
O U) ^-
S- eco
Q.-5 ^3
<2 -h co
S >
o e
2 o
F e e
f C ^-
CN
9>
co
.F J J
Oj-Q
il
- C J J
CO f X)
e S--2
^J "S* f*. H--
F O 2 *
SC Q, CO ^
co co" F
.o co co J )
fi .F .gJ o
? ? * ?
"P O
co
.fc co -i: O
CO
?
b
o
co
o
XJ
C=
co
J S. 5.
CU Q-
=co
f _
co
O
OJ
O
OJ
co
CO XJ
_ ? ?
'Ô)Q.
'c?
OJ
C
XJ
C
"co
L-
CU
XJ
C
ZJ
?
OJ
C
'e
L-
co
j)
"e
f
XJ
ZJ
o
f
O)
XJ
J )
O
e
LU
co CO
f C . .
Oj -g TZ
ro e f
-bac
75 Oj f
- co
Si, f -o
$-I *
. o co"
L. to e
o ^- -S
co ^2
-o o -S1
f ss?
e
8
"I
co o
P co
??-
e
S-CO
5 c
-.o
L.
co
ell
ali
g s
co
J dd
^? ^
-? ? 'L=
... i
S 05 CNI
*? co ?
.S-S
C ?- C
e co ?
0S"
? Ôj
co s
J J
i &
o $
CO O
.f
CD
-S
.
'.C
I
co
e
X 2
-2-8
o co
-Q
XJ
O
J =
F
E
"co
C
.o
"G
zj
L-
lo
I
Xj
c
co
XJ
f
co
3
co
f
S
O
co
S
"d
o
-C
O
co
XJ
C
co
is
XJ
C
CD
Xj
F
co
3
ZJ
ZJ
O
H
O
f
O)
XJ
J )
O
e
XJ
f
C
?
co
?
f
co
X
LU
co
_a>
-Q
CD
-L_
CO
>
O
CL
evi
_D
.Q
CO
1 S"
CO a)
OJ g
CO J *
SJ
OJ ^
CU 00
' N
U)
CO
jz
O
co
i
C3)
O)
IS 2
H- J =
F O
f?
Q) t-'
TO
CD O)
OO O)
?>-
O^coO
J = co
+ ^-
O f
oo
oo
OJ CM
CZ
f
E
j)
LiJ
i
O
CL
o
f
jzT
ZJ
CO
)
O
Z
cu
?
CO F
X- O)
O XJ
cu -32
XJ O
F e
I*
o >-
e f
N C
_ co
OJ
c
jz
?
co
?
f
?
e
f
"?
co
?
?
O)
C
'cz
L-
co
F
c f
F ?
c C
O .S
^^?
CNl CO
f ?>
?) .G-
XJ ??
F c
5-2
? 2
^^, C
co zi
f
___ U)
CO F
O f
Ii
S ?
? g
f .9
DlO)-S
XJ J S
f "H
"> f
? g
\ ?-
^^Ci)
LO CC
f
O)
XJ
J )
?
c
"S
f
?
C
O
O
S"
E
?
?
L-
UJ
UJ
J 3
O
ZJ
?
3
O
F
?
c
f
"?
CO
f
O)
XJ
J )
?
c
?^- ??
56
2.4 REFERENCES
Agyeman, J . (2006). Experiences, behavior and technology: Why it'sjust not the
same? Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 513-522.
Athman, J ., & Monroe, M. (2004). Theeffects of environment-based education on
students' achievement motivation. J ournal of Interpretation Research,
9(1), 9-25.
Athman, J . A., & Monroe, M. C. (2001). Elements of effectiveenvironmental
education programs. In A. Fedler (Ed.), Definingbestpracticesin boating,
fishing, andstewardshipeducation(pp. 14): Recreational Boating and
Fishing Foundation.
Ballantyne, R. R., & Packer, J . M. (1996). Teaching and learning in
environmental education: Developing environmental conceptions. The
J ournal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 25-32.
Barrett, M. J . (2006). Education for theenvironment: action competence,
becoming, and story. Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 503-
511.
Baxter, J . A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of
pedagogical content knowledge. In J . Gess-Newsome& N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Examiningpedagogical content knowledge(pp. 306). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bishop, K., & Scott, W. (1998). Deconstructing action competence: developing a
casefor amorescientifically-attentiveenvironmental education. Public
Understandingof Science 7(3), 225-236.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learningto teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.
Calfee(Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. NewYork:
Macmillan.
Bransford, J ., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). HowPeopleLearn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, andSchool. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carlsen, W. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J . Gess-Newsome& N.
G. Lederman (Eds.), Examiningpedagogical content knowledge(pp. 306).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
57
Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J . (1994). Comparativestudy of the
pedagogical content knowledgeof experienced and novicechemical
demonstrators. J ournal of Researchin Science Teaching, 31, 419-441.
Cochran, K. F. (1997). Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers' integrationof
subject matter, pedagogy, students, and learning environments [Electronic
Version]. ResearchMatters - to theScience Teacher, 2007. Retrieved
2/24/2008.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). ResearchMethodsin Education. London:
Routledge.
Connell, S. (2006). Empirical-analytical methodological research in
environmental education: responseto anegativetrend in methodological
and ideological discussions. Environmental EducationResearch, 12(3-4),
523-538.
Dawkins, K., Dickerson, D., & Butler, S. (2003). Pre-servicescienceteachers'
pedagogical content knowledgeregardingdensity. Paper presented at the
AERA 2003: "Accountability for Educational Quality: Shared
Responsibility" 84th Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Dimopoulos, D. I., & Pantis, J . D. (2003). Knowledge and attitudes regarding sea
Eames, C, Law, B., Barker, M., lies, H., McKenzie, J ., Patterson, R., etal.
(2006). Investigatingteacher's pedagogical approaches in environmental
Ebert, C. L. (1993). An assessment of prospectivesecondaryteachers'
Pedagogical content knowledgeabout functions andgraphs. Paper
presented at theAnnual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research
Association, Atlanta.
Elliot, J . (1991). Developingcommunity-focusedenvironmental education
through actionresearch(Mimeograph). Norwich: Center for Applied
Research in Education, School of Education, University of East Anglia.
Ernst, J . (2005). A formativeevaluation of the prairiescienceclass. J ournal of
InterpretationResearch, 70(1), 9-29.
58
Fernandez-Balvoa, J ., & Stiehl, J . (1995). Thegeneric natureof pedagogical
content knowledgeamong college professors. TeachingandTeacher
Education, 11(3), 293-306.
Fien, J ., & Hillcoat, J . (1996). Thecritical tradition in research in geographical
and environmental education. In M. Williams (Ed.), Understanding
Geographical andEnvironmental Education: Theroleof research. London:
Cassell.
Fien, J ., & Skoien, P. (2002). I'mlearning. ..Howyou go about stirring things up -
in aconsultative manner: social capital and action competencein two
Freir, P. (2000). Pedagogyof theOppressed(30th Anniversary Edition ed.).
NewYork: TheContinuumInternational Publishing Group, Inc.
Fridgen, C. (2005). Thecurrent stateof environmental education. Environmental
Practice, 7(3), 137-138.
Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly
regarded secondary biology teachers' scienceteaching orientations.
J ournal of Researchin Science Teaching, 42(2), 218-244.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental ProblemsandHuman
Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C, & Oesch, J . (1993). Transforming content
knowledge: learning to teach about isotopes. ScienceEducation, 77, 575-
591.
Gess-Newsome, J . (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and
orientation. In J . Gess-Newsome& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
pedagogical content knowledge(pp. 3-17). Dordrecht Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Green, J . (1990). Multipleperspectives: issuesanddirections. Paper presented
at theConferenceon Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research.
Chicago. National Conferenceon Research in English.
Greenall Gough, A., & Robottom, I. (1993). Towards asocially critical
environmental education: water quality studies in acoastal school. J ournal
of CurriculumStudies, 25(4), 301-316.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). TheMakingof a Teacher: Teacher Knowledgeand
Teacher Education. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
59
Haciomeroglu, G. (2006). Prospectivesecondaryteachers' subjectmatter
knowledgeandpedagogical content knowledgeof theconcept of function.
Unpublished dissertation, The Florida StateUniversity.
Haggerson, N. L. (1986). Reconceptualizing inquiry in curriculum: Using multiple
research paradigms to enhancestudy of curriculum. J ournal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 8(1), 81-102.
Hart, P., & Nolan, K. (1999). A critical analysis of research in environmental
education. Studiesin ScienceEducation, 34, 1-69.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. TeachersandTeaching: Theoryand
Practice, 11, 273-292.
Hines, J . M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tornera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and
synthesisof researchon responsibleenvironmental behaviour: A
metaanalysis. J ournal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.
concern, resourcestewardship, andrecreational participation: A reviewof
theliterature(No. CMI-HDD-04-01): Recreational Boating and Fishing
Education, 35(2), 37-50.
lozzi, L. (1981). Researchin environmental education 1971-1980. Columbus,
Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC.
J ensen, B. B. (1994). Action, action competence, and changein thefield of
environmental and health education. In B. B. J ensen& K. Schnack (Eds.),
Action andaction competenceaskeyconceptsin critical pedagogy(Vol.
12). Copenhagen: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.
health promoting school. Health Education, 100(A), 146-153.
V. Simovska(Eds.), Critical Environmental andHealthEducation:
60
Research IssuesandChallenges (pp. 219-238). Copenhagen, Denmark:
environmental education. Environmental EducationResearch, 3(2), 163-
178.
J ensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (Eds.). (1994). Action andAction Competenceas
Key Conceptsin Critical Pedagogy(VOl. 12). Copenhagen: Royal Danish
School of Educational Studies.
Kim, C, & Fortner, R. (2006). Issue-specific barriers to addressingenvironmental
issues in theclassroom: An exploratory study. TheJ ournal of
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J . (2002). Mind thegap: Why do peopleact
environmentally and what arethebarriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 240-260.
Laing, M. (1998). Taking actionfor theenvironment in Scotland. In J . Palmer
(Ed.), Environmental Educationin the21st century: theory, practice,
progress, andpromise(pp. 154-159). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J ., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Assessing beginning
secondary scienceteachers' PCK: Pilot year results. School Scienceand
Mathematics 107(2), 52-60.
Lee, J . C. K., & Williams, M. (2001). Researching environmental education in the
school curriculum: An introductionfor student and teacher researchers.
International Researchin Geographical andEnvironmental Education,
10(3).
Leeming, F. C, Porter, B. E., Dwyer, W. O., Cobern, M. K., & Oliver, D. P.
environmental attitudes and knowledge. TheJ ournal of Environmental
Littledyke, M. (2008). Scienceeducation for environmental awareness:
Approachesto integrating cognitiveand affectivedomains. Environmental
EducationResearch, 14(?), 1-17.
61
Loughran, J ., Gunstone, R., Berry, ?., Milroy, P., & Mulhall, P. (2000). Science
casesin action: Developinganunderstandingof scienceteachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting
of theNational Associationfor Research in ScienceTeaching. New
Orleans, LA. National Associationfor Research in ScienceTeaching.
Loughran, J ., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001).
Documenting scienceteachers' pedagogical content knowledgethrough
PaP-eRs. Researchin ScienceEducation, 31, 289-307.
Loughran, J ., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content
knowledge in science: Developingways of articulating and documenting
professional practice. J ournal of Researchin Science Teaching, 41(4),
370-391.
Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J . (1994). Teachingcomplexsubject matter
in science': Insights fromananalysisofpedagogical content knowledge.
Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the National Associationfor
Research in ScienceTeaching. Anaheim, California. National Association
for Research in ScienceTeaching.
Magnusson, S., & Krajcik, J . (1993). Teacherknowledgeandrepresentationof
content in instructionabout energyandtemperature. Paper presented at
theAnnual Meeting of the National Associationfor Research in Science
Teaching. Atlanta, GA. National Associationfor Research in Science
Teaching.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J ., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and
development of PCK. In J . Gess-Newsome& N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Examiningpedagogical content knowledge(pp. 95-132). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
research. Paper presented at theAnnual Conferenceof the North
AmericanAssociationfor Environmental Education. SanAntonio, Texas.
NAAEE.
research. In R. Mrazek (Ed.), AlternativeParadigmsin Environmental
Education Research. Troy, Ohio: NAAEE.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: Froma mathematical caseto
amodified conception. J ournal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
62
McClaren, M. (1997). Reflections on alternatives to national standards n
environmental education: Process-based quality assessment. Canadian
J ournal of Environmental Education, 2, 35-46.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995).
Determinants of responsibleenvironmental behavior. J ournal of Social
Issues, 51(4), 139-156.
Mitchell, I. J ., & Mitchell, J . (1997). Stories of Reflective Teaching: A Book of
PEEL cases. Melbourne: PEEL Publishing.
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: A central element in developing action
Research, 72(4), 429-436.
Mogensen, F. (2000). Environmental Education: Development and evaluation
Retrieved March 20, 2006fromhttp://nibis.ni.schule.de/~beckmann/
health/booklet/
Monet, J . A. (2006). Examiningtopic-specific PCK asaconceptual framework for
in-serviceteacherprofessional development in Earth Science.
Unpublished dissertation, Rutgers theStateUniversity of NewJ ersey,
NewBrunswick.
Monroe, M. (Ed.). (1999). What Works: A Guideto Environmental Educationand
Communication Programsfor Practitioners andDonors. Gabriela Island,
BC: NewSociety Publishers.
Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). Thecomplex natureand sources of
pedagogical knowledge. In J . Gess-Newsome& N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
ExaminingPedagogical Content Knowledge(pp. 21-50). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers
NEEAC. (2005). Settingthestandard, measuringresults, celebratingsuccesses:
A report to Congresson thestatusof environmental educationin the
UnitedStates(No. EPA240-R-05-001): National Environmental Education
Advisory Council, Environmental ProtectionAgency.
NRC. (1996). National ScienceEducation Standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Orams, M. B. (1997). Theeffectiveness of environmental education: Canweturn
295-306.
63
Ornstein, A. (1991). Philosophy asabasisfor curriculumdecisions. TheHigh
School J ournal, 74(2), 102-109.
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Educationandthe Transition to a
Postmodern World. Albany: StateUniversity of NewYork Press.
Orr, D. W. (1995). Educating for theenvironment: Higher education's challenge
of thenext century. Change43-46.
Otero, M. D., & Mira, R. G. (2003). Action competencein environmental
education. In R. G. Mira, J . M. Cameselle& J . R. Martinez (Eds.), Culture,
Environmental Action, andSustainability. Germany: Hogrefeand Huber
Publishers.
Palmer, J . (1993). FromSantaClaus to sustainability: Emergent understanding
of concepts and issues in Environmental Science. International J ournal of
ScienceEducation, 75(5), 487-495.
Palmer, J . (1995). Environmental thinking in theearly years: Understanding and
Misunderstanding of concepts relating towastemanagement.
Palmer, J . A. (1998). Environmental Educationin the 21st Century: Theory,
Parker, J ., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring therelationship between subject
knowledgeand pedagogical content knowledgein primary teachers'
learning about forces. International J ournal of ScienceEducation, 22(89-
111).
Payne, P. (2006). Environmental education and curriculumtheory. TheJ ournal of
Pennock, M. T. B., L.V. (1994). ApproachingEnvironmental Issuesin the
Classroom. Ann Arbor, Ml: National Consortiumfor Environmental
Education and Training.
Posch, P. (1993). Action research in environmental education. Educational
Action Research, 7(3), 447-455.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A
critical reviewof theevidence. Environmental EducationResearch, 7(3),
207-320.
Robertson, A. (1994). Toward constructivist research in environmental education.
TheJ ournal of Environmental Education, 25(2), 21-31.
64
Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Researchin Environmental Education: Engaging
thedebate. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Ross, K., Lakin, L., Burch, G., & Littledyke, M. (2005). ScienceIssuesandthe
National Curriculum. Cheltenham: University of Gloucestershire.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Scienceeducation as/for participation in the
community. ScienceEducation, 88, 263-291.
Schnack, K. (1994). Somefurther comments on theaction competencedebate.
In B. B. J ensen& K. Schnack (Eds.), Action andaction competenceas
keyconceptsin critical pedagogy(Vol. 12). Copenhagen: Royal Danish
School of Educational Studies
Schwarz, C, & Gwekwerere, Y. (2007). Using aguidedinquiry and modeling
instructional framework (EIMA) to support pre-serviceK-8 science
teaching. ScienceEducation, 97(1), 158-186.
Scott, W., & Oulton, C. (1999). Environmental education: arguing thecasefor
multiple approaches. Educational Studies, 25(1), 89-97.
Shannon, J . C. (2006). Howis PCK embodiedin theinstructional decisions
teachersmakewhile teachingchemical equilibrium? Unpublished
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Shulman, L. S. (1992). CaseMethods in Teacher Education. NewYork:
Teachers College Press.
Simmons, B., & Volk, T. L. (2002). Environmental educators: A conversation with
Harold Hungerford. J ournal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 5-8.
Simovska, V. (2007). Thechanging meanings of participation in school-based
health education and health promotion: He participants' voice. Health
Slingsby, D., & Barker, S. (2003). Making connections: Biology, environmental
education, and educationfor sustainabledevelopment. J ournal of
Biological Education, 38(1), 4-6.
65
Smith, D. C, & Neal, D. C. (1989). Theconstruction of subject matter knowledge
in primary science. Teachingand Teacher Education, 5, 1-20.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward acoherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. J ournal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stevenson, R. (2007). Schooling and environmental education. Environmental
Tilbury, D. (1994). Environmental education research: Resolving thecrucial
curriculumquestion for environmental educationfor the21st century. In
Environmental educationin the21st century. Hong Kong: Guangzhou
Environmental ScienceAssociation/Friends of theEarth (Hong Kong).
Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental educationfor sustainability: Defining thenew
focus of environmental education in the 1990s, environmental Education
Research, 1(2), 195-212.
UNDESD. (2005a). UN Decadeof Educationfor Sustainable Development:
Background. Retrieved J uly 17, 2005, from
UNDESD. (2005b). UN Decadeof Educationfor Sustainable Development:
Objectives and Strategies Retrieved May 25, 2005, from
UNESCO. (1975). TheInternational WorkshoponEnvironmental Education Final
Report, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Paris: UNESCO/UNEP.
UNESCO. (1977). First Intergovernmental ConferenceonEnvironmental
EducationFinal Report, Tbilisi, USSR. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (1992). Report of the UnitedNations ConferenceonEnvironment and
Development. Chapter 36: Promotingeducation, public awareness, and
training. Rio deJ aneiro.
Uzzell, D. (1994). Action competence: Sometheoretical issues and
methodological problems. In B. B. J ensen& K. Schnack (Eds.), Action and
action competenceaskeyconceptsin critical pedagogy(Vol. 1 2).
Copenhagen: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.
Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for thestudy of
scienceteachers' PCK and improving teacher education. Teachingand
Teacher Education, 23, 885-897.
66
Van Driel, J . H., & DeJ ong, O. (2001). Investigatingthedevelopment of
preserviceteachers'pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at
the National Associationfor Research in ScienceTeaching. St. Loius, MO.
Van Driel, J . H., Verloop, N., & DeVos, W. (1998). Developing scienceteachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. J ournal of Researchin Science
Teaching, 35, 673-695.
Veal, W. R., Tippins, D. J ., & Bell, J . (1999). TheEvolution of Pedagogical
Content Knowledgein ProspectiveSecondaryPhysics Teachers. (No.
ED443719). Indiana, IN, USA: Indiana University.
Volk, T., Hungerford, H., & Tornera, A. (1984). A national survey of curriculum
needs as perceived by professional environmental education. J ournal of
Environmental Education, 16, 10-19.
Walker, K. (1997). Challenging critical theory in environmental education.
action competenceaskey concepts of critical pedagogy(Vol. 12).
WaIs, A., & Bawden, R. (2000). Integratingsustainabilityinto agriculture
education: Dealingwith complexity, uncertainty, anddivergingworldviews:
Interuniversity Conferencefor agricultural and related sciences in Europe
and AFNet 2000.
Woodrow, K. E. (2007). Culturallyresponsivemiddleschool science: A case
studyof needs, demands, andchallenges. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Colorado, Boulder.
67
CHAPTER 3
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM SUPPORT
(MEECS): PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES, INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS,
STUDENT SKILLS, AND ACTION COMPETENCE
68
ABSTRACT
TheWater Quality Unit of the MEECS, an environmental education
curriculumofficially sanctioned by thestateof Michigan, was examined to identify
occurrenceof pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, student skills, and
action competence. Content analysis of all lessons revealed activity-driven
(38.5%), didactic-with-application (18.3%), didactic (14.4%), conceptual change
(13.5%) andprocess-oriented(12.5%) pedagogical approacheswerethemost
prevalent acrossthecurriculum. The most prevalent instructional methods were
didactic questions (32%) and definitions (15%). Themajority of thestudent skills
were process skills, but critical thinking/think on their own/analytical/evaluation
skills (24.8%) and inferring/interpreting(1 1 .5%) werethemost prevalent.
Findings showed thecurriculumfocused moreon theknowledge/insight
AC element (50.4%) andto alesser extent on critical thinkingandreflection
(20.7%) and planningandaction experiences (17%). Therewas lack of attention
on two other AC elements- commitment and visions. Knowledgeof causes
(12.7%), knowledgeof effects (1 1 .8%), and general awarenessof environmental
issuesorproblems(1 1 .2%) werethe most prevalent types of knowledge/insight,
but social structures and cultural practices wereweakly addressed. Although
planningandactionexperienceswas present, much of theexperiences
suggestedwasfor adults, not for studentsto do real planning and taking action
as part of their learning. Although knowledge/insight is considered a prerequisite
to developing students' capacity for action, theliteraturesays it is not enough.
Theoverwhelmingfocus of thecurriculumon knowledge/insight and thelack of
69
attention on commitment and visions may eventually affect theability of teachers
to foster AC in students.
Findings suggest that knowledge/insight, critical thinkingandreflection,
andplanningandactionexperienceselements of AC may beassociated more
with activity-driven, didactic-with-applicationand didactic pedagogical
approaches than others. This may suggest that, to increaseoccurrenceof
commitment and visions, thecurriculumneeds to strengthen its useof
approaches other than thetopfive listed above. Moreover, didactic questions
and definitions (instructional methods) seemed congruent with didactic and
didactic-with-application pedagogical approaches. Thesefindings also possibly
suggest that thecurriculumneedsto expand the rangeof methods and
approaches it suggestsfor teachers to use. Although most of thestudent skills
werecongruent with theprocess-orientedapproach, thesemay also befostered
by activity-driven, didactic-with-application, and didactic approaches. Finally,
findings showed theextent of useof individual elements of AC varied across
lessons in thecurriculum, which possibly suggeststhat, to increaseteachers'
likelihood of developingAC in students usingthecurriculum, they (teachers)
would needto teach all of its lessons.
70
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In thelast two decadeswe haveseenan increasein various types of
Environmental Education (EE) programs in different education settings, including
schools (Athman & Monroe, 2001; Hammond, 1997; Palmer, 1998; Tilbury,
1995). Along with theincreaseof EE programs aretherecurrent questions: How
do teachers go about teaching EE? What does effective EE involve? Arewe
making an impact? (Hart, 2003; J ensen, 2002; J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Palmer,
1998) Indeed, thereis agrowing research basein investigatingtheimpacts of EE
on students, particularly their knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and/or skills
(Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Leeming tal., 1997;
Roth, 1992). But another question begs to beanswered: What arethe
characteristics of an effectivecurriculum? What areits objectives, content, focus,
pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, or what student skills are
fostered? As Hart (2003) observed, only afewstudies havelooked directly at EE
curriculaand what their usein classrooms entails. My study is an attempt to fill
this gap.
In this chapter I address my first research question: "To what extent do the
scienceand environmental education curricula used by scienceteachers
represent elements of action competence?" I examinethepedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, student skills, and elements of action
competence(AC) that were included in theWater Quality Unit of theMichigan
Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS) and identify possible
associations amongthevariables. I also discuss implications for future
71
development of EE curricula, teacher education, professional development, and
future research.
3.1.1 Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS)
"MEECS is aset of EE curriculumlessons and support materials, carefully
designedto helpteachers integrateenvironmental materials into their classrooms
- materials that areMichigan-specific, balanced, science-based, and critically
correlated to the Michigan scienceand social studies' curriculumframework
standards and benchmarks" (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
2005, p. i) for 4th through 9th gradeestablished by the Michigan Department of
Education. In J uly 2008, the Units alsowerealigned to theGrade Level Content
Expectations (GLCEs) for 4th through 8th gradeand high school scienceand
social studies. Thematerials weredevelopedwith broad-based technical and
teacher reviewandteacher-tested in at least 200 Michigan classrooms (web
description of the MEECS, accessed4/4/2010; MEECS brochure).
Thefive curriculumUnits areEcosystems & Biodiversity, Land Use, Water
Quality, Energy Resources, and Air Quality. TheEcosystems and Land Use
Units weredesignedfor 4th and 5th grade, theWater Quality Unit was targeted
for 6th through 8th grade, and both Air Quality and Energy Resourceswere
targetedfor 7th through 9th grade. TheseUnits may betaught separately, or may
beused together asan entire EE curriculumfor aschool or school district. The
Request for Proposal issued in 2002, and later thebrochurethat was
disseminatedto users of thecurriculumdescribed MEECS as consisting of
72
hands-on, /ngu/Ay-oriented, and data-based lessons, designed (1) to help
students gain a basic understanding about Michigan's economy, howthe
environment functions, and howhumans affect theenvironment, and (2) to help
students usescienceconcepts, principles, and datato make informed decisions
about "how harmony between human activity and the natural environment can be
achieved" (p. 2 of the RFP). TheUnits weredesigned alsoto increasestudent
achievement in the Michigan EducationAssessment Program(MEAP)
assessment (MEECS brochure, 2006; RFP issued in 2002). Thecurriculumwas
designed based on thebelief that "a greater understandingof our environment
will lead to greater careand stewardship" (vision statement, accessedonlineon
4/4/2010).
I choseto examinetheWater Quality Unit because, according to the
survey of MEECS participants which I conducted prior to curriculumanalysis (see
Chapter 4), this Unit wasthe most often used by teachers and it had thelargest
percentageof Unit-trained individuals of all thesurvey respondentswho were
trained in theuseof MEECS.
TheMEECS Water Quality Unit's primary goal is to providestudentswith
asolid understanding of thecritical importanceof having adequateand clean
freshwater supplies for theenvironment, Michigan's economy, and our quality of
life. "The Unit provides anational and international perspectiveon water
availability, an appreciationfor Michigan's "dirty" water history, and an
understanding of thechallengesthat Michigan faces in addressingwater quality
and quantity issues related to groundwater, streams and rivers, wetlands, inland
73
lakes, and theGreat Lakes" (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
2005, p. 1). TheWater Quality Unit consists of ninecorelessons and five
extension lessons, which areall correlated to the Michigan middleand high
school benchmarks and GLCEsfor scienceand social studies (seeTable3.1).
74
CO
C
O
CO
CO
_J
L
O
O
s
e
CD
CO
C
O
"co
?
s
"e
co
CO
LU
C
"cd
s
?-
a)
-*
CD
"co XJ
?!
"C e
? ?
? -^.
cu xj
s f
F, ? ?
cu ?
"O CO 3
3 ? e
CO J l) Co
? "S E
*- *2
? 2 <-
.? ?
Si
f J = >
? ~.e
** -e W
=?) 0
<g^
J SJ =S
F "~ =
S W C
f 0 c
^1
?>
?
L-
CC
OL
CD O
3
?? f xj
5 > e
5 a> ce
>C ?)
CC .> =J
? " ?
j= co
te XJ >
=
Û) g
(? <D ?_
-*-* û
0 -> J =
"d *"
3 ce J B
W -s J O
f Q) CC
= to ?
= ? *?
-e 9.
d d
f ,_ a)
3- =j
F ^CO
>-t= E
is
. ? ?
(N J 2 O
C
0)
C
?
CL
C
?)
CO
CO
Q)
C
co
co *-;
?
5 ?
J i
-C Q)
?) -s
?
E
? ?
~
e ?
ce ?
" cu
Q) co
M "=
co ??
O) O
Q 5:
xj . .
e e
co co
x> .2)
cu .e
j= o
2|
3=
5 - co
s 5 f
Q) o -*
^5= co
te: e -'
J l t *;
-o co ce
" Q) F
10 ? ,ir
w O
cu -s a)
-3 co *r
I .N Q.
<v. Z
n "C
f f s
- "co
* (0 L
5 -co
CU X)
m
S -=
o co
LT ^
Q) .!=
> Q)
i- J =
00
re
&_
3
O
>-
O
>.
o t/, e
Q C co
. CO X
? a. a)
T)
"5.-55
.i e
co Q)
co cu
xj?
Ie
U) g
"e "-
cu e
XJ O
l g.
l
.-? o
1
s?
f ?
+i
re
Q) "C
^co
J S e
~2
C *3
0) J j>
te o
XJ
CO
cx"
f -1^
O O
5 -2 f
.te cu co
O) o 5
5= "
CO Q)
=s F 5
CO O
f +3 C
?-
-crac
C
&
C -
ff
a f
^co
W .Q
F O
CO
2 S. ^
" F o
ti E -
- 0) r
O S) F
W) C co
Êo
? CD
c -s
re o
-J E
Q cu
5^
? te
x "co
IH
-^= o o
S w
- Q. "^=
CO E m
cu co -5=
CO X O
=) f CL
f
te^c
co
T3
e X)
=i C
o co
e co
=i o
O >-
te, O)
co
co <- 2
S S
AJ "
? F O
CO vg Q)
C = 8
0 U) <"
XJ J = S
O)
J 2 o
o
co
Ol S
** * -?
re V- ?
E -2
5
o
j=
f
_o
CL
X
f
O
CC
XJ
C
co
O)
J =
o
I:
C =
=J
J 2
co i2
g f
i =
2 m
5 co
o en
f j=
io -?-2
U)
>g F
. y CO
io E =j
-= XJ
f f
=1
ce J S
^8
E<D
CO J 2
E S
f
co co
XJ 5
0 XJ
CL C
il
CL CO
co
O
LU
LU
(O
Z
o
(O
LLI
s
co
-Q
CD
C^-
F 0
I
E &
i_ cu
? >
re *>
5
co *"
0 J =
o -C
XJ co
C=
o o.
O- 0
-e
ce
CC .!=!
LU j= 3
s> fi
O
C=
0
C
O
XJ
C
3
O
F
CO
f co
te f
. cu ?
0 O
CC CO 0
5O^
J = 0
e *--
co
0 LU
Is
O CD
*- co
?-
?
E Sa
O =
CO
i- 0
F .t:
12
_0 -s
S ce
co ^_,
il
J = f
? te
0 CD
re
si
co e
'^ro
^=J
J U
"CD
F
>
'U)
C=
f
CL
X
f
f
co c^
S U)
CO C=
CO F
0 XJ
O- -^
U) CD
XJ 0
0 >-
J = O
co ?,
1_ 0
f J =
I^
> O
-t; CO
2 F
O >-
S p
co 0 ^_
-u3 o
m - C
=J
O
E
O)
C
>
CD
J =
X)
=J
O
O
I
U)
f
C
co
O)
?
co
S f
??
O- O
XJ >.
J i .E
co ^
te s
ta g
co g
U) O
~XJ
li
O
U)
o
s E
11
E ,f
co a=
te ^
? te
O X)
e
co
co
_ E
J S te
to
U) C=
0 CD
O O)
"O J =
>..2
o- 0 co
U) 0 0
f g >*
re F J S
_1 J 3
CO O- O-
>- J =
f o co
1 co 3
log
t) ~>
f f >,
co jo c
xi Q- .g
S ê
- g .2
J ? El
~o
O F F
XJ O)-J J
ill
g Q. O
U) U) E
0 0 co
O O 0
XJ XJ
5 ? c-
5
?
?
te f
re CD
l
J O g
=J OI
U) ,-
ce
L-
J U
"CD
XJ
C
=5
O
" 5
S 5
u ?
0 -1-
C o-
O)
=j
O
c
0
U)
3 ?-
CC F
I ^
2
co 2
U) O)
o o
CD
XXo X -o
3 F
^<o
8- c=
f co
E .O)
o J =
? ?
f =
J 2 S
75
O
O
0 "t
f
f "G
0 O
s ?
81
W s-
S.-
OT S
I =5
(V =
f ?
BJ ?-
3
?!
CtJ CO
CO "c
5 c
E Z
D ?
*!
3 "G
= cu
CD Q.
C 5
to -B
'5
cd i-
-c co
co "?
f
S .2
c ?
? E
&8
>, f
g ?
'~ XJ
? c
J = co
-t<
0 W
E
CD .0
3 E
O tf>
5 XJ
co co
Tn Q
c
co
en
o
o -s -S"
j3 CO :=
3 3 CO
=s3
xi co er
CO g
=; co
CO CD
O
.!5 en
P c
F c
L-
CO 3
c
J = S_ w
Q. -Ui
Q. Q.
CO !_
CO
E E
<2 CO
C F
co J =
s> co
CD
co _. ..
XJ
o
co ~-
c 3
F CO
XJ ??
3 c
C/3 CO
*
O- O
.2 S
o -J
O J 3
CO (D
9 -e
10 ti!
o j
5 <D
(D CO
(O 3
C 2"
.2 CD
? x> -?
3 CO
> CO
e
T5 CD
<o (D
f i=
X "co
I CO
. CD
h- J =
1 g
Q- XJ
M- O
O O
0 >
O XJ
C C
CD CO
co .
?- co
Q. .*; ~
J 3 3
CD
CO P
"
it= fe.
J S O
C C
co 3
-*-" L-
M xj
o e
Q. CO
>, CD
!t (?
C =
CD XJ
XJ C
co
co
e .E
XJ (D
C
co g
CO CL
"co
E
?-
?
"co
CD
O
3
XJ
CD
CD
E
CD
O)
co
C
co
E
lo
CD
J 2
f co
co ^
CD
_ (D
co 0
O co
?
XJ
oo
3 >> (O
"= O
C (O
CO Q.
S-.i
C
CD
C
O
X
(?
4-*
C
CD
XJ
OT
co
E =
co co
o 2
o -e
E-IS
5J D CO
vt zs -
giro
UJ co R
O
e
g
to
CD
CT
?
co .S
o
f J a ^
5 ^co
re o o
J -o
îo
S CD" ^
Il
F co S
J = Q- ..
** -p co
f
(O
C
CD
XJ
C
CD
f
XJ
*3
e
o
CO CD
c 8
8
3 0 CO
E -C F
5= _^
3 0 CO
re p co
o *- 0
.= co =
? f o
s> =.E
O to
j=
co _
il I
E 0
co
co f
O)
!e
? e
^co
T3
?
C
C
O
O
OO
J D
03
H
O)
co g
o
0 o
M '- -
CO
co
2 S E
?
0
o
L-
CL
_0
.g
(O
C
o
a.
co
F
o
XJ
o
X
O-
F
C
o
XJ
II
o-
J =
(O
f
L- ^_,
co (p
CO J 2
_ co
?-
XJ
O
f 0
o co
5 5
3
O
o
c
f o F
CO 0
O)
f .
xj .O -^:
? f
XJ (O
? ?
X to CD O
_ O
to Ô)
- co co
O) f 0
c ?: j
L. . co
o .2 ?
c E -?
O CD J O
E ^
CD CD o)
co g fo
O u
"re5?
>>, J O
c
Ô co
XJ O
co > >
0 g g
o o O
XJ X X
StE
5 =) 5
(O >.
E ^
O to D
*= c 3-
E g ?
c
F
.o
li
O" it
CO O
f _ -?
"co .55 c
>u (D
> C 3
c: F o
>? "? F
O CLSZ
F ?
W m
0 3 f
O -s it
CL CO
.1 d
t; E (
3 L-
O O (?
J (O 3
> (O -
>- (O
???
O)=C f
CO C^ >
f
CO
? SS
.i=: cz fl
f
0 >0
(B ^Q-
>O F
>O) Cl
CD C F
^co co
E > c
C co
g O ?
? ? ?:
? F 3
SZ C
co
F
? "g
2 3
?-
W f O
t c f
CO (O 3
-I*
,- CO 0
CO = ?
0Iq-
co
, e-
CO ? F
F O J =
O)-S -
? *5
C
co
?
?
X
?-
(O
f
j
to
CD
0 C^-
CD 0
0
co
O _
76
Table3.2. "Big Ideas or Enduring Understandings" of the MEECS Water
Quality Unit
TheWater Quality Unit addressesthefollowing "Big Ideas" or "Enduring
Understandings:" Upon completion of the Unit, studentswill understand
that:
1 . (Awareness) Good quality water and an adequatesupply of water
areessential to Michigan's communities and to our quality of life.
2. (Connections) All Michigan residents live in awatershedthat is part
of theGreat Lakes watershed, a uniqueglobal resourceof
unprecedented importanceto Michigan, the United States and the
world.
3. (Concern) Our activities have past, present, and future impacts on
Michigan's water resources.
4. (Knowledge) Water quality standards havebeen established to
protect the many uses of Michigan's water.
5. (Knowledge) Wecan assessthe health and water quality of
Michigan's streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater by collecting and
analyzing appropriatedata.
6. (Knowledge) We needto knowwhereour drinkingwater comesfrom
and whereour wastewater goes.
7. (Decision-making) We need datato makedecisions about protecting
and restoring Michigan's water resources.
8. (Stewardshipand sustainability) It is upto every citizen to bea
steward of Michigan's water resources.
Source: MEECS Water Quality Unit Introduction, p. 13
77
3.2 METHODS
3.2.1 DataSources and DataAnalysis
Each lesson in theUnit has thefollowing main components or sections:
Lesson Overview, Objectives, Michigan CurriculumFramework Content
Standards and Benchmarks, Advanced Preparation, Background Information,
Procedure, Assessment Option, Extensions, andAdditional Resources. Each
lesson also is accompaniedwith transparency masters of activity sheets, visuals,
answer keys, and other supplemental class materials. On thefirst pageof each
lesson is information on thetarget subjects and gradelevels, expected duration
of thelesson, and materials neededto completethelesson. For purposes of this
study, I analyzed only five sections of each lesson: (1 ) Objectives, (2) Standards
and Benchmarks, (3) Background Information, (4) Procedures, and (5)
Assessment Option, becausethesecomprisethecoreof alesson. I also
included as datasources any activity sheets, visuals, or other supplemental
materials that comprised each of thefive sections.
I usedAtlas.ti version 5.2for thecoding and analysis of thetexts of the
fivesections of all nine lessons. I analyzed theUnit one lessonat atime. I coded
any occurrencesof thefour variables of interest - pedagogical approaches,
instructional methods, student skills, and elements of action competencein
each of thefivesections of each lesson into categories under eachvariableof
interest. Beforecoding thelessons, I read each lessonwithout doing any coding
to identify theorganization of each lesson and thetopics or concepts covered in
each lesson. During thesecond reading, I started coding.
78
3.2. 1 . 1 Codingfor Pedagogical Approaches
Approaches encompass thegeneral structure, organization, and process
of instruction that ateacher takeswhen teaching alesson, including thepurpose
of employing such approaches andwhat theteacher wants studentsto achieve
at theend of class (Eames ef al., 2006; Magnusson et al., 1999). In this study, I
adapted nine pedagogical approachesfromMagnusson et al. (1999, pp. 100-
101) and Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007, pp. 182-184). I added didactic-with-
application, which emergedfromthedata, asatenth category. Descriptions of
theapproaches arebelow. Theseapproaches comprised therubric that I used
for analyzingtheWater Quality Unit of MEECS.
1) Academic Rigor- Students arechallenged with difficult problems or
activities. Theteacher uses laboratorywork anddemonstrationsto verify
scienceconcepts by demonstrating therelationship between particular
concepts and phenomena. Theactivity often poses achallengeto
students. Students may try to solvetheproblems after they haveseenan
examplefromtheteacher or using their previous knowledgeor
experience.
2) Activity-Driven- Students participatein ahands-onactivityor, if not, are
given atask to work individually or in groups to helpthemverify or
discover aconcept. Hands-on activities requirestudentsto beactively
involved and engagedwith objects, materials, technology, or laboratory
equipment/tools and manipulatethesefor thepurposeof learning through
experienceinstead of being passivelearners (Flick, 1993; Meinhard,
79
1992). Theteacher gives students equipment/materials and directions/
procedures to completean activity. In most cases, theteacher tells
studentswhat they aresupposedto seeor learn. It must be noted here
that Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007) and Magnusson et al. (1999) only
included "hands-on" activities in their activity-driven category, but I
included non-hands-on activities (e.g., thewholeclass classifying alist of
items found in kitchen cupboard; apre-reading activity) in this category as
well.
3) Conceptual Change- Students arepressedfor their views about the
world and consider theadequacy of alternativeexplanations. Theteacher
facilitates dialogue, discussion, or debatenecessary to establish valid
knowledge claims. Theteacher draws out and assesses prior knowledge
of students before presenting anewconcept. An activity is then used to
helpstudents changetheir naiveconceptions. Theteacher compares
students' ideas beforeand after theactivity or lesson.
4) Didactic- Theteacher presents information generally through lecture,
discussion, demonstration, or films. Scientific models may beusedfor
demonstration, illustration, or verification. Questions aredirected to
studentsto hold themaccountablefor knowing facts. Thefocus is on
delivery/transmission of content/facts.
5) Discovery/Exploration- This approach is student-centered. Students
exploretheworld following their own interests and discover patterns of
howtheworld works during their explorations. A teacher might scaffold
80
students' explorations dependingon students' abilities (or lack thereof),
and might ask studentsto sharetheir "discoveries" later in class.
6) Guided Inquiry- This learning is community-centered. Teacher and
studentswork together in defining and investigating problems, determining
patterns, inventing and testing explanations, and evaluating theutility and
validity of their dataand theadequacy of their conclusions. Theteacher
scaffolds students' efforts to usethematerial and intellectual tools of
sciencetoward their independent useof them.
7) Inquiry- This approach is investigation-centered. Theteacher supports
students in defining and investigating problems, drawing conclusions, and
assessingthevalidity of knowledgefromtheir conclusions. Questions or
problems for investigation comeeither fromtheteacher or students.
Students do most of thethinking and figureout howto investigatethe
problemwith theteacher's support and helpwith correcting explanations
or applications. Usually, studentsfollowthetraditional scientific method
when attempting to solveaproblem(ask aquestion, do background
research, makea hypothesis, createan experiment to test a hypothesis,
collect and analyzedata, drawconclusions, and report findings).
8) Project-Based- This approach is project-centered. Teacher and student
activity centers on a"driving question" that organizes concepts and
principles and drives activities within atopic of study. Studentsthen do a
project (their choiceor fromaselection of ideas/options fromtheteacher)
individually or collectively in which they needto do an investigationor
81
research/collect information and developartifacts or products (e.g.,
brochures, referencebooks, posters, or dioramas) that demonstratetheir
emerging understanding. Students might present their product to theclass
or their work might get posted on thewall.
9) Process-Oriented- Theteacher introduces students tothethinking
processes adopted by scientists to acquirenewknowledge. Students
engagein activities (e.g., laboratory experiments, problemsolving) to
develop integrated thinking skills. Examples of theseprocess skills include
observing, classifying, measuring, inferring, andpredicting.
10) Didactic-With-Application- I consideredthis approachdifferently froma
didactic approach. In addition to thefeatures of adidactic approach, the
teacher provides real world examples or applications of aconcept or asks
students to identify real world scenarios in which they could apply what
they learn.
Following thedescriptions of eachapproachoutlined above, I counted
eachtimean approachoccurred in thefivesections of each lesson in all nine
lessons. If thesameapproach occurred in thesamesection morethan once, I
counted it separately if usedfor adifferent purpose, activity, or topic. In some
cases, I assigned multiplecodes to groups of words, phrases, or sentenceswhen
they encompassed multiple approaches, as shown below.
"Workingin small groups, askstudents to brainstormalist ofproducts
madein Michigan that requirewater to grow, process, ormanufacture.
Comparestudents' lists to thoseproductsshown on theoverhead
82
transparenciesMadein Michigan WoodProductsandGrown in Michigan
Products, as well asthosedescribedin theBackgroundInformation. Who
hasthemost Michiganproducts correctlylisted?"was coded as
ACTIVITY-DRIVEN (not hands-on) and CONCEPTUAL CHANGE [From
Lesson2, p. 22]
3.2.1.2 Codingfor Instructional Methods
Instructional methods arespecificways or means that teachers useto
createlearning environments and to specify thenatureof alesson or an activity
in which theteacher and thestudentswill be involved during class. Particular
methods often areassociatedwith certain pedagogical approaches or strategies;
many arefound within avariety of approaches or strategies (Saskatchewan
Education, 1991; Lang & Evans, 2006). Examples of instructional methods
includecompareand contrast, discussion, hands-onactivity, and cooperative
learning.
Unlike codingfor pedagogical approaches, I did not useapre-determined
list of instructional methods for coding becauseI anticipated seeing abroad array
of methods used in thecurriculum. Consequently, I let thecategories emerge
fromthedata. I counted eachtimean instructional method occurred in thefive
sections of each lesson. For example, in theObjectives component of Lesson 1
(Where is all thewater in theworld?), oneof theobjectiveswas to "Discuss the
importanceof living next totheGreat Lakes" (seeFigure3.1). Then in the
Procedures section, discussion occurred four times (seehighlighted text in yellow
in Figure3.1). If thesamemethod occurred in thesamesection morethan once,
83
I counted it separately if usedfor adifferent purpose, activity, or topic. Thus, in
lesson 1, I counted "discussion" five times total becausethis instructional method
occurred oncein theObjectives andfour times in the Procedures section. As in
codingfor pedagogical approaches, sometexts received multiple codesfor
instructional methods, asshown below.
"Think of your bathtub asawatershed. Imagineastreamflowingdown the
middleof thetub. Thedrainis themouth of thestreamasit emptiesinto a
river, lake, or theocean. Therimof thetub is thedrainagedivide. Water
that falls on theoutsideof the tub doesnot flowdown thedrain. The water
that falls on theinsideof thetubrunsinto thedrain (mouth) at thebottom
of thetub." was coded as USE IMAGINATION and GIVE/USE REAL
WORLD EXAMPLES [FromLesson 3, p. 44]
84
Lesson 1 Objectives [p. 1]
1 . Define basicterms and processes associatedwith the hydrologie
cycle.
2. Describethedistribution and availability of freshwater and saltwater
on Earth.
3. Discuss theimportanceandresponsibilityof livingnext to theGreat
Lakes.
PROCEDURE
1. Anticipatory set [p. 3]
As students enter theroom, tell themto answer thequestion, "Where
wouldyoumost like to takeafamily vacation?" by placing 10 ml of water
into a 10O-ml graduated cylinder representing their destination choiceof
ocean, lakeor snow/ice. Discuss students' responses after doing the
activity WhereIs Water On Earth? Comparewherestudentswould like to
go on vacation to the percentageof water found in that location on the
Earth.
5. Howis water distributedon Earth and howmuchwater is available
for human use? [p. 5-6]
Theteacher may ask student groups to report on their predicted
distributions of water on Earth, or haveeach group record their predictions
on theboard or on an overheadtransparency. Discuss thesimilarities and
differences between thegroups' predictions.
Display theoverhead transparency of thestudent activity page WhereIs
Water on Earth? with thecorrect percentages and quantities. Havethe
class comparetheactual percentageswith their predictions. Whilethe
correct quantities aredisplayed, ask studentsto answer thequestions at
thebottomof thestudent activity page. Discuss their responses.
6. Tying it all together [p. 6]
Discuss thesedifficult questionsthat haveyet to beanswered:
Howmight water shortagesin the UnitedStatesor theworldaffect the
Great Lakes? [Many people, businesses, states, and countries will want to
divert someof theGreat Lakes freshwater.]
Figure3.1. Coding of Five Instances of "discussion" as an Instructional
Method in Lesson 1 of theWater Quality Unit
85
3.2.1.3 Codingfor Student Skills
A skill is procedural knowledge, that is, knowledgeand ability to do
something. In other words, it is alearned ability to carry out or performatask.
Skills can becognitive, affective, or psychomotor, or acombinationof these
(Lang & Evans, 2006). Examples of skills include reading, writing,
communicating, interpersonal skills, usingthecomputer, problemsolving, and
critical thinking.
As in coding for instructional methods, I let thedatadirect thecoding
process; that is, categoriesof student skills emergedfromthedata. I counted
eachtimeaskill occurred in thefive sections of each lesson in all nine lessons. If
thesameskill occurred in thesamesection morethan once, I counted it
separately if it occurred in adifferent activity or topic. As in coding for
pedagogical approaches and instructional methods, I assigned multiple codesto
sometexts that encompassed multiple skills.
3.2.1.4 CodingforAction Competence(AC)
Studies in thepast 30 years predominantly focused on the impacts of EE
curriculaon students' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as indicators of
environmental stewardship, environmental literacy, or responsibleenvironmental
behaviors. My study, however, moved beyond thesebehavioral indicators and
examinedtheextent that an EE curriculumshows characteristics of action
competence. My study usedAC asan alternativeframework because I believe
thereis aneed to go beyond behavioral indicatorswhen assessingan EE
86
curriculum, although I agreewith others (Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003; Hockett, et
al., 2004; Hsu, 2004; Orams, 1997) that theseareimportant outcomes.
Action competencedescribes aperson's ability to act on an environmental
problemor issue, or a person's ability to changehis/her living condition (J ensen
& Schnack, 1997). According to researchers, multiple aspectscontributeto
developingAC, but they agreethat (1) knowledge/insight, (2) commitment, (3)
critical thinkingandreflection, (4) visions, and (5) planningandaction
experiencesarecentral to ACs development (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999;
Eames et al., 2006; J ensen, 2000a; J ensen& Schnack, 1997). Thedescriptions
of eachelement belowemergefromJ ensenand Schnack, (1997), J ensen
(2000a), Mogensen (1997), Eames et al., (2006), and Breiting & Mogensen
(1999).
1 ) Knowledge/Insight- theliteraturesuggestedfour types, but I added an
emergent type(seeitem"e" below).
a) Effects- what kind of problemis it?
b) Causes- why do we havethis problem?
c) ChangeStrategies- howcanwechangethings (personal, societal
levels)?
d) Alternatives andVisions- what can bedoneabout the problemand
wheredowewant to go?
e) General Awarenessof Environmental Problemsor Issues, or
Importanceof Environmental Resources- I referred to this is as
simply knowing that an environmental problemor issueexists, but
87
not knowing more (thecauses, effects, thedepth and rangeof a
problemor issue, etc.)
2) Commitment- relatesto promoting students' motivation, commitment, and
driveto get involved in solving environmental problems; extent that
students areready to act to realizetheir vision; includes understanding
their own and others' attitudes and valuestoward issues.
3) Critical ThinkingandReflection- includes thinking about and assessing
complex and multiple causesof problems; social and political contexts of a
problem, and possiblesolutions; weighing pros and consof an
environmental issue; recognizing different points of viewand challenging
current practices and beliefs; and questioning values, perceptions,
conditions, and opinions (also by Kyburz-Graber, 1999, p. 416).
4) Visions- developing students' ideas, dreams, and/or perceptions about
howthey can improvetheir future lives and society.
5) PlanningandAction Experiences- providing studentswith concrete, real-
life experiences in planning and acting on environmental issues or
problems; giving students opportunities to developskills and confidenceto
identify and solveproblems, set goals, gather information, communicate,
and managetimeand logistics to takeaction.
Using arubric adaptedfromtheworks of J ensen& Schnack (1997)
J ensen(2000a, 2000b), Mogensen (1997), Eames etal. (2006), and Breiting &
Mogensen (1999) and theguiding question "Which elements of AC arein the
88
curriculumand to what degree?," I codedfor any occurrences of thefive
elements of AC (knowledge/insight, commitment, critical thinkingandreflection,
visions, andplanningandaction experiences) in thefivesections of each lesson
in all nine lessons. As in previous coding processes described above, I assigned
multiple codes to sometexts whenthey encompassed morethan oneAC
element. As well, I counted any occurrenceof asimilar AC element in thesame
section separately if it occurred in adifferent part/item, activity, or topic.
After thefirst round of coding for pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, student skills, and elements of AC, I reread each lessonand coded
again to check for errors or inconsistenciesfromthefirst round of coding. At the
end of thesecond round of coding, I found six inconsistencies (unmatched
coding) of 104 coded occurrences of pedagogical approaches, 10
inconsistencies of 707 coded occurrences of instructional methods, nine
inconsistencies of 226 coded occurrences of student skills, and 19
inconsistencies of 552 coded occurrences of AC in all nine lessons. I rereadthe
texts where I found theinconsistencies and recoded until thefirst and second
round of codes matched. After coding, I calculated total frequencies and percent
occurrences per lesson and across ninelessonsfor each approach, method,
skills, and individual elements of AC.
89
3.3 RESULTS
3.3.1 Pedagogical Approaches
Of the 104 instances of pedagogical approachesfound across all lessons
in theUnit, themost prevalent wereactivity-driven (38.5%), didactic-with-
application(18.3%), didactic (14.4%), conceptual change(13.5%), andprocess-
oriented(12.5%) approaches (seeTable3.3). Activity-drivenwas consistently the
most prevalent approach in each lesson, except in Lesson 2 where it tied with
conceptual change(44.4%), Lesson 3 whereit tied with didactic (25%) and
didactic-with-application (25%), and Lesson 4whereit tied with didactic-with-
application(33.3%). I did not find evidencefor useof academicrigor,
discovery/exploration, guidedinquiry, and inquiryapproaches in any lessons in
theUnit.
3.3.2 Instructional Methods andStudent Skills
Fifty different instructional methods werefound in the Unit, and of the707
instances of all thesemethods, themost prevalent weredidactic questions (32%)
and definitions (15%) (seeTable3.3). In-class activitycomprised 10%and
hands-onactivitycomprised only 2%of all themethods used. Twenty different
student skills werefound in the Unit and 12 of thosewerescienceprocess skills.
Of the226 instances of all thestudent skills found across all lessons, themost
prevalent werecritical thinking/think on their own/analytical/evaluationskills
(24.8%) and inferring/interpreting(1 1 .5%), which also represent process skills.
90
3.3.3Action Competence(AC)
Of the552total instances of AC across all lessons in the Unit, 50.4%,
20.7%, and 17%represented knowledge/insight, critical thinkingandreflection,
andplanningandactionexperiences, respectively. Commitment and visions
eachoccurred less than 10%of theoverall occurrenceof AC in the Unit.
Knowledge/Insightwasthemost prevalent AC element in all lessons, except in
lesson 1 , in which percent of knowledge/insight tied with percent of critical
thinkingandreflectionat 32.1% (seeTable3.3). Knowledge/Insight alsowas the
most prevalent in all five sectionsof each lesson (seeTable3.4). Of the50.4%
knowledge/insight characteristics, 12.7%represented knowledgeof causes,
1 1 .8% identified knowledgeof effects, and 1 1 .2%fostered general awareness of
environmental issues/problems (seeTable3.3). Of all theAC occurrences found
in the Unit, 15.9%occurred in Lesson 8 (Howcanwestopstormwater?), 13.9%
in lesson 5 (Why careabout groundwater?), 13.8%in lesson 7 (Howhealthy is
this stream?), and 13.8% in lesson 9 (Bioaccumulation and theGreat Lakes
ecosystem) (seeTable3.3). Lessons 1 and 3 had thelowest occurrenceof AC
across nine lessons.
91
C
g
"o
<
o
co
C
?
E
o
UJ
T3
C
ro
J 2
CO
"c
?
T3
CO
C0~
s
o
.e
'S
CC
C
g
**-
o
1
4
CO
jz
co"
?
J Z
O
OJ
2
Q.
Q. C
<3
"5 -^
O =
s>g
ni
end
co i-
-a cd
EI
co
5-E
|
CO o
co "S
_Q> Q-
- S
Z'
O
V)
V)
LU
_l
x'
O
<
UJ
LU
U
Z
LU
CX
CX
O
?
O
LU
O
o
LU
a.
?
e
a>
L.
L.
3
?
?
O
s>
??
m
od
co
o
si-
co
O
co
o
LO
CO
LO
cd
co
co
N
O
io
co
co
co
o
io
CN
in
io
*
V)
LU
X
O
d
oc
a.
a.
<
_i
<
O
O
O
O
<
Q
LU
Q.
C
C
Q
CD
O^
C
CD
-C
O
o)
co
s>
X*
m
s>
O)
co
*
CN
O
c
CM
O
in
CM
co
lo
co
co
*
.?- i2
e S
O .o
l
si
le
h CO
"co r
e I
? o
IO
LU
?
?
C^LU
~?-
?
a.
.CSI
OM
IO
CNI
OO
O)
OO
co
cd
co
co
CNl
CD
?
C
O
Q.
??
S^?
CO
CD
C
i
CNi
.S? CO
.Q CD
2|
Q. 5
? <?
co
<?>
??
co
co
CM
N.
CN
col
OO I
col
*
co
CN
ioI
lo
[io
co
co
CM
O
I ooI
CM
CM
co
*
co
CN
N
CM
col
co
O)
io
col
co
O)
co
O)I
ioI
col
co
IO
IO
co
co
CM
co
M
CM
co
LO
co
Q)
co
CD
O
O
O
o:
IO
e
O
O
?
co
C
.O
.co
6
C
.2
"O
C
co
O)
.C
C
C
CD
Q.
C
.O
O
.>
CD
CC
o
C
CO
Ojo
Ol<
.C
-S
C
CD
?
C
O
UJ
C
CD .
? .
f
a
O
92
Table3.4. Action CompetenceOccurrences in the MEECS Water Quality
Unit by Lesson Section
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF AC IN
EACH SECTION OF THE LESSON
Elementsof Action
Competence
BI AO SB
TOTAL %
OCCURRENCE
A) Knowledge/Insight
76.6 42.3 38.0 46.3 55.5
50.4(n=278)
1. ChangeStrategies
23.4 10.7 8.0 4.9 1.6 9.2
2. Awarenessof
Environmental
Issues/Problems,
Importanceof
Resources
13.0 6.0 8.0 15.9 17.2 11.2
3. Alternatives and Visions
7.0 12.0 6.1 3.1 5.4
4. Effects
20.8 9.8 6.0 9.8 13.3 11.8
5. Root Causes 19.5 8.8
4.0 9.8 20.3 12.7
B) Commitment
5.2 7.0 16.0 6.1
3.9
6.7 (n=37)
C) Visions
6.5 12.0 6.1 3.1
5.3(n=29)
D) PlanningandAction
Experiences
18.2 17.2 14.0 24.4 12.5
17.0 (n=94)
E) Critical Thinkingand
Reflection 27.0
20.0 17.1 25.0
20.7(n=114)
Total frequency per section
, n=77 ! n=215
n=50 n=82 n=128
100.0 (n=552)
- =No occurrences observed ? =number of instances
Lesson sections: (1) BI =Background Information; (2) P =Procedures; (3) AO =Assessment
Options; (4) O =Objectives and (5) SB =Standards and Benchmarks
3.4 DISCUSSION
Findings in pedagogical approaches suggest somemismatch between
what the Unit purported it does- to engagestudents in "hands-on lessons that
encouragestudent participation and inquiry" (MEECS brochure, 2006) - and the
kinds of lessons the Unit actually included. First, although activity-drivenwasthe
most prevalent approach acrossthe Unit, much of this approachconsistedof
non-hands-on activities. This is related totherelatively strong combined
occurrences of didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches, which suggests
93
that thecurriculumcontinues to usealess engaging and less participatory
approachto teaching and learning. Furthermore, although MEECS purported to
providestudentswith /nc/u/Ay-oriented lessons and activities, no inquiryor guided
inquiryapproachwasfound in theWater Quality Unit.
In particular, thelessonsfailed to includeopportunities for studentsto a)
initiatean investigation of aproblemidentified by themselves or suggested to
themby their teacher, or b) drawconclusions and assessthevalidity of their
knowledgefromtheir conclusions (Inquiry). No plans required teachers and their
students to identify aproblem, test explanations, and evaluatetheir datato find a
specific discovery or makeageneralization (GuidedInquiry) (Brendzel, 2005;
Lang & Evans, 2006; Magnusson et al., 1999; Schwarz & Gwekwerere, 2007).
Instead, thelessons provided all of theproblems or topics that students
investigated, aswell astheproceduresthey had to follow. For example, in the
activity in which students evaluatefour streams and then decidewhich stream
hasthebest habitat for brook trout (Lesson 7), students receiveestablished data
about thestreams, such as macro-invertebratedata, water quality data
(dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and turbidity), and photographs. They then
comparethegiven datato determinethebetter streamfor brook trout.
A truly inquiry-based approach requires students to conduct most of the
thinking andfiguring out howto investigatetheproblemwith theteacher's
support and help by correcting explanations or applications (Brendzel, 2005;
Lang & Evans, 2006; Magnusson et al., 1999; Schwarz & Gwekwerere, 2007).
Oneway to make it more/ngu/>y-based would beto let students identify a
94
problem, collect and analyzethedatathemselves, and compareresults against
their hypotheses. To useaguidedinquiryapproach, theteacher should carefully
guidestudents toward adiscovery or generalization by working with students in
identifying a problem, writing hypotheses, identifying objectives, planningfor data
collection, interpreting results, and making conclusions (Lang & Evans, 2006).
Thetarget lessontimeof 50 minutes/period might explain thelimited level
of involvement of thestudents observed in the Unit dueto thedifficulty of
conducting afull blown /ngw/Vy-based lesson in that amount of time. It should be
noted herethat I did not examineor analyzethesections after theAssessment
Options in each lesson. Perhaps other sections of each lesson (e.g., Extensions
and Additional Resources) suggest more/nq/'/y-ohented activities, giving
teachers an option to do morethan theactivities suggested in themain body of
each lesson.
3.4.2 Instructional Methods andStudent Skills
Didactic questionsand definitions as instructional methodswere
congruent with didactic and didactic-with-application pedagogical approaches.
Theinfrequent useof hands-onlessonsand experiments relativeto theother
methods used in the Unit suggests aneedto strengthen useof these
instructional methods if the Unit purports to providesuchexperiences to
students. Similarly, despitetheUnit's aimto help students investigatethelinks
between human activities andwater quality, investigation/research comprised
only 1 .3%of all themethods used in theUnit. Again this points to some
95
mismatch between theobjectives of the Unit and its content and instructional
methods, and implies a need to increasetheuseof investigation/research
methods in teaching thelessons.
Thetwo most prevalent student skills seemed congruent with the Unit's
intent to developstudents' ability to usescientific knowledgeand datato decide,
investigate, and explorepossiblesolutions to environmental problems or issues.
Prevalenceof critical thinkingskills also seemedto match with didactic questions
becauseasking questions (especially thewhy and the how) provides acommon
way to encouragecritical thinkingin theclassroom. Thestrong prevalenceof
process skills despitean infrequent useof theprocess-orientedpedagogical
approach may beattributed partially to thedominanceof theactivity-driven
approach and, to someextent, theconceptual changeapproach, both of which
useand/or addressprocess-orientedskills.
3.4.3Action Competence(AC)
In general, the prevalenceof knowledge/insight matched expectations
becausefour of theeight "big ideas" or "enduring understandings" that the Unit
addressesfocus on knowledgeand awareness (Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality and Central Michigan University 2005) (seeTable3.2).
Thesefour are:
1 ) Good quality water and an adequatesupply of water areessential to
Michigan's communities and to our quality of life. (Awareness)
96
2) Water quality standards have been establishedto protect the many uses
of Michigan'swaters. (Knowledge)
3) We can assessthehealth and quality of Michigan's streams, rivers, lakes,
and groundwater by collecting and analyzing appropriatedata.
(Knowledge)
4) We needto knowwhereour drinking water comesfromand whereour
wastewater goes. (Knowledge)
I expectedto observepercent of knowledge/insight as highest in
Background Information (seeTable3.4) becausethis section provides mostly
facts. Thelowest occurrenceof knowledge/insight in theAssessment Option may
be becausethis section alsotargeted other aspects of learning (e.g., critical
thinkingandreflection- what aretheecological, social, and economic benefits
that water provides for Michigan residents?) in addition to assessing knowledge
(e.g., what is thedistribution of water on earth?).
TheUnit met oneof ACs knowledge/insight requirements in that
knowledgeof effects (ranked secondwithin theknowledge/insight component,
1 1 .8%) and knowledgeof causes(ranked first within theknowledge/insight
component, 12.7%) comprised significant parts of theknowledge/insight
component in theentire Unit. According to J ensen (2000a), knowledgeof effects
constitutes an important part of action-oriented knowledge becauseit awakens
people's concerns and attention, and it provides thestarting point for their
willingness to act. Thefocus of theWater Quality Unit on general awareness
97
(ranked third within theknowledge/insight component, 1 1 .2%) also helps to
motivate learners.
J ensen(2000a) cautioned, however, that knowledge/insight must not stop
at theeffects of a problem. Rather, learners should understand causesof and
ways to solveproblems or producechange(changestrategies and alternatives
and visions). Otherwise, J ensenargued, knowledgeof effectswill only generate
concerns or worry, will weaken commitment, and will contributeto action
paralysis. TheWater Quality Unit addressed relatively strongly knowledgeof
effects andcauses. Compared to thethreeother types of knowledge, knowledge
of changestrategies(9.2%) and especially knowledgeof alternatives andvisions
(5.4%) did not appear frequently. This poses someconcern, according to J ensen
(2000a), becauseknowledgeof effects andcausescannot stand alone. If
curriculumdesigners striveto fully provideaction-oriented knowledge, which is a
key ingredient in developingAC, then they must insist on including ways of
creating social changeandfinding solutions.
Although knowledgeof causesoccurred highest within the
knowledge/insight component, it largely comprised only ecological or economic
causesof environmental problems or issues. It included minimal discussion
regarding howother morediversesocial and cultural factors influence people's
behaviors or actions toward theenvironment. Proponentsof AC arguethat
knowledgeof causesneedsto include knowledgeof howsocial structures and
cultural practices contributeto environmental problems becauseenvironmental
98
problems or issues result fromboth individual and societal influences (J ensen,
2000a, 2000b; J ensen& Schnack, 1997).
In general, theoverall prevalenceof knowledge/insight may suggest
easier inclusion of this element in acurriculumcomparedto other elements of
AC, becauseknowledgeacquisitiontends to beacommongoal of EE programs
and is supported by many teachers and educators. In addition, critical pedagogy
is not always welcomein schools or by somesectorswhich arecritical of EE as
an agent of social change. This may result in somechallengesto promoteAC in
schools or in thecommunity as awhole.
With MEECS, this prevalence matched expectations because, as
expressed in the MEECS vision statement, curriculumdevelopersviewed
knowledgeas a precursor to developing stewardship. This might explain thelack
of focus on commitment and visions in theUnit. J ensen (2000b, p. 234) stresses
theimportanceof visions and commitment besides knowledge/insight: "If there is
no commitmentto fight for visions, onecannot speak of action competence." This
may imply that, to strengthenfocus on AC elements other than knowledge/
insight, thereis a needto revisit theconceptualization of the Unit and perhaps go
beyond the"big ideas" or "enduring understandings" that it aims to address.
Basedon theessential questions intended fromeach lesson, it seemsthat
each lesson included thecritical thinkingandreflectionelement, as shown in the
relatively high percent occurrenceof critical thinkingandreflectionacross nine
lessons. It ranked first once, secondfivetimes, and third in threelessons
compared to other elements of AC (seeTable3.3).
99
Contrary to my expectation, planningandactionexperiencesoccurred
highest in lesson 6 and in theObjectives and Background Information sections of
the Unit. This suggests that planningandactionexperiences remained largely as
an objectiveand less asactually giving students opportunities to plan and take
action. Table3.4showsplanningandactionexperiencesappear lessfrequently
in the Procedures andAssessment Option where I expectedto seemore
occurrences of planningandactionexperiences. It is also important to mention
herethat, althoughplanningandactionexperiencesoccurred strongly in the
Background Information section, theseoccurrences actually mostly provided
suggestionsfor peoplein general. This meanstheUnit lacked specific ideas or
opportunities through which students could actually plan and develop an action
strategytoward an environmental problemor issueof interest.
Although thetext belowfromLesson 3: "Do you knowyour watershed?"
indicatedplanningandactionexperiences, thequestion does not help identify
specific planning activities and actions for students; it provides only general
planning and action items.
Discuss thefollowingquestions to encouragestudents to carefully examinethe
hydrographs andthevaryingstreamflowfor thedifferent rivers.
Why do weneedto knowhowmuch wateris flowingin astreamor river?
Byknowingstreamflow, we can:
Predict floodingandpotential threats to humanhealth, property, andsafety
Identifystreams with adequateyear-roundstreamflowto support different speciesof
fish
Identifyappropriatebuildingsites that won't bedamagedbyflooding
Aidnavigation
Determinepotential for different forms of recreation
Predictpotential forpollution impacts
100
Across thelessons, I found two noteworthy things. First, theoverall
percent of AC occurrence(not individual AC elements) occurred lower in lessons
1 through4 compared to lessons 5 through 9. Second, theoverall percent
occurrenceof AC occurred significantly less in lessons 3 (3.8%) and 1 (5.1%)
comparedto theother lessons. Therearetwo possibleexplanations for thefirst
observation. First, thecomplexity of thelessons increasedfrombeginning to end,
so onemight expect more useof AC towardtheend of thecurriculumthan in the
beginning. Based on theessential questions in each lesson, it appears that the
earlier lessons (1 through 4) focused moreon knowledgeand understanding
whereas lessonstoward theend (5 through 9) focused moreon skill
development, application of knowledge, analysis, and/or synthesis.
Thelength of thelessons provides asecond possible reasonfor the
variability in theoverall percent occurrences of AC, particularly thenumber of
pagesfromObjectives ->Standards and Benchmarks ->Background Information
->Procedures ->toAssessment Option. Perhaps thelonger thelesson, the
greater theopportunity to includeAC, although admittedly, this did not seemto
hold truefor all lessons. Lessons 1 through4 all had seven pages and they had
lower percent occurrenceof AC than Lessons 5 and 7, which each had ten
pages, and lessons 6 and 8, which each had eight pages. Number of pagesdid
not seemto influence percent occurrenceof AC in Lesson 9, which despite
having only seven pages, had virtually thesamepercent occurrenceof AC as in
lessons 5 and 7. It is not clear whether thefact that lesson 9 is essentially an
integration of all theTeaming that students gainedfromthe previous lessons
101
influenced therelatively higher percent occurrenceof AC in this lesson compared
to lessons 1 through4.
Theconsiderably lower percent occurrenceof AC in lessons 1 and 3 may
beattributed to the natureof thetopics within thelessons and theobjectives of
thelessons, asidefrombeingtheearlier lessons in the Unit (discussed above).
As shown in Table3.1, lessons 1 and 3 occurred to focus primarily on facts and
definitionscomparedto theother lessons. A similar pattern emerges in the
objectives of thelessons below. Except Objective#3 in Lesson 1, all theother
objectives focus on providing studentswith definitions and facts, which, I would
argue, does not providestrong applications of AC.
Lesson 1
1. Definebasic terms andprocessesassociatedwith thehydrologiecycle.
2. Describethedistribution andavailability of freshwater andsaltwater on
Earth.
3. Discuss theimportanceandresponsibilityof living next to the Great
Lakes.
Lesson 3
1. Defineandapply thefollowing terms: watershed, sub-watershed,
headwaters, mouth, drainagedivide, streambanks, runoff, floodplain,
meander, streamflow/streamdischarge, main channel, andtributary.
2. Locatetheir local watershedandidentify theGreat Lakeinto which it
flows.
3. Describehowthesizeof awatershedandthelocal weather affect the
quantityof water in astream, river, or lake.
Other than knowledge/insight, it is difficult to identify any patterns of
findings fromtheindividual elements of AC; they occurred high in somelessons
and low in others. Examples are: percent commitment (17.9%) and percent
visions (7.1%) werehighest in lesson 1 , but percent planningandaction
experiences (10.7%) was lowest in lesson 1 ; percent knowledge/insight (66.7%)
102
was highest ? lesson 3, but percent visionswas lowest in lesson 3 (no
occurrence) and percent critical thinkingandreflectionwas lowest in lesson 3
(14.3%). This may suggest that individual elements of AC aredifficult to develop
equally in just onelesson.
Thedistribution of individual elementsof AC also varied in strength across
different sections of theUnit, as shown in Table3.4. For example, although
knowledge/insight consistently occurred the most compared to theother AC
elements in eachof thefive sections, it was highest in theBackground
Information. Visions and commitment occurred themost in theAssessment
Option; planningandaction experiencesoccurred the most in theObjectives;
and critical thinkingandreflectionoccurred themost in the Procedures. The
variability in extent of occurrenceof individual elements of AC in each lesson as
well as in each section of thecurriculumsuggeststhat, to increasethelikelihood
of usingthecurriculumas atool to helpfoster AC in students, one needs to use
all lessons in thecurriculumand not only select afewto teach, which is what
many teachers do. This might provecritical as, according to J ensen (2000b), one
cannot talk of action competenceif oneindividual element is not present. In other
words, asynergy of individual elements needsto happento developAC. This
implies aneed to revisit thecurriculumto incorporateand strengthenthe
elements of AC, aswell as a needto informprofessional development and
teacher education programs of the needto usethecurriculumentirely -
holistically - to maximizethepossibility of fostering students' AC.
103
3.5ASSOCIATIONS AMONG PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES,
INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS, AND STUDENT SKILLS
Thethreemost prevalent pedagogical approacheswereactivity-driven,
didactic, and didactic-with-application. Theseapproaches occurred alongsidethe
three most prevalent elements of AC, namely knowledge/insight, critical thinking
andreflection, andplanningandactionexperiences. In termsof instructional
methods, didactic questionsand definitions accompaniedtheapproaches and
AC elements listed above. Finally, critical thinkingand inferring/interpreting
occurred astwo most prevalent student skills.
Findings above may suggest thefollowing:
1 ) Activity-driven, didactic, and didactic-with-application approaches are
associated morewith theoccurrenceof knowledge/insight, critical
thinkingandreflection, andplanningandaction experiences, and
therefore, may likely explain theweak distribution of commitment and
visions across ninelessons in theWater Quality Unit.
2) Thetwo instructional methods listed aboveoccurred to bemore
coherent with didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches and
knowledge/insight and critical thinkingandreflectionelements of AC
thanwith theactivity-driven approachor planningandaction
experienceselement of AC. An activity-driven approach may be more
likely associatedwith planningandaction experiences.
3) Thetwo most prevalent student skills wereprocess skills eventhough
aprocess-orientedapproachwas not thetopmost approach used in
the Unit. This possibly suggeststhat theseskills may befosteredjust
104
as likely by activity-driven, didactic, and didactic-with-application
pedagogical approaches as by aprocess-orientedapproach. Presence
of theseskills may likely influence presenceof knowledge/insight,
critical thinkingandreflection, andplanningandaction experiences
elements of AC.
3.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined thetypesof and extent that pedagogical approaches,
instructional methods, student skills, and elements of AC wereused in theWater
Quality Unit of MEECS. Additionally, this study also identified associations
among approaches, methods, or skills and elements of AC. Findings showed that
theWater Quality Unit focused moreon knowledge/insight, critical thinkingand
reflection, andplanningandactionexperienceselements of AC than on
commitment or visions, with knowledge/insight receiving thefirst priority across
nine lessons. This study alsofound that theUnit focused moreon knowledgeof
effects, knowledgeof causes, and general awarenessof environmental problems
compared to knowledgeof changestrategiesand knowledgeof alternativesand
visions.
While knowledge/insight is aprerequisiteto developing students' capacity
for action, proponents of AC say it is not enough. Theoverwhelmingfocus on
knowledge/insight and knowledgeof causes, effects, andgeneral awareness-
and thelack of attention on commitment, visions, knowledgeof change
strategies, andknowledgeof alternativesandvisionssuggest that theWater
105
Quality Unit is less likely to developAC in students. To improve its chanceof
fosteringAC, incorporation and useof theless represented elements of AC have
to bestrengthened. This may requireareexamination of thegoals and objectives
of theUnit and areconsideration of the"big ideas" or "enduring understandings"
that it aims to address. Additionally, knowledgeof causesalso should include
aspects of howsocial structures and cultural practices contributeto
environmental problems around us asthesetopicswerehardly talked about in
the Unit. Similarly, the Unit also needs to providespecific ideas or opportunities
for studentsto do real planning and takeaction, and not only talk about what
people in general could do.
Findings also showed that knowledge/insight, critical thinkingand
reflection, andplanningandaction experiences areassociated morewith activity-
driven, didactic-with-application, and didactic approaches than others. Thelack
of or weak useof other pedagogical approaches may have influenced theweak
appearanceof commitment and visions elements of AC in theUnit.
Consequently, to increaseuseof commitment and visions, theUnit may needto
strengthen its useof approaches other than thetopthreelisted above.
This study alsofound that the Unit used aplethoraof instructional
methods to deliver lessons, but thetwo most prevalent weredidactic questions
and definitions. Thesemethods occurred morecoherent with didactic and
didactic-with-applicationapproaches and with theknowledge/insight and critical
thinkingandreflection elements of AC thanwith activity-driven approaches and
theplanningandaction experienceselement of AC. Similarly, thesefindings
106
suggest that the Unit needsto expand therangeof methods used in teachingthe
lessonsto encompass different elements of AC.
Thetwo most prevalent student skills in theUnit werecritical thinkingand
inferring/interpreting. Theseskills seemed morecoherent with aprocess-oriented
approach, but theseskills appeared to generally support theoccurrenceof the
critical thinkingandreflection andplanningandactionexperienceselements of
AC. Finally, this study foundthat theextent of useof individual elements of AC
varied acrosstheUnit, which suggeststhat to increaseteachers' likelihood of
developingAC in students using theUnit, they (teachers) would needto teach all
lessons.
Thesefindings and recommendations may help informfuturedesigns of
EE and/or Sciencecurriculafor K-12 schools in Michigan aimed at developing
AC in students aswell as improveteacher education programs to better prepare
teachers in Michigan howto useAC-oriented EE curricula.
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Findings fromthis study may beuniqueto theWater Quality Unit and,
therefore, cannot begeneralized to other EE curriculaor to other MEECS Units.
Inter-rater reliability could not becalculated becauseI wasthesolecoder of data
and therewas no other person that checkedfor consistency of coding.
107
3.8 REFERENCES
Athman, J . ?., & Monroe, M. C. (2001). Elements of effectiveenvironmental
education programs In A. Fedler (Ed.), Definingbestpracticesin boating,
fishing, andstewardshipeducation (pp. 14): Recreational Boating and
Fishing Foundation.
Brendzel, S. (2005). Strategiesfor Successful Science Teaching. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.
DEQ. (2010). Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport: Complete
Description. Ml Department of Environmental Quality. Retrieved April 4,
2010, fromhttp://www.michiqan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ee-meecs-
description 244766 7.pdf
Dimopoulos, D. I., & Pantis, J . D. (2003). Knowledgeand attitudes regarding sea
educationthat promotes students' action competence. RetrievedApril 12,
2006, fromhttp://nzaee.orq.nz/invapproach.htm
Education, S. (1991). Instructional Approaches: A framework for professional
practice. Retrieved J uly 20, 2008, from
http://www.sasked.qov.sk.ca/docs/policv/approach/instrapp03.html
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. J ournal of Science
Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-8.
Hammond, W. F. (1997). Educating for action. Clearing, 7-12.
Hart, P. (2003). Teachers' Thinkingin Environmental Education. NewYork: Peter
Lang.
concern, resourcestewardship, andrecreational participation: A reviewof
108
Education, 35(2), 37-50.
V. Simovska(Eds.), Critical Environmental andHealth Education:
Research Center for Environmental and Health Education, TheDanish
178.
Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education ascritical education: How
teachers and students handlethechallenge. CambridgeJ ournal of
Education, 29(3), 415-432.
Lang, H. R., & Evans, D. N. (2006). Models, Strategies, andMethods for
Effective Teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
environmental attitudes and knowledge .TheJ ournal of Environmental
Meinhard, R. (1992). Concept/Process-BasedSciencein theElementarySchool.
Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Education.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Central Michigan University.
(2005). Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport: Water
Quality Unit, Curriculumfor middleschool scienceand social studies. Mt.
109
Pleasant: Central Michigan University Printing Services. Retrieved J une
10,2008.
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: A central element in developing action
Research, 12(4), 429-436.
Orams, M. B. (1997). Theeffectiveness of environmental education: Can weturn
295-306.
Palmer, J . A. (1998). Environmental Educationin the21st Century: Theory,
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in
Schwarz, C, & Gwekwerere, Y. (2007). Using aguidedinquiry ana modeling
instructional framework (EIMA) to support pre-service K-8 science
Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental educationfor sustainability: Defining thenew
focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education
Research, 1(2), 195-212.
110
CHAPTER 4
SURVEY OF MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM
SUPPORT (MEECS) TRAINING PARTICIPANTS: PCK AND ACTION
COMPETENCE
111
ABSTRACT
Self-administered mail and web surveys wereconducted to examine
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and useof action competence(AC) of
MEECS training participants. Onehundred thirty oneparticipants responded
(28.4%); 88.5%werefrompublic schools (n=131), 67.8%werewomen (n=115),
and 36.5%werebetween 50 and 60years old (n=115). Seventy eight percent of
the respondentstaught science(n=131), 87%taught 9th through 12th grade
(n=131), and 66.4%weretrained in theuseof Water Quality Unit. Notethat
these%values include peoplewho taught other subjects or gradelevels, and
weretrained in other Units.
Elements of PCK (goals andbeliefs about teachingscience, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, andstudent skills foci) and useof AC were
examined using content analysis. Combining instancesfromboth surveys, the
most prevalent categories of goals and beliefs of respondentswere
attitude/behavior change(18%), skill development (12.5%), global/real world
connections (12.5%), and studentdevelopment (12.3%). Themost prevalent
elements of AC werecommitment (45.2%) andplanningandactionexperiences
(39.3%). This unequal useof AC elements in theclassroomand thelack of
attention to critical thinkingandreflection and visions may ultimately affect the
ability of MEECS teachersto developAC in their students.
AC was not represented by all thegoals and beliefs in thesurveys. Of all
theoccurrencesof AC, 21.4%wasfound in global/real worldconnections, 17.4%
in social reform/citizenship, and 17.4% in student development. Combining
112
instancesfromboth surveys, themost prevalent pedagogical approacheswere
activity-driven (32%), discovery/exploration (18.1%), didactic (14.1%), project-
based(12.1%), and process-oriented(1 1.6%); themost prevalent instructional
methods werehands-onactivity (10.9%) and cooperativelearning/group work
(10%); and the most prevalent student skills werecritical thinking (26.6%),
investigation/research (15.6%), andproblemsolving(10.2%).
Somegoals and beliefs wereembodied in morethan one pedagogical
approach, instructional method, or skill, and viceversa. However, in some
instances, thesevariables appeared incongruent with each another, suggesting
that they do not always predict each other's occurrence. Project-basedand
discovery/exploration approaches seemedto beassociatedwith the high
occurrenceof commitment, and activity-driven approachtoplanningandaction
experiences. To increaseuseof AC, EE curricula needto includeelements of AC
and useapproaches and methods that areassociatedwith AC. Teachers needto
beopento thesekinds of pedagogical approaches and methods, and learn to
negotiatefor or address barriers or constraints in their teaching context.
113
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Oneof the main goals of environmental education (EE) is to cultivate
environmental stewardship in students (Wheeler & Thumlet, 2007). Numerous
studies haveinvestigated theimpact of EE on what researchers consider aspects
or elements of stewardship, such as knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
(Dettmann-Easler & Pease, 1999; Dimopoulos & Pantis, 2003; Ferguson etal.,
2001; Hsu, 2004; Hungerford tal., 1990; Hwang tal., 2000; Kruse& Card,
2004; Leeming etal., 1997; NEEAC, 2005; Roth, 1992; Volk & Cheak, 2003;
Wheeler & Thumlet, 2007). Another important aspect of understandingthe
effects of EE is to examinetheeducators, particularly what they teach, how, and
why, asthis would add to our knowledgeabout therelationships and processes
that occur between educators or teachers and students. But studies that
specifically ask such questions arelimited (Hart, 2003).
In this chapter, I address my research question #2: "To what extent does
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge in using scienceand environmental
education curricula represent elements of action competence?" To addressthis
question, I first determined how representative my surveyed MEECS teachers
wereof theoverall participants of MEECS training in 2006-2007. Then, I
examined the"how" and the"why" of teaching of thosewho participated in the
MEECS training between 2006 and 2007. I identified theelements of
pedagogical content knowledge(PCK) and action competence(AC) found in the
MEECS teachers' goals and beliefs about teaching scienceand their descriptions
of their natureof instruction. I reported on patterns of approaches, methods, and
114
skills that weremore prevalent and wereassociatedwith certain elements of AC.
I also discussed implications for teacher education and professional
development.
4.2 METHODS
4.2.1 Selection of Respondents
I chosethe MEECS of themany EE curricula becauseit is Michigan-
specific, is aligned with theMichigan scienceand social studies curriculum
framework benchmarks and standards and theGrade Level Content
Expectations for 4th gradethrough high school, and is endorsed by the Michigan
Department of Education. I obtained a list of MEECS training participants from
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI-DEQ), which wasthe
agencythat sponsored, funded, and guided thedevelopment of MEECS. I then
verified mailing and email addressesof theparticipants by checkingthestaff list
fromtheschool's (or any listed affiliation's) website. I excluded all namesthat did
not appear on thestaff list or thosewhich could not betraced becausetheschool
did not haveawebsiteor did not haveastaff list online. I also excluded names
that werenot affiliated primarily with K-12 schools and others that could not be
verified or traced. Dueto limited resources, I used only 129 namesfor the mail
survey; I usedweb-based technology to reach an additional 421 individuals who
had verifiableemail addresses.
115
4.2.2 DataCollectionTools
I collected datausing self-administered mail and websurveys. I chose
both methodsfor their flexibility, versatility, ability to reach largesamples of
respondents in relatively short periods of time, and relatively lowcost compared
with interviews or telephonesurveys (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Besides reducing
thecost and timefor datacollection and analysis, useof web surveys has gained
popularity in recent years becausetheinternet is widely used by different
demographic groups (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Hogarty etal., 2003). Some
researchers haveidentified issues in the useof websurveys (or other online
modes of delivery), including responsecompatibility betweenwebsurvey and
mail survey (Arnau etal., 2001 cited in Hogarty et al., 2003), representativeness
of sample(Dillman, 2000; Dillman et al., 1998), variation in computer literacy of
respondents, and individual accessto computers (Dillman era/., 1998). However,
Alreck & Settle(2004) suggested that web surveys areparticularly effectivefor
individuals who hold educational and scientific occupations and thosewho will be
reached at work, both of which werecharacteristics of my sample.
4.2.3 Survey Instruments
Prior to its final printing and use, thesurvey instrument was reviewed and
piloted by 12 individuals having teaching experienceand/or expertisein
environmental education, assessment, or survey research, including university
faculty (3 fromMichigan State University and onefromNorth CarolinaState
University), graduatestudents (4), elementary school scienceteachers (2), and
116
environmental educators (2). Before I finalized thesurvey, I usedtheir
suggestions and feedback to makethesurvey moreteacher-friendly (i.e., used
languagethat teacherswould use), to check theclarity of thesurvey, and to
check whether questions actually askedwhat I had intended.
Both versions of thesurvey consisted of 22 items that included:
demographic information (e.g., age, gender, highest education level), school
context (e.g., nameof school, district, typeof school, communitywhereschool is
located), other background information about theparticipants (including grade
levels andsubjects taught, and number of yearsteaching), and MEECS training
participation and classroomuse(units trained, past and current use, dateof start
of use).
In addition to demographics and participant useinformation, I also asked
respondents about their goals for teaching science("What is/areyour primary
goal/s as ateacher?"), beliefs about teaching science("What do you think
teaching should beabout?") and the natureof their instruction ("Howwould you
describeor characterizethenatureof your instruction?") to examinetheir
teachingorientations. I developed thesequestions based on theworks of
Magnusson etal. (1999), Loughran tal. (2004), Lee tal. (2007), and Mulhall et
al. (2003). SeeAppendices D.1 and D.2 for details of the mail andtheweb
surveys.
117
4.2.3.1 Mail Survey
Altogether, I mailed 129 surveys in October and November, 2007. I sent
the mail surveys in two batches, 98 in thefirst batch and 31 in thesecond batch
(seeTable4.5). Modifying Dillman's (2000) suggestionto mail a pre-notice, I
emailed a pre-noticeletter to MEECS participants threedays prior to survey
mailing. The pre-noticeletter askedfor participation and included thepurposeof
thesurvey, number of items in thesurvey, and why respondents' participation
was important for thestudy. Thesurvey mailing included acover letter, the
questionnaire, and aself-addressed return envelope. Thecover letter reiterated
thepurposeof thesurvey, howrespondentswereselected, informed consent
languagefor human subjects research requirements, number of survey items,
and instructions for completing thesurvey. Thecover letter also mentioned that,
at theend of thesurvey, respondentswould beaskedto providetheir contact
information if they would beinterested in participating in the next phaseof the
study (classroomobservations). Dueto lack of funds, I did not sendfollow-up
mailings. I sent reminder emails two, three, and four weeks after themailing. I
alsosent thank you emails to all mail survey respondents.
4.2.3.2 Web Survey
I createdthewebsurveythroughtheonlinetool called Survey Monkey. I
sent 421 web links via email between February andApril, 2008 (seeTable4.5).
This contact included individuals who did not respond to themail surveys and
had verifiableemail addresses. I also emailed MEECS training participants apre-
118
notice letter threedays prior to emailing acover letter and theweb link to
completethesurvey. I usedthesamelanguageas in thepre-noticeletter and
cover letter for mail survey respondents. Using Survey Monkey, I trackedwho
had responded and when. I sent reminder emails to thosewho had not
responded upto four times after thefirst email invitation. Thosewho opted out or
thosewho had undeliverableemails (dueto wrongor invalid address or full
inboxes) did not get further reminders. I also sent thank you emails to all web
survey respondents.
4.2.4Variables of Interest
4.2.4. 1 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Pedagogical content knowledgeis theintegration of individual knowledge
domains (e.g., subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
knowledgeof student learning) that enableateacher to teach atopic to a
particular groupof students in away that helps students relateto thetopic and
helps themunderstand and learn effectively (Cochran, 1997; Gess-Newsome,
.1999; Loughran et al., 2001; Loughran et al., 2004). In this portion of my study, I
examined theseelements of PCK: 1) teaching orientations, 2) instructional
methods, and 3) subject matter knowledge.
4.2.4.1.1 Orientations TowardTeaching Science
Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007) used "teaching orientations"
interchangeably with "pedagogical approaches," but I divided orientations toward
119
teaching scienceinto (a) goals and beliefs for teaching scienceat a particular
gradelevel (Magnusson etal., 1999) and (b) pedagogical approaches. This is
similar to what Friedrichsen & Dana(2005, p. 225) did, wherethey looked at the
goals aswell asthemeans (teachers' purposefully selected and visibleuseof
curriculaand instructional and assessment strategies) to characterizeteaching
orientations. Goals and beliefs serveasa conceptual mapfor teachers'
instructional decisionmaking(Grossman, 1990).
1) Goals and Beliefs
Various terms areused to definegoals (e.g., aims, objectives, principles,
and standards) and beliefs (e.g., conceptions, implicit theories, and orientations),
and theterms havebeen used interchangeably. I referred to teaching goals as
teachers' purposefor teaching science, or what they expect to accomplish,
thereby providing direction for them(Ornstein & Sinatra, 2005, p. 113). I referred
to beliefs asteachers' conceptions or views about teaching scienceand what it
meansto teach. Beliefs may bethought of asa broader concept than goals (Cox,
2004, p. 4; Lam& Kember, 2006; Pratt, 1992). Together, goals and beliefs are
believed to guideteachers' day-to-day decisions about what and howto teach
(Grossman, 1990; Lam& Kember, 2006). Table4.1 lists thegoals and beliefs
that I usedfor coding.
120
Table4.1. Categories of Goals and Beliefs of Teachers about Teaching
Science
Final list of goals and beliefs categories (categorieswith asteriskswereapriori categories,
which I adaptedfromMagnusson et al. (1999, pp. 100-101); thosewithout asterisks
emerged fromthedata)
1 ) Academic Rigor* - represents a particular body of knowledge; challenges students with
difficult problems and activities to verify scienceconcepts
2) Activity-Driven* - engagesstudents in hands-on activities, or givesthematask to work
individually or in groups
3) Attitude/Behavior Change* - influences students' attitudes or behavior; helps students
identify their own and other people's attitudes, values, feelings, or views toward
environmental issues or problems
4) Conceptual Change* - facilitates thedevelopment of scientific knowledgeby confronting
studentswith contextsthat challengetheir naiveconceptions
5) Discovery/Exploration* - provides opportunities for studentsto discover targeted science
concepts ontheir own
6) Guided Inquiry* - establishes acommunity of learners (e.g., students and teacher) in
understanding thephysical world usingthetools of science; teacher and students define
and investigatea problem, testing explanations, evaluating validity and utility of dataand
adequacy of conclusions
7) Inquiry* -represents scienceasinquiry; engagestudents in defining and investigating
problems, drawing conclusions, and assessingthevalidity of knowledgefromtheir
conclusions
8) KnowledgeAcquisition* - I called this "knowledge/awareness" in my initial list; also found
by Trigwell & Prosser (1996); helps students acquireknowledgeor increaseawareness
of environmental issues or problems, or activities and events aroundthem
9) Project-Based* - involves students in investigating solutions to authentic problems
1 0) Skill Development^- develops of skills
11) Didactic* - transmits thefacts of science, content, benchmarks/standards
12) Career benefits/Teacher Development - obtains professional development or growth
13) Content/Subject Matter - considers content beyond/other thanwhat is required in the
curriculum
14) Education of Students- educatesstudents in general
15) Global/Real World Connections - provides studentswith meaningful, relevant
experiencesto help understand connectedness, interrelationships, and interdependence
between people, theworld, and theenvironment
16) Humanistic - serves students, helps students meet their needs besides academic needs
121
Table4.1 Continued:
17) Improvement of pedagogy - increases/develops knowledgeof teaching
strategies/methods and increasesubject knowledgeto improve instruction
18) Learning - provides astimulating, fun, engaging, safe, and respectful learning
environment; shows different waysto learn
19) Modeling ways of being- serves asapositiveinfluenceto students; shows students
appropriatebehaviors; theteacher exemplifies thevaluesand knowledgeto belearned
(Pratt, 1992)
20) Social Reform/Citizenship- focuses on a macro perspectiveof seekingabetter society,
and acknowledgingthat everyoneis responsibleto help improvesociety [also found in
Pratt (1992)]
21) Student Development - develops students' capacity to becomeactiveparticipants in
society, in additionto developingspecific skills
22) Teacher-Student/Student-Student Relationships - fosters relationshipswith students and
encourages studentsto makegood relationshipswith others
23) Visioning - provides studentswith opportunities to think about what they want their future
to look likeand to set goals
1 ScienceProcessSkills areapart of Magnussonet al. 's (1999) nineteachingorientations for
science. To put all skills into onecategory, I combinedScienceProcessSkills with other
skills in the Skill Development categoryinsteadof treatingprocessskills asaseparate
category.
122
2) Pedagogical Approaches
Approaches arebeliefs put into practice(Lam& Kember, 2006, p. 694).
Friedrichsen & Dana(2005, p. 228) used a related termcalled "means," which is
thepurposeful selection and useof curriculaand instructional and assessment
strategies. They arguedthat means arean essential component of representing
teaching orientations becausethey providea morecomplete pictureof an
individual's scienceteaching orientation. In this study, I adaptedthenine
pedagogical approaches described by Magnusson et al. (1999, pp. 100-101) and
Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2006, pp. 182-184), namely, 1) academic rigor,
2) activity-driven, 3) conceptual change, 4) didactic, 5) discovery/exploration, 6)
guidedinquiry, 7) inquiry, 8) project-based, and 9) process-oriented. I added 10)
didactic-with-application. Table4.2 lists the pedagogical approaches I usedfor
coding.
4.2.4.1.2 Instructional Methods, Representations, or Strategies
This element of PCK includes subject-specific or topic-specific strategies
(Magnusson et al., 1999), or themost useful forms of representationof topics,
analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations, and demonstrations used in
teaching (Shulman, 1986). Instructional methods arespecificways that teachers
useto createlearning environments and to specify thenatureof alessonor an
activity in which theteacher and thestudentswill be involved during class.
123
Table4.2. Pedagogical Approaches
1 ) Academic Rigor - Students arechallenged with difficult problems or activities. The
teacher uses laboratorywork and demonstrations to verify scienceconcepts by
demonstratingtherelationship between particular concepts and phenomena. Theactivity
often poses achallengeto students. Students maytry to solvetheproblems after they
haveseenan examplefromtheteacher or using their previous knowledgeor experience.
2) Activity-Driven- Students participatein ahands-onactivityor, if not, aregiven a
task towork individually or in groups to helpthemverify or discover aconcept. Hands-on
activities requirestudents to beactively involved and engagedwith objects, materials,
technology, or laboratory equipment/tools and manipulatethesefor thepurposeof
learning by experienceinstead of being passivelearners (Flick, 1993; Meinhard, 1992).
Theteacher gives students equipment/materials and directions/ procedures to complete
an activity. In most cases, theteacher tells students what theyaresupposedto seeor
learn. It must be noted herethat Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007) and Magnusson et al.,
(1999) included only "hands-on" activities in their activity-drivencategory, but I included
non-hands-on activities (e.g., thewholeclass classifying a list of items found in kitchen
cupboard; a pre-reading activity) in this category aswell.
3) Conceptual Change- Students arepressedfor their views about theworld and
consider theadequacy of alternativeexplanations. Theteacher facilitates dialogue,
discussion, or debatenecessaryto establish valid knowledgeclaims. Theteacher draws
out and assesses prior knowledgeof students beforepresenting a newconcept. An
activity is then usedto help students changetheir naiveconceptions. Theteacher
compares students' ideas beforeand after theactivity or lesson.
4) Didactic- Theteacher presents information generally through lecture, discussion,
demonstration, or films. Scientific models may beusedfor demonstration, illustration, or
verification. Questions aredirected to students to hold themaccountablefor knowing
facts. Thefocus is on delivery/transmission of content/facts.
5) Discovery/Exploration- This approach is student-centered. Students explorethe
world following their own interests and discover patterns of howtheworld works during
their explorations. A teacher might scaffold students' explorations dependingon students'
abilities (or lack thereof), and might ask students to sharetheir "discoveries" later in
class.
6) GuidedInquiry-Thislearning is community-centered. Teacher and students work
together in defining and investigating problems, determining patterns, inventing and
testingexplanations, and evaluatingtheutility and validity of their dataand theadequacy
of their conclusions. Theteacher scaffolds students' efforts to usethematerial and
intellectual tools of sciencetoward their independent useof them.
7) Inquiry- This approach is investigation-centered. Theteacher supports students in
defining and investigating problems, drawing conclusions, and assessingthevalidity of
knowledgefromtheir conclusions. Questions or problemsfor investigation comeeither
fromtheteacher or students. Students do most of thethinking andfigureout howto
investigatetheproblemwith theteacher's support and help with correcting explanations
or applications. Usually, students followthetraditional scientific method when attempting
to solvea problem(ask aquestion, do background research, makea hypothesis, create
an experiment to test a hypothesis, collect and analyzedata, drawconclusions, and
report findings).
124
Table4.2 Continued:
8) Project-Based- This approach is project-centered. Teacher andstudent activity
centers on a"driving question" that organizes concepts and principles and drives
activities within atopic of study. Students then do a project (their choiceor froma
selection of ideas/optionsfromtheteacher) individually or collectively in which they need
to do an investigation or research/collect information and developartifacts or products
(e.g., brochures, referencebooks, posters, or dioramas) that demonstratetheir emerging
understanding. Students might present their product to theclass or their work might get
posted on thewall.
9) Process- Theteacher introduces students to thethinking processes adopted by
scientists to acquirenewknowledge. Students engagein activities (e.g., laboratory
experiments, problemsolving) to develop integrated thinking skills. Examples of these
process skills includeobserving, classifying, measuring, inferring, andpredicting.
1 0) Didactic-With-Application- I consideredthis approachdifferentlyfromadidactic
approach. In additionto thefeatures of adidacticapproach, theteacher provides real
world examples or applications of aconcept or asks students to identify real world
scenarios in which they could apply what they learn.
AdaptedfromMagnussonet al., 1999, pp. 100-101
125
4.2.4.1.3 Subject Matter Knowledge
This element of PCK includes knowledgeof thenatureof science,
scientific processes, and relationships among various areas in science(Lee et
al., 2007). My study did not actually attempt to measurerespondents' knowledge
of subject matter (or approaches or methods). Instead, I asked respondentsto
describeor identify theskills to which they sought to exposetheir students. I
wanted to determinewhether any pattern existed between and/or among
pedagogical approaches, methods, goals, and beliefs about teaching science. I
assumed that student skills weredirectly related to or appropriatefor thecontent
being taught.
4.2.4.2Action Competence(AC)
Although studies in thepast 30years predominantly focusedon the
impacts of EE curriculaon students' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as
indicators of environmental stewardship, environmental literacy, or responsible
environmental behaviors, I looked beyond thesevariables and examinedthe
extent to which an EE curriculumshows characteristics of AC. This study used
theAC concept asan alternativeframework becauseI believethereis a needto
go beyond knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when assessingan EE
curriculum, albeit theseare important impact variables (Dimopoulos & Pantis,
2003; Hockett et al., 2004; Hsu, 2004; Orams, 1997). Table4.3 lists theelements
of AC I usedfor coding.
126
Table4.3. Elements of Action Competence
1 ) Knowledge/Insight- theliteraturesuggestedfour types, but I added an emergent
type(seeitem"e" below).
a) Effects- what kind of problemis it?
b) Causes- why do wehavethis problem?
c) ChangeStrategies- howcanwechangethings (personal, societal
levels)?
d) Alternatives andVisions- what can bedoneabout theproblemand
wheredo wewant to go?
e) General Awarenessof Environmental Problemsor Issues, or Importance
of Environmental Resources- I referredto this is as simply knowing that
an environmental problemor issueexists, but not knowing more(the
causes, effects, thedepth and rangeof a problemor issue, etc.)
2) Commitment- relates to promoting students' motivation, commitment, and drive
to get involved in solving environmental problems; extent that students areready
to act to realizetheir vision; includes understanding their own andothers' attitudes
and values toward issues.
3) Critical ThinkingandReflection- includes thinking about and assessingcomplex
and multiple causesof problems; social and political contexts of a problem, and
possiblesolutions; weighing pros and cons of an environmental issue; recognizing
different points of viewand challenging current practices and beliefs; and
questioning values, perceptions, conditions, and opinions (also by Kyburz-Graber,
1999, p. 416).
4) Visions- developingstudents' ideas, dreams, and/or perceptions about howthey
can improvetheir future lives and society.
5) Planning and Action Experiences- providing students with concrete, real- life
experiences in planning and acting on environmental issues or problems; students
aregiven opportunities to develop skills and confidenceto identify and solve
problems, set goals, gather information, communicate, and managetimeand
logistics to takeaction.
AdaptedfromJ ensen& Schnack, (1997), J ensen(2000a), Mogensen (1997), Eames et
al. (2006), andBreiting & Mogensen(1999)
127
4.2.5 DataAnalysis
4.2.5.1 QuantitativeAnalysis
I used SPSS version 15.0for all quantitativeanalyses. SeeTable B.1 for a
summary of Chi Squareresults. To test for non-responsebias - theextent to
which thosenon-respondingto surveys aresystematically different fromthe
whole population (Fowler J r., 2002, p. 41) - I compared percent occurrences in
agegroup, gender, education level, primary goals and beliefs about teaching
science, and instructional methods of thosewho did not respond to the mail
survey but respondedto thewebsurvey AND thosewho respondedto themail
survey. I also used Chi Squarestatistics to test for significant differences
(p<0.05) in agegroup, gender, and education level between respondents and
non-respondents.
I faced significant challengeswhen I attemptedto determinethe
representativeness of my survey respondents of the2006-2007 population of
MEECS training participants. No general dataregarding characteristicsof the
general MEECS population exist. Thus, I did not conduct any statistical tests to
comparemy survey respondents' results with MEECS training participants.
4.2.5.2 QualitativeAnalysis
I usedAtlas.ti version 5.2for content analysis to codethegoals and
beliefs of survey respondents aswell astheir pedagogical approaches,
instructional methods, and student skills. This technique involved coding and
categorizing qualitative responses based on explicit rules of coding (Krippendorff,
128
1980; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Weber, 1990). Survey respondentsweretheunits
of analysis and they werecharacterized through their goals and beliefs and
natureof instruction, whichweretheunits of observations. Recording units, or
thetexts that wereassigned acategory label (GAO, 1996), consistedof words,
phrases, or sentences.
Coding Process
To codefor pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, student skills,
and elements of AC, I usedthedefinitions shown in Tables4.2 (approaches) and
4.3 (AC). For instructional methods and skills, I also added newcategories as
they emerged. Prior to coding for goals and beliefs, I developed categories
(groups of words having similar meanings or connotations (Weber, 1990, p. 37))
fromtheworks of Magnusson et al. (1999) and Schwarz & Gwekwerere's (2007)
(seeTable4.1). Subsequently, I addedknowledge/awareness, attitude/behavior
change, and critical thinkingskills to thelist of categories becausetheseare
someof themorecommon measures of impacts of environmental education on
students. Thesetwelvecategories served as my initial list for coding.
During the rounds of coding, newcategories emerged, and I added these
to theinitial list (emergent coding). For example, skill developmentwas oneof
themost commonly cited goals and beliefs, so I madethis into aseparate
category. Also, I combined all types of skill development suchthat, in therevised
list of goals and beliefs categories (seebelow), "scienceprocess skills" and
"critical thinkingskills" werea part of skill development category instead of being
separatecategories. I treated several other emergent categories asseparate
129
categories. After reorganizing and regrouping categories, I developed afinal list
of goals and beliefs categories, which I used in thefinal coding and analysis of
responses in both mail andweb surveys. Thecategorieswith asteriskswerefrom
Magnusson etal. (1999).
For thefirst round of coding, I read responses twice, and on thethird time,
I started coding recording units (word, phrase, sentence, or groups of these) by
examining both manifest and latent contents of goals/beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills of web survey respondents
and then of mail survey respondents. Manifest content is thevisible, surface
content, and latent content is theunderlying meaning (Babbie, 1992). According
to Babbie (1992), codingfor both increases reliability and validity. Moreover,
repeatingthecoding process threetimes for eachquestion allowed for checking
mistakes and to ensurethat datawerecoded thesameway in all three rounds,
thereby increasing intra-rater reliability (Weber, 1990). Then I read responses
again twiceand coded for emergent categories, that is, thosenot previously on
thelist. I added any newcategories to thegrowing list until no newcategories
wereidentified.
After codingfor goals and beliefs, I assignedthemto thefive elements of
AC, namely, knowledge/insight, commitment, visions, critical thinkingand
reflection, andplanningandactionexperiences, using aset of criteria (see
Appendix C.1) that I developed basedon theworks of Breiting & Mogensen
(1999), J ensen& Schnack (1997), J ensen (2000), Mogensen (1997), Eames et
al. (2006), Barrett (2006), Fien & Skoien (2002), and Wals (1994). Thus, when
130
coding I asked, "What elements of AC does each of thegoals and beliefs
represent or embody?" Thedecision on whether a primary goal or belief
represents or embodiesAC depended on howstrongly it matched, represented,
or embodied thecharacteristicsof AC that I compiled fromtheliterature (see
Appendix C.1).
I assigned multiplecodesto someresponses becausethey had multiple
meanings. For example,
Respondent #9, Water Quality webgroup:
"To provideasafeinclusiveenvironment that inspires lifelonglearners"
was coded as both develop/instill positiveattitudes toward
learning/education (ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR CHANGE) and provide/create
fun/safelearning environment (LEARNING).
For responses in which morethan onegoal/belief, approach, method, skill,
or AC element was described, I counted eachgoal/belief, approach, method,
skill, or AC element separately if each had adifferent context, even if, in some
instances, I assignedthemthesamecode; if thegoal/belief, approach, method,
skill, or AC element was in thesamecontext, I counted themasoneinstance.
For example,
Respondent #7, Ecosystemand Biodiversity webgroup:
"/ want children to beequippedto understandtheworldtheylivein, to
haveknowledgeandresources that will help themto makeresponsiblelife
choices, andto understandhowinterdependent weare- to eachother,
andto our environment. I want to helpthemacquirethetools theyneed-
reading, writing, math concepts, knowledgeof theworldandenvironment
theylivein."
131
Coding:
"/ want childrento beequippedto understandtheworldtheylivein... " =
Facilitate understanding of theworldin general (onecontext) ->counted
asoneinstance
"...to understandhowinterdependent weare- to eachother, andto our
environment." =Facilitate understanding of connection/interdependence
betweenpeopleandbetweenpeopleandtheenvironment (another
context) ->counted as another instance
"...to haveknowledgeandresources... knowledgeof theworldand
environment theylivein."=Help students to acquireknowledgeor
awareness ->counted asoneinstancebecausethey had thesame
context (knowledgeof theworld and environment)
that will helpthemto makeresponsiblelife choices =helpstudents make
responsible/good/informed choices ->counted asoneinstance
/ want to helpthemacquirethetools theyneed- reading, writing, math
concepts =developacademic skills ->counted asoneinstance
Thus, fromthis single response, I assigned4 different codes, but I
counted 5 instances.
Specific Nuances in Coding
In codingfor goals and beliefs, I did not makeany distinction between
what I call "primary" goal and "secondary" or the"recipient" goal, asdescribed in
theexamplebelow.
"...to haveknowledgeandresources that will helpthemto make
responsiblelife choices..."
132
I call "to have knowledgeand resources..." astheprimary goal becausethe
respondent thought knowledgeand resources could helpstudents "make
responsiblelife choices," agoal in itself but presumably could not beachieved
without theprimary goal. In theanalysis, however, I coded both goals and
counted themseparately no matter their "order of importance." I followed the
samerulethroughout thecoding process.
In many cases, I based my codingfor pedagogical approaches on the
methods that therespondent provided, with very little or no description about how
or why themethodwas used. Consequently, I went with what theliteraturesaid
weremethods morecommonly associatedwith certain pedagogical approaches.
Additionally, I used multi-coding to makesurethat not one particular pedagogical
approachwas "favored."
Table4.4 showsthedatasources I usedfor coding goals and beliefs,
approaches, methods, student skills, and AC aswell asthetotal number of
instances and inconsistencies coded. During thelast round of coding, I went
back and reread theparts where I found theinconsistencies and recoded until all
of my coding matched. After coding, I calculated thetotal frequencies and
percent occurrencesfor eachgoal/belief, approach, method, skill, and element of
AC in themail and in theweb surveys.
133
CO
?
?
e
f
4-
CO
CO
C
O
?
_c
TJ
C
co
CO
f
?
C
en
-?
CO
C
?
.a
E
?
CO
f
L-
f
^-
L)-
O
CO
_f
-Q
55
CC
>
C
?3
O
O
CO
f
O
L-
D
O
co
CO
-?
co
Q
^t D)
F .
-Q 'S
(A
F
??
E i ?
*- ?
C
m
00
?,
m
co
CN
s>
?
f
* 'S
? ?
L. ?
Z(O
(0
C
CN
00
00
??
m
00
CN CN
e
g
W
0)
3
s
>.
f
Z
3
(0
(?
f
L.
F
_c
M-
O
_f
.Q
.2
'C
(D
>
J C
?
co
a>
en
co
p
o
L^
co
3
O
>>
?
L-
?
co
_f
"cd
Cu
XJ
C
co
J 2
co
o
O
T
.92
"f
J O
l_
O
O
J O
CO
?
J O
O
e
!e
U
CO
B
J j
C
3
O
>s
O
XJ
3
O
>s
4
O
O)
L.
to
e
05
jO
'?-
?
CO
CD
xj
3
O
>^
8-2
o w
X .=
UJ
f
je
O
co
o
l_
Q.
D.
<
CO
?
's?
o
CJ )
co
XJ
CD
CL
3
O
>
O
CD
L.
3
-t'
co
C
CD
CD
J O
*L-
O
</)
f
XJ
3
O
2?
ss
O (?
X .E
co
e
o
*
3
"Sj
e
L-
F
J =
?
co
F
co
w
co
"co
o
OJ
ir
co
E
3
O
>.
F
L-
m
co
j=
5
CZ)
-t'
C
f
XJ
co
C^-
J 2
f
"f
J O
?-
?
O
>2
"3
O
J O
co
f
J O
3
O
J =
(?
OJ
C
J =
O
co
?
C
3
O
O
XJ
3
O
?
O
f
CO
C
f
N
?-
_F
"?
co
L.
CO
J =
O
f
J O
*L-
O
(?
f
XJ
3
O
8 -J S
O (?
X .E
L-
F
J =
O
co
f
co
w
co
"co
o
OJ
co
E
3
O
"25
f
o
e
f
f
a.
E
?
?
C
O
"G
<
134
4.3 RESULTS
4.3.1 Characteristics of Survey Respondents
Onehundred thirty one MEECS training participants responded to the
survey (28.4%) (seeTable4.5). Water Quality had the highest number of
combined respondents (47.3%), even thoughthis Unit had only thethird largest
number of trained individuals across Units in 2006-2007. Thedifferencein
distribution of respondents across Units between mail andwebsurveyswas
significant X2 (4, N =131) =25.53, ? <0.05.
Comparison between respondents and non-respondents showed
significant differences in agegroup (X2 (4, N =52) =18.96, ? <0.05), gender (X2 (1,
N =52) =6.23, ? <0.05), and education level (X2 (2, N =52) =22.90, ? <0.05) (see
TableA.1). Non-respondents had 19.4% moreindividuals younger than40years
old, 32%fewer individuals 40through 59years old, and 13% more individuals 60
years old or older. In other words, respondentsconsisted moreof middle-aged
individuals (40 through 59 years old) whereas non-respondents consisted more
of younger (up to 39years old) andolder (60 years and beyond). Therewere7%
more malenon-respondents. Non-respondents had 9%fewer graduatedegree
holders compared to respondents.
Comparison between respondents and non-respondents' primary goals or
beliefs about teaching showed percent differences between respondents and
non-respondents ranged from0.2to 8.7 (seeTableA.2). As with other
comparisons in this chapter, I considered a 10%differenceassubstantial in
caseswhereastatistical test was not performed. I concluded that there is no
135
Substantivedifferencebetween respondents and non-respondents in terms of
primary goals or beliefs. In terms of instructional methods between respondents
and non-respondents, percent differences rangedfrom0.6to 6.8, also lessthan
10%differenceand therefore not considered substantial (seeTableA.3). Thus,
findings revealed that eventhough respondents and non-respondentswere
different in terms of age, gender and education level, thedifferences in their
primary goals or beliefs about teaching and their instructional methods werenot
substantial enough (lessthan 10%difference) to concludethat they were
systematically different. Thus, I concluded that therespondentswere
representativeof the MEECS training participants of 2006-2007.
About 90%of respondents taught at public schools. As with other
variables above, no datawereavailablefor school typewhere MEECS
participants taught, but thesefindings wereconsistent with Michigan K-12
schools data; that is, a majority of Michigan's K-12 schools arealso public
(91.4%). Thedifferencein distribution of school typeamong respondents in the
mail and theweb surveyswas not significant X2 (6, N =131) =2.65, ? >0.05.
About 68%of combined respondentswerewomen. Difference in
distribution of women and men betweenthemail and theweb surveyswas not
significant X2 (1 , N =1 1 5) =0.06, ? >0.05. About 37%of combined respondents
were50 through 59years old (n=115). Difference in agedistribution of
respondents betweenthemail and theweb surveys was not significant X2 (5, N =
115) =6.75, ? >0.05. About 92%of combined respondents had agraduate
136
degree(n=111). Difference in distribution of education level among respondents
in themail and theweb surveys was not significant X2 (2, N =1 1 1 ) =3.34, ? >0.05.
Seventy-eight percent of combined respondents (n=131) taught Science,
but this percentagealso includes thosewho taught other subjects. Difference in
distribution of respondents teaching sciencein themail and thewebsurveys was
not significant X2 (1 , N =1 31) =3.50, ? >0.05. Eighty-seven percent of combined
respondents taught 9th through 12th grade, but this percentagealso includes
thosewho taught also in other gradelevels. Differences in distribution of
respondents teaching at different gradelevels between themail and theweb
surveyswere not significant, except in the9th gradelevel X2 (1, N =131) =4.51, ?
<0.05. About 66%of combined respondentsweretrained in theWater Quality
Unit, but this percentagealso includes thosewhoweretrained in other units.
Difference in distribution of respondentstrained in Water Quality Unit between
themail and web surveyswas not significant X2 (1, N = 131) =2.86, ? >0.05.
Table4.5. Survey ResponseRates
Mail Survey
Sent Received
Response
Rate(%)
1st batch (10/23/07)
98
29 29.6
2nd batch
(11/10/07)
31
22.6
Total
129 36 27.9
WebSurvey
Sent
Received
(partial/complete)
Undeliverable
ResponseRate(%)
WATER group
98
33 (4/29)
15
(33/83HOO =39.8%
AIR group
ECO and BIO group
40
9 (3/6)
10
(9/30H00=30%
LAND USE group
173
33 (5/28)
44
(33/129)*100 =25.6%
27
3 (0/3)
(3/22HOO =13.6%
ENERGY group
83
17(3/14)
15
(17/68)*100 =25%
Total 421
95(15/80)
89
(95/332HOO =28.6%
Combined Sent
Received
ResponseRate(%)
Mail Survey
129
36
Web Survey
Total
332
461
95
131
27.5 27.9
72.5
100
28.6
28.4
137
4.3.2 Primary Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science
Amongweb survey respondents, themost prevalent categories of goals
and beliefs about teaching sciencewereattitude/behavior change(18.5%, 67
instances), student development (15.5%, 56 instances), skill development (13%,
47 instances), and global/real worldconnections (1 1 .9%, 43 instances) (see
Table4.6). In themail survey, the most prevalent categories of goals and beliefs
wereattitude/behavior change(16.4%, 18 instances), global/real world
connections (14.5%, 16 instances), social reform/goodcitizenship (1 1 .8%, 13
instances), and skill development (10.9%, 12 instances). Student development
gatheredonly 1.8% of instances in themail survey. Combining instancesfrom
mail and websurveys, thefour most prevalent goals and beliefs categorieswere
attitude/behavior change(18%), skill development (12.5%), global/real world
connections(12.5%), and student development (12.2%). Project-based goals
and beliefs did not appear in any of the responsesto either survey.
4.3.3Action Competence
Of the472 instances of primary goals and beliefs in thesurveys (mail and
webcombined), 350 (74.2%) represented AC asawhole (not looking at
individual elements of AC) (seeTable4.7). Of the74.2%, thetopfive highest
appearances of AC werethefollowing: 21.4%of AC instanceswerefound in the
global/real worldconnectionscategoryof goals and beliefs, 17.4% in thesocial
reform/goodcitizenshipcategory, 17.4% in thestudent development category,
and 12.7%in thelearningcategory. In terms of occurrenceof individual elements
138
ofAC, commitmentwas mentioned the most (45.2%), followed by planningand
action experiences (39.3%), critical thinkingandreflection (8.7%), knowledge/
insight (5.9%), and visions (0.9%) (seeTable4.8).
139
(?
CD
?
f
?3
C
ce
'co
?
0)
?
e
?
?
?
e
Ic
?
CO
?
H
O
X)
CO
42
?
"55
CQ
s
e
CO
CO
O
CD
"?
?-
a)
J C
?
CO
CD
CO
_0)
CO
H
s
f
e
!?
e
? ^J
s;
??
f Ii
?
e
p
"d
?
>
f
?
?
V)
J 3
f
?
Il
ct.
F a>
F ~*
UL ?
?
E^
S3
F -"
LL O
es
C
C
3
gd
S3
F ~"
U. O
O <?
F g
g ?
s
e
</> ?
Sl
s>?
. (?
!2 OK
f e
.8
*-
O 3
(O O
f ja
?
&">
f F
+
R] f
O J 3
OO
O)
co
CO
C
.O
O
OO
O
e
OO
OO
3
s?
?
<*
(D
_
? I
D)
.C
e
(D
(D
-J
CM
C
F
e
CD
Q
CO
O)
co
-e
OO
C
CD
.N
Q
?
O
O
co
CM
C
CD
E
CD
Q
C
CO
CM
CO
00
CM
CD
CO
(0
O
O)
f
C f
ja
2-O
O C
?- re
(0
*-
C
CD
s
e
?
Q.
00
(D
0)
J O
E
e
140
CD
C
?
^-
CD
Q.
E
o
O
e
o
"4f
<
"4
C
CD
CO
CD
i~
Q.
CD
(T
CD
C
CD
O
CO
O
C
Ic
o
co
?
co
s
f
e
!5
e
o
?
.a
f
?
C
re
"d
<
? co
?
f
V)
f
?
e
p
CM CN ??
e ?
->
??
m
II
si
coi
F
CN CO
co
ZJ
O
J D
CC
42
CD
"?
CQ
T3
C
co
co
O
CD
"co
I
CD
J Z
co
CD
N-
_D
X)
co
CD
co
II
f
t
(O
re
<
CO
f
.Q
il
CM
<f> 3
O
re
re .0)
f
O F
?
F ?
e C
O re
i
4-1 re
re o
? ?)
CD
en
C
co
e
O
v_
.O
S
co
-e
CD
co
D)
C
co
O
-Q
ri\ ^*
e
.O
co
e
I
o
O
co
co
ih
CO
co
CN
co
CN
O)
m co
CN
io
-2
CD O
D)
C
e
CO
f
t
a- -s
O) C
ê
3 O
??
m
co
O) O)
e
.O
P>
3
s-
?
Cl)
? .e
co
CN
co
co
co
fe
m
co CO
co
CN CN
-SJ
e
CO
C
Q)
.N
I
Q)
oc
"co
C
o
CO
C
l
op-g
- C
C .O
O) -e
T3 .to
3 Q)
co ce
O
O
O
O
LO
co
co
N-
CN
O
O
CN
N-
Il
O
O
CN
N-
O
IO
CO
IO
N-
Il
O
O
CN
co
0
CO
N-
CN
N-
O
D
C
re
u>
* S
s,
i_ O)
J 2 O
E ">
DJ 3 F
re
I a,
E .O.
re js .2
<
O
e
Q)
?
C
O
CL
co
?
a>
.O
E
141
C
g
<
M
O
?
"e
q
E
_a>
LU
te
g
>
_c
"4
C
CD
CO
Cl)
i_
Cl
(1)
cu
O
C
CD
O
co
D)
C
!e
O
CC
CD
3
O
J D
CO
2
"55
OQ
-a
e
co
J O
CC
O
O
"co
?-
?
-C
O
CC
I o
co o
*t "H)
_0) Q-
- ^
&8
O) O
.E
e<
?
i! I
.-e e S ?
,_ ._ re
O ^
*- DC
V)
C
O
d)
C
Q)
e
e
o
o
f
O) *4
?
5 2
?
C
<(4) ?
f
5
re
?
J 2
f
re
.a
a
5
re
?
5
C
O
O
<
>_ f
??
|5
C f
F Q.
Il
lu ?
?
?? V)
3^ f
J O
O ?
? C
CO
f
?
e
re
+
(A
C
F
E
Z
_
? O)
>.?
Eo
O) (
.C f
O **
re "3
0> ?
+ ?
*. J =
O (Q
(? J 2
f 'S
f
8 -? .2
co
U re io
co
CNJ
CN
CN
00
CD
C
co
e
O
"co
J
?
e
O
O
co
co
in
co
CN
CT)
in
73
sii
co
co
y-S
co
in
CN
co
co CN
CO
m O)
CN
IT)
CN
CD
co
O)
co
col co
in
O
CN
CO
F
O
C
3 =H
co ?
.
- 3
O CO
.Q OJ
?
OO
co
co
*
5
co
CT)
co
co
O
OO
co
in
co
O)
io
Oj.=
?
E
.f
?
OO
to
?
cu
W
f
?
e
CO
?>
C
?
<
?
O
"d
>
f
CO
CD
?
CO
f
?
C
co
CO
O
<
?
O
%
Io
?
I-
142
The most prevalent pedagogical approachesof combined mail and web
respondentswereactivity-driven (32%), discovery/exploration (18.1%), didactic
(14.1%), project-based(12.1%), andprocess-oriented(1 1 .6%) (seeTable4.9,
4th column in bold text). Percent occurrencefor each approachwas similar
betweenthemail and websurvey respondents.
Table4.9. Pedagogical Approaches Cited by Teachers
Pedagogical Approaches
Mail %of
instances
Web %of
instances
M+Wcombined%of
instances
Academic Rigor
0.6 0.4
Activity-Driven
30.9 32.5 32.0
Conceptual Change
0.7 2.6 2.1
Didactic
13.7 14.3 14.1
Didactic-With-Application
0.7 1.5
1.2
Discovery/Exploration
17.3 18.4 18.1
GuidedInquiry
2.2
2.0 2.1
Inquiry
7.2
5.8 6.2
Process-Oriented
13.7
10.8 11.6
Project-Based
13.7
11.4 12.1
TOTAL %
100.0 100.0 100.0
4.3.5 Instructional Methods
Themost prevalent instructional methods of combined mail and web
respondentswerehands-onactivity (10.9%) and cooperativelearning/group work
(10%) (seeTable4.10, 4th column in bold text). Percent occurrencefor each
methodwas similar betweenthemail and web survey respondents.
143
Table4.10. Most Prevalent lnstructiona
Methods of Teachers
Instructional Methods
Mail %of
instances
Web%of
instances
M+W combined %of
instances
CooperativeLearning/Group
Work
10.1 9.8
10.0
ExperimentsandLabs
8.3 6.2
6.8
FieldTrips
5.9 5.7
5.8
Hands-onActivity
10.7 11.0
10.9
Useof Technology
5.3 6.2
6.0
4.3.6 Student Skills
Themost prevalent student skills foci of combined mail and survey
respondentswerecritical thinking/think on their own/analytical/evaluation
(26.6%), investigation/research/fielddatacollection (15.6%), andproblemsolving
(10.2%) (seeTable4.11, 4th column in bold text). Mail survey respondents cited
investigation/research/fielddatacollection considerably moreoften thanweb
survey respondents, but thelatter cited decisionmakingandproblemsolving
skills considerably morethantheformer.
Table4.11 . Most Prevalent Student Skills Foci of Teachers
Student skills
Mail %of
instances
Web %of
instances
M+Wcombined %
of instances
Critical Thinking/Think On Their Own/
Analytical/EvaluationSkills
22.2 28.3
26.6
Decision Making
2.8
12.0 9.4
ProblemSolving
5.6
12.0 10.2
Investigation/Research/FieldData
Collection
25.0 12.0 15.6
Social Skills/Communicating (Ability to
Explain, Describe)
8.3
6.5 7.0
144
4.4 FURTHER INTERPRETATION OF AND REFLECTION ON RESULTS
4.4.1 Survey Respondents
4.4.1.1 Teaching Orientations- Goals andBeliefs
Theteaching orientations (goals and beliefs) suggested in theliterature
(Magnusson et al., 1999) did not exactly correspondwith thereported categories
of goals and beliefs of respondents; I found fourteen other categories in this
study (seeTableB.2 for acompletelist of categories). This finding is similar to
that of Friedrichsen & Dana (2005), whofound that teachers' teaching
orientations (goals and approaches in this study) werecomplex, and were
broader in scopethanthosedescribed in theliterature.
Four categories of goals and beliefs were most prevalent -
attitude/behavior change, skill development, global/real worldconnections, and
student development (seeTable4.6). This possibly suggests that teachers held
multiple levels of categories of goals and beliefs, which alsowasfound by
Magnusson etal. (1999) and Friedrichsen & Dana(2000). This hierarchy of goals
and beliefs seemsconsistent with thepivotal position that Grossman (1990)
ascribedto goals and beliefs within thePCK domain of teacher knowledge.
Grossman suggestedthat "conceptions of purposesfor teaching subject matter"
- which I call "goals and beliefs" - influencetheother components of PCK and, in
turn, arebeing influenced by theother components aswell (Grossman, 1990
cited in Friedrichsen & Dana, 2000).
It is not knownwhy thesefour categorieswere more prevalent than the
others, but I would surmisethey may havebeen associatedwith the(1) teachers'
145
teaching and learning experiences (past and current) such asthe kinds of
teachers they worked with in thepast, theeducational systems orientation of the
school they attended, or theprofessional development exposure; (2) thecontexts
of theschoolswherethey taught; and (3) their personal background (Van Driel et
al. 2001), among other things that formthecontext for theteachers at thetimeof
thestudy. I emphasized at thetimeof thestudyfollowing Friedrichsen & Dana's
(2000) finding that goals and beliefs changeover time.
4.4.1.2 Teaching Orientations- Pedagogical Approaches
Therealso appearedto beahierarchy in theuseof pedagogical
approaches by respondents. Activity-driven, discovery/exploration, didactic,
project-based, andprocess-orientedapproacheswere moreprevalent than
others. I examined thecongruence between goals and beliefs and pedagogical
approaches becausegoals and beliefs arebelievedto influenceelements of PCK
(Grossman, 1990). For example, project-basedgoals and beliefs werenot
representedwhen respondentswereasked about their goals and beliefs, but in
their description of their pedagogical approaches, respondents describedproject-
basedapproaches (12.1%) (seeTable4.12). This suggeststhat respondents'
pedagogical approaches do not always match their goals and beliefs about
teaching. Furthermore, this finding implies that, unlikewhat Grossman (1990)
suggested, goals and beliefs do not always guideteachers' decision on teaching
approaches. This inconsistency between espoused beliefs and reported teaching
approaches alsowas observed by Lim& Chai (2008) in their study of how
146
pedagogical beliefs of six primary school teachers in Singaporeaffect the
planning and conduct of their computer-mediated lessons.
I also observedweak congruencein theskill development category of
goals and beliefs (12.5%), which was thesecond most prevalent category in the
surveys. Based on thegoals within this category (seeTableB.2) and the nature
of guidedinquiryand inquiry pedagogical approaches, as referred to in this
study, it appears that skill development probably was embodied to acertain
extent in theguidedinquiry, inquiry, and/or process-orientedpedagogical
approaches. However, findings showed that guidedinquiryand inquiry
approaches did not receivemention asfrequently asprocess-oriented(1 1 .6%) or
theother approaches (seeTable4.12). Similarly, weak congruencewas
observed in thedidactic category of goals and beliefs and thedidactic
pedagogical approach. Thedidactic pedagogical approachwas thethird most
prevalent (14.1%), but didactic goals and beliefs weremuch less prevalent
(4.4%) (seeTable4.12).
147
Table4.12. IncongruenceBetween Pedagogical Approaches and Goals and
Beliefs
Pedagogical
Approaches
M+W
combined%
of instances
Goalsand beliefs
%of
instances
AcademicRigor
0.4
Attitude/Behavior Change
18.0 1st
Activity-Driven
32.0 1st
Global/Real World
Connections
12.52nd
Conceptual Change
2.1
Improvement of Pedagogy
4.2
Didactic 14.1 3rd
KnowledgeAcquisition
3.8
Didactic-With-
Application
1.2
Learning
7.2
18.1 2nd
Skill Development
12.52nd
GuidedInquiry
2.1 weak
Social Reform/Good
Citizenship
9.7
Inquiry
6.2weak
Student Development
12.33rd
Process-Oriented
11.6 5th Didactic
4.4weak
Project-Based
12.1 4th
No Project-basedgoals and beliefs
Notes on congruence/incongruence:
1 ) Project-basedgoals and beliefs wereabsent, but project-basedapproacheswere
present, thereforetherewas incongruence
2) Skill development goal and belief was strong (second most prevalent), but guided
inquiryand inquiryapproaches, which may embody skill development, wereweak.
3) Didactic goal and belief was weak, but didactic approachwas strong (third most prevalent)
In contrast to thecasesof incongruenceabove, it appears that global/real
worldconnections (second most represented category of goals and beliefs) may
beembodied to someextent in theactivity-driven, discovery/exploration, and
process-orientedpedagogical approaches. Thesethreeapproachesoccurred in
thefive most prevalent approaches of respondents. This appears consistent with
Grossman etal. (1989) and Richardson's (1996) suggestionthat teachers' beliefs
about subject matter influence howthey think about their content and their
classroompractice.
Thevariability in congruenceof pedagogical approaches to goals and
beliefs and viceversa indicates that factors other than goals and beliefs affect
148
theapproaches that teachers usefor instruction. This was also suggested by Lim
& Chai (2008) and Friedrichsen & Dana(2005). Furthermore, thesefactors may
berelated to immediate needs in theclassroom, such as MEAP test preparation
and lack of time, lack of resources (e.g., funding, content materials, lab
equipment and tools), curriculumrequirements, skills and abilities of students
and howthey learn, and political and/or structural barriers in theschool (see
Table4.13).
Table4.13. Factors That May InfluenceTeachers' Goals and Beliefs about
Teaching
Respondent 106, Mai! surveygroup:
"Lack ottimein classes- executeandevaluation - oftenshort; lack of timeto fullyprepare;
"not onthehigh stakestest"...whybother (thoughts of others I haveheard)."
Respondent 174, Mail survey group:
"Right nowI amusing water qualityandlanduseunits in myclassroom. Nextyear
[meaning in 2008], when theMichigan GLCEs for fifth gradesciencechange, I don't know
if I'll beableto teachenvironmental educationanymore. I feel verystronglyabout
educators' responsibilityto teachchildren to lovetheEarth andtakecareof it. I feel
environmental education shouldbegin at theearlyelementarylevel. Unfortunately, unless
it is mandatedbythestate, it won't happen. Teachers (thosewho believein it) cannot
possiblygo abovetheir alreadybloatedcurriculumto teach "extra" topics. Environmental
educationshouldnot beextra! It shouldbecore. HowcanI helpmakethis happen?"
"My studentshavedifficultyreading. Also funding (alack thereof) isat acritical point. Field
tripshavebeencut, hands-ondisposableitems aredifficult to replace. "
"/ hateto admit it, but with 30+studentsin aclass, and5-7of themspecial ed, I do lots of
notes, review, andsmall group work. I do lesslabs than I wouldlike, but materials, time,
andpatiencearein short supply."
In Lam& Kember's (2006) examination of therelationship between
conceptions (beliefs) of teaching and approaches to teaching, they found that
when there is limited contextual influenceon theway teachersteach, their
149
approachesto teachingfollow logically fromtheir conceptions of teaching.
However, asthecontextual influence increases, this startsto influencetheways
in which teachers teach; hence, weseethat theapproaches do not followthe
beliefs. It appears that, in my study, contextual influences may play arole in the
survey respondents' pedagogical approaches. Lim& Chai's (2008) findings
support Lam& Kember's (2006); they alsofound that teachers' mindset of
teaching for tests (e.g., MEAP tests) hinders themfromteaching based on their
beliefs.
4.4.1.3Instructional Methods
Looking at specific individual instructional methods, it could bearguedthat
thefive most prevalent methods of respondents (hands-onactivity, cooperative
learning/group work, experimentsandlabs, useof technology, and fieldtrips)
(seeTable4.16) arecongruent with theactivity-driven pedagogical approach,
which wastheir most prevalent approach. Fieldtripsalso could beseen as
congruent with thediscovery/exploration pedagogical approach, alongwith
instructional methods such as naturewalks, hikes, and useof theoutsideasthe
classroom. Thelatter method, however, was not oneof the most prevalent
methods of respondents (4.4%).
Experimentsandlabs usually areemployed in aprocess-oriented
approach (fifth most prevalent in thesurveys), but it may also beusedfor
discovery/explorationapproach (second most prevalent in thesurveys) (Ormrod,
1995). In addition to being used in an activity-driven approach, cooperative
150
learning/group work is alsotypically used in aproject-basedapproach (fourth
most prevalent in thesurveys). Interestingly, therewas very little occurrenceof
thedidactic questions instructional method in thesurveys (only 1%), eventhough
didactic learning was thethird most prevalent pedagogical approach. This may
bebecausedidactic questionsarejust oneof afewother methods that could be
used in conjunction with adidactic approach; lecturesand demonstrationscan be
used aswell (Magnusson et al., 1999).
Thesefindings provideevidencethat an instructional method can beused
in morethan onepedagogical approach, and that an approach can use
instructional methods that other approaches also use. Similarly, apedagogical
approach can represent morethan onecategory of goals and beliefs, or a
category of goals and beliefs can beembodied in morethan one pedagogical
approach. Magnusson etal. (1999) noted similar patterns and explained that it is
not theuseof a particular strategy but thepurposeof employing it that
distinguishes ateacher's orientation to teaching science(Magnusson et al.,
1999, p. 97).
4.4.1.4Student Skills
Someof theskills cited by respondents appear to beassociatedwith
particular pedagogical approaches. For example, it may bearguedthat critical
thinking, decisionmaking, problemsolving, investigation/researchskills (see
Table4.17) arerelated to aprocess-orientedapproach, which was oneof thefive
most prevalent pedagogical approaches of survey respondents (seeTable4.9).
151
Investigation/research andproblemsolvingskills also may be related to guided
inquiry, inquiry, and/or project-basedapproaches. Critical thinkingskills may be
associatedwith conceptual change, guidedinquiry, and/or inquiry approaches.
Someskills may beassociatedwith certain methods. For example, social
skills may be related to cooperativelearning/group work methods, or
investigation/research andproblemsolvingskills may berelated to experiments
andlabs instructional method. As with pedagogical approaches and instructional
methods, someskills areassociatedwith morethan oneinstructional method or
pedagogical approach. This is not surprising becauseexperiencetells us that
thereareteacherswho usedifferent approaches or methods to developa
particular skill in students.
Thefive most prevalent student skills foci found in this study all were
found by Eames etal. (2006) to beimportant in enhancingAC; critical thinking,
problemsolving, and decisionmakingoccurred repeatedly in Eames et al. 's
(2006) identification of factors that influencedevelopment or enhancement of AC
in students. Thus, in my study, respondents' attempts at exposingtheir students
to theseskills may increaseteachers' capacity to developstudents' AC.
4.4.1.5Elementsof Action Competence(AC)
Results of AC fromsurveys revealed an uneven distribution of occurrence
of individual elements of AC - 45.2%was commitment and 39.3%wasplanning
andactionexperiences, whiletheother elements appeared lessthan 10% of all
theinstances of AC (seeTable4.8). This finding may imply that thereis uneven
152
useofAC elements in theclassroom. In addition, this uneven distribution was
expected, becauseit was clear during theanalysisthat not all of thegoals and
beliefs of respondents about teaching espousedAC. Consequently, not all
categories of goals and beliefs werecongruent with characteristics of AC.
4.4.2 Survey RespondentsversusWater Quality Unit
4.4.2.1 Pedagogical Approaches
I compared pedagogical approaches cited by respondents to thosefound
in theWater Quality Unit. An exampleof similarity wasthat activity-driven (most
prevalent), didactic (third most prevalent), and process-oriented(fifth most
prevalent) pedagogical approacheswerementioned in thesamefrequency as
both datasources (seeTable4.15). Academic rigor, guidedinquiryand inquiry
werecited in thesurveys, but they wereless prevalent compared with theother
approaches; thesethreeapproacheswereabsent in theWater Quality Unit.
In terms of thedifferences observed, didactic-with-applicationand
conceptual changeapproacheswerementioned less frequently in thesurveys
than in theWater Quality Unit; discovery/explorationwas thesecond most
prevalent approach in thesurveys but was absent in theWater Quality Unit.
Thesesimilarities and differences suggest that teachers adopt approaches other
than thoseused or suggested in the EE curriculum(Water Quality Unit), probably
based on their students' needs, availableresources, and curriculum
requirements, among many other factors (seeTable4.14).
153
Table4.14. Factors That May InfluenceTeachers' Selection and Useof
Respondent 128, Mail Group:
"My teachingstyleis amixtureof all youmentionedabove. I believehands-onand
visual things aremoreimportant thannotes/facts. It needsto befun for students to
learn. Major things I do include: "Comprehension Coaches" to encouragekids to
knowhowto readinformational texts, hands-onmini-labs andfull labs to getkids
excitedabout thematerial andimmersedin deepthinking/questioningof what is
reallyhappeningwith eachconcept; outdoor explorationsin our own community to
further connect lessonsto theirpersonal lives; groupprojects to encourageteam
work andfurther analysisof lessonsandbigideas; lots of visual aides to help
studentsbetter understandEarth'sprocesses..."
"/ believethat I showabalanceof hands-onexperiencesas well asteaching
studentsfactsabout thesubject. As budgetsget tighter it hasbeenmoredifficult to
getstudentsoutdoors."
"/ hateto admit it, but with 30+studentsin aclass, and5-7of themspecial ed, I do
lots of notes, review, andsmall group work. I do lesslabs than I wouldlike, but
materials, time, andpatiencearein short supply. I usePowerPointprojects, flip
books, groupstudying, small labs, lotsof personal experiencesharing(both from
meandthestudents)."
"...too manystandards/requirements to givestudentsastrongbase. Basically, I
wouldlike to haveour current GLCEs identifiedandremain consistent. Manygaps
in curriculumcanoccur when theseareconstantlychanging. "
In theWater Quality Unit, aconnectionwasfound between activity-driven
andplanningandactionexperiences. A similar connectionwasfound in the
surveys- theactivity-driven approachwasthe most prevalent approach and
planningandactionexperienceswerethesecond most prevalent element of AC,
aclosesecondto commitment.
154
Table4.15. Comparing Pedagogical Approaches of Survey Respondents
and theApproaches Included in theWater Quality Unit
MEECS participants'
survey %of instances
MEECS Water Quality
Unit %of instances
Academic Rigor
0.4
Process-Oriented 11.6 5th
12.55th
Activity-Driven
32.0 1st
38.51st
18.1 2nd
Project-Based
12.1 4th 2.9
Conceptual Change
2.1 13.54th
Inquiry
6.2
GuidedInquiry
2.1
Didactic
14.1 3rd 14.43rd
1.2 18.32nd
TOTAL
100.0 100.0
Thedistribution of instructional methods in thesurveyswasvery different
fromwhat wasfound in theWater Quality Unit. Didactic questionswas
proportionately less prevalent (only 1 %) of all themethods that werecited by
survey respondents, but this method clearly dominated theWater Quality Unit
(32%) (seeTable4.16). Hands-onactivitywas themost prevalent method cited
by therespondents (10.9%), but it appeared belowthefive most prevalent
methods (only 2%) in theWater Quality Unit. Cooperativelearning/group work
wasthesecond most prevalent (10%) of all themethods cited by respondents,
but it appeared belowthefive most prevalent methods (2.5%) in theWater
Quality Unit. Definitionswas not mentioned by respondents, but this methodwas
thesecond most prevalent in theWater Quality Unit.
Thefindings abovemight beattributed to many factors, such asthosethat
may havebeen associatedwith thetypes of teaching approaches that werecited
(or used) by survey respondents, which include MEAP test preparation
155
requirements, lack of time, lack of resources (e.g., funding, content materials, lab
equipment and tools), curriculumrequirements, target audiences (agegroups,
socio-economicfactors skills and abilities of students), and political and/or
structural barriers in theschool. Differences in content focus betweenwhat the
respondentsteach and thelessons in theWater Quality Unit, and goals and
beliefs of respondents and theobjectives of theunit may also haveinfluenced
thesefindings.
Table4.16. Comparing Instructional Methods of Survey Respondents and
Methods Included in theWater Quality Unit
MEECS participants'
survey %of
instances
MEECS Water Quality
Unit %of instances
CompareandContrast
3.4 5th
CooperativeLearning/Group
Work
10.0 2nd 2.5
Definitions
15.02nd
Didactic questions
32.0 1st
Discussion
4.04th
ExperimentsandLabs
6.83rd
Field Trips
5.8 5th
Hands-onActivity
10.9 1st
2.0
Useof Technology
6.04th
9.8 3rd
4.4.2.3Student Skills
As in theWater Quality Unit, critical thinkingand problemsolvingskills
werethemost and third most prevalent student skills, respectively, in the
surveys. Inferring/interpreting(1 1 .5%) wasthesecond most prevalent and
predicting(6.6%) was thefifth most prevalent in theWater Quality Unit, but
inferring/interpretingwas absent andpredictingwas not in thefive most prevalent
156
Student skills ? thesurveys. Nonetheless, process skills werementioned more
frequently in both datasourceswhen comparedto other skills (seeTable4.17).
It is important to mention herethat, in addition to considering all theother
factors that may haveinfluenced thefindings observed in this part of thestudy,
findings on AC, goals and beliefs, pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, and student skills should beinterpreted in thecontext of the
characteristics of thesurvey respondents. For example, eventhough the majority
of respondentswerescienceteachers (32.2%), thereweremany otherswho
taught other subjects (e.g., Math - 14.2%, Social Science- 12.3%, Language
Arts - 12%). This composition may strongly influencethetypes of approaches,
methods, or student skills that wereobserved in thesurveys, and may have
played arole in thedifferences that wereobserved between results fromthe
Water Quality Unit and thosefound in thesurveys. TheWater Quality Unit was
developed with scienceand social scienceteachers in mind, so, expectedly, the
approaches, methods, and student skills aredesignedfor useby scienceand
social scienceteachers, even thoughteachers of subjects other than scienceand
social sciencealsowereinvited to useMEECS. Amongtherespondents, there
werethosewho taught subjects other than scienceor social science, which may
or do usedifferent approaches or methods or focus on different skills.
Teaching experiencealso may haveinfluenced the results found in
pedagogical approaches, methods, or student skills. Somerespondents had
moreteaching experiencethan others (15.6% had 0-5years experience, and
43.8% had morethan 16 years experience). Other researchers havefound that
157
teaching experience influences teachers' decisions related to classroom
instruction (Lee et al., 2007, Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005).
Table4.17. Comparing Student Skills of Survey Respondents and the
Water Quality Unit
MEECS participants'
survey %of
instances
MEECS Water Quality
unit %of instances
Student skills
Ability toApply Knowledge
Learnedto Real World
Situations
2.3
7.1 4th
Critical Thinking/Think on Their
Own/Analytical/Evaluation Skills
26.6 1st 24.8 1st
DecisionMaking
9.44th
Inferring/Interpreting
11.52nd
Investigation/ Research/
FieldDataCollection
15.62nd 5.8
Predicting
0.8 6.6 5th
ProblemSolving
10.23rd 9.33rd
Social Skills/Communicating
(Ability to Explain, Describe)
7.0 5.3
4.4.2.4Elementsof Action Competence
Thedistribution of AC in thesurvey of MEECS teacherswasvery different
fromthedistribution of AC in theWater Quality Unit of theMEECS. For teachers,
knowledge/insightwasthefourth most prevalent AC element (5.9%), which
suggests that it did not appear to beas important for them; but in theWater
Quality Unit, knowledgewas thefirst most prevalent AC element (50.4%) (see
Table4.18). Commitment (45.2%) andplanningandactionexperiences (39.3%)
werethetwo most prevalent AC elements of teachers, but commitment (6.7%)
wasthefourth most prevalent andplanningandaction experiences(17%) was
thethird most prevalent AC elements in theWater Quality Unit.
158
Although exact differencein percent occurrences of variables between
teachers and theWater Quality Unit cannot becompared becausesurveys and
curriculumaredifferent datasources and becauseof thedifference in data
analysis, findings showed that commitment andplanningandactionexperiences
weremoreprevalent in theteachers than in thecurriculum. Theonly thing that
matched between theteachers and theWater Quality Unit was theoccurrenceof
visions, which appeared last in both (5.3%in Water Quality and 0.9% in the
surveys). Thesefindings possibly suggest that thereis incongruencebetween
thefocus of thecurriculum(Water Quality Unit) and of theteachers, which further
implies that elementsof AC will beutilized in varying extents dependingon
whether theteachers usethecurriculum, useadifferent one, or teachwithout it.
Table4.18. Comparing Elements of Action CompetenceMentioned by
Survey Respondents andAC Elements Included in theWater Quality Unit
MEECS participants'
survey %of
instances
MEECS Water Quality
unit %of instances
Elements of Action
Competence
Knowledge/Insight
5.9 50.41st
Commitment 45.2 1st
6.7
Visions 0.9
5.3
PlanningandAction
Experiences
39.32nd 173rd
Critical ThinkingandReflection
8.7 20.72nd
In theWater Quality Unit analysis, therewas evidencethat the increasing
complexity of thelessons (fromlesson 1 to lesson 9) played afactor in theextent
that AC occurred in theindividual lessons. In thesurveys, thehigher occurrence
of AC in thefivecategories of goals and beliefs listed in TableB.4 may be
159
attributed to two factors- the natureof thegoals and beliefs of respondents and
the number of goals and beliefs that could possibly beclassified within each
category that representedAC. For example, theglobal/real worldconnections
category consisted of goals and beliefs that related to providing studentswith
meaningful, relevant experiencesto help understand connectedness,
interrelationships, and/or interdependencebetween people, theworld, and the
environment. Specifically, goals and beliefs within theglobal/real world
connectionscategorythat embodied AC includedfacilitating understanding of
interdependence/connections between peopleand theworld/environment (see
statementsfromRespondents 588060766, 575846006, and 576358637 in Table
4.19), teaching application of knowledgeand skills in real life (seestatements
fromRespondents 574056487and 583875054 in Table4.19), and using
authentic situations to provide real world experiences (seestatementsfrom
Respondents 178, 584472434, and 574025764 in Table4.19).
Arguably, global/real worldconnectionscategory lends itself moreto use
of AC-oriented activities and experiences compared to theknowledgeacquisition
category of goals and beliefs, which usuallyfocuses moreon helping students
accessor acquireknowledge/informationfromvarious sources or on developing
student awareness. It seemsthat finding meaningful experiencesfor students
that will helpthemgrasp howpeopleand theenvironment areconnected
encompasses more aspects of instruction, such as content/topic, teaching
methods, and, probably, knowledgeacquisition (seestatements by Respondents
574056487 and 57635863 in Table4.20) than knowledgeacquisitionalone.
160
Table4.19. Teachers' Goals and Beliefs within theGlobal/Real World
Connections Category that Embodied AC
Respondent 588060766, Web Group:
"I want childrento beequippedto understandtheworldtheylivein, to haveknowledgeand
resources that will helpthemto makeresponsiblelife choices, andto understandhow
interdependent weare- to eachother, andto ourenvironment."
Respondent 575846006, WebGroup:
"To foster abetter understandingof ournatural worldso that individuals becomeinformed
stewardsof our natural resources. "
"Help studentsunderstandtheconnectionbetweenhuman activityandtheenvironment -
mainlyasit pertains to water use, conservation, treatment, protection."
"/ think teachingshouldbeabout educatingstudents onanindividual basisnot onlyabout
yourspecific content area, but about life andreal worldapplications/situations. I try to
preparemy studentsfor not onlythenextgradelevel but for situations andlife outsideof the
classroom."
"/ want my students to learn therequiredinformationandgainskills to makegooddecisions
about usingresourcesin theirpersonal lives. "
"To makereal lifeexamplesso thestudents aren'tjustreadingout of abook, they will be
ableto seehowit is used. "
"/ liketo do asmanyhands-onactivities aspossible. My classeshavemonitoredanearby
streamfor about 7yearsI think it is. Wecollect, sort andidentify themacro-invertebrates to
determinethehealthof our stream. Wealsodo water qualitychemical testing. "
"... introducingthemto theprocessandpracticeof aspecificdiscipline, i.e., geography. I
wantlearnersto experiencebecomingageographer rather thanlearningafewgeographic
factsandconcepts. "
Although knowledgeacquisition may encompass knowledgeof effectsand
causesof environmental issues or problems, it usually only includes helping
students to accessor obtain ecological scientific information (J ensen, 2000).
Although AC was embodied more in theglobal/real worldconnectionscategory,
161
Eames etal. (2006) found goals and beliefs within global/real worldconnections
and knowledgeacquisition (e.g., (a) providingwide experiences, using authentic
situations to provide real world experiences, and (b) increasing knowledge) to be
important in developing students' AC. This implies theneed to haveboth
categories of goals and beliefs to enhanceteachers' development of students'
AC.
Table4.20. KnowledgeAcquisition Goals and Beliefs of Teachers
Respondent 574056487, Water Qualitywebsurvey group:
"I think teachingshouldbeabout educatingstudents on anindividual basisnot onlyabout
your specific content area, but aboutlifeandreal worldapplications/situations. "
Respondent 57635863, Water Qualitywebsurvey group:
"Help studentsunderstandtheconnection betweenhuman activityandtheenvironment -
mainly asit pertains to water use, conservation, treatment, protection. "
Both teachers abovespokeabout expanding content areainto real world connections
between peopleand theenvironment, not just focus on scientific or ecological facts, which is
usually thefocusof knowledgeacquisition.
Another category of goals and beliefs that is probably morecompatible
with AC than other categories is social reform/goodcitizenship, which consisted
of goals and beliefs that related to developing students' understanding of their
responsibilityto improvesociety and to encouraging carefor theenvironment.
Eames et al. (2006) found in oneof their casestudies involving five NewZealand
classrooms (1st through 9th grade) that making children awareof their
responsibility to participatein finding solutions to problems of society was
important in developing students' AC. As with theglobal/real worldconnections
category, social reform/goodcitizenshipspeaks directly about AC, particularly
162
with increasing commitment andplanningandaction experiences, as exemplified
in respondents' comments below(seeTable4.21).
Table4.21. Social Reform/Good Citizenship Goals and Beliefs of Teachers
Respondent 574302380, Air Qualitywebsurvey group:
"Having thestudentsbeableto seeaproblemandthink through thepossibleoutcomes
andmakethebest choicewith themost favorableoutcomefor all involved. "
Respondent 128, Mail surveygroup:
"My biggest concernis students appreciatingtheworldin which theylive. Teaching
needsto raiseresponsiblecitizens to ensurefuturegenerations canprosper and
continueto exist on thisplanet - weneedto makesomechanges."
Second, the number of goals and beliefs that could possibly comprisea
category also may haveinfluenced thedistribution of AC acrossteaching
orientations. For example, thestudent development category was composed of
eight goals compared to only onefor the visioningcategory. Although this is not
truefor all categories of goals and beliefs, in general, the moregoals and beliefs
therearefor a particular category, thehigher theoccurrenceof that category
becauseof thegreater chancethat aparticular goal or belief was mentioned.
SeeTable B.4for goals and beliefs that representedAC.
Onestriking differencein comparing theextent that theelements of AC
werementioned in thesurvey and thoseincluded in theWater Quality Unit was
that thecommitment element was mentioned much lessfrequently in theWater
Quality Unit (4th most frequently mentioned) than in thesurvey. One prominent
differencein theapproaches between therespondents and theWater Quality
Unit was theoccurrenceof project-basedand discovery/exploration pedagogical
163
approaches- project-basedwas in thefive most prevalent approaches in the
surveys, but not in theWater Quality Unit; discovery/explorationwas thesecond
most prevalent in thesurveys, but it was absent in theWater Quality Unit. These
two approaches may haveaconnection to theoccurrenceof thecommitment
element of AC.
Eames etal. (2006) found this similar pattern in oneof their casestudies
involving fiveclassrooms in NewZealand. In particular, they found that providing
studentswith diverseexperiences in theenvironment (embodied in global/real
worldconnections in this study), developing students' understandingof their
responsibility to helpsolveproblems and improvesociety (embodied in social
reform/goodcitizenship in this study), and helping students make informed
decisions (embodied in attitude/behavior changein this study) areimportant to
developing or enhancing students' AC. Thestudentswho wereinvolved in the
casestudy described that actual connectionwith theenvironment was important
to thedevelopment of their understanding of issues, allowed themto build on
their prior experience, and consequently increasedtheir emotional engagement
with an issue. Emotional engagement, of which commitment is oneaspect, is an
important factor in developing or enhancing students' AC according to Eames et
al. (2006).
Another finding fromEames ef al.'s(2006) study was that making students
awareof their responsibility to help solve problems in society helped themrealize
that their participation was important. Thisfacilitated thedevelopment of their
ability to solveproblems, which is oneof theskills repeatedly suggested by
164
Eames etal. (2006) as key to developing or enhancingAC. Furthermore, Eames
et al. (2006) found in their study that teacherswho used pedagogies that had
characteristics similar to what this study refers to asproject-basedand
discovery/explorationapproaches (e.g., children visiting an aviary, observations
of actual birds visiting school grounds, and bird housebuilding) generated
emotional engagement, which is an underlying requirement for AC. This
suggests that the respondents, who cited as usingproject-basedand
discovery/exploration pedagogical approaches morefrequently thanwhat was
included in theWater Quality Unit, may havea better chanceof developing
commitment in their studentsthantheWater Quality Unit, if presented exactly as
described.
As I found in theWater Quality Unit, visions appearedtheleast of all the
elements of AC in thesurveys. Knowledge/Insightwas mentioned much less
frequently in thesurveyswhile it was represented themost in theWater Quality
Unit. Critical ThinkingandReflectionwas only thethird most prevalent in the
surveys although it was thesecond most prevalent in theWater Quality Unit. The
weak occurrenceof knowledge/insight and critical thinkingandreflection may be
associatedwith aweaker occurrenceof thedidactic-with-application pedagogical
approach in thesurveys (occurred belowthefive most prevalent) comparedto
theWater Quality Unit (second most prevalent). Accordingto Eames etal.
(2006), knowledge/insight and critical thinkingandreflection areimportant
elementsfor our attention becauseknowledge/insight helps students make
informed decisions, and asking studentsto reflect on their prior knowledgeor
165
experiences allows studentsto analyzetheir stateof learning and helps them
learn howto makestrategic decisions in thefuture. This suggests aneedto help
teachers identify pedagogical strategiesthat can strengthen useof student
reflection in their instruction.
4.5 DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Somerespondents' teaching goals and beliefs wereincongruent with their
pedagogical approaches. This implies that goals and beliefs either do not always
influenceteachers' decisions on howto teach, or factors other than goals and
beliefs influenceclassroominstruction decisions. Moreover, somegoals and
beliefs wereembodied in morethan onepedagogical approach, and some
pedagogical approaches represented morethan onecategory of goals and
beliefs. Magnusson et al. (1999) observedthesamepattern, and they suggested
that it is the purposeof using aparticular strategy that distinguishes teaching
orientations to science, not theuseof it.
Someapproaches (e.g., activity-driven, didactic, andprocess-oriented)
cited by respondents matched thosefound in theWater Quality Unit in terms of
order of occurrence, but someappeared lower or higher than they did in the
Water Quality Unit (e.g., conceptual changeand didactic-with-application). These
similarities and differences indicatethat teachers adopt approachesother than
thoseused or suggested in the EE curriculum.
166
Themost prevalent instructional methods werehands-onactivity and
cooperativelearning/group work. Themost prevalent skills-foci werecritical
thinking, investigation/research, problemsolving, and decisionmaking. I found
that an instructional method was associatedwith morethan one pedagogical
approachor skill, and astudent skill was associatedwith morethan one
approach or method.
Thedistribution of instructional methods in thesurveyswasvery different
fromthedistribution in theWater Quality Unit. Thesedifferences may be
attributed to many factors, which include MEAP test preparation requirements,
lack of time, lack of resources (e.g., funding, content materials, lab equipment
and tools), curriculumrequirements, target audiences (agegroups, socio-
economic factors skills and abilities of students), and political and/or structural
barriers in theschool. Additionally, differences in content (subjects) focus
betweenwhat the respondentsteach and thelessons in theWater Quality Unit,
and goals and beliefs of respondents and theobjectives of theunit also may
have influenced thesefindings.
The most prevalent elements of AC werecommitment andplanningand
action experiences, and an uneven distribution of elements of AC was observed;
thesetwo elements appeared substantially morethan theothers. This finding
suggests that there may be uneven useof AC elements in therespondents'
classrooms. Moreover, theelementsof AC that were prevalent in thesurveys
appeared differentially in theWater Quality Unit, suggestingthat there is an
incongruencebetweenthefocus of thecurriculum(Water Quality Unit) and of the
167
teachers, which may mean elements of AC areor will beused in varying extents
dependingon whether theteacher usesthecurriculum, uses adifferent one, or
teacheswithout it.
In Chapter 3 I suggestedthat useof approaches other than activity-driven,
didactic, and didactic-with-application may increasetheoccurrenceof the
commitment and visions elementsof AC. In this chapter I found that ahigher
occurrenceof project-basedand discovery/explorationapproaches and the
occurrenceof goals and beliefs related to global/real worldconnections,
attitude/behavior change, and social reform/goodcitizenshipmay have
influenced thestronger appearanceof commitment in thesurveys comparedto
its appearancein theWater Quality Unit. Visions remained theleast prevalent
element and therewereno evident patternsthat can help explain this finding
other than students setting goals and thinking about what their futurecan beare
not currently astrong component of teaching in theclassrooms. Further research
is needed to examinewhat types of pedagogical approaches useand canfoster
which elements of AC.
I alsofound that not all of thegoals and beliefs of respondents about
teaching representedAC. Action competenceappearedthemost in the
global/real worldconnections, social reform/goodcitizenship, student
development, learning, and skill development categories of goals and beliefs and
that someof thesegoals and beliefs (e.g., global /real world connections) lend
themselves to theuseof AC morethan others (e.g., knowledgeacquisition). This
finding implies that, alongwith areexamination of thegoals and objectives and
168
thefocus of thecurriculumas suggested in Chapter 3, goals and beliefs,
pedagogical approaches, and instructional methods of curriculumusers aswell
as their student skills need to be revisited to identify which of theseaspects of
PCK target which elements of AC. Thiswill help identify theweak points that
need to beaddressedto ultimately increaseteachers' capacity to foster AC in
their students. Subsequently, this will help informfuturedevelopment of AC-
oriented EE curriculaand guideteacherswho attempt to foster AC in their
students.
Thecasesof incongruencebetween goals and beliefs and pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills and thereasons behind
themimply that, to align thesevariables of interest, thecontextual aspects need
to beaddressed seriously. As Lim& Chai (2008) pointed out, eventhough beliefs
areimportant, thesocio-cultural conditions in which theteachers areworking are
very important. Thus, even if teachers' goals and beliefs lend themselvesto
adoptingAC in theclassroom, teacherswill beless likely to useAC-oriented
pedagogical approaches if they areoverwhelmed with contextual issuesthat they
need to addressthat differ fromAC. As onerespondent said,
". . ./ feel verystronglyabout educators' responsibility to teach children to
lovetheEarth andtakecareof it. I feel environmental educationshould
beginat theearlyelementarylevel. Unfortunately, unlessit is
mandatedbythestate, it won'thappen. Teachers (thosewhobelieve
init) cannotpossiblygoabovetheir alreadybloatedcurriculumto
teach "extra" topics. Environmental educationshouldnotbeextra! It
shouldbecore(text in bold is for added emphasis). Howcan I help
makethishappen?"
Theincongruenceobserved between someof theelements of PCK and
theelements of AC that wereused and/or cited by teachers and included in the
169
Water Quality Unit imply aneed to closethegap between the rhetoric and reality
of EE. This has strong implicationsfor curriculumdevelopment and in-service
professional development. To increaseteachers' useof AC in theclassrooms
using EE curricula, thecurriculumdesign should beinformed by AC theory and
research, suchas knowledgeobtainedfromthis study. In turn, theory and
research should beinformed by EE practicesuchthat researchand practice
becomean iterative process. In particular, curriculumdevelopers should createa
curriculumbased on thekinds of pedagogical approaches and instructional
methods that teachers prefer to useand that research has deemed as most likely
tofoster students' AC. Curriculumdevelopers also needto ensurethat all
elements of AC areincluded and equally addressed.
To complement thecurriculumdevelopment process, professional
development programs needto focus on helping teachers develop an openness
to useof other approaches and methods, particularly theonesthat appeared to
beassociatedwith theuseof AC. In addition, professional development activities
needto provide ampleopportunities for teachersto observe, learn, and apply
AC-oriented approaches and methods in real world classroomsettings.
Furthermore, contextual factors such aschallenges and barriers in school,
curriculumrequirements, and teachers' previous professional development
exposures needto be integrated into theteachers' learning experiences to help
makethemmeaningful and useful for teachers. A good exampleof this is the
apparent importanceof preparing studentsfor the MEAP tests. Teachers are
more likely to useacurriculumif it can helpthemmeet standards and
170
benchmarks or GradeLevel Content Expectations, which can helpthemprepare
their students for theMEAP.
More research is neededto identify factors that influencethepresenceor
absenceof AC, and its extent of usein eachteacher. For example, do certain
pedagogical approaches, methods, and student skills result in greater useof AC?
Stratified analysis could determinewhether subjectstaught influenceteachers'
pedagogical approaches, methods, or student skills. Similarly, stratified analysis
could detect whether teaching experienceinfluences teachers' approaches,
methods, and student skills. Future researchalso should investigatetheutility of
professional development and/or curriculumin strengtheningteachers' useof
AC, that is, whether acombination of professional development that targets use
of AC and useof anAC-oriented curriculumis needed to maximizeteachers' use
ofAC.
171
4.6 REFERENCES
Alreck, P., & Settle, R. (2004). Thesurveyresearchhandbook. NewYork:
McGraw-Hill College.
Arnau, R. C, Thompson, R. L., & Cook, C. (2001 ). Do different response
formats changethelatent structureof responses? An empirical
investigation using taxometric analysis. . Educational andPsychological
Measurement, 61, 23-44.
Babbie, E. (1992). Thepracticeof social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Barrett, M. J . (2006). Education for theenvironment: action competence,
becoming, and story. Environmental Education Research, 72(3-4), 503-
511.
Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action competenceand Environmental
Education. CambridgeJ ournal of Education, 29(3), 349-353.
Cochran, K. F. (1997). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Teachers' Integration of
Subject Matter, Pedagogy, Students, and Learning Environments
[Electronic Version]. Research Matters - to theScience Teacher, 2007.
Retrieved 2/24/2008.
Cox, L. (2004). Developinganinstrument for determiningteacherbeliefs or
orientations of secondaryschool Spanishlanguageteachers. Unpublished
Thesis, BrighamYoung University, Provo, Utah.
Dettmann-Easler, D., & Pease, J . L. (1999). Evaluating theeffectiveness of
residential environmental education programs in fostering positive
attitudes toward wildlife. TheJ ournal of Environmental Education, 37(1),
33-39.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail andInternet surveys: Thetailoreddesignmethod(2nd
ed.). NewYork: J ohn Wiley.
Dillman, D., Tortora, R. D., & Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing web
surveys: An initial statement. (Technical report No. 98-50). Pullman, WA:
Washington StateUniversity Social and Economic Sciences Research
Center.
Dimopoulos, D. L1 & Pantis, J . D. (2003). Knowledgeand attitudes regarding sea
172
Eames, C1 Law, B., Barker, M., Iles, H., McKenzie, J ., Patterson, R., et al.
education that promotes students' action competence. RetrievedApril 12,
Ferguson, L., Angeli, T., & Tudor, M. (2001). Better test scoresthrough
environmental education? clearing20-22.
Fien, J ., & Skoien, P. (2002). I'mlearning...Howyou go about stirring things up-
in aconsultativemanner: social capital and action competencein two
Fowler J r., F. J . (2002). SurveyResearchMethods (3rd ed. Vol. 1). Thousand
Oaks, California: SagePublications, Inc.
Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-Level Theory of Highly
Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' ScienceTeaching Orientations.
GAO. (1996). ContentAnalysis: A methodologyfor structuringandanalyzing
writtenmaterial (transfer paper No. GAO/PEMD-10.3.1). Washington, DC:
United States General Accounting Office, ProgramEvaluation and
Methodology Division.
Gess-Newsome, J . (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and
Publishers.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). Themakingof ateacher: teacherknowledgeand
teacher education. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance:
subject matter knowledgefor teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge
basefor thebeginningteacher (pp. 23-36). Oxford, England: Pergammon
Press.
Hart, P. (2003). Teachers' thinkingin Environmental Education. NewYork: Peter
Lang.
concern, resourcestewardship, andrecreational participation: areviewof
173
Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J . D. (2003). Another look at technology
usein classrooms: Thedevelopment and validation of an instrument to
measureteachers' perceptions. . Educational andPsychological
Measurement, 63(1), 137-160.
variables in Taiwanesecollegestudents J ournal of Environmental
Education, 35(2), 37-50.
Hungerford, H., Litherland, R., Peyton, R. B., Ramsey, J ., & Volk, T. (1990).
InvestigatingandEvaluatingEnvironmental IssueandActions: Skill
Development Modules. Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing Company.
Hwang, Y.-H., Kim, S.-l., & J eng, J .-M. (2000). Examining thecausal
relationships among selected antecedents of responsibleenvironmental
behavior. J ournal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 19-25.
J ensen, B. B. (2000). Health knowledgeand health education in thedemocratic
environmental education. Environmental EducationResearch, 3(2), 163-
178.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). ContentAnalysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kruse, C. K., & Card, J . A. (2004). Effects of aconservation education camp
programon camper's self-reported knowledge, attitude, and behavior.
J ournal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 33-45.
Lam, B., & Kember, D. (2006). The relationship between conceptions of teaching
and approachesto teaching. Teachersand Teaching: Theoryand
Practice, 12(6), 693-713.
Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J ., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Assessing Beginning
Secondary ScienceTeachers' PCK: Pilot Year Results. School Science
andMathematics 107(2), 52-60.
environmental attitudes and knowledge TheJ ournal of Environmental
174
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their planning
and conduct of computer-mediated classroomlessons. British J ournal of
Educational Technology, 39(5), 807-828.
Documenting ScienceTeachers' Pedagogical content Knowledgethrough
Loughran, J ., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In Searchof Pedagogical Content
Knowledge in Science: DevelopingWays of Articulating and Documenting
Professional Practice. J ournal of Researchin Science Teaching, 41(4),
370-391.
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: acentral element in developing action
Research, 12(A), 429-436.
Mulhall, P., Berry, A., & Loughran, J . (2003). Frameworks for representing
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Asia-Pacific Forumon Science
LearningandTeaching, 4(2), 1-25.
NEEAC. (2005). Settingthestandard, measuringresults, celebratingsuccesses:
A report to Congresson thestatusof environmental educationin the
UnitedStateselo. EPA240-R-05-001): National Environmental Education
Advisory Council, Environmental ProtectionAgency.
Orams, M. B. (1997). Theeffectiveness of environmental education: can weturn
295-306.
Ormrod, J . (1995). Educational psychology: Principles andapplications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Ornstein, A. C1 & Sinatra, R. I. (2005). K-8Instructional Methods: A Literacy
Perspective, MyLabSchool Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pratt, D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(A), 203-
220.
175
Richardson, V. (1996). Theroleof attitudes and beliefs in learningto teach. In J .
Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teacher education (pp. 102-119).
NewYork: Macmillan.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution, and directions in
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J . (1998). Basicsof QualitativeResearch: Techniques and
proceduresfor developinggroundedtheory(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SagePublications.
Trigwell, K., & Prasser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational
perspective. Studiesin Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284.
Volk, T. L., & Cheak, M. J . (2003). Theeffects of an environmental education
programon students, parents, and community. TheJ ournal of
action competenceaskeyconceptsof critical pedagogy(Vol. 12).
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis(2nd ed.). New Bury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Wheeler, G., & Thumlet, C. (2007). Environmental Education Report: Empirical
evidence, exemplarymodels, andrecommendationsontheimpact of
environmental educationon K-12studentsOlympia, Washington: Officeof
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
176
VOLUME Il
By
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
in partial fulfillment of therequirements
for thedegreeof
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Fisheries and Wildlife
2010
CHAPTER 5
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION COMPETENCE: AN
IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION OF FOUR SCIENCE TEACHERS IN MICHIGAN
177
ABSTRACT
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and useof action competence
(AC) of four public school scienceteacherswereexamined through manifest and
latent content analyses of datacollectedfromclass observations, semistructured
interviews, Content Representations (CoRes), and surveys. TeachersA and B
taught 7th grade, Teacher C taught 6th grade, and Teacher D taught 5th grade.
Although eachteacher cited multiple goals and beliefs about teaching
science, their most prevalent goal and belief wasto transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards, possibly suggestingthat their main
focuswasto providestudentswith knowledgethat meet curriculum
requirements. Many of theteachers' goals and beliefs appearedto be bound
within thecontent that they had to teach, as opposedto general goals and beliefs
related to teachingscience.
Prevalenceof individual elements of PCK (goals and beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills) did not always predict or
indicate prevalenceof individual PCK manifestations, or thestrength of teachers'
overall PCK. Teacher A, theleast consistent in terms of useof pedagogical
approaches and instructional methods, had theweakest overall PCK. However,
Teacher C, the most consistent in terms of useof pedagogical approaches, the
most activity-driven andprocess-oriented, and focused on student skills the
most, was only secondto Teacher D, whowas themost flexible in terms of what
to teach, when, and how, in termsof overall strength of PCK.
178
Strong overall PCK appearedto beassociatedwith strong AC for some
teachers, but not for others. Teacher D had thestrongest PCK and was also the
most AC-oriented. Teacher A had theweakest PCK and had theweakest AC.
However, no evidenceof AC wasfound in Teacher C, despitehaving thesecond
strongest overall PCK of thefour teachers. This suggests that useof AC is
influenced by factors other than PCK, including possibly content taught and
personal conviction of teachers.
Knowledge/Insightwas the most prevalent element of AC acrossthe
teachers, and appearedto beassociatedwith theuseof didactic and didactic-
with-application pedagogical approaches. Real world planningandaction
experiencesappeared to beassociatedwith theuseof activity-driven, process-
oriented, and project-basedapproaches, andfewer barriers or constraints in the
teaching context of teachers. Commitment and visionsweretheleast prevalent
elements of AC. Teachers need to incorporateall five elements into their
teaching to increasetheir capacity to foster students' AC. To do this, curriculum
and assessment needto includetheconcept of AC. In addition, teachers needto
account for barriers or constraints in their teaching context, learn howto use
various pedagogical approaches and instructional methods to apply AC in the
classroom, and reflect on howtheir teachinggoals and beliefs meshwith AC.
179
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, I continueto address my second research question
through an in-depth examination of PCK and useof AC by four scienceteachers.
Theresearchquestion I address is: "To what extent does teachers' pedagogical
content knowledgein using scienceeducation and environmental education
curriculaand content materials represent elements of action competence?"
5.2 METHODS
5.2.1 Selection of Teachers and Classes
I selectedfour teachersfromthepool of MEECS (Michigan Environmental
Education CurriculumSupport) survey respondents (Chapter 3) based on their
interest to participate, location (proximity to Michigan StateUniversity), and
subject and gradelevel taught. My participants consisted of a7th gradeteacher
fromCounty X, a7th gradeteacher fromCountyY, a 6th gradeteacher from
County Z, and a 5th gradeteacher alsofromCounty Z. Theseteachers helped
me identify which class groupto observe, except for the5th gradeteacher who
taught only oneclass grouptheentireday. To help mecompareresults across
thefour teachers, theteachers and I selected averageclass groups for
observations, i.e., averagein terms of students' cognitive levels. Wealso
considered class dynamics and special needs of students in our decisionmaking.
For example, thesecond hour class of County Y teacher had onestudent who
becameextremely uncomfortablein thepresenceof anyoneother than the
180
teacher and theclassmates in theroom. Consequently, theteacher and I
decided not to includethat particular class in thestudy.
5.2.2 Consent andAssent Forms
I sought teachers' participation in thestudy about threemonths prior to
classobservations. As part of the Institutional Review Board's requirement for
conducting human subjects research, I collected teachers' and parents' consent
and students' assent. About onemonth beforeconducting class observations,
theteacher sent parental consent forms homewith students. Following the
teachers' suggestion, studentsweregiven upto two weeks to return theforms.
Theteacherswereprimarily responsiblefor collecting theconsent forms prior to
class observations. Somestudents returned theconsent forms during thefirst
week of observations. Theconsent formdescribedthestudy to theparents and
askedtheir permissionfor their child's participation in focus group interviews,
accessto someof students' classwork (e.g., homework, tests, and projects), and
photo release.
Theassent formcontained thesameinformation astheconsent form, but
I read it to thestudents and explained thepurposes of my study, and therolethat
they would beplaying. I also answered questions beforestudents signedthe
assent form. I emphasizedthat student participation in theinterviews and other
datacollection werevoluntary, and that theywould not be penalized if they did
not want to participate. In the7th gradeclassroomin County Y, I gavestudents
assent forms oneweek beforeclass observations started, becausetheteacher
181
preferred it that way. In theother classrooms, I gaveassent forms during thefirst
week of observations. Most assent formswerereturned by students thesame
day theforms weregiven to them. Other students returned theformseveral days
later.
Studentswerestill part of theclass observations eventhough their
parents did not allowthemto participatein thestudy and/or they did not agreeto
participate, becauseobservations weredonefor thewholeclass. But no
interviews, collection of classwork, and picturetaking weredonefrom/of
studentswhowere not allowed by their parents and/or whenthey did not agree
to participatein thestudy.
5.2.3 DataCollection
5.2.3.1 Class Observations
Class observations areacommon method of examining AC (Breiting et
al., 2009; Eames tal., 2006; Onyango-Oumatal., 2009) and PCK (Loughran
tal., 2001; Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997; Monet, 2006; Shannon, 2006; Woodrow,
2007). In this study, I conducted atotal of 38class observationsfromDecember
2007throughApril 2008 (seeTable5.1). Each class observation typically lasted
froman hour to an hour and a half. Observations werecompletedwhen the
teacher completedthetopic/unit/session that he/shewas teaching. Thenumber
of classvisits per week and thetotal for each classvaried across thefour
teachers, dependingon thenumber of lessons and activities teachers planned
182
for an entiretopic/unit/section, thescheduleand availability of theteachers, and
school activities and closings dueto weather or holidays.
Table5.1. Class Observations Schedule
Teacher A
Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D
7th grade, 27
students
7th grade,
28 students
6th grade,
23students
5th grade,
25students
CountyX
CountyY County Z CountyZ
12/10/2007 1/23/2008
1/11/2008* 2/4/2008
12/11/2007 1/24/2008 1/14/2008*
2/6/2008
12/13/2007 1/29/2008
2/14/2008*
(field trip)
2/11/2008
12/14/2007 1/30/2008 2/19/2008
3/13/2008
12/18/2007
1/31/2008 2/21/2008
3/19/2008
12/19/2007
2/15/2008 2/22/2008 3/20/2008
3/5/2008*
2/26/2008 3/27/2008*
3/24/2008* 2/27/2008
3/28/2008*
3/25/2008* 2/29/2008
3/31/2008*
3/26/2008* 4/16/2008*
4/2/2008*
4/3/2008*
4/4/2008*
Note: * - Not analyzed
I wanted to observeteachers' instruction of an environmental topic or
content, but thetiming of thestudy relativeto thetopics or content theteachers
had already covered and had yet to cover, and theavailability of theteachers, did
not makethis possiblefor Teacher B and Teacher C. So I conducted
observations on theweeksthat thesetwo teacherswereavailableand within the
timeframeof thestudy, regardless of thetopic or content taught. At thetimeof
datacollection, two teachers covered two major topics or content: Teacher A
taught air pollution and water pollution and Teacher D taught agents of erosion
and rocks and minerals. Teacher C taught forces and motion. Although forces
and motion seemlike two separatetopics, Teacher C consideredthemoneand,
183
therefore, hecombined thetwo topics andtaught themasone. Teacher B taught
onetopic only (classification of organisms).
I recorded class instruction and activities using digital recorders, which I
strategically positioned in threelocations in theclassroom. I observed each class
fromthe back of the roomin away that did not distract theclass. In addition, I did
not participatein any part of theclass. I alsotook notes, which I used primarily to
cross-check transcriptsfromaudio recordings. I noted teacher-student and
student-student interactions, theoverall classroomclimate, and classroom
setting and resources in additionto recording goals and beliefs, types and
examples of pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, and student skills
aswell as manifestations or indications of PCK andAC.
Finally, I noted questions and observationsfor debriefingwith theteacher
after class or at alater time, depending on theavailability of theteacher.
Debriefing was donein person (interviewor casual chat) and via email. If
debriefing could not bedonein person, I emailed thequestions to theteacher
either on thesameday that theobservation was conducted or theday after. I
included teachers' responses in thetranscript ofthat particular day's class
observation.
5.2.3.2Semi-structuredInterviews
In addition to class observations, interviews arealso acommon data
collection method used in studies of AC (Breiting et al., 2009; Eames et al., 2006;
184
Fien & Skoien, 2002; Onyango-Oumatal., 2009; Simovska, 2007) and PCK
(Boz & Boz, 2008; Dawkins tal., 2003; Loughran tal., 2001; Monet, 2006;
Woodrow, 2007). In this study, I interviewed eachteacher five times from
October 2007throughApril 2008- before, during, and after class observations
(seeTableD.1 for scheduleof interviews). Interviewdurations varied. Most
debriefing interviews lasted only ten tofifteen minutes; other interviews lastedfor
about an hour. Interviewquestions included thefollowing: goals and beliefs about
teaching; knowledgeof curriculum, standards, benchmarks, and content
expectations; approaches, strategies, and methods used in theclassroomand
why; types of activities or projects included and lessonstaught; issues,
challenges, and barriers in teaching; lessons, activities, and projects theteacher
planned to do andwhy; students' learning styles and preferences; and resources
for teaching. SeeAppendix D.12 for thecompletelist of interviewquestions.
I audio-taped each interviewusing adigital recorder and alsotook notes
during the interviewto cross-checkwith transcripts later. During theinterviews, I
gaveteachers ampletimeto respond to all questions to encouragethemto
respond in detail and to providethoughtful responses.
5.2.3.3 Content Representations (CoRes)
I adapted this method fromLoughran et al. (2001) and Mulhall tal.
(2003) who used CoRes to captureand portray PCK. Theseresearchers noted
that CoRes set out and discussedtheaspects of PCK most attached to a
185
particular content taught in aparticular context. In my study, I used CoRes (see
Table D.2) to capture PCK and tofind evidenceof teachers' useof AC. Each
teacher filled out aCoRestablefor every topic he/shetaught and that I observed.
I gaveteachers CoRestables threeweeks beforemy class observations. I
collected theCoRes sheetson thefirst week of observations. TheCoRes sheets
askedteachersto list or identify:
1 ) big ideas for teaching a particular topic;
2) why thetopic is important for students to know;
3) what they (teachers) want students to learn about thetopic;
4) difficulties or limitations connectedwith teaching thetopic;
5) howthey (teachers) considered knowledgeof student learning in planning
lessons;
6) other factors they (teachers) considered in planning lessons;
7) teaching approaches, strategies, and methods; and
8) specificways of ascertaining students' understandingor confusion around
thetopic.
5.2.3.4 Surveys
Surveys areanother popular method used to examineAC (Breiting et al.,
2009; Eames tal., 2006; J ensen, 2000a, 2000b; Onyango-Oumaetal., 2009;
Simovska, 2007) and PCK (Davis & Petish, 2005; J ohnston & Ahtee, 2006; Van
Driel etal., 2002; Van Driel etal., 1998). Thesurvey completed by thefour
186
teacherswas thesamesurvey that was sent to the MEECS training participants
(Chapter 4) (seeAppendix D.1, mail survey instrument). In addition to
demographics and participants' useof MEECS, thesurvey also asked about
teachers' goals for teaching science("What is/areyour primary goal/s as a
teacher?"), beliefs about teaching science("What do you think teaching should
beabout?") and the natureof their instruction ("Howwould you describeor
characterizethenatureof your instruction?"). I also usedthesurvey asan
additional datasourcefor evidenceof teachers' useof AC.
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS
I transcribed audio recordings fromclass observations and interviews with
thehelpof threepeople. I reviewed all transcripts and cross-checked the
transcripts with my field notesfor accuracy. Becausethe number of observations
varied across teachers, I analyzed only thefirst six observationsthat were
relevant to thetopics taught by eachteacher to ensureconsistency across
teachers in theamount of observation datato beanalyzed. I usedAtlas.ti 5.2
softwareto codeand analyze24 class observation transcripts (six per teacher),
20 interviewtranscripts, and CoRes and survey data.
I examined theseelements of PCK: teaching orientations (goals and
beliefs about teaching scienceand pedagogical approaches), instructional
methods, and student skills. In addition, I also examined manifestations of
teachers' PCK and teachers' useof AC. It is important to noteherethat I did not
187
measuretheteachers' individual knowledgedomains per se, that is, "what or
howmuch do teachers knowabout an approach, method, or skills?" becauseof
the inherent challenges in measuringteachers' knowledgeaccurately (e.g.,
teachers may beuncomfortableor not willing to participatein thestudy if their
knowledgewill be measured). Rather, I identified thegoals and beliefs,
pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, student skills, and
manifestations of PCK, and measuredtheextent to which they wereused and/or
cited by theteachersto characterizetheir overall PCK.
I usedcontent analysis of qualitativedatafollowing theworks of
Krippendorff (1980), Strauss & Corbin (1998), andWeber (1990). Thefour
teachersweretheunits of analysis and theunits of observation weretheir goals
and beliefs about teaching science, pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, student skills, manifestations of PCK, andAC. Recording units, or the
texts towhich I assigned acategory label (GAO, 1996), consisted of words,
phrases, or sentences, or groups of these.
I coded eachvariable(e.g., goals and beliefs, pedagogical approaches,
instructional methods) for eachteacher onedatasourceat atime(seeTable
5.2). I coded goals and beliefs first, followed by pedagogical approaches,
instructional methods, student skills, manifestations of PCK, andAC. I coded
each of thevariables first in class observations, then in interviews, in CoRes, and
in surveys. Prior to actual coding, I readthetranscripts, and theCoRes and
survey responses onceto get familiar with thedata. On thesecond reading, I
started coding.
188
Table5.2. Coding Steps Followed for Each Teacher
DataSources
Variables of Interest
CO In CoRes Su
1 ) Goals and Beliefs about
Teaching Science
Stepl
A, B, C, D
2) Pedagogical Approaches
Step2
3) Instructional Methods
Step3
4) Student Skills
Step4
5) Manifestations of PCK
Step5
6) Action Competence
Step6
(CO =Class Observations; In = Interviews: CoRes =Content Representations; Su =Surveys; A,
B, C, and D =Teachers)
5.3.1 Coding Process in Detail
5.3. 1. 1 Pedagogical Content Knowledge(PCK)
5.3.1.1.1 Teaching Orientations - Goals and Beliefs
To codefor goals and beliefs, I usedthefinal categories of goals and
beliefs about teaching scienceused in Chapter 4asaguide(apriori), but I
added newcategories asthey emerged. I examined both the manifest and latent
contents of recording units to codefor occurrences of goals and beliefs. Manifest
content is thevisible, surfacecontent and latent content indicatetheunderlying
meaning (Babbie, 1992). I counted eachtimeauniquegoal or belief occurred in
thetranscript, CoRes, and survey. This means that I counted only onceany
189
goals and beliefs that wererepeated in a particular transcript. I coded some
responses multipletimes becausethey encompassed multiple goals and beliefs.
Exampleof multiple coding:
Teacher B final interview:
"Myprimarygoal asateacheris to leadeachstudent to an
appreciationfor everydayscienceandunderstandbasicprinciples of
sciencethat will affect their dailylives"was coded as
DEVELOP/INSTILL POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE and
TRANSMIT FACTS. CONTENT. KNOWLEDGE. AND/OR
BENCHMARKS/STANDARDS
5.3.1.1 .2 Teaching Orientations - Pedagogical Approaches
In this chapter, I usedthesamerubric for coding as theone I used in
Chapters 3 and 4, which was mostly adaptedfromMagnusson et al. (1999, pp.
100-101) and Schwarz & Gwekwerere(2007, pp. 182-184). To codefor
pedagogical approachesfromclass observation data, I measuredtheamount of
time (length, in minutes) ateacher spent on each approach instead of simply
counting thenumber of times (freguency) that eachapproachwas displayed
becauseactual usagetimewas available. To measuretheamount of timea
teacher spent on each approach, I noted thetimewhen theteacher began using
a particular approach and thetimewhentheteacher switched to adifferent
approach.
After thefirst round of coding, I went back and coded again to check for
errors and inconsistencies in my coding. As with coding in Chapters 3 and 4, I
assigned multiple codes to somerecording units becausethey represented or
190
encompassed morethan oneapproach. After coding, I addedthetotal times
eachteacher spent on an approach in eachobservation andthen I converted the
total amount of timespent on each approachto percent usefor each approach.
Theprocedures I used in codingfor pedagogical approaches seen in class
observationswerenot thesameprocedures I used in codingfor interview,
CoRes, and survey data. Instead, I followed thesameprocedures I used in
codingfor the Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS)
(Chapter 3) and the MEECS participants' survey data(Chapter 4). I counted
eachtimean approachoccurred in theinterviewtranscript, CoRes, and survey
responses of thefour teachers. If thesameapproachoccurred morethanonce, I
counted it separately if it was usedfor adifferent purpose, activity, or topic. In
somecases, I coded groups of words, phrases, or sentences morethan once.
Examples of coded pedagogical approaches:
Teacher A survey response:
Natureof instruction:
1) "Givingfacts"was coded as DIDACTIC
2) "Lab (showthemandthenlet themdo it)" was coded asACTIVITY-
DRIVEN
Teacher C interview:
"And, I haveareal goodflavor for howwell they'regoingto beableto
work asascientist or atleast understandsciencein that last quarter
becausethewholelast quarter is devotedto an in-classproject andI
call it "super-herospectrum" wheretheybuildasuper-heroandthen
theyhaveto beresponsiblefor onepart of theelectromagnetic
spectrum. Theyhaveto beexperts.. ..andteach thebasicfacts of
what thatpart of thespectrumrepresents to therest of their
classmates, andtheyhavelikesix weeksorsevenweekstoproduce
this. And, in theend, theyhavetopresentit andteachit to theclass.
Andthen their classmateshaveto askquestionsof them."was coded
as PROJ ECT-BASED
191
I determined themost prevalent approaches, i.e., most-used and/or cited
in eachteacher and acrossteachers based on two criteria: (1) theoccurrenceof
an approach in all four datasources and (2) thefrequency of useof an approach
basedon percent occurrencewithin adatasource. That is, did thesame
approach appear in all four datasources, and did thesameapproach appear at
thesamefrequency (percent wise) in eachdatasource?
Examples:
a) Prevalenceof approaches used by eachteacher
I comparedoccurrences of approachesAND their frequencies of
useacross datasources. Occurrenceis the raw number of
occurrences of each approach in each datasource. Frequency of
useis theraw number of occurrences of eachapproach in each
datasourcedivided by thetotal raw number of occurrences of ALL
approaches in that particular datasource. For example, I
considered an approachthat occurred in all four datasourcesAND
was themost frequently used and/or cited in class observations,
third most frequently used and/or cited in interviews, second most
in CoRes, and third most in surveywas more prevalent overall
compared with an approachthat occurred in only 3 of 4data
sources (regardless of thefrequency of use). I automatically
considered less prevalent any approachthat did not appear in all
four datasources thanthosethat did.
192
If morethan oneapproachoccurred thesamenumber of times
across datasources, I comparedtheir frequencies of use. For
example, an approachthat occurred in all four datasourcesAND
was themost frequently used and/or cited in class observations,
third most frequently used and/or cited in interviews, second most
in CoRes, and third most in survey was more prevalent overall
comparedwith an approachthat occurred in all four datasources
AND wasthesecond most frequently used and/or cited in class
observations, second most in interviews, third most in CoRes, and
fifth most in survey.
If frequenciesof useof morethan oneapproachwerethesame
acrossdatasources, I compared actual percent values. For
example, in Teacher A, didactic approach (20%) was themost
frequently used and/or cited in classobservation, but activity-driven
approach (30%) was the most frequently used and/or cited in
interviews. Therefore, I considered activity-driven moreprevalent
than didacticfor Teacher A becausepercent of usefor activity-
drivenwas greater than percent of usefor didactic.
b) Prevalenceof approaches across teachers
To determineprevalenceof approaches acrossteachers, I
compared occurrences andfrequencies of useacross data
193
sources. Number of occurrencestook precedenceover frequency
of use.
For example, if frequency of usefor didactic-with-applicationwereas
follows:
Class Observations: Teacher A>Teacher D>Teacher B>Teacher C
Interviews: Teacher D>Teacher A>Teacher C
CoRes: Teacher D>Teacher B>Teacher C
Survey: Teacher C
Teacher Csuseand/or citation of didactic-with-applicationoccurred in all
datasources.
Teacher D occurred in 3 of 4sources
Teacher A occurred in 2 of 4 sources
Teacher B occurred in 2 of 4 sources
Therefore, OD>A>B.
Basedon my criteria, didactic-with-applicationwas most prevalent in
Teacher C, even though this approachwas not themost frequently used and/or
cited in 3 of 4datasources in Teacher C, becausetheapproachoccurred in all
four datasources in this teacher. Didactic-With-Applicationwas second most
prevalent in Teacher D, followed by TeachersA and B. Theapproachwas least
prevalent in Teacher B because, in addition to appearing in only 2 of 4data
sources, its frequency of usewas not as high as in theother teachers.
194
5.3.1.1.3 Instructional Methods and Student Skills
To codefor instructional methods and student skills, I usedthe
methods/skills found in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 as aguide, but I added new
methods/skills asthey emergedfromthedata. Unlike codingfor goals and
beliefs, for which similar goals and beliefs werecounted onlyoncein each
transcript regardless of thenumber of times it occurred in thesametranscript, I
counted separately eachtimea method/skill occurred in atranscript, CoRes, or
survey, provided themethod was usedfor adifferent activity or topic. This means
that I counted somemethods/skills morethan oncein thesametranscript,
CoRes, or survey. For skills, I assignedsomerecording units multiple codes.
Examples of coded instructional methods and student skills:
Teacher C CoRes:
"I always try to includeabalanceof traditional reading/worksheet lessons
with visual/hands-onlessons."was coded asACTIVITY
PACKETS/WORKSHEETS. HANDS-ON ACTIVITY, and READING FOR
MEANING
"Then theyfindtheaveragespeed. Thentheyhaveto rank it basedon
who won therace. Well, you'dbesurprised, theycan't interpret thedata
whenit starts talkingaboutso manyminutes, somanymetersperminute.
Andtheydon't catch on to thefact that if Suzyranlessthan 60minutes
andeverybodyelseis morethan 60minutes, Suzywon therace. Andthat
herspeedneedsto bethefirst speed. Andoncetheydo that, thenthey
couldfigureit fromthere"was coded as INFERRING/INTERPRETING
SKILLS
5.3.1.1 .4 Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
In Chapter 4, I noted that someelementsof PCK wereexamined, but not
manifestationsof PCK, i.e., specific areasfor which therewas evidenceof PCK
195
usein teachers' instruction. In this chapter, I examined both individual elements
of PCK and manifestationsof it. I compiled alist of eleven PCK manifestations
(seeTable5.3) adaptedfromtheworks of several researchers to beusedfor
coding (Grossman, 1990; Lee et al., 2007; Lee& Luft, 2005; Magnusson etat.,
1999; Meijer et al., 1999; Mulhall et al., 2003; Wilson, 2006). I coded and counted
unique instances of PCK eachtimethey occurred in atranscript, CoRes, or
survey. Subsequently, somePCK manifestations occurred morethan oncein the
sametranscript, CoRes, or survey. SeeTable D.3 for descriptions of the
following PCK manifestations.
Table5.3. PCK Manifestations
1) Reasons/purposesof selectingandemphasizingparticular concepts
2) Reasons/purposesof selectingandemphasizingparticular skills
3) Knowledgeof studentlearningor understanding
4) Ways usedto overcomebarriers or constraintsin teachingcontext
5) Reasons/purposesof usingparticular approaches, methods, or
instructional strategies
6) Reasons/purposesof usingparticularactivities
7) Knowledgeof curriculum
8) Activities orexamplesthat connectedwell with students
9) Communityresources usedandwhy
10) School resourcesusedandwhy
11) Order of subjects/content to teach
196
Exampleof coded manifestation of PCK:
Teacher D classroomobservation:
"Teacher (T): Ok, movingon to chemical weathering. So chemical
weatheringisall thewaysrock isbrokendown andthechemical makeup
is changed[teacher is writing on theboard]. Do I needto usethedark and
black marker?
Students: Yeah. Coz I canbarely...
T: Ok, so all theways that rock is broken down andthechemical make-up
is changed. So in this case, wegot thedaddyrock[emphasized] being
onekindof rock andthebabyrock[emphasized] beingadifferent kindof
rock. Becausefor whatever reason, that chemical changedthecontent or
themakeupof thebabyrock, ok?"
I coded this as PCK: activities andexamplesthat connectedwell with
students. Theteacher used "daddy" and "baby" to showand emphasizethe
differencebetweentwo rocks that havebeen changed dueto chemical
weathering. Theteacher knewthat her fifth gradestudents related to thewords
"daddy" and "baby," so sheusedthosewords to teach about theimpacts of
chemical weathering.
I assigned somerecording units with multiple codes becausethey
encompassed morethan onemanifestation of PCK. For example,
Teacher B interview:
"Theyenjoylabs. Because 7th gradersneedto get upandmovearound.
Theycan't sit, theyjust can't. They'regonnashut downif theyjustsit. So
theyenjoythelabs. They, I think, wedo alot in thecomputerlabsas well.
In fact I just hadastudent todaysay, I reallylike this, I feel likeTm
learning. So I knewthat wasgood. Andtheylike things wheretheycan
get up andmovearound. Andreally with labs that's abigpart of it. "
I codedthis as PCK: knowledgeof studentlearningand PCK:
reasons/purposesof usingparticular approachesand/or methods. Theteacher
recognized onecharacteristic of her students (they cannot sit still) and
197
consequently chosean instructional method of teaching (conducting labs) that
helped facilitate learning of her students.
5.3.1.2Elementsof Action Competence
I used thesameset of criteriathat I used in Chapter 3 (pp. 11-12) and
Chapter 4 (pp. 1 0-11 ; 75-77) to codefor AC in this chapter. Whilecoding, I was
guided with thequestion "Which elements of AC weredisplayed in theclass
observations, interviews, CoRes, and surveys, and to what degree?" I codedfor
any uniqueoccurrences of five elements of AC (knowledge/insight, commitment,
critical thinkingandreflection, visions, andplanningandaction experiences) in
each of thefour datasourcesfromeachteacher. This means that, if another
recording unit occurred exactly thesameor very closeto a previously coded one
in thesametranscript fromwhich thefirst onewasfound, I did not codethe
succeedingoneasseparatebecauseit was not auniqueoccurrence. As with
previous coding processesdescribed above, I coded somerecording units as
representing multiple elements of AC.
Examples of coded elementsof AC:
Teacher A CoRes:
What you intend thestudents to learn about global warming:
1) "causes"- was coded as KNOWLEDGE OF CAUSES
2) "possibleconsequences"was coded as KNOWLEDGE OF EFFECTS
Teacher D classroomobservation:
"If you'regoingto takeatreedown, youneedto replant atree. The
problemis it takesaverylongtimefor thosetreesto grow. . .but it's better
thandoingnothingbut it's still not anequal trade. Soyouguyshaveto
198
think about that, that's why when I toldyouguys to look for thepost
consumer content whenyougo to thestore, whenyou'rebuyingtissue,
napkins, ummmcereal, lookingat theboxesandeverything, look for a
high amount of post consumer content. That means that alargeportion of
your stuff isrecycled, ok, andthat's whatyou want."was coded as
COMMITMENT and CHANGE STRATEGIES
Like my coding procedures in Chapters 3 and 4, I rereadtheparts for
which I found inconsistencies in my coding and recoded until thefirst and second
round of codes matched (seeTableE.1). After coding, I calculated total
occurrences and percents (frequency of use) for eachgoal and belief,
pedagogical approach, instructional method, student skills, PCK manifestation,
and element of AC for eachteacher across datasources.
5.4 RESULTS and DISCUSSION
5.4.1 Teacher Profiles
Table5.4 lists somecharacteristics of thefour teachers. Some notable
similarities and differencesweretheteachers' ages, years of teaching
experience, MEECS training, subjects and number of classestaught, and school
locations. TeachersA and D weremuch younger (in their early 30s) than
Teachers B and C (in their late50s). Teacher A had theshortest teaching
experience(3 years); Teacher B had beenteachingthelongest (23.5years).
Teacher D taught several subjects, but in only oneclass group. Theother
teacherstaught oneor two subjects, but in multiple class groups. Teacher B was
trained in four MEECS units comparedwith only oneunit for Teachers C and D;
Teacher A was not trained in MEECS at all. All four teacherstaught at a public,
199
non-magnet school. Teachers B and D's schoolswerelocated in asmall town,
Teacher A's was in a rural community, and Teacher Cswas in an urbanfringe
within a midsizecity11. TeachersA and B taught older students (7th grade);
Teacher C taught 6th grade, and Teacher D taught theyoungest group (5th
grade). Teachers B, C, and D had master's degrees and Teacher A was pursuing
amaster's degreeat thetimeof thestudy. Of thefour teachers, Teacher A also
appearedto havehad thestrongest sciencebackground based on college
majors and minors. SeeTableD.4for additional information about theteachers.
11 Any territory within a MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) or CMSA (Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area) of a LargeCity and defined as urban by theU.S. Census Bureau. An area
becomes a CMSA if it meets therequirements to qualify asa metropolitan statistical area, has a
population of 1,000,000 or more, if component parts arerecognized as primary metropolitan
statistical areas, and local opinion favorsthedesignation. Qualification of an MSA requiresthe
presenceof acity with 50,000 or moreinhabitants, or thepresenceof an Urbanized Area (UA)
and atotal population of at least 100,000. Visit http://www.census.gov/population/www/
metroareas/metroarea.html for more information.
200
o
S c
o ?-
?? j5
03 ,?
F Q-
>i . .
co F
CO
co
E
w
0)
E
(D
Q.
>>
i- 5 o
f E j=
c ? ?
? ?. co
RJ
e
E
E
o
o
?d?
I^
co o
E co
co
XJ
t5 co
C O
? o
0)<XJ
3 . . c
co >. co
co 3 S
Q)
O
C
?
o
CO
-glt
s?.55
o
(D
?
c
co i:
CO CO
co
S-OJ
a?3 cu
i= CD
Q) O) OJ -E 73
X) "O
? c
? co
o>2 J ,
2 ? f J 2
2 CD >,.
ojôo 2
(O o^v
W "S O)/
m (O r W
-SdIo
e
> cd 5
St 2 o
co c c
"c F -*
f o f=
E co 3
.32 J f <
w-co^
??d
3"g Sut
co .22 "O c
Z) ?LU co
o
C
XJ
-
CL
co
f f
>* O-
O in
>- - S
f f o
SI"
CB SE CO
F
C
co
=> .b! 3
c
E
E
o
o
f
e
f
Er
co ro
-o
c
co
co
f
O
f
O
C
f
?
CO
F
XJ
CO
\
O)
Sr0" ^
.= O <!2 _ W
CO
.2 ?)
s 3
o
f
o
C
CO F
?.-=
3 F
O Q.
O) f
(O -W
CO CO
_0 O
O
F TD
? co
^^co
CN a)
J 2 y O)
co
.E -?
-e CO
m MI
-!= LU
co
"O
C
O
O
f
co
5l
O
"co
I
"e <
.2 '
"co '
o
3
XJ :
LU
3
s
co CO
co .25
>< O
-C O
C
o
"co
o
3
XJ
LU
F
92
?
CL CO CO
e
o
S2 c
? ?-
? 5
F Q-
>. . .
^S
i i
?- 2 o
f E j=
.C f o
O LL CO
(
?
co
E
CO
~ >>
*"^ ."ti
C
3
E
E
?
?
1"d
>j?
co -d
E co
? ?
E -5
._ -*-
-~ CO
f .2
co
(?
J S
O
O) . .
3 >,
CO X)
-~ 3
.OtS
8"O)
f
?
C
f
'?
CO
F
XJ
co
co
? T^ O)
e?
I J S
m g5
Pio
?-
? r^
J O O)
co J =
. - XJ
co co _
?. f
L f O)
O)XJ
8,.i
*-'-*-' Q.
J =! h- = o
CO C
a'co
>* i-
co f\
O)UJ
.E ?
.c ^
O W
co o
F
co
3
s
CO^
CO .
E ><
f
(O
Z)
X)
C
co
_?
XJ
C
co
.22 ô
? m "-?
f
co
O. LU
CO X)
. . C
co .>
O XJ
? o
; O) co
E J 2J S S "co ^51 J O J =
co
s^
co
?
3
_ XJ
CO UJ
eXJ
O Q
F
O
C
f
?
oW
t?3 oo
O UT) ?
=* 3 =>
XJ ^
CO
CO
_?
O
?
Q.
?-
?
J Z
o
co
(D
H
LO
O
S)
CC
C
O
C
o
O^
2 Q-
O
f
f
~co ?
____ 3S^
co E c jz
&8. II?
rf CN ^Ô=O J S
Z M- ? g- g
* ? O)J iUg.
g J Sj o 22 o 92 o
io S co E co Ei-
f
92
X)
C
co
f
?
c
2
?
CO
F
XJ
2
O)
8..E 8?
3 -o ^LU CO
O f CO LU =
- 2 c ^
< P
O) i co
io m ? c
O
=co
O F
Q-H
?,- -? j
co f co xj o
"5 a.^f c
. ? O) c ^
Q. -t- f- ?_ ?
s ss o r; .2,
3 S co ? co
E^J tJ zS
O) ET
J 2
?
J S ?
F -s
Il
f 2
am
O)
C
3 F
? O
C co
2,
ra .2
? to
3 >,
XJ J =
LU Q-
201
5.4.2 Elements of PCK
In this section, I report on results for goals and beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills for eachteacher across
four datasources (class observations, interviews, CoRes, and surveys). For
simplicity purposes, I report only thethreemost prevalent goals and beliefs
acrossthefour teachers becausethetopthreeweremoredistinct than the
fourth, fifth, sixth most-cited (and so on), which tendedto becomprised of
multiplegoals and beliefs. For pedagogical approaches, instructional methods,
and student skills, I report on thefive most prevalent becausetheprevalenceof
eachapproach/method/skill was distinct acrossteachers. Thefollowing notes
apply for Tables 5.5through 5.8:
1) CO =Class Observations; In =Interviews; CoRes =Content
Representations; and Su =Surveys
2) Percents (columns 3 through 6) correspondto thefrequency of useof
eachgoal and belief within adatasource. Frequency is thenumber of raw
occurrencesof agoal and belief within adatasourcedivided by thetotal
number of occurrences of ALL goals and beliefs within adatasource.
3) Overall Prevalence: 1 =most prevalent, 2 =second most prevalent, and
so on.
202
5.4.2. 1 Teaching Orientations- Goals andBeliefsabout TeachingScience
5.4.2.1.1 Individual Teachers
Teacher A. County X: taught air and water pollution in 7th grade
Teacher A cited multiple goals and beliefs about teaching science, and his
threemost prevalent goalsand beliefs across datasourceswere(1) transmit
facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards, (2) helpstudents
acquireknowledgeorawareness, and (3) engagestudentsin hands-onactivities
(seeTable5.5). No goals and beliefs occurred in all datasources, and transmit
facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardswastheonly goal and
belief that occurred in morethan onedatasourcein Teacher A (33.3% in class
observations, 16.7% in interviews, and 25.0% in thesurvey). In contrast, the
threemost prevalent goals and beliefs of thethreeother teachers occurred in at
least 2 datasources.
Table5.5. Three Most Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science:
Teacher A
Teacher A DataSources
Categoriesof
Goals and Beliefs
Individual Goals
and Beliefs
CO
(%)
In
(%)
CoRes
(%)
Su
(%)
Overall
Prevalence
Activity-Driven Engagestudentsin
hands-onactivities
66.7
Knowledge
Acquisition
Helpstudents
acquireknowledge
or awareness
100.0
Didactic
Transmit facts,
content, knowledge,
and/orbenchmarks/
standards
33.3 16.7 25.0
203
Teacher B. County Y: taught classification of organisms in 7th grade
Teacher B also cited multiplegoals and beliefs about teaching science,
and her most prevalent across datasourceswere(1) transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards, (2) develop/instill positiveattitudes
towardscience, and (3) develop/instill positiveattitudes towardeducation (see
Table5.6). No goals and beliefs occurred in all datasources.
Table5.6. ThreeMost Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science:
Teacher B
Teacher B
DataSources
Categoriesof
Goals and Beliefs
Individual Goals
and Beliefs
CO
(%)
In
(%)
CoRes
(%)
Su
(%)
Overall
Prevalence
Attitude/Behavior
Change
Develop/instill
positiveattitudes
towardlearning/
education
12.5 16.7
Develop/instill
positiveattitudes
towardscience
25.0 16.7
Didactic Transmit facts,
content, knowledge,
and/or benchmarks/
standards
37.5 66.7
Teacher C, County Z: taught forces and motion in 6th grade
Teacher C also cited multiplegoals and beliefs, and his most prevalent
across datasourceswere(1) transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/standards, (2) preparestudentsfor society/higher education/career/
future, and (3) develop/instill positiveattitudestowardscience(seeTable5.7).
No goals and beliefs occurred in all datasources, but transmit facts, content,
204
knowledge, orbenchmarks/standardsoccurred in threedatasources (9.1% in
class observations, 16.7% in interviews, and 33.3% in CoRes).
Table5.7. Three Most Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science:
Teacher C
Teacher C
DataSources
Categories of
Goals and Beliefs
Individual Goals
and Beliefs
CO
(%)
In
(%)
CoRes
(%)
Su
(%)
Overall
Prevalence
Attitude/Behavior
Change
Develop/instill
positiveattitudes
towardscience
6.7
33.3
Student
Development
Preparestudentsfor
society/higher
education/career/
future
10.0 33.3
Didactic Transmit facts,
content, knowledge,
and/orbenchmarks/
standards
9.1
16.7 33.3
Teacher D. County Z: taught agents of erosion and rocks and minerals in 5th
grade
As theother teachers, Teacher D also cited multiple goals and beliefs, and
her most prevalent across datasourceswere(1 ) transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards, (2) represent abodyof knowledge,
(2) developscienceprocessskills, and(3) reachstudents(seeTable5.8). No
goals and beliefs occurred in all datasources, but transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standardsoccurred in threedatasources (33.3%
in class observations, 6.7% in interviews, and 83.3% in CoRes).
205
Table 5.8. Three Most Prevalent Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science:
Teacher D
Teacher D
DataSources
Categories of
Goals and Beliefs
Individual Goals
and Beliefs
CO
(%)
In
(%)
CoRes
(%)
Su
(%)
Overall
Prevalence
AcademicRigor
Representabodyof
knowledge
33.3 6.7
Humanistic
Reachstudents
100.0
Skill Development
Developscience
processskills
33.3 6.7
Didactic
Transmit facts,
content, knowledge,
and/orbenchmarks/
standards
33.3
6.7 83.3
5.4.2.1.2 Combined Results of Four Teachers
All four teachers cited multiplegoals and beliefs in their teaching.
Combining all occurrencesof goals and beliefs fromall four teachers, fourteen
uniquecategories occurred acrossfour teachers and four datasources. Of the
fourteen, ninecategoriesweredifferent fromthosesuggested by Magnusson et
al., 1999: (1) attitude/behavior change, (2) global/real worldconnections,
(3) learning, (4) student development, (5) humanistic, (6) improvement of
pedagogy, (7) social reform/goodcitizenship, (8) knowledgeacquisition, and
(9) modeling ways of being. The most prevalent categorieswere(1 ) skill
development (24.1%), (2) didactic (19.8%), and (3) attitude/behavior change
(12.1%) (seeTable5.9).
In terms of individual goals and beliefs, themost prevalent across all four
teacherswas transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards
(1 in thelast column, Table5.10), which fell within thesecond most prevalent
206
category - didactic (2 in thelast column, Table5.9). Thesecond most prevalent
goal and belief was developscienceprocessskills (2 in thelast column, Table
5.10).
Table5.9. ThreeMost Prevalent Categories of Goals and Beliefs of Four
Teachers
Categories of
Goals and
Beliefs
Attitude/Behavior
Change
Didactic
Skill
Development
Raw Number of
Occurrences in Each
DataSource
CO In
11
20
CoRes
1
Su
Total
Number of
Occurrences
14
23
28
Total
Frequency
__m
12.1
19.8
24.1
Overall
Prevalence
1
CO =Class Observations; In = Interviews; CoRes =Content Representations; Su =Surveys
Overall Prevalence: 1 =most prevalent; 2 =second most prevalent, and so on.
Frequency =number of rawoccurrences of agoal and belief within adatasourcedivided by
thetotal number of occurrences of ALL goals and beliefs within adatasource
207
Table5.10. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Individual Goals and Beliefs of
Four Teachers
Individual Goals and Beliefs
B
Frequencyof
Useof Each
Goal andBelief
AcrossTeachers
Overall
Prevalence
of Goals
andBeliefs
Representabodyof knowledge
D2>C
Engagestudentsin hands-on
activities
C >A3 >B
Develop/instill positiveattitudes
towardlearning/education
B3>C
Develop/instill positiveattitudes
towardscience
B2 >C3 >A
Transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/
standards
D1 >A1 >C1 >
B1
Reachstudents
D3
Helpstudentsacquireknowledge
or awareness
A2>D
Developscienceprocessskills
D2 >C >A >B
Preparestudentsfor society/higher
education/career/future
C2>A
Numberof goalsandbeliefs that
occurredin 3out 4 datasources
(shaded areas)
A, B, C, and D =Teachers; numbers in columns 2 through 5 correspondto thenumber of times a
goal and belief occurred across datasources, e.g., 3 meansthat particular goal and belief
occurred in only 3 of 4 datasources (e.g., class observations, interviews, and content
representations). In column 6, thenumber following A, B, C, or D is thefrequency of useofthat
particular goal and belief within ateacher, e.g., A1 means transmit facts, content, knowledge,
and/or benchmarks/standardswas themost prevalent goal and belief of Teacher A. Notethat
only thethreemost prevalent goals and beliefs of theteachers areincluded here; theletters
(teachers) without anumber next to themmeanthat thecorresponding goal and belief was not in
thetopthree. The last column indicatesthefive most prevalent goals and beliefs acrossthefour
teachers (1=most prevalent).
208
Table5.11. Similarities and Differences of Goals and Beliefs Regarding
Teaching ScienceAmong Four Teachers
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D
Transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standardswas themost prevalent
goal and belief of thefour teachers
Asidefromtransmit
facts, content,
knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/
standards, this
teacher wantedto
focus most on
knowledge
acquisition, i.e.,
teaching students
howto/whereto find
information to
increasetheir
knowledgeand
engagingstudentsin
hands-onactivities.
Shealsowantedto
focus most on
developing/
instillingpositive
attitudestoward
educationand
developing/
instillingpositive
attitudes toward
science
LikeTeacher B, this
teacher alsowanted
to focus most on
developing/instilling
positiveattitude
towardscience, but
unlikeTeacher B,
preparingstudents
for society/higher
education/ career/
futureappeared
more important for
Teacher C thanfor
Teacher B.
Shewanted to focus
most on representinga
bodyof knowledge,
i.e., doingscience
challengesstudents
with differentproblems
to verifyscience
concepts, developing
scienceprocessskills,
andat thesametime,
reachingstudents.
5.4.2.1.3 Discussion: Goals and Beliefs about Teaching Science
5.4.2.1.3.1 Goals and Beliefs of Individual Teachers
Theoccurrenceof multiplegoals and beliefs and the prevalenceof some
in eachteacher may suggest that teachers' goals and beliefs may befound on a
continuum, and that somegoals and beliefs aremore important than others (see
Table5.11 ). For example, in Teacher A, findings may suggest that transmit facts,
content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standardswas moreimportant to him
than helpingstudentsacquireknowledgeor awarenessand engagestudentsin
hands-onactivities, as indicated by theoccurrenceof transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards in 3 of 4 datasources compared with
209
theother goals and beliefs, which occurred only in onedatasource. This pattern
of occurrencealso surfaced in Teachers C and D.
It appears in thenext quotethat Teacher A's most prevalent goal and
belief (transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards) reflects
his desireto cover his school's curriculumrequirements to meet Michigan
CurriculumBenchmarks and Standards. This possibly meansthat addressing
curriculumrequirements was his first priority. Thesameexplanation may besaid
for thethreeother teacherswho also cited transmit facts, content, knowledge,
and/or benchmarksandstandardsas their most prevalent goal and belief.
Teacher A interview:
Gel (G): "So howdoyouchoosewhat to teach...?
Teacher (T): I go throughjust the things that I do, seventhgrade, so
I do alittle bit of geology, I guess, andearth formationandstuff like
that, fossil layers, fossils, rock layers, thingslike that. Soalittle bit
of earthscienceI guessif youcall that.... I also do anybenchmarks
I can cover in myenvironmental sciencetext. Theypulledtheones
that were...thesearejust the 7th gradeones that theypulledthat I
wasgonnado in 7th grade. Thesearetheones that I wasgoingto
beresponsiblefor. "
As thenext quoteillustrates, Teacher A's other goal and belief to help
studentsacquireknowledgeor awarenessoccurred to be related to his desireto
cover curriculumrequirements. In addition, Teacher A's goal and belief to help
studentsacquireknowledgeor awarenessalso occurred to be influenced by his
other goal to helpstudentsmaketheir own decisionsabout environmental issues
orproblems. Thereasonthat Teacher A ascribed importanceto assessing
students' scientific knowledgeand developing their ability to analyzeasituation
scientifically, may be becausehe believed knowledgeand evaluation skills are
210
important to decisionmaking. Finally, his desireto engagestudentsin hands-on
activitiesstemmedfromhis belief that hands-on activities will help keep his
students interested and engaged in his class.
G: "What doyoufocus onmoreenvironmental science?
T: Environmental science, alot of thebigpro...alot of thethings,
asI saidbefore, youhaveto relatecauseandeffect. I thinkbeing
ableto analyzeasituation scientificallyisabigthing. Not onlythe
wayto.. .not onlyscientific fact but also thewayto approach things
scientificallytoo. What I wouldmostly want to get of thekids is
havingthemmakedecisionson their ownabout theenvironment. If
youaretalkingabout environmental sciencespecifically. . .
G: So moreinformedbecausenowtheyknow. . .
T: Yeah, andnowthey'vebeenexposedto someof thesestuff at a
youngageandthey'veall heardof it. I meanthere'sbuzz words out
therethat theycanaskmeabout thatprobably tenyearsagokids I
don't knowif theyareaskinga 7th gradeteacher or evencertain
things likeglobal warmingarebigideasnow, holesin theozone
layer, theyreally want to talk about this. Theyprobablyhear about
this whether it's debate, another oneis natural selection, coz then
yougotparentsarguingover it. So I definitely want to givethemthe
tools to maketheir own decisionson these."
In Teacher B, although her threemost prevalent goals and beliefs each
occurred in two datasources, theextent in which they occurred differed. In both
interviews and CoRes, transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/
standardsoccurred as her most prevalent goal and belief. In contrast, develop/
instill positiveattitudes towardscienceoccurred as the most prevalent goal and
belief in thesurvey, but only her second most prevalent goal and belief in the
interviews. Similarly, develop/instill positiveattitudes towardlearning/education
occurred as her most prevalent goal and belief in thesurvey, but only her third
most prevalent goal and belief in theinterviews. Thus, despiteappearing the
samenumber of times across datasources, thefrequency of useof goals and
211
beliefs in eachdatasourcemay be indicativeof their overall importancefor each
teacher.
Teacher B's focus on developing/instillingpositiveattitudes toward
scienceand developing/instillingpositiveattitudes towardlearning/education
morethan theother goals and beliefs possibly resulted fromher concern over
students' lack of interest in scienceand in learning or education in general (see
next quote). This concernwas also expressed by Teacher C, which explains the
occurrenceof develop/instill positiveattitudes towardscienceasoneof his three
most prevalent goals and beliefs.
T: "What I want themto get isanappreciation for science, andI
want themto think of it asmorethanjust aclass, but sort of a
lifetime commitment. I want themto always beinterested. I want
themto knowthat their actions can changetheway things work in
our world.
G: Likeempoweringthemtoo?
T: Yes, exactly. I guessI wasrather shockedmyfirst yearhere
that manystudentsdon't likescience, anditjust surprisedme. It
reallysurprisedme, becausein elementaryschool, youknow, you
do alittle experiment or something, andeverybodyis there. They
loveit. Theycan'tgetenoughof it. AndhereI noticedthat there's
asenseof apathy."
As thenext quoteillustrates, Teacher C focused onpreparinghisstudents
for society/higher education/career/futurein addition to transmittingfacts,
content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards, becausehe believed that
scienceteaching is morethanjust teachingfacts; it is about allowing students to
experiencescienceand providing themwith opportunities to developskills and
212
knowledge and to practiceand apply themto preparethemfor asuccessful
career in science.
"A lot ofpeople, especiallypeoplethat arehigher upthat areused
to dealingwith upperlevel kids, alot of themareputtingawholelot
moreimportanceonthefactsandthefact that akidneedsto be
ableto actuallycalculatedensityandunderstandwhy they'redoing
it. My feelingis this: I needto turnkids onto science. If I can turn
themonto scienceto thepossibilitythat theycanmakealivingat
this andthepossibilitythat thisis funandit'sreallynot learning
becausethat's wherethekeyis atmiddleschool. So, mygoal and
thethingthat drivesmyteachingis I want thesekids to beableto
physicallyexperiencescience, notjust...I do expect themto know
it. I do givethemmultiple-choicetests. I justbelievethat in order
for someoneto reallyconsiderseriouslythat scienceis awayto go
or an avenueto go to besuccessful in this dayandageandget a
job. Theyhaveto first of all, believethat theycan do it. And, the
only waythey'regoingto believethat theycando it isif they
actuallytriedit. Themainreasonis to get themtopractice. And
that'smydrivingforce. "
Teacher D's desireto represent abodyof knowledgeand to develop
scienceprocessskills in addition to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/standards may indicateaneedthat shewants to address in her
class instruction, e.g., students' mastery of scienceconcepts (illustrated in the
next quote) and thedevelopment and application of students' scienceprocess
skills in their learning, which in turn may reflect her desireto cover school
curriculumrequirements to meet Michigan CurriculumBenchmarks and
Standards.
Teacher D interview:
"Well wehave, umm, I mean wehavethe, theyouknowMichigan
standardsandbenchmarksandall that basicallythat we'resupposedto
follow. I amnot uhhhyouknowprobablyasfamiliar with themall asI
shouldbe. But basically what I look at arethebigideasfor each unit. And
213
umm, I try to think abouthowyouknowI canget thekids to understand
thoseconceptsandthen thelittle concepts that go alongwith them. "
In addition, Teacher D's goal and belief to reach students is likely influenced by
her personal experienceworking with at-risk and special education learners as
shown in thequotes below.
Teacher D survey response:
"Personally, I feel we'retoo concernedasasociety, about "covering
everything" so wedon't really "cover" anything. I'drather teachfewer
topicsandgo into moredetail so thekids will actuallyremember studying
thetopic. My goal is to "reach" asmanykids asI can."
"As ateacher, youreallydo, youhaveto haveyour bagof tricks. Yeah,
andyouknowwe'vegot all thestudents with special needsandI worked
with thecognitivelyimpairedkids, I've workedwith theautistic kids
although I haven't workedwith themasfrequentlyummI've workedwith
thelearningdisabledkids, I've workedwith theemotionallyimpairedkids.
Younameit, anygroupthat wehavein ourbuilding, I workedwith. I try to
becompassionateandtry to understandhowhardit is for them. I prefer to
work withthestudents with learningdisabilities becauseummI havemore
experiencein that. I'mmorefamiliar with what accommodationsto make,
youknowwhat is anaccommodation versusamodification. "
5.4.2.1.3.2 Most Prevalent Goals and Beliefs Across Teachers
Theoccurrenceof categories other than thoseidentified in theliterature
supports my conclusion in Chapter 4that categories suggested by Magnusson et
al. (1999) werelimited and did not encompass all thereported goals and beliefs
of teachers. My findings arealso consistent with findings of Friedhchsen & Dana
(2005).
214
In terms of individual goals and beliefs, the prevalenceof somegoals and
beliefs point to contextual and personal factors that possibly explainthesegoals
and beliefs. Contextual factors may bestructural, e.g., school curriculum
requirements, Michigan CurriculumBenchmarks and Standards, and content, or
thoserelated to student characteristics. Personal factors may includeteachers'
educational backgrounds, professional development experiences, and their own
beliefs or values (Van Driel er al., 2001).
Thepredominanceof transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/standardsgoal and belief may bean indication of theteachers'
conventional viewor belief about education, apersonal factor, that (1 ) it is still
predominantly transmission of knowledge(e.g., Teacher A on assessment:
"Yeah, I think learning... is somesort of way that they'vegained any sort of
scientific knowledge...") and (2) it is their responsibility to teachfacts and to
increase knowledgeof students about a particular content (Hungerford & Volk,
1990). This predominancealso possibly suggestswhat other teachers call
"teaching for thetest," that is, teachers' primary goal is to teachwhat will be
assessed in thestandardized tests like the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program(MEAP) - acontextual (structural) factor.
Although this is not a universal occurrence, "teachingfor thetest" appears
to bethecasefor thefour teachers examined in this studywho, despite having
different content foci (seeTable5.4), all considered transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardsastheir number onegoal and belief
about teaching science. The next quote illustrates theemphasisthat Teacher B's
215
school placed on teaching what is being assessed. Many similar quotes can be
found in theinterviews and theteacher surveys.
Teacher B Interview:
"Nowour goal is to do scopeandsequenceandto do thecurriculumand
theassessments. I askedmyprincipal theother day, ok, Wheredo we
start with this?' We start with theassessments. Becausewhenyouknow
what's beingassessed, thenyou'll knowwhatyouhaveto teach."
Therelatively stronger occurrenceof developscienceprocessskills and
develop/instill positiveattitudestowardscience(seeTable5.10) compared with
other goals and beliefs may beseen as a reflection of increasing school-wide,
district-wide, or state-wideattention on integrating scienceprocesses (in Grade
Level Content Expectations or GLCEs) or constructing and reflecting on new
scientific knowledge (in the Michigan CurriculumBenchmarks and Standards) - a
contextual (structural) factor- to improvestudents' MEAP scores. It also may be
aresult of teachers' knowledgethat many of their students lack interest in
science- a contextual factor (student characteristics) - as illustrated by the
quotebelow.
Yougot to kindof trick thekids into beingenthusiastic about
somethingandthefact that they'regoingto learn eventhough they
prettymuch haveanideathat it's not cool. I runinto this, especially
with girls, alot. Girlsget into middleschool andtheystart thinking
that it's not cool to besmarter than theboys. Andthat attitudestill
exists although it'snot aspervasiveasit was. It's still there. So,
mythoughts are, I want kids to look at sciencewith moreof an
openmindandI want themto beenthusiasticabout it.
Moreover, in theinterviews of thefour teachers, it was evident that the
content they taught was largely dictated by theGLCEs or the Michigan
216
CurriculumBenchmarks and Standards. Subsequently, most of their goals and
beliefs about teaching scienceappearedto bebound within thecontent that they
(had to) teach- contextual (structural) factor; only afewweremoregeneral or
not tied to aparticular content or topic (seequotefromTeacher B below). As
Grossman (1990) and Lam& Kember (2006) suggested, theteachers' goals and
beliefs may still in fact haveguided their day-to-day decisions about what and
howthey taught. But findings in this study seemto showthat teachers' goals and
beliefs and their day-to-day decisions about what and howto teachwere
influenced by content, in addition to other factors.
A moregeneral goal and belief fromTeacher B interview:
"What I'mlookingfor is for themto establishattitudeandan understanding
for howscienceworks. Andawillingness to investigateit. Everything
elsebeyondthat I guessisbonus. "
As quotedfromTeacher D's interviewon page212, her primary focus on
knowledgeand understanding of scienceconceptswas influenced by her desire
to followthe Michigan CurriculumBenchmarks and Standards. In thequotefrom
Teacher B above, shenot only wanted to focus on understanding of science, but
alsoon developing her students' positiveattitudes toward science, including their
willingness to conduct investigations. Thehugecontrast in thesetwo teachers'
goals and beliefs about teaching sciencemay possibly result in their useof very
different pedagogical approaches (seeTables 5.13 and 5.15) and instructional
methods (seeTables 5.19 and 5.21).
Finally, findings showed that somegoals and beliefs occurred morethan
others across datasources, which could imply that somedatasources (e.g.,
217
Interviews and surveys) werebetter tools to examinegoals and beliefs compared
with others (e.g., class observations and CoRes). I found goals and beliefs more
visible in theinterviews and in thesurvey than in the CoRes and in theclass
observations. This was expected, becausetheteacherswereaskeddirectly
about their goals and beliefs in theinterviews and thesurvey, but not in theother
datasources. In theCoRes, goals and beliefs about teaching scienceoccurred
primarily in teachers' explanations of theimportanceof teaching atopic and/or
what they want their students to learn about atopic or in alesson. Appearanceof
goals and beliefs in class observationswas least expected, becauseI did not ask
theteachersto talk about their goals and beliefs whilethey taught.
5.4.2.2 Teaching Orientations- Pedagogical Approaches
Thefollowing notes apply for Tables 5.12through 5.15, 5.18through 5.21,
5.24through 5.27, and 5.31 through 5.34:
a) CO =Class Observations; In =Interviews; CoRes =Content
Representations; and Su =Surveys
b) Percents (columns 2 through 5) correspond to thefrequency of useof
each pedagogical approachwithin adatasource. Frequency is the
number of rawoccurrences of a pedagogical approach/instructional
method/student skill within adatasourcedivided by thetotal number of
occurrences of ALL approacheswithin adatasource.
c) Overall Prevalence: 1 =most prevalent, 2 =second most prevalent, and
so on.
218
Teacher A, County X: taught air and water pollution in 7th grade
Teacher A cited and/or used multiple pedagogical approaches, and his
most prevalent approaches acrossdatasourceswere(1 ) activity-driven, (2)
didactic, (3) didactic-with-application, (4) process-oriented, and (5) project-based
(seeTable5.12). Activity-drivenwastheonly approachthat occurred in all data
sources (22.2% in interviews, 50% in thesurvey, 36.4% in class observations,
and 16.7% in CoRes).
Table5.12. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher A
Teacher A
DataSources
CO
_(%L
In
(%)
CoRes
(%)
Su
Overall
Prevalence
Process-Oriented
8.0 15.9
Activity-Driven
36.5 22.2 16.7 50.0
1
Project-Based
14.3
Didactic
12.7 83.3 50.0
55.5 11.1
Teacher B, County Y: taught classification of organisms in 7th grade
Teacher B cited and/or used multiple pedagogical approaches, and her
most prevalent approaches acrossdatasourceswere(1 ) activity-driven, (2)
didactic, (3) process-oriented, (4) project-based, and (5) didactic-with-application
(seeTable5.13). Activity-driven (46.2% in interviews, 33.3% in thesurvey,
37.2% in class observations, and 18.8% in CoRes), didactic (43.8%CoRes,
20.5%in interviews, and 11% in class observations, and 8.3% in thesurvey), and
219
process-oriented(18.8% in CoRes, 16.7% in thesurvey, 10.4% in class
observations, and 12.8% in interviews) approaches occurred in all datasources.
Table5.13. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher B
Teacher B
DataSources
CO In CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Process-Oriented 10.4
12.8 18.8 16.7
Activity-Driven
37.2
46.2 18.8 33.3 1
Project-Based
3.7
15.4 33.3
Didactic
11.0 20.5 43.8 8.3
37.6 18.8
Teacher C cited and/or used multiple pedagogical approaches, and his
most prevalent approaches across datasourceswere(1 ) activity-driven, (2)
process-oriented, (3) didactic, (4) didactic-with-application, and (5)
discovery/exploration (seeTable5.14). Activity-driven (45.7% in class
observations, 36.4% in CoRes, 33.3% in thesurvey, and 26.7% in interviews),
process-oriented(45.7%in class observations, 38.3% in interviews, 16.7% in the
survey, and 18.2% in CoRes), didactic (27.3%in CoRes, 16.7% in thesurvey,
20.3% in interviews, and0.8% in class observations), and didactic-with-
application (7.8% in class observations,16.7% in thesurvey, 9.1%in CoRes, and
1.7% in interviews) occurred in all datasources.
220
Table5.14. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher C
Teacher C
DataSources
Prevalence
Process-Oriented 45.7
38.3 18.2 16.7
Activity-Driven
45.7
26.7 36.4 33.3 1
1.7 16.7
Didactic
0.8 20.0 27.3 16.7
7.8 1.7 9.1 16.7
Teacher D. County Z: taught agentsof erosion and rocks and minerals in 5th
grade
As theother teachers, Teacher D also cited and/or used multiple
pedagogical approaches, and her most prevalent approaches across data
sourceswere(1) didactic, (2) activity-driven, (3) project-based, (4) didactic-with-
application, and (5) conceptual change(seeTable5.15). Didactic (42.9% in the
survey, 22% in interviews, 15.9% in CoRes, and 11.7% in class observations),
activity-driven (22% in interviews, 31.3% in class observations, 28.6% in the
survey, and9.5% in CoRes), andproject-based( 18% in interviews, 14.6% in
class observations, 14.3% in thesurvey, and 7.9% in CoRes) approaches
occurred in all datasources.
Table5.15. Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of Teacher D
Teacher D DataSources
CO
In
i%L
CoRes
(%)
Su Overall
Prevalence
Activity-Driven
31.3 22.0 9.5 28.6
Project-Based
14.6 18.0 7.9 14.3
Conceptual Change
0.6 18.0
Didactic
11.7 22.0 15.9
42.9
41.8 12.0 58.7
221
5A2.2.2Combined Results of Four Teachers
Thefour teachers had similarities and differences in their most prevalent
pedagogical approaches across datasources (seeTables 5.16 and 5.17).
Overall, activity-driven and didacticwerethe most prevalent pedagogical
approaches acrossteachers (1 and 2 in thelast column, Table5.16). Of thefour
teachers, Teacher C was themost activity-driven and most process-orientedand
healso had the most representations of pedagogical approaches across data
sources (seeshaded areas in column 4, Table5.16). Teacher D was themost
didactic. Inquiryand guidedinquiryweretheleast prevalent of all approaches
(seecolumn 6, Table5.16).
Table 5.16. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches of
Four Teachers
B
Frequencyof
Useof Each
Approach
Across Teachers
Overall
Prevalenceof
Approaches
AcademicRigor
C>D>A
Process-Oriented
C2 >B3 >A4 >
D
Activity-Driven
C1 >B1 >A1 >
D2
C5 >D >B >A
Project-Based
D3 >B4 >A5 >
C
Conceptual Change
D5 >A >B
Inquiry
GuidedInquiry
No Occurrences
Didactic
D1 >B2 >C3 >
A2
C4 >D4>B5 >
A3
Number of approaches that
occurredin 4 of 4data
sources
13 4
Teacher who usedand/or
citedthemost diverse
pedagogical approaches
acrossdatasources
C >D>B>A
222
Table5.16 Continued:
A, B, C, and D =Teachers; numbers in columns 2 to 5 correspondto number of times an
approachoccurred across datasources, e.g., 4 means that particular approachoccurred in all
four datasources (class observations, interviews, content representations, and survey). In
column 6, thenumber following A, B, C, or D is thefrequency of useofthat particular approach
within ateacher. For example, C2 meansthat process-orientedapproachwasthesecond most
prevalent approach in Teacher C. Notethat only thefive most prevalent approaches areincluded
here; theletters (teachers) without a number next to themmeanthat thecorresponding approach
was not in thetopfive. Thelast column identifies thefive most prevalent approaches across the
four teachers (1 =most prevalent).
Table5.17. Similarities and Differences of Pedagogical Approaches of Four
Teachers
Teacher A Teacher B
Teacher C Teacher D
Acrossthefour teachers, themost prevalent approacheswereactivity-drivenand didactic approaches
Least didactic
Also didactic, like
Teacher D
Most didactic
Most activity-driven
Least activity-driven
Also process-
oriented, like
Teacher C
Most process-
oriented
Least process-
oriented
Least consistent with
useof approaches-
only oneapproach
(activity-driven)
occurred in all data
sources
Most consistent with
useof approaches-
four approaches
sources
Least project-based Most project-based
Least didactic-with-
application
Most didactic-with-
application
Didactic approach
was congruent with
his goals and beliefs
to transmit factsand
teachstudentshow
to acquire
knowledge. Activity-
Drivenwas
congruent with
engagestudentsin
hands-onactivities
goal and belief.
Didactic approach
was congruent with
her goal and belief to
transmit factsand
her useof activity-
driven, process-
oriented, and
project-based
approacheswere
congruent with her
goal and belief to
developstudents'
positiveattitudes
toward science.
Activity-driven and
process-oriented
approacheswere
congruent with his
goals and beliefs to
preparestudentsfor
society/futureand to
developstudents'
positiveattitudes
toward science.
Didactic approach
was congruent with
her goal and belief to
transmit facts. Some
approacheswere
incongruentwith her
goals and beliefs,
e.g., oneof her three
most prevalent goals
and beliefs wasto
representbodyof
knowledgeyet sheis
theleast process-
orientedand activity-
drivenof all
teachers.
223
5A2.2.3 Discussion: Pedagogical Approaches
5.4.2.2.3.1 Pedagogical Approaches of Individual Teachers
Theoccurrenceof activity-driven pedagogical approach asthe most
prevalent approach in Teacher A may beinfluenced by his goal and belief to
engagestudentsin hands-onactivities (third most prevalent) to keepthem
interested and engaged in class (seeTable5.17). Similarly, thestrong
prevalenceof didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches in Teacher A,
which areprimarily usedfor disseminating information or providing scientific
facts, may beexplained by his goals and beliefs to transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardsand to helpstudentsacquire
knowledgeor awareness. In turn, this may beassociatedwith Teacher A's lack
of tenureand his needto meet curriculumrequirements. This congruence
between didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches andthegoal and
belief to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardsalso
occurred in Teachers B, C, and D - transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/standardswas their most prevalent goal and belief and didactic and
didactic-with-applicationwas in their five most prevalent approaches.
Theoccurrenceof activity-driven pedagogical approach asthemost
prevalent approach and theprevalenceof process-orientedapproach (third most-
used and/or cited) in Teacher B may be influenced by her goals and beliefs to
develop/instill positiveattitudes towardscienceand develop/instill positive
attitudes towardlearning/education in general. As with Teacher A, Teacher B
believed that using approaches suchasactivity-driven andprocess-orientedthat
224
allowstudentsto "get up and do things," e.g., experiment, manipulateobjects, or
collect and examinereal data, instead of sitting down and listening to lectures,
could improvetheir liking or appreciation of scienceand education in general
(seequotebelow).
"/ try topull in asmanylabsandhands-onactivities as wecan. I try,
sometimes I just throwsomethingthat is completelyof thearea, like I - 1
haven't donethisyet, I forgot all aboutit - but I havealittle thing whereit
lookslike two identical basesandyouputice cubesonandonemelts
almost instantlyandtheother doesn'tmelt atall. Andsolittle thingslike
that canget themthinkingandhaving, justspark their interest alittlebit."
As shown earlier, Teacher C also sharedthis view (seenext quote), which
helps explain thestrong prevalenceof activity-driven, process-oriented, and
discovery/explorationapproaches in his teaching. In addition, thestrong
prevalenceof activity-driven and especially process-orientedapproaches in
Teacher C also may beexplained by his desiretopreparehis studentsfor
society/higher education/career/future. A process-orientedapproachconsists
primarily of learning about and developing process skills, which Teacher C
believed aresomeof theskills his students needto becompetitive in theglobal
economy.
"Andthethingthat theylikeabout it is that I do alot of hands-on
stuff. Theyareof their seats, wego outside, theyshootrubber
bands. Oneof thefun things that wedo is wegooutsideandwe
havetwo or threedifferent typesof rubberbandsandwe're
shootingthem. Themainreasonis to get themtopractice
metricallymeasuring, gatheringdataandthenbringingit backand
makingagraph. That's the wholepurposeof theactivity. But, in
themeantime, they'relearningawholelot moreaboutscientific
225
method; they'relearningabout labmethods, they'relearningabout
what isproper labprocedure, what is not andso forth. I have
many, manydifferent activities that arefocusedin that directionand
theycomein andthey'reenthusiastic, they'resaying, 'hey what are
wegoingto do today?' So, theycomeinto my class with their eyes
openandtheir minds openandthey'rewilling andreadyto do what
theyhaveto do. "
Teacher D's goal and belief to reachher studentsseemed to be
associatedwith theprevalenceof project-basedapproach in her teaching, where,
asaquotefromher interviewbelow illustrates, sheusedthis approach mostly as
an assessment method that sheadjusted basedon theabilities of her students.
According to her, this approach also allowed her to meet thedifferent learning
styles of her students, thus "reaching" or accommodating their different learning
needs. In contrast, thenoticeably weaker prevalenceof aprocess-oriented
approach in Teacher D (not in her five most used and/or cited approaches),
despiteher goals and beliefs to developscienceprocessskills and to represent
bodyof knowledge(her second most-cited), possibly suggests that, to some
extent, her useof pedagogical approaches is not always explained by her goals
and beliefs asascienceteacher.
"/ try to do differentiating, I try to do thethings that will meet their
youknowtheir different learningstyles. I tryto do things, like when
wedo thesolar system, youknow, theycando adiorama, soif
theyareveryhandson. Theycando that or if theyaremoreof, you
knowof uh, uh awriter, youknowmorevisual, theycando theABC
book. Andummthepamphlets, youknowso I like to havethose,
thoseoptions when wedoprojectsandthingslikethat. So that it
canmeet their, youknowtheir different learningneeds. AndI will
also makedifferent rubrics so that I haveprettymuch thesame
expectations. Youknowlikeinsteadof having, youknow, fivefacts
about theplanet, maybethespecial edkidshaveto havethree. So
theystill haveto comeup with youknowfacts about theplanet.
226
Uhhhm, maybetheyhaveto tell methecolor of theplanetandthe
rotationandtherevolution time. But theydon't haveto tell meextra
facts. SoyouknowI try to takein their, youknowwhat theyare
ableto do. Andthenyouknowthekids that arecapableof doing
moreprojectslike that allowthemto do more. "
5.4.2.2.3.2 Most Prevalent Pedagogical ApproachesAcross Teachers
Findings showed that, although teachers employed multiple pedagogical
approaches in their teaching, they used and/or cited only afewof them(no more
thanthree) moreextensively than others. In addition, although theexact extent of
useis variableacrossteachers, two approacheswereused consistently
throughout - activity-driven and didactic. Thedominanceof thesetwo
approaches appeared to belargely connectedto theteachers' primary goals and
beliefs, even though theteachers did not entirely sharethesamegoals and
beliefs. Although congruence between goals and beliefs and pedagogical
approaches appeared to exist, therealsowas someincongruencethat may
indicateacomplex relationship between thetwo PCK variables.
As theteacher with themost representations of pedagogical approaches
across datasources (4 approaches occurred in all 4 datasources- seeshaded
areas in column4, Table5.16), this may suggest that Teacher C wasthemost
consistent in terms of useof pedagogical approaches. However, based on my
class observations and interviews with him, this consistency also appearedto
indicatethat hewastheleast flexibleor adaptableof thefour teachers in terms of
exploring other pedagogical approaches. Teacher Csconsistency may be
attributed to his long teaching experience(22 years). Thesamemay besaid of
227
Teacher B, who has taught for 23.5years andwas alsofairly consistent with her
useof pedagogical approaches (3 approaches occurred in all 4datasources-
seeshaded areas in column 3, Table5.16). Many years of teaching experience
most probably havedevelopedtheir knowledgeand ability to useaspecific set of
approaches consistently.
Furthermore, both teachers' lack of flexibility or adaptability in terms of use
of pedagogical approaches may beattributed possibly to their yearsof teaching
experience- they have beenteaching much longer than Teachers' A and D. It is
possiblethat their belief in their pedagogical strategies is very strong, and that it
may bedifficult to changeor "unlearn" their "old" ways, thereby resulting in alack
of opennessto other approaches.
Teacher Csappearanceas themost activity-driven and most process-
orientedof all theteacherswas expected, becausehis goals and beliefs
appearedthemost consistent with his pedagogical approaches. In both
approaches, Teacher D was theweakest comparedwith theother teachers
because, assheexplained in her interview(seequote below), her inability to use
activity-drivenandprocess-orientedapproachesweredueto lack of funding,
space, and time. This may explain why Teacher D wasthemost didactic of the
four teachers.
G: "What factors affectyour teaching, andwhat aresomeof thethings
thatyouemphasizein your teaching?"
T: "Well, alot of factors influencemyteaching. Uhh, youknowmaterials,
number one. Like I saidbefore, wedon't havealot of moneyin thedistrict
so when it comes to doingalot of labs. I can't do awholelot of lab
experiment. Umm, so alot of times, if I do one, I just do one. Insteadof
228
doing, insteadof havingall thekids do it, umm, youknowso that'sone
thing. Umm, theamount of spaceandthelack of time, andthelack of, you
know, uh sinks and, andcountersandthingslike that. Thestudentsalso
comeintoplay. Thekids' needuh, playabigrolein it. I, youknow,
dependingon theyear, andyouknowthereadinglevels of thekids and
ummthematuritylevelsand, andthingslikethat, that canummmakea
bigdifferenceasto howI actuallyteachthembecauseI hadkids that we
couldreallygo in depth. "
Theweak prevalenceof inquiryand guidedinquirywas surprising, and it
appeared in spiteof theseemingly increased emphasis on useof these
approaches in scienceeducation in the United States. This presents an
opportunity to continueto conduct studiesthat examinetheprevalenceof inquiry
and guidedinquiryapproaches in environmental education and thefactors that
influencetheir use.
Teacher A. County X: taught air andwater pollution in 7th grade
Teacher A used and/or cited avariety of instructional methods, and his
most prevalent methods across datasourceswere(1st) experiments/labs/
computerlabs, (2nd) discussion, (3rd) lecture, (4th) in-class activity, and (5th)
drawings/pictures/posters (seeTable5.18). Noneof themethods Teacher A
used and/or cited occurred in all datasources, but experiments/labs/computer
labsand discussionoccurred in threeof four datasources. Useof didactic
questionswas considerably more (45.6%) than any other methods Teacher A
used in class observations, but it was absent in theother datasources.
229
Table5.18. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher A
Instructional Methods CO
m_
In CoRes
(%)
Su Overall
Prevalence
Didactic Questions
45.6
Discussion
0.6 4.7 7.7 16.7
Drawings, Pictures/
Posters/Visuals/Diagrams
1.5
4.7 15.4
Experiments/Labs/
Computer Labs
0.2 4.7 15.4
16.7
In-ClassActivity
1.1 4.7
33.3
Lecture 0.2 2.3 15.4
16.7
As with Teacher A, Teacher B also used and/or cited avariety of methods,
and her most prevalent methods across datasources were(1st)
experiments/labs/ computer labs, (2nd) notes, (3rd) discussion, (4th) student
readingtextbook aloud, and (5th) useof technology (seeTable5.19).
Experiments/labs/computerlabs, notes, discussion, and studentreadingtextbook
aloudoccurred in all four datasources. In class observations, didactic questions
dominated the methods (53.7%), but aswith Teacher A, it did not appear in the
other datasources.
Table5.19. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher B
Teacher B
DataSources
CO In
(%)
CoRes Su
Overall
Prevalence
Didactic Questions
53.7
Discussion
0.7 4.4 6.3 7.7
Experiments/Labs/
Computer Labs
0.3
4.4 6.3 23.1
Notes 0.4
7.4 6.3 7.7
Student Reading
TextbookAloud
0.9 2.9 6.3 7.7
Use Of Technology
1.5 17.6 15.4
230
As with TeachersA and B, Teacher C also used and/or cited different
methods, and his most prevalent methods across datasourceswere(1st) hands-
onactivity, (2nd) lecture, (3rd) activitypackets/worksheets, (4th)
experiments/labs/computerlabs, and (5th) graphs/charts (seeTable5.20). Only
hands-onactivityoccurred in all datasources. As it did in TeachersA and B,
didactic questionsdominated class observations (47.4%) in Teacher C, but this
method did not appear anywhereelse.
Table5.20. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher C
Teacher C
DataSources
Prevalence
Activity Packets/
Worksheets 4.6 4.2 13.3
Didactic Questions
47.4
Experiments/Labs/
Computer Labs
2.9 13.7 6.7
Graphs/Charts
4.0 3.2 6.7
Hands-OnActivity
2.3 20.0 13.3
16.7
Lecture 0.6 4.2 13.3
16.7
Teacher D, County Z: taught agentsof erosion and rocks and minerals in 5th
grade
As with theother teachers, Teacher D usedand/or cited different
methods, and her most prevalent methods acrossdatasourceswere(1st)
individual work/project, (2nd) fieldtrips, (3rd) askfor/useexamples, (4th)
discussion, and (5th) drawings/pictures/posters (seeTable5.21). Individual
work/project and fieldtrips occurred in all datasources. Unliketheother
teachers, for who didactic questionsonly occurred in class observations, this
231
method occurred in Teacher D's class observations (55.6%) and interviews
(20.5%).
Table5.21. Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Teacher D
Teacher D
DataSources
CO In CoRes
Su Overall
Prevalence
AskFor/UseExamples
7.3 2.6 22.1
Didactic Questions
55.6
20.5
Discussion
2.6 6.4 15.8
Drawings, Pictures/
Posters/Visuals/
Diagrams
2.6 11.5 7.4
Field Trips
0.2 1.3
1.1 9.1
Individual Work/Project
0.2 7.7 5.3
9.1
Thefour teachers had similarities and differences in their most prevalent
instructional methods acrossdatasources. Overall, experiments/labs/computer
labs and discussionwerethemost prevalent methods acrossteachers and
across datasources (1 and 2 in thelast column, Table5.22). Of thefour
teachers, Teacher B usedthemost diverse in useof instructional methods, as
observedacross datasources (4 methods occurred in all 4 datasources- see
shaded areas in column 3, Table5.22).
232
Table5.22. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Instructional Methods of Four
Teachers
B
Frequencyof
Useof Each
MethodAcross
Teachers
Overall
Prevalence
of Methods
Activity Packets/Worksheets
C3 >D >B
Ask For/UseExamples
D3 >A >C >B
Didactic Questions
D >B>C>A
Discussion
A2 >B3 >D4 >
C
Drawings, Pictures/Posters/
Visuals/Diagrams
A5 >D5 >C >B
Experiments/Labs/Computer
Labs
A1>B1 >C4>
D
Field Trips
D2>C
Graphs/Charts
C5
Hands-OnActivity
C1 >B >D >A
In-ClassActivity
A4 >B >D >C
Individual Work/Project
D1
Lecture C2 >A3 >B, D
Notes
B2 >D >A >C
Student Reading Textbook
Aloud
B4 >A >D
Use Of Technology
B5 >C >D >A
Number of methods that
occurredin 4 out 4 data
sources
Teacherwho usedand/or
instructional methods
acrossdatasources
B>A>D >C
A, B, C, and D =Teachers; numbers in columns 2to 5 correspondto number of times a method
occurred across datasources, e.g., 4 meansthat particular method occurred in all four data
sources (class observations, interviews, content representations, and survey). In column 6, the
number following A, B, C, or D is thefrequency of useof that particular method within ateacher.
For example, C3 meansthat activitypackets/worksheetswasthethird most prevalent method in
Teacher C. Notethat only thefive most prevalent methods areincluded here; theletters
(teachers) without a number next to themmeanthat thecorresponding methodwas not in thetop
five. Thelast column identifies thefive most prevalent methods acrossthefour teachers (1 =
most prevalent).
233
Table5.23. Similarities and Differences of Instructional Methods of Four
Teachers
Teacher A Teacher B
Teacher C Teacher D
Across teachers, themost prevalent methodswereexperiments/labs/computerlabsand
discussion
Least consistent with
useof methods- not
onemethod
sources
Most consistent with
useof methods-
four methods
sources
Used In-Class
Activity (non-hands-
on) themost
Used Hands-Onthe
most
Lecft/re-Oriented
Lecftvre-Oriented
UsedTechnology
themost
Experiments/Labs Experiments/Labs
Experiments/Labs
Discussion Discussion
Discussion
Activity
Packets/Worksheets
Individual
Work/Project
Notes
Field Trips
Although weak of
useof hands-on
activitywas
incongruent with his
goal and belief to
engagestudentsin
hands-onactivities,
his focus on
experiments/labs
was congruent with
this goal and belief.
Useof lectureand
discussionwere
congruent with his
goals and beliefs to
transmit factsand to
teachhis students
howto acquire
knowledge.
Notes, discussion,
and student reading
textbook aloudwere
congruent with her
goal and belief to
transmit facts.
Experiments/labs
and useof
technologywere
congruent with her
goal and belief of
developingstudents'
positiveattitudes
towardscience.
Methods were
congruent with his
threemost prevalent
goalsand beliefs
(Transmit facts,
content, knowledge,
and/or benchmarks/
standards; Prepare
studentsfor society/
higher education/
career/future; and
Develop/instill
positiveattitudes
towardscience)
Somemethods used
wereincongruent
with her goals and
beliefs, e.g., oneof
her threemost
prevalent goals and
beliefswas to
represent abodyof
knowledge, yet
experiments/labs
was not a strong
method used in her
instruction.
234
5.4.2.3.3 Discussion: Instructional Methods
5.4.2.3.3.1 Instructional Methods of Individual Teachers
Teacher A's useof experiments/lab/computer labs may beexplained by
his goal and belief to engagestudentsin hands-onactivities to keepthem
interested and engaged in his class (seeTable5.23). It must benoted, however,
that someof thein-class activities andexperiments/labs/ computerlabsthat he
actually included in his lessonswerenot truly hands-on; as hedescribed in an
interview below, theyweresimply classwork that hecalled an activity or lab that
allowed studentsto "get up" and, therefore, givethemtheimpression that they
weredoing alab activity instead of sitting and listening to himtalk.
G: "So howdoyouthenpresent thedifferent typesof pollution to
them? Like smog, global warming, howdoyoudo that?
T: prettymuch for this, it'sprettymuch straight lecture.
G: lecture?
T: Yeah, thisiskindof adifficult one. I neverreallyfoundgreat labs
for it. But I gavethemlikeachart wherethey went aroundandthis
isjust to get themof their seatsmorethananything, to makeit feel
likealab eventhough thereis reallynothingexperimental. But it's
this I givethemachart andtheyhavelikeall thedifferent types of
pollution. AndI likeput articles in different labstations. So theycan
justgo andtheyhaveto do alittle bit of researchin eachlabstation
to figureout what isit causedby, what is this typeof pollution
causedby, what aretheeffects onahuman, youknow, stuff like
that."
Theother methods that Teacher A used and/or cited (discussion, lecture,
and drawings/pictures/posters), which aredidacticand didactic-with-application
types of instructional methods, also may havebeen associatedwith his goals
and beliefs to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards
and to helpstudentsacquireknowledgeor awareness. Teacher A liked to
235
engagehis students ? discussions, even though headmitted this approachtook
alot of time becausehis students got excited to sharetheir personal
experiences. It is also important to notethat for Teacher A, his own educational
experience influenced his selection of instructional methods. For example, he
liked using drawings/pictures/posters because, in addition to his belief that these
methods helped somestudents understandtheconcepts he's teaching, his
mentor usedthesemethods aswell (seenext quote). All five of Teacher A's most
prevalent methods seemed appropriatefor teaching about air and water
pollution, and allowed himto providefacts about sources and causesof pollution,
aswell asaconcreteway to showhis students howpollution affects plant
growth.
"If I talk about that cycle[construction of ozonemolecule], aslong
asI drawit withpictures, theyareusuallyprettygoodon theboard,
andI tell themto drawit on their notes, andstuff like that. And
maybealot of it hadto do with mymentor teacher when I was at
LansingSchool shewas reallybigonhavingthemdrawpicturesfor
alot of things to describethemselvesandalot of times theyhave
options, if you wannadescribeit in aparagraph, that'sfine. If you
want to do it in apictureandasentencethat'sfine too. Andso I try
to usesketchesbecausesomelearnalot bydrawingpicturesand
showingthings."
As with Teacher A, Teacher B's selection of instructional methods suchas
her useof didactic and didactic-with-applicationtypes of instructional methods
(e.g., notes, discussion, and student reading textbook aloud) may beexplained
by her goal and belief to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/
standards (seeTable5.23). Similarly, Teacher B's useof experiments/labs/
computer labsand useof technology also appeared to havebeen associated
236
with her goals and beliefs to develop/instill positiveattitudes towardscienceand
develop/instill positiveattitudes towardlearning/education in general. Teacher B
recognized the importanceof usingfun learning activities to increaseher
chances of building her students' interest and positiveattitudes in science(see
next quote). For example, sheused discussion, notes, and experiments/labs/
computerlabsextensively to teach about classification of organisms. These
different methods allowed her to providestudentswith scientific facts about
classification systems aswell as allowed themto work in groups to let them
experienceexactly howthey would classify things.
G: "What isyourapproach to helpingthemappreciatescience?
T: Think, well, oneof thethings that helpsmeis I'maspecialized
background. So I'mprettygoodabout teachingthings in different
ways, which I findI do alot in my classrooms as well. J ust trying
to, youknow, hit thevisual learner, andtheverbal learner, and
things like that. AndI'vefoundthatyoucan'tjust teachsomething
or saysomethingonetime, youreallyneedto review, constant
review, andI do that likeat myopenersin themorning, thebell-
ringer typeactivityin themorning, tryto makeit fun, try to have
labs, try to varyit. I never havethemcomein andjustsit, you
know, for two or threedaysstraight - we wouldnever do that. And
so, yet I'vegottaget thecontent to them. "
For Teacher C, his useof hands-onactivityand experiments/labs/
computerlabsshowed astrong connection to his goals and beliefs topreparehis
studentsfor society/highereducation/career/futureand to develop/instill positive
attitudes towardscience. Teacher Csuseof thesetwo methods spokeof the
valueheascribed to letting students try or experienceaphenomenonthat he
wasteaching about after they heard about it in his lecture. In addition, Teacher C
usedpackets/worksheetsto servelargely both asdrill exercises and atest/quiz.
237
Useof this method may indicatethe importanceTeacher C ascribed to knowing
and remembering scientificfacts. This teacher also believed that his students
neededto hear and learnfacts fromhimfirst, so he used lectureand activity
packets/worksheetsfor students to takehomemorethan using discussions.
Moreover, Teacher C believed that by requiring his studentsto maketheir
graphs/chartsby hand (not with thecomputer), hewould helpthemobtain adeep
understanding of howto creategraphs/chartsand to developthat skill to prepare
themfor afuturecareer in science. Finally, thenatureof Teacher Cstopics
(forces and motion) may havebeen easily applicableto theuseo hands-onand
experiments/labs/ computer labs instructional methods.
As with thethreeother teachers, Teacher D's useof didactic and didactic-
with-applicationtypes of instructional methods (e.g., ask for/useexamples,
discussion, drawings/pictures/posters) appearedto followfromher goal and
belief to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards.
Similarly, thesedidactic and didactic-with-applicationtypes of methods aswell as
individual work/projectwereconsistent with Teacher D's desireto reach her
students, becausethesemethods allowed her to accommodateher students'
different learning styles and needs. For example, instead of giving examples to
students, Teacher D wanted to ask themfor examples becauseshebelieved
they would remember concepts better if they provided examples to which they
could relate.
I expected ahigher occurrenceof experiments/labs/computer labsor other
activity-driven and process-orientedinstructional methods basedon Teacher D's
238
goals and beliefs to represent abodyof knowledgeand developscienceprocess
skills. However, thesemethods werenot represented in Teacher D's five most-
prevalent methods dueto Teacher D's limitations in funds/resources, space, and
time, illustrating someincongruence between this teacher's goals and beliefs and
instructional methods.
5.4.2.3.3.2 Most Prevalent Instructional Methods Across Teachers
Most of the instructional methods used by thefour teachers seemedto be
associatedwith their goals and beliefs about teaching science, and this may
explain the prevalenceof experiments/labs/computer labsand discussionacross
teachers (1 and 2 in thelast column, Table5.23). For example, useof activity-
oriented methods (e.g., experiments/labs/computerlabs) consistently occurred to
match goals and beliefs to develop/instill positiveattitudes towardscience,
engagestudentsin hands-onactivities, or preparestudentsfor society/higher
education/career/future. Similarly, useof didactic and didactic-with-application
types of instructional methods (e.g., discussion) consistently appeared to support
transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards, which is a
of/'daci/c-oriented goal and belief. However, someincongruencealsowas
observed, which points to thecomplex natureof the relationship between goals
and beliefs and instructional methods; that is, goals and beliefs do not always
explain teachers' useof instructional methods, or other factors affect teachers'
decisions on choiceof methods.
239
It is also possiblethat someof theobserved incongruenceis a
methodological issuethat may haveinfluenced theresults of this study. For
example, thedominant occurrenceof didactic questions in class observations of
all four teachers may havebeen largely a result of theuseof class observations
as adatacollection method, as useof didactic questions may havebeen more
easily observed in theclassroomsthan in theinterviews, CoRes, or surveys.
Thesefindings point to thestrengths and weaknesses of datacollection
methods, and thereforetheneedfor careful interpretation of results.
As with pedagogical approaches, all four teachers employed multiple
instructional methods. Someteachers usedthesamemethods for thesameor
for different purposes, or they used different methods altogether based on
multiplefactors, including uniquecharacteristics and needs of their students,
barriers or constraints in their teaching context (e.g., lack of time, space,
funding), content taught, their views about teaching and learning, and their styles
of teaching, among others.
Teacher B had the most representations of instructional methods across
datasources (4 methods occurred in all 4datasources- seeshaded areas in
column 3, Table5.22), which may suggest that Teacher B was themost
consistent in terms of useof instructional methods. Teacher B's long teaching
career (23.5years) may havestrengthened her knowledgeand ability to use
instructional methods consistently acrossvaried and multipleteaching contexts.
But, aswith Teacher C, using methods consistently may mean that it may have
been difficult for Teacher B to use, adapt, and apply newor different instructional
240
methods in other teaching contexts, especially if sheis strongly convinced that
her methods arethemost effective, if not theonly effective methods of teaching.
5.4.2.4 Student Skills
Teacher A used and/or cited multiple student skills, and themost
prevalent skills heused and/or cited across datasourceswere(1) critical
thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluationskills, (2) observationskills,
(2) social/communication skills, (2) writing, (3) reading, (4) informationgathering,
and (5) predicting(seeTable5.24). Noneof thestudent skills occurred in all data
sources, but critical thinkingskills/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluationskills
occurred in 3 of 4 datasources. No student skills werefound in thesurvey.
Table5.24. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher A's Class
Student skills CO In
CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Critical Thinking/Think On
Their Own/Analytical/
EvaluationSkills
31.3
27.8 100.0 1
Information Gathering
15.6
Observing
6.3 11.1
Predicting
12.5
Reading
9.4 5.6
Social Skills/Communicating
(Ability To Explain, Describe)
6.3 11.1
Writing
6.3
11.1
241
Teacher B used and/or cited multiple student skills, and themost
prevalent skills sheused and/or cited across datasourceswere(1) using
numbers, (2) computer skills, (3) classifying, (4) critical thinking/thinking on their
own/analytical/evaluation skills, and (5) observing(seeTable5.25). Noneof the
student skills occurred in all datasources, but using numbers occurred in 3 of 4
datasources.
Table5.25. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher B's Class
Teacher B
DataSources
Student skills
Prevalence
Classifying
20.0
100.0
Computer Skills
25.0 33.3
Critical Thinking/Think On
Evaluation Skills
21.3 12.5
Observing
20.0 12.5
UsingNumbers (E.G.,
Calculating %, Measuring,
Estimating, Ranking)
1.3
12.5 33.3
Teacher C. County Z: taught forces and motion in 6th grade
Teacher C used and/or cited multiple student skills, and the most
prevalent skills heused and/or cited across datasourceswere (1) ability to
record/document dataorfindings, (2) inferring/interpreting, (3) problemsolving,
(4) abilityto makeconclusions/recommendations, and (5) critical thinking/thinking
on their own/analytical/evaluationskills (seeTable5.26). Noneof thestudent
skills occurred in all datasources, but all thefive most prevalent skills occurred in
3 of 4datasources. No student skills werefound in thesurvey.
242
Table5.26. Five Most Preva
ent Student Skills in Teacher CsClass
Teacher C
DataSources
Student skills
CO
m_
In CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Ability to Make
Conclusions/Recommendations
2.0 7.6 14.3
Ability To Record/Document
Data/Findings
10.2
12.1 14.3
Own/Analytical/Evaluation Skills
2.0 1.5 14.3
10.2 6.1 14.3
ProblemSolving
8.2 6.1 14.3
grade
As with theother teachers, Teacher D also used and/or cited multiple
student skills, and the most prevalent skills sheused and/or cited across data
sources were(1) readingskills, which was theonly student skill found in the
survey (100%) and was dominant in theCoRe(90%), (2) critical thinking/thinking
on their own/analytical/evaluationskills, (3) computer skills, (4) predicting, and (5)
informationgathering(seeTable5.27). Of all thestudent skills in Teacher D, only
readingskills occurred in all datasources.
Table5.27. Five Most Prevalent Student Skills in Teacher D's Class
Teacher D
DataSources
Student skills
CO In CoRes Su
Overall
Prevalence
Computer Skills
4.3 10.0
Own/Analytical/ Evaluation
Skills 29.7
26.1
Information Gathering
5.4
8.7
Predicting
Reading
12.2
8.1
4.3
8.7 90.0 100.0
243
Across thefour teachers, the most prevalent student skill was critical
thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluationskills. Themajority of themost
prevalent student skills in all four teacherswere process skills (asterisked items
in Table5.28). Even thoughTeacher D had onestudent skill (reading) appear in
4of 4 datasources (seeshaded areas in column 5, Table5.28), Teacher C had
fiveskills occur in 3 of 4 datasources (seeshaded areas in column 4, Table
5.28), and, therefore, displayed themost skills acrossdatasources.
Table5.28. Summary of Five Most Prevalent Student Skills Across the Four
Teachers
Student skills
B
Frequencyof
Useof Each
Student Skill
Across
Teachers
Overall
Prevalenceof
Student Skills
Ability To Make Conclusions/
Recommendations*
C4
Ability To Record/Document
Data/Findings*
C1
Classifying*
B3
Computer Skills
B2 >D3 >C
Critical Thinking/Think on
Evaluation Skills*
A1 >D2 >B4
>C5
Inferring/Interpreting*
C2 >B >D
Information Gathering*
A4 >D5 >C
Observing*
A2 >B5 >D >
C
Predicting*
D4 >A5 >C
ProblemSolving*
C3
Reading
D1 >A3 >C>
B
Social Skills/Communicating*
(Ability To Explain, Describe)
A2>D>B>
C
UsingNumbers* (e.g.,
Calculating %, Measuring,
Estimating, Ranking)
B1 >OA
Writing
A2 >C >D
Number of skills that occurred
in 4of 4datasources
244
Number of skills that occurred
in 3of 4 datasources
1 1
Teacherwho usedand/or
student skills acrossdata
sources
OA>B>D
A, B, C, and D =Teachers; numbers in columns 2to 5 correspondto number of times astudent
skill occurred acrossdatasources, e.g., 4 meansthat particular skill occurred in all four data
sources (class observations, interviews, content representations, and survey). In column 6, the
number followingA, B, C, or D is thefrequency of useofthat particular skill within ateacher. For
example, B3 meansthat classifyingwasthethird most prevalent student skill in Teacher B. Note
that only thefive most prevalent skills areincluded here; theletters (teachers) without a number
next to themmeanthat thecorresponding skill was not in thetopfive. Thelast column identifies
thefive most prevalent skills acrossthefour teachers (1 =most prevalent). Skills with asterisks
werecodedas process skills.
Table5.29. Similarities and Differences of Student Skills Emphasized by the
Four Teachers
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D
Critical thinking/thinkingontheir own/analytical/evaluationskillswasthemost prevalent skill
across thefour teachers' classes
Overall, scienceprocess skills werethemost prevalent across thefour teachers
Most consistent in
terms of building
skills - displayedthe
most skills across
datasources (5 skills
occurred in threeof
four datasources)
Most process skills-
oriented
Ability to Make
Conclusions/
Recommendations
Ability to Record/
Document Data/
Findings
ProblemSolving
Reading
Reading- occurred
in all datasources;
congruent with
Teacher D's goal
and belief of
reaching students
245
UsingNumbers
(Calculating %,
Measuring,
Estimating, etc)
Writing
Social Skills/
Communicating
Computer Skills
Computer Skills
Classifying-
consistent with topic
taught
Information
Gathering- matched
his knowledge
acquisitiongoal and
belief
Information
Gathering
Observing-
consistent with
topicstaught
Observing-
consistent withtopic
taught
Predicting-
consistent with
topics taught
Predicting
Theother skills
Teacher A cited
and/or useddid not
match his goals and
beliefs, but some
(critical thinking,
observing,
predicting) were
consistent with the
topics taught (air and
water pollution).
Skills did not directly
match her goals and
beliefs, but were
fosteredthroughthe
instructional
methods sheusedto
developstudents'
positiveattitudes
towardscienceand
somewere
taught (classification
of organisms).
Skills werefostered
becausehis goal
and belief was to
preparehisstudents
for society/future;
also skills were
fostered asaresult
of instructional
methods usedto
developpositive
attitudestoward
science; skills were
taught (forces and
motion).
Process skills
(critical thinking,
information
gathering, predicting)
matched her goal
and belief to develop
processskills, and
wereconsistent with
topicstaught (agents
of erosion and rocks
and minerals).
5.4.2A3Discussion: Student Skills
5.4.2.4.3.1 Student Skills in Individual Teachers
Looking closely at individual teachers, similarities and differences in
student skills wereobserved. Fiveof theseven most prevalent student skills
246
found in Teacher A (critical thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluation
skills, observing, predicting, informationgathering, andsocial/communicating)
were process skills, even though developing process skills was only thefourth
most prevalent goal and belief of Teacher A. Someof theseskills (e.g.,
observing, predicting, social/communicating) haveresultedfromengaging
studentsin hands-onactivities, which was oneof Teacher A's threemost
prevalent goals and beliefs. Information gatheringmatched Teacher A's goal and
belief to transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardsand
helpstudentsacquireknowledgeor awareness. The process skills that were
observed also occurred related to thetopics that Teacher A taught at thetimeof
thestudy - air pollution and water pollution. For example, critical thinkingis
important for studentsto beableto examine multiple causes and effects of
pollution and to assess howthey contributeto or help reducepollution.
Readingandwritingarenot scienceprocess skills, but occurred high in
Teacher A's list, becausehebelieved many of his students needed helpwith
reading and writing. Consequently, Teacher A incorporated readingin his
instruction by askingfor volunteers to read fromthetextbook during lectures and
notetaking. Tofoster development of writing skills, Teacher A included essay
questions in his exams and required studentsto write in completesentences
when they answered aquestion. Healso required students to submit science
journals and/or lab reports.
In Teacher B, all but one(computer skills) of thefive most prevalent
student skills found acrossdatasourceswere process skills. Classifyingdirectly
247
matched thecontent taught by Teacher B - classification of organisms. Overall,
theemphasis on process skills expressed by Teacher B were not directly related
to her goal and belief to develop/instill positiveattitudes towardscience, but, as a
result of using different activities to increaseor developstudents' liking for
science, Teacher B may havefosteredor developed process skills. Using
computerswas asignificant part of Teacher B's instruction, becauseshe
believed it allowed her students to work at their own pace, and it was yet another
way for her to develop/instill positiveattitudesin students towardscienceand
towardeducation in general. Noneof thefive most prevalent student skills found
in Teacher B appeared to beassociatedwith her goal and belief to transmit facts,
content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards. Finally, although Teacher B
aspired to develop/instill positiveattitudes towardeducation, thestudent skills
that shefostered did not match her goal and belief.
In Teacher C, all of thefive most prevalent student skills found across
datasourceswereprocess skills, even though developingprocessskillswas only
his sixth most prevalent goal and belief. This may beattributed to his goal and
belief to preparestudentsfor society/higher education/career/future, as he
expressed in his interviewthat hewanted his students to develop acareer in
science. He believed that his students needed to havetheskills that scientists
haveto haveasciencecareer, which is why hefocused on developing science
process skills in his students. In addition, aswith Teacher B, Teacher C also
used diverseactivities to improvestudents' attitudes toward science, sothis also
may havecontributed to the predominanceof process skills in his instruction.
248
Finally, most of theprocess skills cited and/or used directly matched content
taught by Teacher C - forces and motion. For example, learning about forces
and motion requires theability to collect and record data, solve math problems,
infer and interpret data, and makeconclusions based on data.
For teacher D, someof themost prevalent student skills shecited and/or
used across datasourceswere process skills (critical thinking/thinkingon their
own/analytical/ evaluationskills, predicting, and information gathering), and they
matched her goal and belief to developprocessskills. Process skills also
matched thecontents that shetaught - agents of erosion and rocks and
minerals. For example, students neededto think critically when they examined
numerous causesand effects of erosion. They also needed to beableto predict
possibleconsequences or impacts of erosion.
As with Teacher A, theoccurrenceof information gatheringskills for
Teacher D may beexplained by her goal and belief to transmit facts, content,
knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards. However, no skills occurred to match
Teacher D's goal and belief to represent abodyof knowledge.
Readingskills andcomputer skills appearedto beassociatedwith
Teacher D's goal and belief to reachstudents. For example, aswith Teacher A,
Teacher D focused on readingskills becauseshebelieved her students needed
helpwith reading. Consequently, sheincluded reading in her instruction, such as
during lectures and notetaking, wherein sheand her students took turns reading
parts of atextbook. Moreover, Teacher D used computersto meet thedifferent
learning styles of her students and to providethemwith an additional learning
249
resource. For example, in additionto hearinglectures in theclassroom, students
watched videos onlineto learn moreabout rocks and minerals. Students also
used computers to gather information fromonline resourcesto complete
individual class projects. In doing so, Teacher D may havehelpedfoster
computer skills in her students.
5.4.2.4.3.2 Most Prevalent Student Skills Across Teachers
Although multiplestudent skills werecited and/or used by eachteacher,
someskills weremore prevalent than others, possibly indicating differencein
each teacher's focus on avariety of student skills at thetimeof thestudy. The
variability in prevalenceof student skills within eachteacher and the
incongruenceof someskills to goals and beliefs, pedagogical approaches, and
instructional methods may have been influenced by acombination of contextual
(students' needs, thenatureof content taught, school requirements/standards
and benchmarks, assessments/MEAP tests) and personal factors (e.g., goals
and beliefs of teachers).
Looking at all teachers, however, it is interesting to notethat most of the
student skills emphasizedwerescienceprocess skills, even though individually,
teachers did not all havethesamepedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, goals and beliefs about teaching, or content taught (seeTable5.30).
But many of thoseskills werecongruent with thespecific content that individual
teachers taught, aswell aswith thestrong prevalenceof activity-driven and
250
process-orientedpedagogical approaches and experiments/labs/computer labs
instructional methods acrossthefour teachers. Theother skills that occurred
unrelated to content seemed more needs-based, that is, they resultedfroma
teacher's perception of students' needs at any given timeduring thestudy.
Thepredominanceof critical thinking/think on their own/analytical/
evaluationskillswhen all occurrences of studentskills acrossteachers are
combined may reflect ageneral indication of thecurrent direction that the
teachers had in terms of skill development of their students. For Teacher C, it
seemed as if his goal and belief topreparehisstudentsfor society/higher
education/career/futuremay haveexplainedwhy hewas themost consistent in
terms of student skills observed across datasources. This may mean Teacher C
wasthe most skills-focused of thefour teachers, although, becauseof his goal
and belief, hemay havebeen less open to fostering other student skills,
particularly if they werenot process-related, comparedwith theother teachers.
251
co
O
o
co
a
Cu
a.
o
"05
CQ
C
CO
SU
co
O
O
?)
O
W
E
?
O W
T3 8 2
E ? E
II?
8 S*
a s 8
s s Ol1-
F C 3 T3
E S.
?
?
?-
co s?.2
.13
co
c/5 O) .2 a>
m c u -
^c0
?<8
F 'S
m o) 2
+- co e
-C 3 f
O) CJ )-C
co co
I I >
'S "O
s
e co
Q) I
'is co I
2 S
0>_>,
?? a>
?? -S
iP. 2
o Q)
c
o 2
p "S
a) Q)
00, O
~o
IU
CO UU
f 5
(?
C (O
.f f
co ?
> 3
Q) O
*i CJ )
3 Q) E
., Q)
Q) ? -a
oo .e e
Dh (O
o S
05-
CO CO
Ec-
OO Q)
S *
CO Q)
Q)
O
SiQ
w vii
Q) ^
5)3
T5 OO
^<
?d
o
Q)
?
Q.
"O
c
co
.?
?
" -o
T3
C
co
C
l-**
18
O) C
-J Ci.
CO
S*
il
w O
E 4?
c>
Q) "O
r.S
> ..
Q) (O
" T3
O
Q.
oo i:
O Q)
? E
CO
t-a
T3 03
Q) -Q
* OT
"O =
s-*
CO CO
i3 c
O O)
Q) -S
O" 3
Q. CO
O)
Q)
Oig
? oo
ÔO
OO O)
=O
-* 2
Q.
O .
OO Q) ??'
= O) =
Tv o O -TZ
E o)
Q) C
'S 1S
m f
CO C-
05
O OO
c: i_
J = Q)
11)
-? E
c o
co o
CO
l_
OJ
.C
?
o
SU
S2
CO
-I
c
?
s
c ?
Se
? f
E ?
" c a)
CO T3
S S
55 cd O)
2.c
C33 CO
O m-g-
a> Q) o) O)
_e -= 3 3
co
co co
EHH
o-
S^
1 Q)
O) O
8.1
O Q.
f X
9-
= ??
3 O
E ?
?
"co
03 -?
Q) T3
>> Q)
CNl^ ?
geo
??
? UJ
CO LU
F 3:
OO
e co
jo SB
CO *-*
> 3
Q) O
?
>. fc Q)
-ti Q) .Q
s?- co
o w
c
O f
'?? ?
OO 3
1ts
0
co co
J = ?.
ZL f
^?-
?) d
?
Q) -?-
8 J
^00
CO Q)
^-O
T3 3
C .ti
co C
. CO
2 Q)
3 .>
ti *-'
'??
O
* a. "?
.2 CL <"
??
8 ? g
2-8
? TJ +J
O) OO
?? ?
3 .C
*8
f2S
+^ y- 3
?&8
.2 co co
p ??
O)T3
O)
OO
co H -K
OO
-o 2
CD O
CL co
T3
C
co
e
Q)
>"O
S -S
?
" 00
co 00
00
T3
C
co
OO
o
E
?
00
00
00
Q)
O
?-
?.
~- CD
O P
c
_?
co
> . .
CD ??
-??
O Q)
Ê
.îg ??
00 .^+--
cd co e c
? ^cd f
a g- -o -o
*- ? ^3
? E - ""
LU
^3
5 3
to CO
CO
O
LL
?
en
'c/>
co
Q.
E
LU
s
c
co
(?
?3
O
CO
F
C
?
I
Q OJ
s
c
CO
CO
OJ
"+J
"l-
_co
I
co
O
co
ir>
_f
co
o
^
OO co
eoe
.
^00
r- co
m"?
? ai ti .2
00
Sl
e ?
Q) o
Q) 3
7^ E
2 .
O) O)
I
T3
CD
co e
9> 'co
00
_Q) _
CO O)
- co
00 *- 0
ro 3 T3
O l- co
T3
O)
.3irog
S)â
_ Q) .c 2
Q- ^j: ^
3 00 o 00
O o co O
O)S 022
^Q)
3^
Q-O
. co
>*
00
?? Q) i
>. > 3
T302
8 .2 .h= c
UJ co <3
00
Sf
^
e co
co ?
> 3
Q) o
?
"?? ,W
il
Q)
Q) J 3
1- T3
-C C
h- co
e 5 co
.2:1 O)
OO w O
.? O ^
E Q- .92
00 o. o
e o w
2 f-s
*"" ^co
-^Q) >
ai Ci^D
o^r-o
'8 J TO
C
.0
"co
o
3
T3
3 CD
"(/) "O
18
as T3
? 5
Q)
OO
3 OO
T3 OO
? O CD
^-= 2
co 00
e.a
0 J O
"S 1/5
E
_00 -
OO oj
oo -12
1
QJ ^03
? Q-
52 co co 10 S
Q) OO Q)
OO
C
? .
? o co
?-3 1
Q-E
o
e
?? ?= -?
O Q) ^
S E a
1-1 O) =
?? 5
=O 00
5 c i_
^-^B
3-0 E
H c o
CO co ?
co
?
J Z
o
co
2
Q.
Q.
<
(D
32 "co
o &
00 -s
( S
cd co
CM co
?
o
e
CD
?
CO
CD
T3
2
O)
cl-c
O f
a> Q) O) 3 o
o 5 co o Q)
Eh- CLh-
Q)
OO f
S2 '=
co f
73 X
J CD
a.
-^= 00
"5 ro
P- F
.^>,=CL
CO
O
.LU
00 LU
COS
co T3
^^f
O) C
is
CO o
f
??
c co
F f
co *-
> 3
f o
^Szh
co
0 .F
"f
F J 3
F
? "O
_ C
co
?,
e co
Q ?)
' ? ~
*- O CO ?;
.i StI
o ro y
00 co 00
O
f OO
?? "g
I
I ss
> t ?
T3
C
co 00
c J S
.2 i5
"o ~
I
e E
00
00
00
"<r> w 'S)
.oc
E-o
e
f
8
fe. 8
? ?? .y 00
00
F o
_ co
O "O
CO (O
? OO
?. e
? f o. o
co co co
"c f S
? Q- -2
SS ? 55
CO F OO
> 3
? ?? S
? ?.00
8 H "g
? E co co co
T3
"' R -
T co c
co ? s
S ra *
"g -? O)
t c CD
252
5.4.3 Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge(PCK)
5.4.3.1 Individual Teachers
Teacher A, County X: taught air andwater pollution in 7th grade
As their elements of PCK in theprevious section, thefour teachers also
demonstrated multiple manifestations of PCK across datasources. Teacher A's
PCK was manifested themost in his (^reasons/purposesof usingparticular
approaches, methods, or instructional strategies, (2) knowledgeof student
learningor understanding, (3) activities or examplesthat connectedwell with
students, (4) ways usedto overcomebarriers or constraintsin teachingcontext,
and (5) reasons/purposesof selectingandemphasizingparticular concepts (see
Table5.31). Noneof the PCK manifestations demonstrated by Teacher A
occurred in all datasources, but reasons/purposesof usingparticular
approaches, methods, or instructional strategiesand knowledgeof student
learningor understandingoccurred in 3 of 4datasources. No PCK
manifestations wereobserved in thesurvey.
Table5.31. Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher A
PCK Manifestations CO In
CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Reasons/Purposesof Selecting
andEmphasizingParticular
Concepts
12.5 13.0
Knowledgeof Student Learning
or Understanding
33.3 13.0
26.7
Ways Usedto Overcome
Barriers or Constraintsin
TeachingContext
16.7 15.2
Reasons/Purposesof Using
ParticularApproaches,
Methods, or Instructional
Strategies
6.3 32.6
73.3
Activities or Examples That
ConnectedWell With Students
29.2 13.0
253
Across datasources, Teacher B's PCK was manifested themost in his
(1) reasons/purposesof usingparticularapproaches, methods, or instructional
strategies, (2) knowledgeof student learningor understanding, (3) activities or
examplesthat connectedwell with students, (4) reasons/purposesof selecting
andemphasizingparticularskills, and(5) ways usedto overcomebarriers or
constraintsin teachingcontext (seeTable5.32). As with Teacher A, noneof the
PCK manifestations demonstrated by Teacher B occurred in all datasources, but
reasons/purposesof usingparticular approaches, methods, or instructional
strategiesand knowledgeof studentlearningor understandingoccurred in 3 of 4
datasources. No PCK manifestations werefound in thesurvey.
Table5.32. Five Most Yevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher B
Teacher B
DataSources
PCK Manifestations
CO
_i%L
In
_(%L
CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Reasons/Purposes of
Selectingand
EmphasizingParticular
Skills
10.2
2.6
Knowledgeof Student
Learningor
Understanding
24.5 10.3 30.0
Teaching Context
4.1 5.1
Reasons/Purposesof
UsingParticular
Approaches, Methods, or
Instructional Strategies
12.2 66.7 70.0
Activities or Examples
That ConnectedWell
With Students
38.8 2.6
254
Across datasources, Teacher Cs PCK was manifested the most in his
(1) reasons/purposesof usingparticularapproaches, methods, or instructional
strategies, (2) knowledgeof student learningor understanding, (3) reasons/
purposes of usingparticular activities, (4) ways usedto overcomebarriers or
constraints in teachingcontext, and(5) reasons/purposesof selectingand
emphasizingparticularskills (seeTable5.33). As with TeachersA and B, noneof
the PCK manifestations demonstrated by Teacher C occurred in all datasources.
However, unlikeTeachersA and B, Teacher Csfour most prevalent PCK
manifestations occurred in 3 of 4datasources. No PCK manifestations were
found in thesurvey, just aswith TeachersA and B.
Table5.33. Five Most Prevalent PCK Manifestations of Teacher C
Teacher C DataSources
PCK Manifestations CO
In CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Reasons/Purposesof
Selectingand
EmphasizingParticular
Skills
10.7 12.5
Knowledgeof Student
Learningor
Understanding
28.6 25.0 20.0
Teaching Context
3.6 2.5 20.0
Reasons/Purposesof
UsingParticular
28.6 32.5 20.0
Reasons/Purposesof
UsingParticularActivities
(e.g., Problems,
Demonstrations,
Simulations,
Investigations, and
Experiments)
7.1 10.0
40.0
255
Teacher D, County Z: taught agents of erosion and rocks and minerals in 5th
grade
Across datasources, Teacher D's PCK was manifested themost in her
(1) reasons/purposesof usingparticularapproaches, methods, orinstructional
strategies, (2) knowledgeof student learningor understanding, (3) activities or
examples that connectedwell with students, (4) ways usedto overcomebarriers
or constraints in teachingcontext, and(5) reasons/purposesof usingparticular
activities (seeTable5.34). Unliketheother threeteachers, two of thefive most
prevalent manifestations of Teacher D's PCK emergedfromall four data
sources, namely, (1) reasons/purposesof usingparticularapproaches, methods,
or instructional strategiesand (2) knowledgeof studentlearningor
understanding. Thethreeother manifestations occurred in 3 of 4 datasources.
Table5.34. PCK Manifestations of Teacher D
Teacher D DataSources
PCK Manifestations CO
In CoRes Su Overall
Prevalence
Knowledgeof Student
Learningor
Understanding
12.7 27.6 16.2 50.0
TeachingContext
7.3 8.6 10.5
Reasons/Purposesof
UsingParticular
20.0 31.0 39.0 50.0
Reasons/Purposesof
UsingParticularActivities
(e.g., Problems,
Demonstrations,
Simulations,
Investigations, and
Experiments)
3.6 6.9 12.4
Activities or Examples
That ConnectedWell
With Students
50.9 6.9 19.0
256
5.4.3.2CombinedResults of Four Teachers
Reasons/purposesof usingparticular approaches, methods, or
instructional strategiesand knowledgeof studentlearningor understandingwere
theonly two PCK manifestations that occurred in 3 of 4 datasources across all
teachers, and, therefore, werethemost prevalent. All four teachers
demonstrated multiple manifestations of PCK, andthey had much in common.
TeachersA, B, and D shared thesamefour most prevalent PCK manifestations
across all four datasources, namely, 1) reasons/purposesof usingparticular
approaches, methods, or instructional strategies; 2) knowledgeof student
learningor understanding, 3) activitiesor examples that connectedwell with
students, and 4) ways usedto overcomebarriers or constraintsin teaching
context. Thethreeteachers differed in their fifth PCK representation. Teacher C
sharedthesamefirst, second, andfourth PCK manifestationswith TeachersA,
B, and D, and his fifth PCK representationwith Teacher B {reasons/purposesof
selectingandemphasizingparticularskills).
Although thefour teachers shared similar PCK manifestations, theextent
of thesemanifestations varied acrossteachers. Based on frequency of use,
Teacher D was strongest in (1 ) reasons/purposesof usingparticularapproaches,
methods, orinstructional strategies, (2) knowledgeof student learningor
understanding, (3) ways usedto overcomebarriers or constraintsin teaching
context, and(4) activities or examplesthat connectedwell with students (see
column 6, Table5.35). Teacher D was alsothe most consistent across data
sources in demonstrating PCK manifestations (2 manifestations occurred in 4of
257
4datasources and 4 manifestations occurred in 3 of 4datasources- see
shaded areas in column 5, Table5.35), and thereforeoverall, had thestrongest
PCK of thefour teachers. Teacher B was strongest amongtheteachers in
reasons/purposesof selectingandemphasizingparticularskills. Teacher C was
strongest amongtheteachers in reasons/purposesof usingparticular activities.
Teacher A was strongest amongtheteachers in reasons/purposesof selecting
andemphasizingparticularconcepts (seecolumn 6, Table5.35).
258
O
Q.
f
g
>*'-s
et0- 2
S
5 e
o
4- (0
O W
? 2
w ?
=>* <?
"ti
5 UU f r~
i
o
(0
E
E
co
uri
co
LO
_0>
-O
03
?
?
co
C
O
re
*-
(O
C
m
E
?
?-
?
?
CQ
?
D
?
<
CO
Q
?
m
O
CQ
CN
CM
OM
Oi
.C
.N
55
ce
-e
Q.
o
C
co
.C
"?
32
f
co
O
CO-*
CD _
co CD
O O
Q. C
C? o
^cB
3
co -2
CD t
CD CC
CC Q.
CM
Ol
.C
.N
55
CD
-C
!
"O
C
CD
O)
.C
"?
CD
CD
co
CO
CD
co
O co
$ CD
C
O
> ^r
co t
CD CD
CC CL.
co
co
co
5
O
?
Q
co
Oi
.e
-S
C
e
r>
O
O)
.C
e
CD
CD
-J
C
8
co
.e
co
C
O
O
C
co
CQ
CD
E
O
e
o
<
?
?
?
?
?
CO
CO
co
IO
CQ
?
IO
Q
?
CO
O
co
co
CQ
co"
<
?
CO
Q
co
cS>
"5 O
CO
CD
-C
CJ
co
2
Q.
a
?.
CD
3 CO
? cd
5 'Si
CD CD
Q- g
.e co
I
o
co ?
F ?
CO -C
O CO
e-e
Ol cS C0-
O ?
W co -C
S 8 5
^ce 3
CO
.<D .
*s co
s.s
*? -2
-S e
geo
S* c -s
^s
5 g F
? elu
co J D -Q
Q)Q g
8 co *
CO - co
CC -315
.CD
O
CD
C
C
O
?
CD
co
f
I
co
IO
i^
O
CO
.Oi .F "ts
i2
.CD "S
:1
i co
CN
CM
CM
CD
CO
o
3
?
?
o
CD
CO
C
o
CD
O
3
?
?
o
ô
CO
C
.O
s
co
S
C
co
e
<
?
CQ
?
O
?
Q
? ?
Ql f
** to
(O 3
s>?
2 ?
** e
(O Q)
? 5.
** 2
? .fc
S -a
re e
J =
(O f
CO O
C >
co <
Q) Q)
. . ?
en -Ô
?
O 5
o jd m
2; CQ
3
U)
3
O
CO
CO CD
73
CO
CO
O
*- -s O r^? J =
J l OO U -c
. <- Z = J O CD fc
co ,o . o f c ?;
? re ? ? fc TI
3--5?8?)"?
f co a> ? 2 -' - co
O -w g ~CO (B-"
g S I 'ro a g ^?
- -'S S O-Z I
" o
c c uj = <^ ?-
? ? ? E "^ cd
o += s= _ co
eu ,.- 2 S E -S 2
i ? * - c - a > c ? o ro 2 S,
?"ES c?
C . . ÎBi-I;
Q. ~A S c O c w
co O CD ?_ n_ o ,
S'-iSsE^ww
Il3li5||
p ^ > CO .>-s
O =5 -^
-s
c
CL O !=
CO
2 o
? S co qJ -
ffl m :
3 O W m m < S
0 != ? 2? en
S c 3 o S 2
2 u
W CO
f
?
e
f
?.
3
?
?
?
? f
re (?
f re
I- ?
C f 5
c-2
E^
co 5 ?a-
O Ot CSO)
^ i 5- -
co "3^
? c -2 ro f ? co
i-oQ-g.^co c
t1-
? - c ? . ? >
" cu re c f cd
|<?'^!^
iS O)-S "5R-^?.
? " u ?
. . S 5 "d R ? roe
c'e^w -- -*- ? ?
Spflc-"
5Si
2 8 5?,
f ^co =:
1^ 2-_ jo ? 55
- E^
SiS -Q
= E
W ~i? <D
_ CO J -W co
f fa? **
- co "e e co
,, - Rm co
-o 5S grP 2
CD O
co
f
co
O
P.
O
f
o
CD
f
re I co S lo 1tt
si&ilSi
mre3*-Sc>g
. . F t; co E co f re
259
5.4.3.3 Discussion: Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge(PCK)
5.4.3.3.1 Manifestations of PCK of Individual Teachers
Oneway that Teacher A demonstrated his PCK was in his reasons/
purposesof usingparticular approaches, methods, orinstructional strategies, as
illustrated in thequotebelow. Using activity packets to supplement textbooks that
lacked information on types of pollutants and their sources and impacts
demonstrated his attempt to enhancehis students' knowledge, which was
congruent with oneof his goals and beliefs.
Teacher A class observation:
"Also, someof it [information] is fromthispacket. I kindof got somestuff,
didsomeresearchandgot somestuff for it. You might want to readover
thepacket verycarefullybecausesomeof theinformationyou'renot going
to findin your book, you'regoingto findin yourpacket. "
Theoccurrenceof (1) reasons/purposesof usingparticular approaches,
methods, orinstructional strategiesand (2) knowledgeof student learningor
understandingasthetwo most prevalent manifestations of Teacher A's PCK may
suggest that thesetwo types of knowledgeareassociatedwith his decisions on
what to teach, how, and why, morethantheother types of knowledge
(manifestations). Thesamething may besaidfor thethreeother teacherswhose
PCK alsowas demonstrated themost in thosesameareas.
Lack of teaching experiencemay haveplayed a big role in Teacher A's
weak PCK relativeto theother teachers- hewastheyoungest and had been
teachingfor only threeyears comparedwith Teachers B and C, who had been
teaching for 23.5and 22 years, respectively, at thetimeof this study. Teacher
A's lack of experiencealso may havebeentied to his seeming inconsistent use
260
of pedagogical approaches and instructional methods. Some researchers have
suggestedthat PCK is developed through teaching experience(Gess-Newsome,
1999; Leeet al., 2007; Magnusson tal., 1999; Van Driel & DeJ ong, 2001).
Having taught for only threeyears at thetimeof thestudy, Teacher A may not
havedeveloped his PCK as much asTeachers B or C. Perhaps related to
teaching experience is teacher education, which may have played arole in
Teacher A's relatively less developed overall PCK comparedwith theother
teachers. At thetimeof thestudy, hewas still pursuing a master's degree
whereas theother teachers already possessed amaster's degree.
Of thefour teachers, I did not expect to seeTeacher B havethestrongest
manifestation of PCK in reasons/purposesfor selectingandemphasizing
particular skills, becauseshewas not thestrongest in terms of her emphasis on
diversestudent skills. I had predicted Teacher C or Teacher A. I did expect,
however, to find Teacher B haveweaker knowledgeof ways usedto overcome
barriers or constraints in ateaching context compared with theother teachers,
becauseshetalked theleast about barriers or constraints in class. While not
discussing her challenges may not necessarily mean Teacher B had thefewest
barriers or constraints surrounding her teaching, it is possiblethat shedid have
fewer challenges compared with theother teachers, or that thesechallenges did
not influence her teaching as much as her other types of knowledge
(manifestations). Finally, in contrast to Teacher A, ageand length of teaching
experiencedid not seemto increasethestrength of Teacher B's overall PCK.
Also, in contrast to thepossibleassociation between lack of consistency in useof
261
instructional approaches or methods and theoverall weak occurrenceof Teacher
A's PCK, Teacher B's consistency did not appear to havecontributed to astrong
PCK either. This seeming congruence(among PCK elements) and incongruence
(between PCK elements and overall PCK) is another exampleof thecomplex
relationships between individual PCK elements and actual occurrenceand
strengthof PCK. As mentioned earlier, thesepossibleassociations (or lack
thereof) also may bearesult of methodological issuessuch as small sample
size, or that variables werenot adequately or appropriately addressed by some
datacollection methods.
I expectedto seeTeacher C asthestrongest in demonstrating his PCK in
terms of reasons/purposesof usingparticular activities, becausehewas the
most activity-drivenof thefour teachers. In thequotebelow, Teacher C
demonstrated his PCK in his reasons/purposesof usingparticular activities
through his useof various small experiments to help students understandwhat
happens to individual substanceswhenthey arecombined and go through
chemical reactions.
"/ do another onecalled. . .well, I call it liquidplusliquidequalssolidand
that's whenI takesteel wool andI soakit for 48hoursin vinegar. The
steel wool breaks down andI get iron acetate. Then theiron acetate, I
takeandI pour that off, no, no, I putammoniain acontainer andI put the
ironacetatein theammoniaandit coagulates. It takesall that iron from
theacetateandit rebondsit so it lookslikeasludgeit's on thetop. Andof
course, in theprocesstheammoniaendsuplosingits smell as well
becauseof thechemical reaction. Wedo that, I do threeor four of those
sothat theyget theunderstandingthat whenyouhaveachemical reaction
or chemical change, that substancesgiveup theirpropertiesandform
somethingnew. Andthat's thefocus andtheemphasis andthen we're
donewith matter andmoveon. "
262
As with Teacher B, age, length of experience, and consistent useof
pedagogical approaches did not seemto contributeto thestrength of Teacher
Csoverall PCK. Teacher Csconsistency of useof pedagogical approaches may
suggest that his teachingwas possibly less open to things that did not align with
his goals and plans for his students (e.g., topreparethemfor society/higher
education/career/future), resulting in a morestructured overall pedagogy. This
was markedly different, for example, fromTeacher D's overall pedagogy, in that
shewas moreflexibleand always was adjusting her lessons based on her
students' needs and on current events at her school.
Teacher D's PCK was representedthemost in her reasons/purposesof
usingparticular approaches, methods, or instructional strategies. As thenext
quoteillustrates, Teacher D used readingas an instructional method because
many of her students had poor reading skills. Shealso as/fedstudents to come
up with their own examplesabout what they werelearning, becauseshebelieved
that helped her students remember concepts better. Shealso used experiments,
although only afew, to add to or reinforceconcepts that they read or discussed.
Teacher D's CoRe responses:
"/ usecalendarpicturesfromthe SierraClub for visual aides. Weread
aloudthesectionanddiscussas wego alongbecausemanystudents
strugglewith readingif it's doneon their own. I havethemthink of
examplesthat they'veseenthemselvesso they'remorelikely to
remember them. Whenpossible, I try to doanexperiment or discussone
that'sbeendonein thepast. At our upcomingfieldtrip thereis amodel
town insideaclear bubblew/a fan blowingsandaround. I will talkabout
this aheadof timeandwhen wearethereI will refer backto it. It shows
howdeposition of sediment (sand) occurs whenit'sblown around."
263
In thenext quote, Teacher D's useof theroot word "deposit" fromthe
word "deposition" and her "making adeposit in abank" analogy illustrated her
PCK in terms of activities or examples that connectedwell with her students. The
students related to her exampleof dropping off money in abank when one
makes adeposit, and it helped themunderstandthat deposition "drops off'
sediments.
Teacher D class observation:
"As ariver flows downstream, thewater startsto slowdown. Soit starts
goingreallyfast, but asit gets closer to.theend, it slows down. This
slowingdown causestheriver to dropsomesediments. Sedimentsarethe
materials that aredroppedbytheagentsof erosion. Sedimentsinclude
sand, soil, androck. Thedroppingof sedimentsbytheagentsof erosionis
calleddeposition. Ok? So what is theroot wordof deposition?
S: Deposit?
T: Deposit. What is adeposit? [Calls astudent]
[Student answers]
T: No, that'sawithdrawal. A depositisputtingsomethingin. Or dropping
somethingoff...A deposit is likedroppingsomethingoff. If yougo to the
bankandmakeadeposit, what areyouleavingbehind?
S: Your money.
77 Your money. Ok. Sodepositionis thedroppingoff or theleaving
behindof sediments. "
Teacher D's strong knowledgeof ways to overcomebarriersor constraints
in her teaching context was expected, because, in contrast with Teacher B,
Teacher D openly talked about theobstacles or challenges that sheencounters
in her class and her school in general (seenext two quotes). Interestingly, the
existenceof thesebarriers or constraints may haveprovided Teacher D with
opportunities to build her PCK.
Teacher D CoReresponses:
"Meetingneedsof suchawide varietyof students with muchlimited
funds/resourcesandwith all theGLCEs, standardizedtests, etc. Also, with
all thevariousmethodologies we'resupposedto use, strategies that work,
6traits of writing, 4 squarewriting, literaturecircles, writers andreader's
workshopandthosearejust for LanguageArts andLiterature. It's insane.
264
Wepracticereadingstrategies to helpimprovetheir ability to read
instructional texts. We usealot of worksheets, but wedon't talk about
most of themtogetherin classbecauseof lowreadinglevel of some
students.
"Yeah, wehada, urn, aboardmeetinglast night. They're, uhh, talking
about uh closingour buildingdown.. .actuallythestateof Michigan has
changedthecurriculumso that nextyearthetopics, manyof thetopics
that I teach, like theecosystemand. . .it's supposedto go upto thesixth
grade. Andso, I'mcontemplatingongoing, youknow, andmovingupto
thesixth grade...wehavetheyouknowMichigan standardsand
benchmarksandall that basically that we'resupposeto follow. . . You
knowwhat I meanandtherearetimes, I meanI'msureeverybodyhas
this, uh, youknowin theirjobandtherearetimes whenyouwonder if it's
worth it andthingslike that andI think that happensin theteaching
profession, youknow, much morethan otherprofessions. "
Another exampleof congruency occurred in terms of knowledgeof student
learningor understandingand activities or examples that connectedwell with
studentsof Teacher D. I also expectedto seeTeacher D asthestrongest in
thesetwo PCK manifestations, becausesheaspired to reach her students (goal
and belief), and certainly oneway to do that would beto know her students'
learning needs and preferences, strengths andweaknesses, and prior
knowledgeto beabletofind activities or examples to which they can relate.
5A3.3.2 Most Prevalent Manifestations of PCK Across Teachers
Findings across teachers showed somecongruenceand incongruence
between PCK manifestations and PCK elements (goals and beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills). For example, Teacher C
occurred, as expected, thestrongest in demonstrating his PCK in terms of
265
reasons/purposesof usingparticular activities, possibly becausehewasthe
most activity-drivenof thefour teachers. In contrast, I predicted Teacher C or B
to haveastronger manifestation of PCK in his/her reasons/purposes of using
particularapproaches, methods, or instructional strategiescomparedwith
Teacher B and D becausethey werethestrongest and most consistent in
pedagogical approaches and instructional methods, respectively. However,
Teacher D occurred thestrongest.
In addition, although I predictedTeacher C or B to haveastronger overall
PCK than Teacher D becausethey weremoreconsistent in their useof
pedagogical approaches and instructional methods and were moreskills-focused
than Teacher D, thelatter occurred thestrongest. Thesemixed findings possibly
suggest that prevalenceof individual elements of PCK does not predict or
indicate prevalenceof individual PCK manifestations or strength of teachers'
overall PCK. Arguably, this may beattributed to thenatureof PCK, which,
accordingto someresearchers, is theresult of theintegration of individual
elements of PCK and not thesumof thoseelements (Loughran et al., 2004; Park
& Oliver, 2008). Subsequently, this may helpexplainwhy Teacher D had the
strongest PCK of thefour teachers, eventhough shewas less experienced in
terms of teaching, less consistent in her useof pedagogical approaches and
methods, and lessfocusedon student skills thanTeachers B and C. Teacher D's
lack of experiencedoes not support an earlier claimby someresearchersthat
moreexperienced teachers havestronger PCK than thosewho areless-
experienced (Lee et al., 2007; Park & Oliver, 2008; Van Driel & DeJ ong, 2001).
266
Another factor that may help explainwhy Teacher D had thestrongest
PCK may beher flexibility in terms of what to teach and how. Frommy class
observations, it was evident that Teacher D was morewilling to adjust her plan
for theday to takeadvantageof teachablemoments thantheother teachers.
Such instances may haveallowed Teacher D to connect morewith her students
and learn moreways to improve her teaching and her students' learning, thereby
improving her overall PCK (Park & Oliver, 2008).
Finally, thefact that Teacher D had only oneclass groupon which to
focus every day may havehelped her strengthen her PCK, becauseit may have
been easier for her to integrate her teaching acrossthesubjects, and identify
areaswhereshemight beableto changeor improveto teach her students more
effectively. Theother teachers may havehad to adjust to different groups of
students and may havehad lesstimeto reflect ontheir teaching and developand
strengthentheir PCK.
Theconsistent occurrenceof reasons/purposesof usingparticular
approaches, methods, orinstructional strategies(most prevalent in all teachers)
and knowledgeof studentlearningor understanding(second most prevalent in
all teachers) asthestrongest areaswhere PCK of thefour teacherswas
demonstrated may suggest that thesetwo types of knowledgeaffect thefour
teachers' instruction morethan their other types of knowledge, despitetheir
differences and similarities in content and gradelevel taught, approaches and
methods, student skills, goals and beliefs, age, and yearsof teaching experience.
This is somewhat consistent with Park & Oliver's (2008) belief that thereis an
267
association between understandingof students' misconceptions and overall
PCK. According to them, PCK is the"understanding and enactment of howto
helpstudents understand specific subject matter using multiple instructional
strategies, representations, and assessmentswholeworking within the
contextual, cultural, and social limitations in thelearning environment (2008, p.
264)."
Thelack of occurrenceof PCK manifestations in surveys is considered a
datacollection issue. Noneof thesurvey questions asked about teachers' PCK,
so I did not expect to find much evidenceof PCK fromthat datasource. I
included surveys asanother sourcefor examining PCK databecauseone
teacher (D) showed evidenceof PCK in her responses to thesurvey questions.
In futurestudies, surveys can be usedto collect PCK data, but they should
includequestions that specifically target PCK.
5.4.4 Action Competence(AC)
5.4.4.1 Individual Teachers
Teacher A. County X: taught air and water pollution in 7th grade
Of thefive elements of AC, themost prevalent in Teacher A acrossfour
datasourceswas knowledge/insight, followed by planningandaction
experiences, critical thinkingandreflection, commitment, and then visions (see
columns 2-5, Table5.36a). No AC elements occurred in all datasources, but
knowledge/insight occurred in 3 of 4datasources (68% in class observations,
77.5% in interviews (77.5%), and 100% in CoRes). Knowledgeof effects,
268
knowledgeof causes, and general awarenessof environmental issues/problems
wereconsiderably more prevalent than knowledgeof changestrategiesand
knowledgeof alternativesandvisions. No AC was observed in thesurvey.
Of thefive elementsof AC, the most prevalent in Teacher B acrossfour
datasourceswasplanningandaction experiences, followed by knowledge/
insight, commitment, visions, and then critical thinkingandreflection (see
columns 6-9, Table5.36a). No AC element occurred in all datasources. Planning
andactionexperiencesoccurred in interviews (47.4%) and in thesurvey (50%).
Knowledge/Insight wastheonly AC element observed in class observations. As
with Teacher A, knowledgeof effects, knowledgeof causes, and general
awarenessof environmental issues/problemswereconsiderably moreprevalent
than knowledgeof changestrategies and knowledgeof alternatives andvisions.
Visions occurred in thesurvey (25%), but it was not observed anywhereelse. No
action competencewas observed in CoRes.
Teacher C: County Z taught forces and motion in 6th grade: No
evidenceof action competencewasobserved in all datasources-
grade
Of thefive elementsof AC, the most prevalent in Teacher D acrossfour
datasourceswas knowledge/insight, followed by planningandaction
experiences, critical thinkingandreflection, commitment, and then visions (see
269
Table5.36a). No AC elements occurred in all datasources, but knowledge/
insight and planningandactionexperiencesoccurred n 3 of 4datasources. As
with Teacher A, commitment and visionsoccurred theleast of all theAC
elements. As with TeachersA and B, knowledgeof effects and knowledgeof
causeswereTeacher D's two most prevalent knowledge/insight components, but
thethreeteachers differed in thethird: Teacher D's was knowledgeof change
strategies, but TeachersA and B'swas general awarenessof environmental
issues/problems. No action competenceoccurred in thesurvey.
5. 4. 4. 2 CombinedResultsof Four Teachers
Based on thenumber of times anAC element occurred across data
sources and on thefrequency of useof anAC element acrossdatasources, the
most prevalent AC element acrossTeachersA, B, and D was knowledge/insight,
followed by planningandactionexperiences, critical thinkingandreflection,
commitment, and visions (seecolumn 6, Table5.36b). AC was not found in any
of thedatasourcesfromTeacher C. Basedon mean percents and mean ranks,
themost prevalent AC element acrossthethreeteacherswas knowledge/insight,
followed by planningandaction experiences; prevalenceof critical thinkingand
reflection, commitment, and visionsdid not appear to beconsiderably different
fromoneanother. Based on prevalenceof AC elements in eachof thefour
teachers, Teacher D wasthemost AC-oriented, followed by Teacher B and
Teacher A (seelast row, Table5.36b). Teacher D also had themost
270
representations of AC across datasources (AC elements occurred 1 1 times
across datasources, including 2 elements that occurred in 3 of 4datasources,
seecolumn 4, table5.36b). Basedon mean percents, Teacher B wasthemost
AC-oriented, followed by Teacher D and then Teacher A (seecolumn 2, Table
5.36c).
271
*
to
?-
?
.e
o
CO
o
e
a>
"o
Q.
o
O
c
o
"
<
o
C
?
s
CD
?
e
co
CD
O
C
2
L-
O
CC
co
LO
.O
co
N
S =
<O
J j
W
C
Osi
PO
CNI
<M
00
PO
CM
od
O* C
IO
co
io"
m
evi
cu
C
CD
??1
co
C -Q
CD O
S 3
LU i2
co
?
e
ce
O)
C
S
,e
5 e
K -S
CB U
t
?&
Ott
CM
co
CN
CO
CO
CM
O
I^
*
O
IO
CO
CM
O
O
8
O
O
o
o
C
O
?
?
5 S
O) C
C CD
? f
I ?
?. LU
<
?-
?
W
?
?
e
Q)
272
O
C
?
ZJ
s-
?
?3
e
03
?
?
e
L-
O
O
O
C
O
TD
a>
(O
co
*
?
?-
?
?:
?
CO
0)
?
CO
CO
2
?
<
?
"e
?
E
_0)
LU
O
<
O
O
e
_a)
co
>
?
?
?-
?)
CD
CO
LO
J L?
.? ?
CO W
h- 3
?
<
S 2
f =
? a>
_F f
? lu
?
!
C f
S =
re u
LU m
X_ F
o "
F W
=> 2
'S u
>?
?
e
f
3
s
f
?
CO
CN
??
C
f
C
O
Q.
e
?
?
?
<
CM
CM
CM
CM
m
C
.O
?
.25
:
F
CC
?3
C
co
C3)|
.C
^c
.C
?
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
C
F
F
O
CO
f
e
O
co
^L5
CO
C
co
f
Eu
co ~
CJ ) c
CO 3
. _ CO m C
? E> ?
? - "> S ~
? ? e ?
" S
- E -? -s
<?
_ *= J P. _ ?
S Q-TB S
w c E ? =
S s S o a
-n Q- fe 92 3)
? 2^
t (O CO
3 C i- Q) CO
? ? 5? -s g
co
CO
(D
?
O
to
co
CO
s
co
co
o
O
co
?
O)
E
>
a)
e
co
? -? jz
d
e u
Q) "O
E <=
f <0
co
.a-g
oc
ni e
e E cu
(D co" -2 O
E co (D "
~o co <
?
e
(D
s-
a)
?3
a3
'?
Q) m
U (0
O .C
E j 8.8I S I
2 o - h- ? ro g
(0 2 Q) *-
>.y ^Z O
m "C ? h-
f co co e
w (B
o 2
32
c Q)
co
X
Q)
Q)
E Q)
Q. CJ ) ^J D "S
2ô
o
o
O
CM
CO
CD
Si
O
CO
f >
O
Q)
sul
cr co -^
m O) > 5
J S i: Q> S
co -K ?- Q)
e iS Q) Q- ^
*^ "w ti
Q 9
co
8
Z- co i-
S ci
co F
T3
^0)
O 0
^_ i
o I
"?" (0
O co
J H, t-
? O
f
? co
f
?
?
?
U)
f
X)
,_ ^-st-
f
F -T^F co
Lio
co o .2 i
? g, ,C f
^$%~
T3 -^XJ ^2
e 3 f ?
(J U C 2>3
- -e ?_ ? *-
. Q.X1 5j
o ?- E o e
. co 5 c f
co
co
O **
co
co
o
co
F C
?
? F
W
O =>
? L-
c o
l
_F co
f -s
e i3
co "o
to .?
F to
li
O)
C
C
C
is0-
e co --
f _ *-
S .D) 5>
*> O) f
?? e
? F o
.Soc
H-CO
co ^; _
CO w H-
C-W
o C CD
F O)
E <=
co
co ^) 2
co
5 _
Q) F
-c S
co o
o
f
co
co
o
F
.O
F to
-s
e
o
?
F
co
co
- ? .a ??
F O)-" -C
ê.-C .O)
? ? co 55
m ?- e e
F CO O ?;
F
O)
C _
f f
UOi
C
O
<
?
CO
O
E
f
J Z
CO CO
-?
O T-, H-
C
CO
?
Vi e
f e F
e I ?
S ? -93
? O
.- J U0,
5 lu e
Q-S I
.?F
1^r f s -^
f
?
"?
e
?
Ch?
(O
F
O)
e
?
f CO
- O)
f -S "?? _
co C F CO
3 c >co
? "O
e e
to
o *r F -S
9J co co f
g-c > -
^?
L- H- S CO
-O .F CO ?
S "f CO ^.
ro tv L. (?
F * f f
? "? }=. ?
c C O C
f co co .3?
= (??|
? -ic -.X
? .? lu
giC F
fe
OT -=: -'S -P
e: co P o
E .S I^
-E^cSg
O
<
>>
i2
o.
(O
"d
C
-s
?"
f
J Z
O
CO
f
O
CO
f
f
C
O
273
CO
C
co
DC
C
CD
F
o
C
co
co
*
C
F
F
O.
e
CO
f
C
O
a
?
co
co
GQ
*
co
L-
F
?
CO
f
to
?
O
L-
O
<
CO
*-
C
f
E
_f
LlI
O
<
O
f
?
C
_f
co
>
f
?
CD
CO
LO
_F
.O
CO
co Q
W
g ?d
S*"
C
?
?
L-
f
a.
C
co
?
e
a>
?
?-
?
Q.
C
CO
?
(0
C
f
E
f
?
<
DH
??
H
O
e
.?
"?
<?>
:
f
Ct
-?
C
co
??
.C
-
.C
?
?
m
LU
<
CL
?
F
?
C
CD
C
CQ
C
.O
"?
<*
?
C
co
O)I
.C
C
C
co
DH
e>
? -?
? e
?
LU
<
a.
?
W
?
5
<.?
? -s
C f
*i
?
m
?3
C
co
Cu
<f
O
<
xj
a>
XJ
e
co
XJ
03
OT
3
O)
_c
?
co
_F
?
a>
e
?
E
?
?>
f
O)
OT
J
C
CO
L-
e
CO
f
E
XJ
C
co
(?
-*->
C
F
O
L.
a>
Q.
C
co
a>
OT
f
E
XJ
F
g
>
XJ
03
F
O
L-
O
OT
co
co
XJ
CO
_c
"e
f
E
.f
f
J Z
?
co
f
f
OT
3
OT
3?
"?
CZ
f
CT
f
O
E
3
OT
C\T
E
_3
?
CO
3
_?
co
?
f f
F
J Z
O
co
F
f
Q.
tz
F
E
_f
f
J Z
?
CO
f
C
f
?
L-
F
a.
e
co
F
J Z
O
co
F
O
W
f
?
e
F
Zl
s
f
co
Zl
s
>
XJ
C
CO
?
O
E
3
OT
?~
C
E
_3
?
C
O
<
?
?
f
OT
3
XJ
F
"0
!
? ^
E W
f g
jz-s
" -g
co !2
F >
=--t3
CO OT
OT f
O O
co ?
F
J s
F ?
J Z 3
? ?
co W
? ô
' XJ
F co
.E
F
?. C
e-; co E
f f
t- 5 f
f
J Z
?
co
f
co
IS
C
f
E
_f
f
J Z
?
co "-
F ?
'S co
CZ _
co ^
3
OT O
. .
"?" to"
il
= s
t; co
? f
O ~
~-^C0
O =
<co
1S^
CO f
3 co
xj >
f fD
'S o.
"w "w
c o
EE
XJ ^
O CO
Ii
OT j~
F .O)
-c 55
CO ?-
F f
OT-g3
1
EOg
f -
m Q.
f E
J Z
o
CO
f
*;*; o
^??
e >%
O J Zl
=~ XJ
<= -S
co ^2
F >
03 e
5 ro
O (D
E
e f
?
F L-
q. ?
i"
03H
d .e
LL- OT
-hJ f
<= E
f -i
y O
f OT
Q- co
E'*
^- M
=O
5 in
?.?
11
CJ )-O
J Z CZ
â
? L-
_F f
F 'S
O CO
3 a>
O H
OT c
3
co f
s ?
ss
ss
e -?
CO
CZ M-
f ?
f
*- f
f
J Z
co
f
OT
F
ZS
co
,>,
CO
f
?
C
f
3
CJ -
F
F
J Z
03
J Z
?3
co
J Z
0
L-
F
J Z
co
f
I-
F
W
3
CO
?
f
m
UO
-?
f
L-
CO
Q.
E
?
?
? O
f g
L- CO
R ^-
.a
CO ><
->>LU
S-O
S?
C
1^-
CNi^
CQ
L-
F
J Z
co
f
f
f
J Z
s>
J Z
OT
CO
5
_ G- *i
co -fc
co
C
f
?
L-
OT
CO
f
J Z
OT
CO
F
O
<
L
f
J Z
O
co
f
T3
f
co
Q-
CO
f
O
? c
f
f
OT
3
CO
f
J D
F
C
.O
f U
CO ^
f
-W CO
-s
f
-4'
C
f
O
<
-
CO
O
E
f
Oj
.C
C
C
CO
a.
-?
C
co
co~
c
.?
.55
OT
f
OQ
F P
-= E
O C
CO O
f ?
I- ?
CO I
"C f
F C
Q. F
c O
co <
I2
O ^
?s,
?
f
<
Q.
OT
?3
O
C
-s
XJ
O
L-
F
J Z
?
co
f
f
J Z
?
co
F
F
C
O
274
5.4.4.3 Discussion: Action Competence
5.4.4.3.1 AC in Individual Teachers
UseofAC
Teacher A focused moreon knowledge/insight andplanningandaction
experiencesthanthethreeother elements (K >PAE >CT & R >Com>V).
Expectedly, Teacher A's useof AC was illustrated within thecontext of two major
topics - water pollution and air pollution - becausethesewerethetwo topics that
hetaught at thetimeof thestudy. In terms of knowledge/insight, Teacher A
promoted awarenessof environmental issues/problemsand knowledgeof
causesandeffects by asking students questions about or engaging themin
discussionson polluted cities in the United States (Los Angeles versus New
York), specific types of water pollution (sewage, chemical, groundwater) and air
pollution (acid rain, smog, carbon monoxide), causes and impacts of air and of
water pollution, greenhouseeffect, global warming, renewableand nonrenewable
resources, alternativeforms of energy, andwastedisposal and management.
In terms of knowledgeof alternativesandvisions, Teacher A discussed
the possibility of adopting Saudi Arabia's useof desalination as asolution to
addresstheincreasingglobal concern about lack of clean and fresh water for
human survival. As well, Teacher A asked his students about ways to prevent
water pollution. Interestingly, theuseof Saudi Arabia as an exampleconnected
well with students and generated arich discussion in theclass, especially when
theteacher mentioned to thepossibleinvolvement of Saudi Arabia in the
275
September 1 1 , 2001 attacks to the United States- an illustration of Teacher A's
PCK in activities or examples that connectedwell with students.
Teacher A talked about changestrategies in his class in thecontexts of
ways to prevent water pollution, howto avoid carbon monoxidepoisoning, howto
hypotheticalâddress global warming (becausehetaught it asatheory, not a
fact), and howthegovernment respondedto increasing ozonelayer destruction.
It was evident that Teacher A promoted knowledgeof changestrategies by
focusing on prevention and solution.
Planningandactionexperiences included discussionsabout howpeople
in general should disposeof wastes, howto develop alternativesources of fuel or
energy, and howto address impacts of water or air pollution. It should be
emphasizedthat thesepossiblesolutions identified by studentswere not targeted
specifically for student participation; theseactions weresuggestionsfor adults.
Teacher A alsofostered development of students' observationskills using
alab experiment (effect of pollution on seedgermination) and engagedstudents
in cooperativediscussionsand sharing of ideas using an in-classactivityto
identify types and different sources of pollution, and their impacts on human
health and theenvironment. Teacher A used alabexperimentto demonstrate
theeffects of pollution on plants becausehebelieved his studentswould be more
engaged and interested in thetopic than listening to his lecture. This is an
illustration of Teacher A's PCK - reasons for usingparticularapproaches,
methods, andstrategiesand knowledgeof studentlearning.
276
Under theAC criteria used in this study (seeAppendix C.1), planningand
action experiences include providing studentswith concrete, real life experiences
in planning and acting on environmental issues or problems, and giving students
opportunities to developskills and confidenceto identify and solve problems, set
goals, gather information, communicate, and managetimeand logistics to take
action. Although Teacher A did not provide his studentswith real life experiences
in planning and taking action during thecourseof this study, thelab experiment
and in-classactivitydescribed abovedid providean opportunityfor his students
to developobservationskills, gather information, learn moreabout an
environmental issue, and communicatewhat they learnedto others. I consider
theseskills and activities important aspects of planningandaction experiences.
Oneof theways that Teacher A promoted critical thinking andreflection
was by asking studentsto think about why the United States has not seriously
pursued thedevelopment of alternativesources of energy, despitetheincreasing
flowof ideas and especially whenthecountry is in themiddleof an oil crisis.
Although hegained little participation fromhis students in this particular question,
Teacher A madean attempt to help studentsthink and ask questions.
Another way that Teacher A facilitated critical thinkingandreflectionwas
by asking students to think about global warming and why they believed (or not)
it is atrue phenomenon. In doing this, however, Teacher A had to talk about
global warming asatheory becausesomeof his students (and their parents) did
not believe in global warming and hewas advised by theSchool Board theyear
beforeto changetheway he presentedthetopic to his studentsto berespectful
277
of someparents' beliefs (seenext quote). Teacher A's experience is an example
of Chawla& Cushing's (2007, p. 448) observationthat in the United States,
"environmental educatorsfacestrong pressures not to advocateany political
position." Despitetheslight tension and discomfort in theclassroom, Teacher A
said his studentswerewell engaged in thediscussion. Although Teacher A did
not go beyond discussingglobal warming, Chawla& Cushing (2007, p. 448)
believethat engaging students in discussionscanfacilitatetheir personal
decisions and"help preparestudentsfor political action."
"I still teach, for example, natural selection, I haveto teachit asatheory,
becauseI can't teachanythingotherwise. I alsohaveto teachglobal
warmingasatheory, not ascientific fact. I hadaparent andSchool Board
member that was very upset coz I showedtheminconvenient truthlast
year - devotetoo much to onesideof theargument. "
Theonly instancein which commitmentwas observed in Teacher A was in
his goal of helping his students make independent decisions about the
environment by providing themwith information and encouraging themto ask
questions, and to talk to himor to others about environmental problems or issues
(e.g., global warming). He believedthat having correct information and listening
to other students' thoughts about environmental problems or issueswould help
students decidewhether they would beinvolved and, if so, in what ways, in
solving environmental problems or issues.
Finally, visionswasfostered when Teacher A asked his studentswhat the
futurewould look like if theUnited Stateswould explorealternativesources of
fuel suchaswater. Teacher A talked about thepros and cons of pursuing such
278
projects, especially cost, time, and safety. Additionally, Teacher A referred back
to Saudi Arabia's useof thedesalination processto addressthecountry's lack of
freshwater, and asked his students if this might beneeded in thefuture in the
United States and in other parts of theworld.
Associations betweenPCK andAC
Theprevalenceof theknowledge/insightAC element in Teacher A's
instruction seemed logical becausetwo of his most cited goals and beliefs -
transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standardsand help
studentsacquireknowledgeor awareness- spokeabout knowledge. It is not
clear if the prevalenceof theplanningandactionexperienceselement was
associatedwith Teacher A's goal and belief to engagehis studentsin hands-on
activities, becauseplanningandactionexperiences may or may not involve
hands-on activities. Nonetheless, teachers' goals and beliefs may predict to
someextent theelements of AC that will bepresent in their classrooms.
Although theknowledge/insight element was themost prevalent element
ofAC observed in Teacher A, it was largely limited to knowledgeof causes,
knowledgeof effects, and general awarenessof environmental issuesor
problems. Knowledgeabout alternativesandvisions and knowledgeof change
strategieswerecomparablyweak. J ensen(2000a) pointed that astrongfocus on
knowledgeof effects andcauses, and theabsenceor lack of focus on knowledge
about changestrategiesandalternatives andvisionswill only generateconcerns
or worry, will weaken commitment, andwill contributeto action paralysis. To fully
279
provideaction-oriented knowledge, which is a key ingredient in developing AC,
teachers needto exposetheir students toways of creating social changeand
finding solutions.
Moreover, although agood part of theplanningandactionexperiences
element appearedto havebeen met by Teacher A (e.g., developing skills such
as critical thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/ evaluation skills, observing
skills, social/communicationskills, writing, informationgathering, andpredicting),
it was evident that students did not haveany real world experiences in theclass
to plan and to takeaction on an environmental problemor issue. This could be
attributed to barriers or constraints in Teacher A's teaching context, such as lack
of time, lack of funds, lack of resources (books and other materials), lack of
support fromsomeparents, fear of getting reprimanded by theschool
administrator or theSchool Board, and theneedto teach curriculum
requirements, benchmarks and standards, or theGLCEs (GradeLevel Content
Expectations), among others.
In his interviews, Teacher A expressedthat theways that headdressed
thebarriers or constraints hewas facing affected thekinds of activities that he
did in theclass. Consequently, this also may haveaffected theplanningand
actionopportunities that hecould haveprovided to his students. For example,
Teacher A could not takehis studentsto afield trip becauseof lack of funds to
pay for transportation (seenext quote), and thedifficulty of asking permission
fromtheparents and theschool administration. According to Chawla& Cushing
(2007, p. 440), "experienceswith naturein childhood and youth are key entry
280
level variables that predisposethemto takean interest in naturethemselves and
later work for its protection." Thus, absenceof suchexperiences could weaken
thepotential for fostering thedevelopment of students' AC.
"So, urn, yeah I think, I thinkphysical scienceawardsmealittle bit more
opportunityfor themto seeit in real life, wherealot of times
environmental science...couldwego out andobservethings? Yeah, we
could, umm, I guesswecouldwalk aroundtheyard, but urnyouknowI
don't think wecango veryfar without fundingfor fieldtrips. "
Teacher A was also limited in thenumber of real experimentsthat he
could do in class dueto lack of timeand lack of resources (materials) (seenext
quote). Finally, hewas also limited in what hecould say to students about
environmental concernsfor fear of additional complaints and/or reprimand from
parents, theSchool Board, and/or school administrator. Consequently, much of
theplanningandactionexperiences in Teacher A's classwas addressedthrough
discussionsof hypothetical situations (moreof/'dacf/c-oriented approaches and
methods). Hypothetical situations arearguably less effective in fostering action
competenceand ultimately, actions for theenvironment, becauseaccordingto
Chawla& Cushing (2007, p. 441), "students needopportunities to learn and
practiceaction skills."
G: "It soundsliketheamount of timeplaysahugerolein whatyou
wouldinclude..."
T: "Yeah, it probablydoes. I wouldagreewith that. You knowI
couldprobablygo out, andif I didtheenvironmental scienceI'd
haveto findquiteafewmorelabs to do. But I couldprobablyfinda
labif I onlyhad6chaptersto do all year, youcouldfindalab for
281
almost anythingyoudidI'msureby then. I feel pressuredright now
to get tophysical sciences. I feel anytime, when theystart to get to
5and6 (chapters) of theenvironmental sciencebook I feel it's time
I got to startkickingit up..."
G: What isyourgeneral approachin terms of teaching?
T: "I try to mix it up asmuch aspossible. I amnot gonnalie toyou
andsayI wish I didmorehands-onmoreoften, orinquiry-based
moreoften. For one, it'snot. . .in a50-minutetime, it'snot really
feasible. I don't havetimeto do alot of things. You'relimitedin
activities too, soit's tryingto findagoodonethat's cheap, and
Interesting, at thesametime, coz oneof themis howmuch money
youcanspendonit. Coz theschool is not gonnagivemeany
moneyto spendonit. It's frommypocket to do alot of thesethings.
Andtoo if I do howlongit'sgonnataketo set-upfor what thekids
aregonnagetof it. Soit's interesting, someof themareso
elaborate, someof theset-ups I foundthat bythetimeit's done
there'ssomuch that couldgo wrong."
Barriers or challenges needto beaddressed to increaseteachers' useof
AC in theclassroom. For example, research suggests that parents and other
family members arebelieved to influencestudents' participation in political action
or wanting to helptheir community/school/country, or doing something to improve
their society (Chawla& Cushing, 2007; Flanagan et al., 1998; Fletcher et al.,
2000; Pancer & Pratt, 1999). If thefamilies valuesocial justice, then students
tend tovaluedoing somethingto improvesociety, or childrentend to participate
in community activities when their parents arealso active/involved or givetheir
approval and encouragement to takepart. This implies aneedfor teachers to
reach out to parents, enlisting their support and involvement in class
activities/projects Chawla & Cushing (2007).
282
Useof AC
In contrast to Teacher A, Teacher B focused moreonplanningandaction
experiencesthan knowledge/insight, although aswith Teacher A, shealso
emphasized thesetwo elements morethan theothers (critical thinkingand
reflection, commitment, and visions) (PAE >K >CT & R, Co >V). Teacher B
fosteredplanningandactionexperiencesfor her students by engaging themin
an activity through apartnershipwith Kroger, alocal grocery retailer, wherein
students helped spreadtheword about pollution prevention (seenext quote).
After engaging students in aseries of discussionabout different types of
pollution, Teacher B askedthemto think and plan howthey could help reduce
pollution and its harmful effects on animals, peopleand theenvironment. Then
students participated in morecooperativediscussionsand shared ideas about
possiblesolutions that people in general and students such asthemselves could
get involved with to help reducepollution. Theclass ended upwith aproject to
writeor drawtheir messageson Kroger grocery bags that shoppers used.
According to theteacher, this activity got everyone involved and excited,
becausethestudents had fun drawing and writing onthebags, and they felt as if
they weredoing something useful and worthwhile. This part illustrates Teacher
B's PCK - activities or examplesthat connectedwell with students.
"Oneof thethings that wedo is theydesign.. . I gotoourlocal
Kroger store, get thepapersacks, bringthembackto the
classroomandafter wetalkabout air, water andlandpollution and
wedo quiteabit on that in class, thestudentsdesign, andwrite on
abag, they writeamessageandtheyillustrateit andcolor it,
283
they'rereallyquitenice. Then wereturn themto Kroger andKroger
usesthemfor groceriesandsopeoplewho shopat Kroger get a
messagefromour studentsaboutpollution. "
Teacher B's useof discussionwas consistent with Chawla& Cushing's
(2007) suggestionthat part of providing studentswith direct (real world)
experienceentails giving themachanceto discuss and analyzepublic issues
together, and identify sharedgoals, resolving conflicts, andfinding strategiesfor
addressing problems or issues. Theseexperiences developstudents'
confidence, public speaking skills, ability to work with peopleand accept themas
they are, and exerciseleadership (Pancer & Pratt, 1999; Roker et al., 1999).
Csobod (2000, p. 214) considered discussions as examples of "indirect action or
invisible participation." Ultimately, such experiences will help preparestudentsfor
political action (Chawla & Cushing, 2007). Onyango-Oumaet al. (2009) used
discussionsto engageKenyan students in investigating thecauses and sources
of infections and preventingfurther transmission of worms as part of a health
education programimplemented in Kenya. Onyango-Oumaetal. (2009) reported
this experience possibly contributed to developing students' commitment to
finding asolution to their community's problem.
Although I did not personally observetheplanningandaction experience
that was described by Teacher B in her interview, theexperiencewas real world
in thesensethat it was areal issueor problemin their community that Teacher B
and her students identified and attemptedto address. In addition, thesuggested
solutions alsoweretargetedtoward youths and adults alike, unlike in Teacher
A's class in which students identified possiblesolutions that weretargeted
284
specifically for adults. Chawla& Cushing (2007) cautioned, however, that close
partnership between school and community should beestablished and
strengthened, to ensurethat authentic action experiences are integrated to
students' learning, and in turn will help build students' commitment.
Teacher B alsofacilitated knowledge/insight in thecontext of different
types of pollution andways to prevent them. Sheengaged her students in
multiple discussionsabout air, water, and land pollution to givethemample
opportunity to ask questions, and sharetheir personal knowledgeand
experiences about thecauses and theimpacts of different types of pollution on
animals, humans, and theenvironment asawhole. Shealso encouraged her
students to participatein finding solutions to problems, and to remember that
their actions can shapeor changenot only their lives but also theworld. Teacher
B's careful selection of using multiple discussionsasaway to engageher
students in thelesson illustrated her PCK (reasonsfor usingparticular
approaches, methods, andstrategies).
Another way that Teacher B promoted knowledge/insight (awareness,
knowledgeof effects, and knowledgeof causes) was observed in her classwhen
sheused discussionand an in-class activityto teach about classification of
animals. Theanimals that they talked about havebecomeextinct. Students
learnedthat becauseof unregulated over-hunting by market hunters and habitat
destruction by humans (cause), someanimal species (e.g., domed tortoise,
dodo) werecompletely wipedbut (effect).
285
Asidefrompromoting commitment in thecontext of pollution and ways to
prevent or reduce it, Teacher B described in oneof her interviews that, in a
discussionwith her class on howto help prevent polar bear extinction, she
promoted commitment by encouraging her students to do their own part to make
adifference. Teacher B explained to her students that if every individual did
his/her part to minimizeair pollution, for example, using energy saving bulbs
such ascompact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs, then the
amount of pollutants that reachtheair would reduced, and this ultimately would
help reduceglobal warmingthat is nowthreateningthepolar bear's habitat. The
examples of activities or actions that Teacher B provided werelimited to private
sphereenvironmentalismaccording to Stern (2000), that is, only individual
activities or actions, which according to J ensen& Schnack (1997) areonly one
typeof environmental action. Nonetheless, thepolar bear discussionraised
many questions and prompted further discussionamong students, becauseafew
students did not seetheconnection between their personal actions and saving
polar bears fromextinction. Thiswas an illustration of Teacher B's PCK -
activities or examplesthat connectedwell with students.
The visions element was observed in Teacher B's survey response
regarding her goal as ateacher: "Hopefully they will seetheconnections
between their actions andfutureconsequences." This illustrates that Teacher B
wanted her students tothink about their actions nowand howthosewill affect
their future lives - which is part of theprocess of developing visions.
286
In oneof her interviews, Teacher B described an example in which she
promoted critical thinkingandreflection in her class by encouraging and helping
her students recognizeand appreciateother students' points of viewor feelings
about environmental concerns such asglobal warming that might bedifferent
thantheirs.
AssociationsbetweenPCK andAC
In contrast toTeacher A for whomgoals and beliefs appearedto explain
theoccurrenceof certain elements of AC, the predominanceof theplanningand
action experienceselement in Teacher B did not directly match her threemost
prevalent goals and beliefs about teaching, which possibly suggests that for
someteachers, factors other than their goals and beliefs predict their useof AC
in theclassroom.
Although someof Teacher B's and Teacher A's approaches and methods
weresimilar, Teacher B's barriers or constraints in her teaching context did not
appear to havesignificantly affected theplanningandactionexperiencesof her
students. Based on this finding, it is difficult to concludewhether Teacher B had
fewer barriers or constraints compared with Teacher A. But it appearsthat
regardlessof barriers and constraints, Teacher B still engaged her students in
real world planningandactionexperiences.
Although her threemost prevalent goals and beliefs did not align with her
useo planningandaction experiences, it appearsthat Teacher B's useof
activity-driven, process-oriented, andproject-basedapproaches and related
287
methods allowed her to providestudentswith real world planningandaction
experiences. The possibility of providing real world planningandaction
experiencesto students asopposedto experiences based on hypothetical
situations, asdid Teacher A, could beattributed to thepresenceor absenceof
barriers or constraints in theteaching context, or theteacher's ability to address
or negotiatethesechallenges. For example, both TeachersA and B included a
discussionof global warming in their lessons. However, Teacher A hadto temper
thediscussion becauseof prior demand by theSchool Board and parents not to
advocateaspecific political stand. In contrast, Teacher B's school project to
address pollution in her local community received support and appreciationfrom
parents and school administrators. In this case, theamount of support for the
teachers influenced thekinds of activities that teacherswereableto do.
In contrast with Teacher A, theknowledge/insight element of AC was
secondonly toplanningandaction experiences in Teacher B (Tables 5.36aand
5.36b), even though both teachers reported that their number onegoal and belief
about teaching was to transmit facts, content, knowledge, andbenchmarks/
standards (seeTables 5.5and 5.6). As with Teacher A, knowledge/insight for
Teacher B alsofocused moreon general awarenessof environmental issuesor
problems, knowledgeof causes, and knowledgeof effects. As with Teacher A,
knowledge/insight for Teacher B appearedto havebeen supported by two of her
five most prevalent pedagogical approaches- didactic and didactic-with-
application.
288
Although knowledge/insight results for Teacher B seemed less congruent
with her goals and beliefs thanfor Teacher A, both teachers shared similar
approaches and methods that werecongruent with knowledge/insight. This may
suggest that didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches and related
instructional methods areneededtofoster knowledge/insight (especially general
awarenessof environmental issuesorproblems, knowledgeof causes, and
knowledgeof effects).
Teacher D, County Z: taught agentsof erosion and rocks and minerals in 5th
grade
UseofAC
As with Teacher A, Teacher D focused moreon knowledge/insight and
planningandactionexperiencesthan thethreeother elements of AC (K >PAE >
CT & R >Com>V) (Tables 5.36aand 5.36b). Awareness, knowledgeof causes
and knowledgeof effectswerefacilitated in class discussionsabout thefollowing:
theimpacts of land uses (e.g., farming, lumbering, mining, manufacturing
industries); United States consumption of goods and services; causes, impacts,
andways to prevent runoff and erosion; causes, impacts, and ways to prevent or
reducewater, air, or land pollution; and alternativeforms of energy, among other
environmental issues and problems.
Teacher D facilitated knowledgeof changestrategies by asking students
to devisetheir own personal changestrategiesto helptheenvironment after
reading TheLorax to her class. Sheused reading as a method because,
289
although her students loved to hear stories, they needed helpwith reading (PCK
- reasons for usingparticular approaches, methods, orstrategiesand knowledge
of studentlearningor understanding). ShechoseTheLorax becauseher
studentswerefamiliar with thestory and connectedwith it (PCK - activities or
examples that connectedwith students). Accordingto Chawla& Cushing (2007,
p. 440), "reading about natureand theenvironment is akey entry level variable
that predisposeyouth totakean interest in natureand work to. protect it later in
life." Teacher D wanted to ask students to givetheir own ideas or examples,
becauseshebelieved that studentsweremorelikely to remember thechange
strategies if theideas or examples camefromthem. Shealso believed that it
would bemore meaningful for themand they would more likely connect with the
topic if their personal ideas or examplesweresolicited (PCK - activities or
examplesthat connectedwell with students).
Asking studentsfor their own ideas may beseenas acollaborative
decisionmakingprocess, that allows young peopleto takecontrol of their
environment and other elementsof their lives, which is afundamental part of
democracy (Csobod, 2000; Chawla & Cushing, 2007). Flekkoy & Kaufman (1997
p. 442) believeacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess "helps young peoplegain
autonomy, asenseof self-worth, respect for other people's perspectives, and
negotiation skills." Someof the personal changestrategiesthey talked about
wereindividual consumer actions (again, referred by Stern (2000) as private
sphereenvironmentalism), including turning off thewater when brushing teeth to
savewater, recycling sodacans and other materials that can berecycled,
290
reusing plastic bags, planting trees, and using products with high post consumer
content. Through theseevery day examples, Teacher D encouraged students'
commitment in getting involved in solving environmental problems or issues.
In terms of knowledgeof alternatives andvisions, Teacher D and her
classtalked about alternativeforms of energy (e.g., nuclear power plants,
windmills and wind turbines, ethanol) andways to prevent or reduceerosion
(e.g., terracing, planting ground cover, preventing or limiting driving in certain
areas).
As with critical thinkingandreflectionandthedifferent types of knowledge
(knowledgeof effect; causes; changestrategies; alternativesand visions; and
general awareness), Teacher D facilitated planningandactionexperiences by
discussingissues or problems related to erosion, useof nonrenewable
resources, numerous land uses (e.g., agriculture, mining, generation of
electricity, deforestation), and different types of pollution. Teacher D explained in
her interviews that, dueto lack of time, space, andfunds to buy materialsfor
experiments and hands-on activities (seenext two quotes), shesubstituted
discussionsand individual projectsfor experiments, hands-onactivities, or field
trips (PCK - ways to addressbarriers or constraintsin teachingcontext).
Consequently, planning and action did not happen in a real world context, but
studentsthought, identified, and sharedwith eachother ways of addressingthe
issues and problems listed above.
T: "Well, alot of factors influencemyteaching. Uhh, youknow
materials, number one. LikeI saidbefore, wedon't havealot of
moneyin thedistrict, so whenit comes to doingalot of labs, I can't
291
do awholelot of labexperiment...andsoalot of times, if I do one, I
just do one. Insteadof doing, insteadof havingall thekids do it,
umm, youknowso that'sonething. Umm, theamount of spaceand
thelack of uhh, youknow, uh sinks and, andcountersandthings
like that. Or for thescratchtest activity, wedon't havealot of
samples, so theymakeabook for atest insteadof performing
scratchtestsanddoingother experiments. Thekids' needuhplaya
bigrolein it. I youknowdependingon theyear, andyouknowthe
readinglevels of thekids andummthematuritylevels and, and
thingslike that, that can ummmakeabigdifferenceasto howI
actuallyteachthembecauseI hadkids that wecouldreallygo in
depth."
Teacher D class observation:
"So, if youlook atpage226, theyhaveanexperiment. Wearenot
goingto bedoing...wearenot goingto bedoingthat experiment as
agroupok?...I'msaying we'renot goingto do that in groupslike
youdidyour owl pelletsok? Wedon't havethematerials, wedon't
haveuhh themoneyto get all of that stuff anddo it asgroups. If we
diddo it, we woulddo it with meshowingyouguysandhaving
somevolunteers to comeup andwe woulddiscussit asaclass.
Ok?"
In Teacher D's classroom, critical thinkingandreflectionwas promoted in
multiple discussions and by thinking about causesand effects of environmental
issues or problems, such as depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil) leads
to higher prices becauseof lack of supply; building dams produces electricity, but
it also may result in habitat change; useof pesticides in agriculture helps
increase production of farmers, but it can also beharmful to water and plants and
animals; and vehicles helptransport peopleandfood, but they also causeair
pollution.
In oneof her interviews, Teacher D represented commitment by stating
that oneof her goals in teaching scienceis to help her students understandthe
valueof theenvironment and its interconnectednesswith humans and therest of
theworld, and to help her studentsto becomebetter citizens as a result of that
292
understanding. This goal addressed a part of thecommitment element of AC,
which is helping students understandtheir own attitudes andvaluestoward
environmental problems or issues, in addition to promotingtheir motivation,
commitment, and driveto get involved in solving environmental problems or
issues.
Finally, Teacher D fostered development of visions in her studentswhen
sheasked themhowthey would like it if adeveloper decided to build aTaco Bell
(fast food chain) in their community. "Howwill this development affect you
(students) personally and your community? What would you do if someonewants
to build ahouse, amall, or start mining in your community?" Thestudents also
debated on what they could or should do about that particular issue, what role
they could play, and who should decidewhether thebuilding of Taco Bell should
beallowed. As with theother examples that Teacher D used in her class, theuse
of Taco Bell and contextualizing theexample in thestudents' own community
helped drawand maintain their participation throughout thediscussion (PCK -
activities or examplesthat connectedwith students).
Associations betweenPCK andAC
As with Teacher A, theprevalenceof knowledge/insight in Teacher D was
congruent with her number onegoal and belief about teaching - transmit facts,
content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards, and it appearedto havebeen
associatedwith her useof didactic and didactic-with-application pedagogical
approaches. As with TeachersA and B, findings fromTeacher D seemto
293
suggest that transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/orbenchmarks/standards
goal and belief, didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches, and related
d/dacf/'c-oriented instructional methods are neededto foster knowledge/insight
(especially knowledgeof effects, knowledgeof causes, general awarenessof
environmental issuesorproblems, and knowledgeof changestrategies).
Planningandaction experienceswas congruent with certain PCK
elements in Teacher D, namely, her goal and belief (developscienceprocess
skills), pedagogical approaches (activity-driven andproject-based, instructional
method (individual work/project), and thestudent skills sheemphasized (critical
thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluation, computer skills, predicting,
andinformationgathering).
Comparedwith Teacher A and Teacher B's pedagogical approachesthat
supportedplanningandaction experiences, only activity-driven andproject-
basedapproacheswerefound in thefive most prevalent approaches of Teacher
D; process-orientedapproachwas not in Teacher D's topfiveapproaches. This
partial incongruence, coupled with presumably thepresenceof relatively more
barriers or constraints (comparedwith Teacher B), may haveplayed a role in the
lack of real world planningandactionexperiencesfor students in Teacher D's
class. Another possibleexplanation may betheyoung ageof her students (5th
grade). Given her strong knowledgeof her students'/earningor understanding
(PCK), shemay havefelt they weretoo young to beinvolved in actual problem
solvingin thecommunity. Overall, however, Teacher D still had thestrongest
planningandactionexperiences in terms of number of occurrenceandfrequency
294
of use(seecolumn 5, Table5.36b), but in terms of providing real world
experiences, it was still Teacher B who wasthestrongest in this regard.
It is interesting to notethat eventhough thekinds of goals and beliefs,
approaches, methods, and student skills and theorder in which they occurred in
TeachersA and D werenot exactly thesame, theoccurrenceof AC elements in
Teacher D was exactly thesameas in Teacher A in terms of theorder in which
theelements occurred (seecolumn 5, Table5.36band column 2, Table5.36c).
That is, both teachersfollowed this pattern: K >PAE >CT & R >Com>V,
althoughtheactual percent valuesweredifferent. Examples of differences:
Process-orientedapproachwas in Teacher A's five most prevalent pedagogical
approaches (seeTable5.12), but not in Teacher D's (seeTable5.15).
Conceptual changewas in Teacher D's topfive, but not in Teacher A's. Didactic
wasthemost prevalent approachfor Teacher D, followed by activity-driven. It's
theexact oppositefor Teacher A - the most prevalent was activity-driven,
followed by didactic. Experiments/labs/computerlabs is the most prevalent
method of Teacher A (seeTable5.18), but it's not in thefive most prevalent
instructional methods of Teacher D (seeTable5.21). Both teachers havethe
samefour most prevalent PCK manifestations, but they differed in thefifth -
reasons/purposesof selectingandemphasizingparticular concepts in Teacher A
(seeTable5.31) and reasons/purposesof usingparticular activities in Teacher D
(seeTable5.34). Thesefindings suggest that AC can beadopted, used, or
applied using multiple approaches and methods, or despitehaving different goals
and beliefs about teaching or PCK. Results fromTeachersA, B, and D also
295
suggest that certain PCK elements and manifestations of PCK possibly influence
theoccurrenceof individual elements of AC. Moreover, results seemto suggest
that somePCK elements and/or manifestations aremoreassociatedwith certain
elements of AC than others, and this is possibly associatedwith theextent that
anAC element is adopted, used, or applied.
5.4A3.2 Interaction of PCK and AC Results of Four Teachers
Combined results of AC arediscussed belowaround (1) associations
between manifestations of PCK and elements of AC, (2) pedagogical approaches
and AC, and (3) content and AC.
5.4.4.3.2.1 Manifestations of PCK and Elements of AC
Hypothesis: Manifestations of PCK areAssociated with AC
Manifestations of PCK seemto beassociatedwith theoccurrenceof
individual elements of AC, suggestingthat strong PCK results in or contributes to
strongAC. Oneexplanationfor thestrong useof AC may betheknowledgeand
comfort levels of teachers in using approaches, methods, or strategiesfor
teaching, and teachers' knowledgeof their students. It may be arguedthat
teacherswho are knowledgeableor comfortableabout which approach, method,
or instructional strategy to useand why, or havegood knowledgeof their
students' learning or understanding, know howto incorporateAC in theclass
better than thosewho do not haveknowledgeor havealow level of comfort.
296
This was illustrated by Teacher D, who demonstratedthestrongest (1)
knowledgeabout approaches, methods, orstrategiesfor teachingand (2)
knowledgeabout students' learningor understandingof thefour teachers, and
was also themost AC-oriented teacher. However, this associationwas not
consistent with Teacher C, who despitebeing thesecond strongest in thesetwo
PCK manifestations, hedid not display any useof AC in his classroom. Instead,
Teachers B and A, who werethird and fourth strongest in thetwo PCK
manifestations, respectively, appeared asthesecond and third most AC-oriented
teachers, respectively.
Similarly, teacherswho knowwhich activities or representations to useto
teach a particular content to aparticular group of students may find it easier to
incorporateAC into their classrooms, compared with teacherswho haveto spend
agreat deal of timefiguring out the most effectiveway to simply teach a
particular content. Teacher D, who was themost AC-oriented of thefour
teachers, was again thestrongest in terms of finding activities or representations
toteach aparticular content to aparticular groupof students (seecolumn 6,
Table5.35), despitechallenges in her teaching context such as lack of time,
space, and money to purchaseclassroommaterials. Teacher B also used
various activities in her teaching despiteafew barriers and constraints in her
teaching context. In contrast, Teacher A sometimes struggled to find an activity,
or in general, ways to teach aparticular concept dueto lack of content materials,
time, or financial support to purchaseinstructional materials. Similarly, Teacher C
297
had to deal with lack of funding to purchaseclassroommaterials, sothe kinds of
activities that hecould do werealso limited.
Furthermore, knowledgeof subject matter (content) may haveplayed a
rolein theoccurrenceof AC. For example, although Teacher A appearedto have
thestrongest sciencebackground comparedwith theother teachers, he
expressed alack of content knowledgein Environmental Science. This may have
affected his overall PCK and, in turn, his useof AC. It is likely that, if teachers'
content knowledgeis weak, their PCK is alsoweak, becausethey will bemore
preoccupiedwith making suretheir content is completeasopposed to planning
and preparing to teach content moreeffectively or meaningfully.
If we look at Teacher C, however, healso had astrong knowledgeof
subject matter (forces and motion), but hedid not display any useof AC in his
classroom. This finding suggeststhat for AC to beused, knowledgeof subject
matter has to beknowledgeabout theenvironment, notjust any kind of
knowledge. This further suggeststhat subject matter taught (content) may have
promoted Teacher D and Teacher A's useof AC in theclassroomwho both
taught environmental topics- Teacher D taught (1) agents of erosion and (2)
rocks and minerals and Teacher A taught (1) water pollution and (2) air pollution.
In summary, findings suggest that certain manifestations of PCK are
associatedwith useof AC by someteachers, but not with others. Factors other
than PCK, such ascontent (subject matter taught) may beassociatedwith useof
AC. Theseother possibleassociations arediscussed in thesucceeding sections.
298
Hypothesis: Teaching Experienceis Associatedwith PCK and AC
Even though the PCK of Teachers' A and B was demonstrated through
very similar manifestations (e.g., reasons/purposesof usingparticular
approaches, methods, or instructional strategiesand knowledgeof student
learningor understanding), thestronger overall PCK of Teacher B compared with
Teacher A might beexplained by theyears of teaching experienceof both
teachers. Teacher A had been teaching for only threeyearswhen this studywas
conducted. Teacher B had beenteachingfor twenty-threeand ahalf years at the
timeof thestudy (seeTable5.4). Researchers believethat PCK is developed
throughteaching experience, which implies that teacherswho had beenteaching
longer had moredeveloped or stronger PCK comparedwith beginning teachers
(Gess-Newsome, 1999; Leeet al., 2007; Magnusson tal., 1999; Van Driel & De
J ong, 2001). Thus, arguably, Teacher B had moreknowledgeof approaches,
methods, or instructional strategies and knowledgeof studentlearningor
understandingthanTeacher A, which, overall, possibly contributed to stronger
PCK in Teacher B than in Teacher A.
In comparing Teacher C and Teacher D's PCK in terms of length of
teaching experience, findings did not entirely support my prediction that teaching
experiencedevelops and ultimately strengthens PCK (Gess-Newsome, 1999;
Leeet al., 2007; Magnusson et al., 1999; Van Driel & DeJ ong, 2001); that is, the
longer oneteaches, thestronger his/her PCK becomes. Teacher C had been
teaching for twenty-two years at thetimeof this study and findings showed that,
although his PCK was stronger thanTeacher B's (who had beenteachingfor
299
twenty-threeand a half years at thetimeof thestudy) and Teacher A's (who had
beenteachingfor 3 years at thetimeof thestudy), it was not asstrong as
Teacher D, who had been teachingfor only eight years, but had thestrongest
evidencefor PCK among all teachers (seecolumn 6 and last rowof Table5.35).
This incongruenceof resultswith previous literaturesuggeststhat factors other
than length of teaching experienceinfluenceteachers' PCK.
In terms of associations among length of teaching experience, PCK, and
AC, Teacher A fits my prediction the most in that heis theleast experienced, has
theweakest PCK, and theweakest AC. Teacher D did not fit my prediction
becauseshehad thestrongest PCK and AC despitenot having thelongest
teaching experience. Teacher C also did not fit my prediction becausedespite
having thesecond longest teaching experienceand thesecond strongest PCK,
hedid not display any useof AC. Finally, Teacher B also did not fit my prediction
- shehadthelongest teaching experiencebut only had thethird strongest PCK
and thesecond most AC-oriented teacher.
5.4.4.3.2.2 Pedagogical Approaches and AC
Pedagogical Approaches that Contributeto Knowledae/lnsiaht of AC
As alluded to earlier, thedifference in theextent of useof AC might be
explained by pedagogical approaches in addition to differences in PCK. Of the
ten pedagogical approaches I examined, I predicted didactic approachto be
associatedwith theknowledge/insightAC element becausethis approach is
300
commonly usedto transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/
standards. In other words, I expectedtheseethemost didacticteacher to have
thestrongest occurrenceof knowledge/insight. Interestingly, Teacher A, who was
thestrongest in theknowledge/insight element of AC, was theleast didactic of all
teachers (seeTable5.16). Teacher D, who was the most didactic of all teachers,
represented knowledge/insight only secondto Teacher A.
Theoccurrenceof Teacher A astheleast didactic of thefour teachers
may havebeenafunction of my analysis, wherein I ranked an approachthat
occurred in 4 datasources higher than an approachthat appeared in 3 or less
datasources. Didactic approachappeared in all 4datasources in Teachers B, C,
and D, and only in 3 datasources in Teacher A. If we examinethepercent
values, however, Teacher A was considerably higher in CoRes (83.3%) and
survey (50%) comparedwith corresponding values in theother teachers,
suggestingthat even though hewas the least didactic of thefour teachers, he
addressedthefivetypes of knowledgemorethantheother teachers in the
context of his topic (water and air pollution). Thesefindings possibly suggest that
being didactic can only promoteknowledge/insight, if thefacts or knowledge is
about causes, effects, changestrategies, andalternatives andvisionsof an
environmental problemor issue. It is not just any typeof facts or knowledge.
Pedagogical Approachesthat Contributeto PlanningandAction Experiencesand
Critical ThinkingandReflectionof AC
I predicted several pedagogical approachesto bestrongly associatedwith
theoccurrenceof planningandaction experiences (activity-driven, project-based,
301
inquiry, guidedinquiry, andprocess-oriented) and critical thinkingandreflection
(conceptual changeanddidactic), becauseof the potential opportunities that
theseapproaches present for students' participation in planning and taking action
on a real world environmental problemor issue, and for examining conflicts of
interest, pros and cons of aproblemor an issue, and/or examiningthecauses
and effects of problems or issuesfromstructural and social perspectives. There
was not oneteacher that was strongest in all of theseapproaches, but Teacher C
was strongest in two approaches- activity-driven andprocess-oriented(see
Table5.14). His useof didacticwasweak comparedto theother teachers, and
hedid not demonstrateany useof conceptual change. Despitebeingthe
strongest in two approaches that I predicted to bestrongly associatedwith
planningandactionexperiences, Teacher C did not display any useof it, so he
did not fit my prediction. This may have been becausehis topic (forces and
motion) and theactivity-driven andprocess-orientedactivities and lessons he
usedwerenot in thecontext of an environmental problemor issue.
Teacher D, who wasthestrongest in planningandactionexperiencesand
critical thinkingandreflection (seecolumn 5, Table5.36b), was alsothe
strongest in theuseof project-basedand conceptual changepedagogical
approachesof thefour teachers (seecolumn 6, Table5.16). According to
Csobod (2000), project-basedapproaches provideopportunities for active
participation, which is themost crucial factor for developingAC becauseit
provides studentswith real world and direct experiences in planning and action.
Hence, useof project-basedand conceptual changeapproachesto teach
302
environmental topics (agents of erosion and rocks and minerals) may havemade
it easier for her to incorporateplanningandactionexperiences
Teacher D alsowasthe most didactic and thesecond strongest in theuse
of didactic-with-applicationof all theteachers (seecolumn 6, Table5.16). As
Teacher D explained, her useof both approacheswas attributed to the presence
of barriers and constraints in her teaching context, which limited her capacity to
useactivity-driven or moreinquiry-basedapproaches. Arguably, her useof
didacticand didactic-with-applicationapproaches may havebeen more
appropriatefor her students, who wereyounger (5th graders) comparedwith the
other students, and therefore, may have needed amoreteacher-driven approach
to teaching. Didactic and conceptual changeapproaches includealot of asking
questions (e.g., why, how), discussions, or debates among students, which could
havefacilitated the integration of critical thinkingandreflection in her instruction.
Teacher A wastheonly teacher that displayed useof inquiry, but thiswas
oneof his weakest approaches, therefore, it was not likely to havepromotedthe
useof planningandactionexperiences in his classroom, eventhough hetaught
environmental topics (water and air pollution). Teacher A was secondto Teacher
D in useof conceptual change, sothat may explain why he is also second in
terms of useof critical thinkingandreflection.
Finally, Teacher B, whowas thesecond strongest in planningandaction
experiences, was also thesecond strongest in process-oriented, activity-driven,
andproject-basedapproachesof all theteachers. Although Teacher B's useof
didacticwas secondto Teacher D, her useof conceptual changewas not as
303
strong asTeachers D or A, so that may explain why shewasweak in her useof
critical thinkingandreflection compared to thetwo teachers. This finding may
havealso been affected by thesubject matter that shetaught (classification of
organisms), which was not related to an environmental problemor issue. It
appearsthat certain pedagogical approaches can helpfoster useof AC, but this
association appears strong only when thesubject matter is taught in thecontext
of an environmental problemor issue.
Pedagogical Approachesthat Contributeto Commitment and Visions of AC
I predicted discovery/explorationand activity-drivenapproaches to be
associatedwith theoccurrenceof commitment and visions of AC. Chawla &
Cushing (2007) believethat giving students opportunities to experiencenature
enablesthemto bond with nature, and may helpfoster their commitment to
protect it. Similarly, it may be possiblethat by giving students an opportunity to
get to knowa place, acommunity, agroupof people- anything of interest to
them- on their own through discovery/explorationapproaches, such experiences
may helpfoster their commitment to beinvolved in solving an issueor problem
related to what they discovered or explored. Furthermore, such personal
experiences may encouragestudentsto envision their future lives, that is, may
givethemideas or helpdeveloptheir dreams and/or perceptions about their
future lives and howthey can improvethemand thesociety in which they will be
growing up.
304
Teacher C was thestrongest in useof discovery/explorationand activity-
driven pedagogical approaches, but hedid not display any useof AC, therefore
hedid not fit my prediction. As with other findings in Teacher C, theabsenceof
AC in his instruction may be becausethesubject matter hetaught was not
related to an environmental problemor issue, and hence, theactivities and
lessonsthat he used in class had nothing to dowith an environmental problemor
issue.
Teacher B, whowasthestrongest in commitment and visions, was only
thethird strongest in discovery/explorationand thesecond strongest in activity-
driven approaches, so shedid not fit my prediction either. Interestingly, Teacher
B included AC in her instruction despiteteaching a subject matter that was not
related to an environmental problemor issue. This suggests that while subject
matter taught appears to play an important role in theuseof AC in theclassroom
for someteachers, it is not always necessary.
Theapproaches used and theoccurrenceof commitment and visions in
theother two teachers did not showaclear pattern either of thepossible
association between discovery/exploration and activity-driven approaches and
occurrenceof commitment and visions. Thus, for thesefur teachers, commitment
and visions may havebeen influenced by factors other than their pedagogical
approaches, such as subject matter taught, personal conviction, or goals and
beliefs.
305
5.4.4.3.2.3 Content andAC
A third possibility that may helpexplain thedifferences in occurrenceand
extent of useof AC across teachers is content or subject matter taught.
Expectedly, the natureof sometopics may havelent themselvesto moreAC
applications and linkages independent of theindividual teachers. At thetimeof
thestudy, Teacher A taught water pollution and air pollutionwithin environmental
science, Teacher B taught classification systemswithin life science, Teacher C
taught forces and motion within physical science, and Teacher D taught agents
of erosion and rocks and mineralswithin earth science.
Based on thenatureof thetopics taught, I expectedto seeTeacher A to
bethemost AC-oriented, followed by Teacher D, Teacher B, and then Teacher C
(A>D>B>C). Results did showthat Teacher C hadtheleast useof AC; in fact,
therewas no AC observed in Teacher C. But my prediction that Teacher A would
havethemost useof AC was not supported by theresults. Rather, Teacher D
had themost useof AC, followed by Teacher B, and then Teacher A (D>B>A; no
AC in C).
Although Teacher D's topics werewithin theearth sciencecurriculumof
her school, shetaught themin thecontext of environmental problems or issues,
thereby perhapsenabling her to apply AC into her classroom. This may be
attributed to her personal conviction as an environmentalist, to encourageher
studentsto appreciateandvaluetheenvironment, and understandtheir co-
dependencewith it. Teacher D also had thestrongest PCK of all theteachers, so
her strong PCK may havefurther promoted her useof AC in theclassroom.
306
Teacher B talked about environmental issues in her lessons even though
shedid not havean environmental topic to teach. Shedid havealife science
topic (classification of organisms), which I would arguewas closer to an
environmental topic thanTeacher Csforces and motion (physical science). As
with Teacher D, Teacher B's result may bepartially attributedto her personal
conviction asan environmentalist. Furthermore, her result also may indicatean
association between PCK and AC. In Teacher B's case, findings suggest that
teacherswith stronger overall PCK still can promoteAC eventhough thetopics
they haveto teachdo not necessarily address environmental issues or problems.
Results showed that Teacher B had astronger PCK comparedwith Teacher A.
As discussed earlier, however, this suggestion does not hold truefor Teacher C,
for whomno AC wasfound despite having astronger PCK comparedwith
TeachersA and B.
For Teacher A, despitehaving an environmental topic to teach, hedid not
display thestrongest useof AC. This may beattributed to, among other factors,
Teacher A's lack of environmental subject matter knowledgeas hehad admitted
in his interview. Teacher A did not haveastrong environmental knowledgeabout
his subject, which may havetranslated into aweaker PCK, and henceaweaker
useof AC in his classroom.
To summarizeassociations between content andAC, findings suggest
that content can makeit easier for someteachersto apply AC in theclassroom,
but it is not theonly factor that is neededto makethat happen. Other factors
include personal conviction, goals and beliefs about teaching science, and PCK
307
of teachers. Overall, findings suggest that AC is associatedwith the kinds of
goals and beliefs, pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, student skills,
and PCK that eachteacher possesses, within their specific teaching contexts.
While it is expectedthat themorecongruent thesefactors are, thestronger the
useof AC, intricacies within theteaching contexts of teachers (e.g., topics
taught, barriers, ageof students) aswell as personal backgrounds and
experiences of teachers appearedto play arole in theextent or lack thereof that
AC was used in theclassroom.
308
5.5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH
In this chapter I attempted to answer my second research question ("To
what extent doesteachers' pedagogical content knowledgein using science
education and environmental education curriculaand content materials represent
elements of action competence?") by examining and comparing occurrences of
elements of PCK (goals and beliefs, pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, and student skills), actual manifestations of PCK, andelements of AC
of four scienceteachers and identifying possibleassociations between PCK and
AC.
5.5.1 Goals andBeliefs about TeachingScience
Thegoals and beliefs about teaching scienceof thefour teachers
encompasseda broader rangecomparedwith thosesuggested in thePCK
literature. This implies a needto identify other goals and beliefs of teachers about
teaching scienceto obtain aclearer understanding of teachers' PCK. In addition,
possibleassociations exist between goals and beliefs of teachers about teaching
scienceand their useof AC.
Thefour teachers shared thesamenumber onegoal and belief about
teaching- transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards-
despitedifferences in content and gradelevel taught, age, and length of teaching
experience, amongothers. This finding seemsto support the"teachingfor the
test" phenomenon that appearsto be increasing particularly in theschools of
309
thesefour teachers. Despitesharing thesamenumber onegoal and belief,
however, many of theteachers' goals and beliefs occurred to bebound within the
content that they (haveto) teach as dictated by theGLCEs or the Ml benchmarks
and standardsfor science; only afewwere moregeneral or not limited to a
particular content or topic. This suggests that, teachers' goals and beliefs and
their daily decisions about what and howto teachwereinfluenced by content, in
addition to other factors, and therefore, may not haveasstrong a predictive
power ascontent (subject matter taught).
Each teacher used and/or cited multiple pedagogical approaches in
his/her teaching, but theextent of useof each approachvaried acrossteachers.
Themost prevalent approaches acrossteacherswereactivity-driven and
didactic, and Teacher C wasthemost consistent in terms of usepedagogical
approaches. Basedon patterns or trends in results frompedagogical approaches
and AC, it appearsthat someapproaches promoteAC in someteachers, but not
in others.
Activity-driven, process-oriented, andproject-basedapproaches appeared
to be neededto foster real world planningandactionexperiences. Thepossibility
of providing real worldplanningandactionexperiencesto students, asopposed
to experiences based on hypothetical situations, could beattributed to thelack of
or fewer barriers or constraints in theteaching context, which consequently may
affect howateacher addressesthem(PCK). Results suggest that, when barriers
310
or constraints aregreat, teachers resort to more useof didactic and didactic
application approaches and related methods rather than activity-driven, process-
oriented, or project-basedapproaches, resulting in less authenticplanningand
actionexperiencesfor students. In someinstances, useof didactic and didactic-
with-application approaches may havebeen moreappropriatefor younger (5th
graders) students. Someresearchers suggest that ageplays a role in thetypes,
level, or extent of AC with which students can get involved (Chawla& Cushing,
2007; Eames et al., 2006).
Didactic and didactic-with-applicationapproaches and related instructional
methods occurred to beneededtofoster knowledge/insight, especially general
awarenessof environmental issuesorproblems, knowledgeof causes, and
knowledgeof effects. Didactic and conceptual changeapproaches, which include
alot of asking questions (e.g., why, how), discussions, or debates among
students, appear to berelated to facilitate critical thinkingandreflection.
Theabsenceof AC in Teacher C, despitehis beingthestrongest in
activity-driven, didactic-with-application, process-oriented, and
discovery/exploration pedagogical approaches, was incongruent with findings
fromthethreeother teachers. Based on thepedagogical approaches that
Teacher C used and/or cited and thetrends of results obtained fromtheother
threeteachers, planningandaction experiences, knowledge/insight,
commitment, and visionswereexpectedto appear strong in Teacher C. This
incongruencepossibly suggests that factors other than pedagogical approaches
influenceAC (e.g., curriculummaterials, content taught).
311
Extent of congruencebetween goals and beliefs and approacheswas
found to bevariableacrossteachers. Somepedagogical approaches occurred to
represent, manifest, or embody agoal and belief and viceversa, others did not.
As suggested by Lim& Chai (2008) and Friedrichsen & Dana(2005), the
variability in congruencebetween pedagogical approaches and goals and beliefs
about teaching scienceof thefour teachers indicatethat other factors beside
goals and beliefs influencetheir pedagogical approaches, or that pedagogical
approaches do not always match ateacher's goals and beliefs about teaching.
For thesefour teachers, thesefactors include lack of money to buy class
materials, tools, or equipment, lack of time, lack of space, and content taught,
curriculumrequirements and materials, and MEAP test preparations.
In summary, pedagogical approaches appear to bean important element
of PCK that needs to beexamined further to help us understand thefactors
influencing teachers' useof AC and in finding ways to increasethat use. Results
alsosuggest that didactic, didactic-with-application, activity-driven, process-
oriented, project-based, conceptual change, and discovery/exploration
pedagogical approaches may havestronger associationswith individual
elements of AC than other approaches.
5.5.3 Instructional Methods
Findings in instructional methods mirrored thosein goals and beliefs and
pedagogical approaches in that thefour teachers shared similar instructional
methods, but also differed in some. As well, theextent that theteachers used
312
and/or cited instructional methods alsodiffered. The most prevalent instructional
methods wereexperiments/labs/computerlabsand discussion, and Teacher B
wasthemost consistent in terms of useof instructional methods. Instructional
methods wereused in multiple pedagogical approaches. Conversely, an
individual approachwas characterized by multiplemethodsthat werealso used
in other approaches. Moreover, someinstructional methods represented oneor
moregoals and beliefs, and conversely, somegoals and beliefs wereembodied
in multiple methods.
Two instructional methods appeared to lend themselves toward more use
of AC for theteachers- discussionsand fieldtrips. According to Chawla&
Cushing (2007), Hahn, 1998, and Niemi & J unn, 1998, discussionof public
issues is an important part of students' political socialization, which fosterstheir
political interest and activity. TeachersA, B, and D all used discussions in their
classes, but Teacher C did not. This may helpexplain theabsenceof AC in his
instruction. In termsof fieldtrips, Chawla& Cushing (2007) pointed that these
activities can providestudentswith critical experienceswith nature/environment.
Of thefour teachers, only Teacher D and Teacher C used and/or cited fieldtrips,
which may helpexplainthestrongest occurrenceof AC in Teacher D's
instruction, but not with Teacher C.
5.5.4 Student Skills
A similar patternto that seen in goals and beliefs, pedagogical
approaches, and instructional methods was seen in thestudent skills. Some
313
skills wereassociatedwith morethan onegoal and belief, pedagogical approach,
or instructional method. In addition, congruenceamong skills and goals and
beliefs, pedagogical approaches, and instructional methods wasvariableacross
teachers.
Critical thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/evaluationskills,
observing, informationgathering, andpredictingareall considered process skills,
and theseskills represented oneof thethreemost prevalent goals and beliefs
acrossthefour teachers - developscienceprocessskills. Scienceprocess skills
were predominant eventhough thefour teachers did not all havethesame
pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, goals and beliefs about
teaching, and content taught. This predominancemay bean indication of
increased attention on learning about scienceprocesses in schools.
This study found that in general, process skills appearedto have
contributed to theoccurrenceof planningandaction experiences, critical thinking
andreflection, and knowledge/insight elements of AC, but only when theskills
wereused and in consistent within thecontext of an environmental problemor
issue. Otherwise, skills did not appear to havean associationwith AC.
Theoccurrenceof readingskills and computer skills in thefive most
prevalent student skills acrossthefour teachers possibly suggests that some
student skills areincidental or unintended, that is, they area result of ateacher's
useof an approachor method that was meant to address adifferent need in the
class (e.g., useof computers to encouragestudents' interest in class, not to
primarily developtheir computer skills).
314
5.5.5 Manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Somerepresentationswerestronger in oneteacher comparedwith
another, possibly suggestingthat someteachers havestronger or more
developed PCK than others. Strong PCK occurred to beassociatedwith strong
AC for someteachers (e.g. D), but not for others (e.g. C). This implies aneedto
(1) strengthenteachers' PCK to nurtureor improveteachers' capacity to develop
AC in students and (2) determineother factors that may affect teachers' useof
AC in theclassroom.
Individual manifestations of PCK occurred to beassociatedwith individual
elementsof AC. Stronger occurrenceof knowledgeof approaches, methods, and
instructional strategies, knowledgeof student learning or understanding, and
activities and examples used that connectedwell with students appearedto be
related to stronger display of planningandactionexperiences, commitment, and
visions. Thepresenceof fewer barriers or constraints in theteaching context also
occurred to strengthenoccurrenceof real world planningandactionexperiences,
and perhaps even commitment and visions. Teachers having more barriers or
constraints may have been more preoccupiedwith trying to addressthose
challenges and, hence, focused moreon theknowledge/insight and critical
thinkingandreflection elements of AC. Someresearchers havecharacterized
elements of AC asfound on a ladder, and thestages at thebottomsteps point
moretoward knowledge/insight and critical thinkingandreflection, which are
arguably easier to address comparedwith planningandaction experiences,
which is on a higher level (Uzzell, 1994).
315
Findings on manifestations of PCK and AC described abovesuggest that
(1) reasonsfor using particular approaches, methods, or instructional strategies,
(2) knowledgeof student learning or understanding, (3) ways used to overcome
barriers or constraints in teaching context and (4) activities or examples that
connectedwell with students may influencetheoccurrenceand extent of useof
AC elements and, therefore, needto beexamined closely and strengthenedto
help improveateacher's capacity to developAC. Results also suggest, however,
that factors other than PCK may influencetheoccurrenceand extent of useof
AC. Thetrue natureof PCK-AC relations cannot bedetermined in this study, but
this knowledgewill contribute in determiningwhether onePCK manifestation has
astronger influenceon an AC element over another manifestation, or exactly
howPCK can be utilized to increaseuseof AC in scienceclassrooms.
Length of teaching experienceseemedto be related to strength of PCK in
someteachers, but not in others. This incongruenceof results with previous
literaturesuggests that thereareother factors besides length of teaching
experiencethat influenceateacher's PCK.
5.5.6 Action Competence
Themost representedAC element acrossthefour teacherswas
knowledge/insight, followed by planningandactionexperiences, critical thinking
andreflection, commitment, and visions. Teacher D displayed themost useof
AC. This may suggest that, comparedwith theother teachers, Teacher D had the
highest capacity to foster AC in her students.
316
Although knowledge/insight was the most prevalent element of AC
observed across teachers, it was largely limited to knowledgeof causesand
effects and general awarenessof environmental issuesorproblems. Knowledge
about alternatives and visions and knowledgeof changestrategieswere
comparably weak. Proponents of AC arguethat action-oriented knowledgeis key
to developingAC, and to providean action-oriented knowledge, ways of creating
change(knowledgeof changestrategies) and finding solutions (knowledgeof
alternatives andvisions) must bepresent (J ensen, 2000b).
Although theplanningandaction experienceselement of AC was
considerably more prevalent than critical thinkingandreflection, commitment,
and visions acrossthefour teachers, its occurrenceswere mostly suggestionsfor
peoplein general, not specific ideas or opportunities for studentsto get involved
in real world planning and taking actiontoward an environmental issueor
problem. Real world planningandaction experienceswereseenonly in Teacher
B's class. Much of theplanningandactionexperiences in theother classeswere
addressed through discussionsof hypothetical situations (moreof/'c/acf/c-oriented
approaches and methods). This lack of authenticplanningandaction
experiencescould beattributed to barriers or constraints in teaching context of
theother teachers, such as lack of time, lack of funds, lack of resources (books
and other materials), lack of support fromsomeparents, fear of getting
reprimanded by theschool administrator or theSchool Board, and the needto
teach curriculumrequirements, benchmarks and standards, or theGLCEs
(GradeLevel Content Expectations), among others.
317
Theextent of occurrenceor useof individual elements of AC varied
across thefour teachers; that is, someelements occurred stronger in one
teacher than in another. In addition, critical thinkingandreflection, commitment,
and visionswereconsiderably less prevalent than knowledge/insight and
planningandactionexperiencesacross teachers.
5.5.7 Other FactorsThat Possibly InfluencedtheOccurrenceor Useof AC
Besides pedagogical approaches and manifestations of PCK, content or
subject taught occurred to have influenced theoccurrenceand extent of useof
AC for someteachers, but not for others. In particular, thenatureof sometopics
may havelent themselves to moreAC applications and linkages independent of
theindividual teachers- teacherswho taught an environmental topic may have
found it easier to useand apply AC in their classrooms comparedwith someone
whotaught topics that werenot directly related to environmental issues or
problems. But findings also appearedto suggest that content specifically
influenced knowledge/insight moreso thantheother AC elements and that lack
of content knowledgemay reduceateacher's ability to useAC in theclassroom.
Personal conviction of teachers also seemedto have played a role in
teachers' useof AC. Two teachers incorporatedAC in their instruction whenever
they could, in oneteacher even when shewas teaching adifferent subject (not
science) (Teacher D), and in another, evenwhen her topicwas not about the
environment (Teacher B). Thus, theseteachers' useof AC in their instruction
occurred moreas a reflection of their personal beliefs that they neededto help
318
informor bring awareness to their students about environmental issues or
problems that happenaround them.
5.5.8 Recommendationsfor FutureResearchand EE Practice
This chapter characterizedthe PCK and useof AC of four science
teachers and identified theelements and manifestations of teachers' PCK and
theelements of AC that were more prevalent thanothers. Possibleassociations
between PCK and AC alsowereidentified. However, thenatureand extent of
thesepossible relationshipswerenot identified. If development of student AC is
an important goal in Environmental Education, thenfuture researchon examining
PCK-AC relationships will contributeto finding ways to increaseteachers' useof
AC in theclassroomand to increaseteacher's capacity to developstudent AC. In
particular, studiesthat examinethefollowing will beasignificant contribution:
1 ) Natureof relationships between/amongteachers' goals and beliefs
related to teaching science, pedagogical approaches, instructional
methods, student skills, and manifestations of PCK and their useof
AC, including factors that promotetheir congruence, aswell asthe
predictive power of suchvariables to teachers' useof AC
2) Barriers or constraints in theteaching context of teachers that prohibit
their useof AC in theclassroomand howto addressthem
3) Other factors that may strengthen PCK and promoteuseof AC, e.g.,
content or subject matter taught; personal conviction; ageand other
socio-demographic characteristics of students; additional roles or tasks
319
that teachers do besidesteaching; environmental knowledge; attitudes,
behaviors, or actions of teachers related to theenvironment; length of
teaching experience, teacher education and professional development
experiences
4) Whether higher useof AC equals higher capacity to foster AC, and
whether this results in stronger AC in students.
Finally, I also recommend theuseof multiple methods to examine
teachers' PCK and its possiblerelationshipwith AC. As mentioned earlier, it
appears that somemethods arelimited in thetypes of datathat they can provide
and are, thus, less effectiveat examining elements or manifestations of PCK.
Consequently, it is important to usemixed methods to capturea more holistic
manifestation of PCK and AC, and to triangulatedata.
In terms of EE practices that promoteteachers' useof AC and foster the
development of students' AC, thefollowing aremy recommendations basedon
findings fromthis study and theliterature (Csobod, 2000; Chawla& Cushing,
2007; J ensen& Schnack, 1997; Onyango-Oumaet al., 2009):
Teachers need to
1 ) Engagestudents in real world planningandaction experiences. Start with
thelocal community.
2) Maketimefor childrento experienceand discover nature/environment.
320
3) Practiceand engagestudents in democratic and collaborativedecision
makingin theclassroom.
4) Maketimefor discussions of environmental issues.
5) Practiceaction-oriented, participatory, and student-centered pedagogical
approaches and methods.
6) Revisit thegoals and beliefs to assesswhether they arealignedwith or
supportiveof useof AC in theclassroom.
7) Usemultiple approaches and methods to createtheconditions necessary
to incorporatemoreauthentic or real world learning opportunities into the
classroom.
8) Account for barriers or constraints in teaching context.
9) Engagestudents in critical thinkingandreflection.
10) Providestudents theopportunity to envision about their futureand set
goals.
1 1 ) Reachout to and involvetheparents!
12) Involveother teachers and school administrators.
13) Participatein teacher training to learn about different approaches and
methods to apply AC in theclassroom.
14) Reflect and think pedagogically - beintentional whenteaching.
In addition to practicerecommendations, I also recommend areformin
curriculumand assessment to includeAC as asignificant part of what needsto
betaught andwhat eventually gets measured. Making AC a required component
of thecurriculummay bean effectiveway, if not theonly way, for teachersto
321
includeAC in their teaching. Theserecommendations areby no means a
completelist of suggested practices to increaseteachers' useof AC, and may or
may not all work for every teacher. Nonetheless, an attempt was madeto
consider both thepersonal and structural factors that wereuniqueto each
teacher.
322
5.6 REFERENCES
Babbie, E. (1992). Thepracticeof social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2008). A qualitativecasestudy of prospectivechemistry
teachers' knowledgeabout instructional strategies: introducing particulate
theory. J ournal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 135-156.
Breiting, S., Hedegaard, K., Mogensen, F., Nielsen, K., & Schnack, K. (2009).
Action competence, Conflictinginterests andEnvironmental education-
TheMUVIN Programme. Copenhagen: Research Programmefor
Environmental and Health Education, Department of Curriculum
Research, DPU (Danish School of Education), Aarhus University.
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Educationfor strategic environmental
behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452.
Csobod, E. (2000). Conditions for developing democracy, action competence
and environmental education in acountry under transition - expereinces
fromHungary. In B. J ensen, K. Schnack & V. Simovska(Eds.), Critical
Environmental andHealth Education - Research IssuesandChallenges
(pp. 209-217). Copenhagen: Danish University of Education.
Davis, E. A., & Petish, D. (2005). Real-World Applications and Instructional
RepresentationsAmong ProspectiveElementary ScienceTeachers.
J ournal of Science Teacher Education, 16(A), 263-286.
Dawkins, K., Dickerson, D., & Butler, S. (2003). Pre-servicescienceteachers'
pedagogical content knowledgeregardingdensity. Paper presented at the
AERA 2003: "Accountability for Educational Quality: Shared
Responsibility" 84th Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Fien, J ., & Skoien, P. (2002). I'mlearning...Howyou go about stirring things up -
in aconsultativemanner: social capital and action competencein two
Flanagan, C, Bowes, J ., J onsson, B., Csapo, B., Sheblanova, E. (1998). Ties
that bind: correlates of adolescents' civic commitment in seven countries.
J ournal of Social Issues, 54(3), 457-475.
323
Flekkoy, M. G., & Kaufman, N. H. (1997). Theparticipationrights of thechild:
rights andresponsibilities in familyandsociety. London: J essicaKingsley
Publishers.
Fletcher, A. C, Elder, G., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent
involvement in community activities. J ournal of Researchon
AdolescenceW, 70(1), 29-48.
Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-Level Theory of Highly
Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' ScienceTeaching Orientations.
GAO. (1996). ContentAnalysis: A methodologyfor structuringandanalyzing
writtenmaterial (transfer paper No. GAO/PEMD-10.3.1). Washington, DC:
United States General Accounting Office, ProgramEvaluation and
Methodology Division.
Publishers.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). Themakingof ateacher: teacherknowledgeand
teacher education. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Hahn, C. L. (1998). Becomingpolitical: comparativeperspectives on citizenship
education. Albany: StateUniversity of NewYork Press.
Componentsof Pupil's Action Competence. In B. B. J ensen, K. Schnack &
V. Simovska (Eds.), Critical Environmental andHealthEducation:
J ohnston, J ., & Ahtee, M. (2006). Comparing Primary Student Teachers'
attitudes, subject knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledgeneeds
in aphysics activity. TeachingandTeacherEducation, 22, 503-512.
324
Krippendorff, K. (1980). ContentAnalysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
and approachesto teaching. TeachersandTeaching: Theoryand
Practice, 12(6), 693-713.
Lee, E., & Luft, J . (2005). Capturingthepedagogical contentknowledgeof
scienceteachers. Paper presented at theAnnual Conferenceof the
Association of scienceteacher educators, Colorado Springs, CO.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their planning
and conduct of computer-mediated classroomlessons. British J ournal of
Educational Technology, 39(5), 807-828.
Documenting ScienceTeachers' Pedagogical content Knowledgethrough
Loughran, J ., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In Searchof Pedagogical Content
Knowledge in Science: Developing Ways of Articulating and Documenting
Professional Practice. J ournal of Researchin Science Teaching, 41(A),
370-391.
Meijer, P. C, Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring langaugeteachers'
practical knowledgeabout teaching reading comprehension. Teachingand
Mitchell, I. J ., & Mitchell, J . (1997). Stories of reflectiveteaching: A book of PEEL
cases. Melbourne: PEEL Publishing.
Monet, J . A. (2006). Examiningtopic-specific PCK asaconceptual framework for
in-serviceteacherprofessional development in earthscience. Unpublished
dissertation, Rutgers theState University of NewJ ersey, New Brunswick.
325
Mulhall, P., Berry, ?., & Loughran, J . (2003). Frameworks for representing
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Asia-Pacific Forumon Science
LearningandTeaching, 4(2), 1-25.
Niemi, R. G., & J unn, J . (1998). Civic education: what makesstudentslearn. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Onyango-Ouma, W., Lang'o, D., & J ensen, B. B. (2009). Kenya: Action-oriented
and participatory health education in primary schools. In C. V. Whitman &
C. E. Aldinger (Eds.), CaseStudiesin Global School Health Promotion:
FromResearchto Practice(pp. 404 p.). NewYork: Springer.
Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1999). Social andfamily determinants of
community serviceinvolvement in Canadianyouth. In M. Yates & J .
Youniss (Eds.), Roots of civic identity(pp. 32-55). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Park, S., & Oliver, J . S. (2008). Revisiting theconceptualisation of pedagogical
content knowledge(PCK): PCK asaconceptual tool to understand
teachers as professionals. Researchin ScienceEducation, 38, 261-284.
Roker, D., Player, K., & Coleman, J . (1999). Exploring adolescent altruism:
British young people's involvement in voluntary work and campaigning. In
M. Yates & J . Youniss (Eds.), Rootsof civic identity(pp. 56-72).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shannon, J . C. (2006). Howis PCK embodiedin theinstructional decisions
teachersmakewhile teachingchemical equilibrium? Unpublished
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Simovska, V. (2007). Thechanging meanings of participation in school-based
health education and health promotion: heparticipants' voice. Health
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward acoherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. J ournal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J . (1998). Basicsof QualitativeResearch: Techniques and
proceduresfor developinggroundedtheory(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SagePublications.
326
Uzzell, D. (1994). Action competence: sometheoretical issues and
methodological problems. In B. B. J ensen& K. Schnack (Eds.), Action and
action competenceaskeyconceptsin critical pedagogy(Vol. 1 2).
Copenhagen: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.
Van Driel, J . H., & DeJ ong, O. (2001). Investigatingthedevelopment of
preserviceteachers'pedagogical content knowledge. . Paper presented at
theConference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. fromURL|.
Van Driel, J . H., DeJ ong, 0., & Verloop, N. (2002). Thedevelopment of
preservicechemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science
Van Driel, J . H., Veal, W. R., & J anssen, F. J . J . M. (2001). Pedagogical content
knowledge: an integrativecomponent within theknowledgebasefor
teaching. TeachingandTeacher Education, 17, 979-986.
Van Driel, J . H., Verloop, N., & DeVos, W. (1998). Developing scienceteachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. J ournal of Researchin Science
Teaching, 35, 673-695.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis(2nd ed.). New Bury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Wilson, N. S. (2006). Examiningteachers'pedagogical content knowledge
through evidence-basedinstruction. Unpublished Dissertation, University
of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Woodrow, K. E. (2007). Culturallyresponsivemiddleschool science: acase
studyof needs, demands, andchallenges. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Colorado, Boulder.
327
CHAPTER 6
INTERACTIONS IN EE CURRICULUM, PCK, AND AC: SUMMARY,
CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
328
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Thepurposes of my dissertation researchwereto characterizethe
interactions found in an Environmental Education (EE) curriculum, science
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge(PCK) and their useof action
competence(AC), and to identify factors that appear to beassociatedwith useof
AC in curriculumand instruction. To achievethesepurposes, my dissertation
researchwas divided into threeparts: (1) analysis of theWater Quality Unit of the
Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS); (2) asurvey of
MEECS training participants; and (3) an in-depth examination of pedagogical
content strategies and useof AC of four scienceteachers in Michigan.
Knowledgefromthis researchwill help informEE research and practiceaswell
asteacher education and professional development in finding ways to
incorporateand strengthen useof AC in thecurriculumand to increaseteachers'
useof AC. My ultimategoal is to increasecapacity of teachers to developAC in
their students.
Theelementsof PCK that I examined in my study- goals and beliefs
student skills - appeared to berelated to theelements of AC. As well, my study
found that some manifestations of PCK possibly arerelated to theoccurrenceof
AC. A summary of findings, conclusions, and implications for futureresearch and
EE practicearepresented below.
329
6.2ACTION COMPETENCE (AC)
Planning and action experiences and critical thinkingandreflectionwere
consistently in thetopthreemost prevalent elements of AC in thecurriculum, the
MEECS survey results, and thefour teachers' perspectives. Knowledge/Insight
wasthefirst most frequently mentionedAC element in thecurriculumand used
by thefour teachers. Commitment was thefirst most frequently mentioned in the
MEECS survey, but only thefourth most frequently mentioned in thecurriculum
and by thefour teachers. Visions wereconsistently theleast prevalent element of
AC in thecurriculum, theMEECS survey, and thefour teachers. Thelow
prevalenceof commitment and visions is problematic because, accordingto
J ensen (2000b, p. 234), "if thereis no commitment to fight for visions, onecannot
speak of action competence."
Although knowledge/insightwasthemost prevalent element of AC in the
curriculumand in thefour teachers, it was largely limited to knowledgeof causes
and effects and general awareness of environmental issues or problems.
Knowledgeabout alternatives and visions and knowledgeof changestrategies
werecomparably weak. Proponents of AC arguethat action-oriented knowledge
is key to developingAC, and to provideaction-oriented knowledge, ways of
creating change(knowledgeof changestrategies) andfinding solutions
(knowledgeof alternatives and visions) must bepresent (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b;
J ensen& Schnack, 1997).
Moreover, although knowledgeof causeswas generally themost
prevalent within theknowledge/insight element (knowledgeof effectsfollowed a
330
closesecond), it was largely limited to ecological or economic causesof
environmental problems or issues. Therewas minimal inclusion of howsocial
and cultural factors influence people's behaviors or actions toward the
environment. Proponents of AC argued, that to find solutions to environmental
problems or issues, knowledgeof causesneedsto include howsocial structures
and cultural practices contributeto environmental problems or issues because
thesearealso a result of social and cultural structures (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b;
J ensen& Schnack, 1997).
Similarly, althoughtheplanningandactionexperiencesAC element was
in thetopthreein thecurriculum, the MEECS survey, and thefour teachers,
therewas actually alack of authentic planning and action in thoseoccurrences.
In other words, much of theplanning and taking action was not done in the
context of areal problemor issuein thecommunity, theschool, or aplaceto
which students can relate. In addition, most occurrences of planning and action
wereactually suggestionsfor peoplein general, not specific ideas or
opportunities for students to get involved in real world planning and actiontaking
toward an environmental problemor issue. Some researchers havefoundthat
real world experiences areimportant to prepareand enablestudents to take
action in thefuture (Eames et al., 2006). Thesefindings, therefore, suggest a
need to ensurethat students get real opportunities to beinvolved in an
environmental issueor problemto achievecompetencein taking action.
Another finding of my study relatesto thenatureof critical thinkingand
reflectionthat was observed. First, thereflection piecewas generally weak and
331
the"critical thinking" part did not delvetoo much into thesocial and political
contexts of a problemor issue, or in questioning students' values, perceptions,
conditions, and opinions. Critical thinking focused moreon understandingor
recognizingthat multipleviews about a problemexist and on weighing thepros
and cons of possiblesolutions. This issueis tied to the issueof knowledgeof
causes' lack of focus in social and cultural structures. This is problematic
because, without reflection, students arenot givenachanceto think about their
prior knowledgeand previous experiences and assesswhat they arelearning,
which will affect futuredecisions that they make(Eames et al., 2006). Also
building on J ensen & Schnack's (1997) argument that environmental problems
area result of both personal choices and societal-political structures, thelack or
absenceof analyzing howsocial and political structures contributeto occurrence
of environmental problems or issues allows only for partial resolution of a
problemor issue.
Thefindings on theoccurrenceand extent of individual elements of AC as
well asthenatureof theseoccurrences have important implications for
curriculumdevelopment, teacher education, and professional development. First,
to be usedto developAC, EE and Sciencecurricula needto embody
knowledge/insight, planningandaction experiences, commitment, critical thinking
andreflection, and visions. Specifically, thecurricula needto ensurethat
knowledge/insight is holistic, which meansthecurricula needto focus equally on
knowledgeof effects, knowledgeof causes, knowledgeof alternatives and
visions, and knowledgeof changestrategies. Researchers believethat the
332
absenceof knowledgeof alternatives and visions and knowledgeof change
strategieswill not enablestudents to movefromconcern or worry about
environmental problems or issues into action taking (J ensen, 2000a).
Second, EE and sciencecurricula need to provideopportunities for
studentsto participatein solving real community problems or issues to develop
their capacity to takeaction. Third, thecurricula need to provideopportunities for
studentsto think about their future, their dreams, and their visions and howthese
will affect their decisions. Theseneedto beaccommodatedwithin thecurricula
instead of telling studentswhat their futurewould look likeor what their dreams
should be, and consequently, what they needto learn. Action competenceis
grounded on democratic educationon letting students decide howthey want to
participate in solving environmental problems or issues. Thecurricula need to
support this to developAC. Fourth, thecurricula need to strengthenthe reflection
aspect of AC, and critical thinking needs to includethesocial, political, and
cultural contexts of environmental problems or issues.
Asidefromstrengtheningthecurricula, teacher education and professional
development can help increaseteachers' useof AC. Teacher education and
professional development can teach pre-serviceand in-serviceteachersto be
intentional in their teaching and to think pedagogically. For example, teachers
needto be intentional in including social, political, and cultural structures into
their instruction even though, at times, it may bedifficult to do so. Teachers need
to think pedagogically howthey can givestudents real world experiences- in
spiteof themany barriers or constraints that they encounter in their teaching
333
contexts. Teachers should be provided with specific ideas or strategies on howto
incorporate"difficult" topics into teaching. In short, teacher education and
professional development should helpteachers developor improvetheir
pedagogical content knowledge(PCK) in incorporatingAC into their teaching.
My study also foundthat Teacher D displayed themost useof AC. This
may suggest that Teacher D had thehighest capacity to foster AC in her
students. Futureresearch should test whether higher useof AC equals higher
capacity tofoster AC, andwhether this results in stronger AC in students.
6.3 PCK AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH AC
6.3.1 Goals and Beliefs andAC
Goals and beliefs about teaching sciencewereonly examined in the
MEECS survey and thefour teachers. Of thefour most prevalent goals and
beliefs in thefour teachers, only transmit facts, content, knowledge, and/or
benchmarks/standardswas found in themost prevalent goals and beliefs of
MEECS respondents. Noneof theother goals and beliefs in thetopfour or five in
both groups matched. This supports an earlier suggestion (Chapter 5) that
transmission of facts, content, knowledge, and/or benchmarks/standards is still
themost prevalent goal and belief about teaching. The prevalenceof this goal
and belief also may indicatethat "teachingfor thetest" remains astrong driver of
teachers' overall instruction.
334
At thecategory level, thetopfour categories of goals and beliefs of
MEECS survey respondentswerefound in thetopfive categories of thefour
teachers (skill development, attitude/behavior change, student development, and
global/real worldconnections), although therankings (order) of thecategories
were not exactly thesame. Although similarities wereobserved, differences in
categories of goals and beliefs betweenthefour teachers and theMEECS
survey participants alsowerefound. Somecategories (e.g., inquiry, career
benefits/teacher development, content/subject matter) found in onegroupwere
not found in theother groupor, if they were, their prevalence(basedon percent
distribution) was markedly different. It is not known why therearesimilarities and
differences, but they possibly could beattributed to similarities and differences in
school contexts, needsof students, availability or lack of resources, curriculum
requirements, standards and benchmarks or GradeLevel Content Expectations
(GLCEs), and teacher backgrounds, among other factors.
My study alsofound that thegoals and beliefs about teachingscienceof
survey respondents and thefour teachers encompassed abroader range
comparedto theones suggested in theliterature (Magnusson et al., 1999), both
in terms of number of categories and category types. In addition, somegoals and
beliefs (e.g., facilitating understanding of interdependence/connections between
peopleand theworld/environment; seek social reform/foster good citizenship)
also appearedto berelated to theteachers' useof AC. This finding implies a
needto examinemoreclosely howgoals and beliefs and useof AC might be
related.
335
As reported in Chapter 5, many of thegoals and beliefs about teaching of
thefour teachers appearedto belimited within thecontent that they (had to)
teach, and as awhole, their goals and beliefs werelargely dictated by theGLCEs
or the Michigan Standards and Benchmarks for Science. This may suggest that,
to maximize useof AC in theclassroom, elementsof AC needto beincluded in
theGLCEs and theStandards and Benchmarks. A study looking at howAC is
integratedwithin theGLCEs and Standards and Benchmarks would help inform
howwecould increaseteachers' useof AC.
6.3.2 Pedagogical Approaches andAC
Thecurriculum, survey respondents, andthefour teachers had similarities
and differences in pedagogical approaches used and/or cited. Consistently the
most prevalent in thecurriculum, theMEECS survey, and thefour teacherswere
activity-driven, didactic, and process-orientedapproaches. Consistently the least
prevalent acrossthecurriculum, the MEECS survey, and thefour teacherswere
guidedinquiry, inquiry, and academic rigor approaches. Discovery/exploration
was in thefive most frequently mentioned pedagogical approaches in the
MEECS survey, but not in thefour teachers; it was absent in theWater Quality
Unit. Project-basedwas lessfrequently mentioned in theWater Quality Unit.
Didactic with application was in thefive most used and/or cited in thefour
teachers and in theWater Quality Unit. Conceptual changewas in thefive most
frequently mentioned pedagogical approaches in theWater Quality Unit, but not
in thefour teachers and in the MEECS survey. Thesefindings suggest that
336
(1) teachers usemultiple approaches and that, in general, thereis variability in
theextent towhich teachers usean approach; (2) teachers do not useall the
approaches that aresuggested in thecurriculum; and (3) there is amismatch
between what approachesthey saythey useandwhat they actually do in the
classroom.
Patterns or trends in findings about pedagogical approaches and AC
appear to suggest that theextent of useof pedagogical approaches may beone
factor influencing thevarying extent of useof AC. For example, in Chapter 5, the
useof activity-driven, process-oriented, andproject-basedapproaches seemed
important to foster real world planningandactionexperiences instead of
hypothetical "as-if scenarios. Findings also appearedto suggest that authentic
planningandactionexperiencesweremadepossible becauseof thelack of or
presenceof fewer barhers.or constraints in ateachers' teaching context. In
contrast, teacherswho had more barriers or constraints in their teaching context
used didactic and didacticwith application approaches more, which resulted in
less authentic planningandactionexperiencesfor students. Thesefindings imply
a needto address and reducebarriers or constraints in theteaching context for
teachers to provide moreauthentic experiencesfor their students.
Activity-driven, didactic, and process-orientedapproacheswerefound in
thetopfive most usedand/or cited pedagogical approaches in thecurriculum,
theMEECS survey, and thefour teachers. In terms of AC, critical thinkingand
reflectionandplanningandactionexperienceswerefound in thetopthreemost
used and/or cited in thethreedatasources. Thesefindings possibly suggest that
337
thethreeapproaches areneededfor critical thinkingandreflection andplanning
andactionexperiencesto bepresent.
Therelatively strong presenceof discovery/exploration in theMEECS
survey may helpexplain thestrongest occurrenceof thecommitment element of
AC in thesurvey becauseasallowing studentsto discover or exploresubjectsor
interests on their own may provideopportunities to studentsto developtheir
emotional engagement and desireor motivation (commitment) to takepart in
something, including finding solutions to environmental problems or issues. This
wasfound by Eames etal. (2006) in astudy they conductedthat investigated the
kinds of pedagogical approachesthat promoted student AC.
Thepresenceof didactic and didacticwith application approaches in the
topfive approaches of both thecurriculumand thefour teachers may help
explain thestrongest occurrenceof knowledge/insight in both. Didactic and
didacticwith application pedagogical approaches seemed associatedwith high
occurrences of theknowledge/insightAC element, asobserved in Chapter 3
(curriculumanalysis) and in Chapter 5 (four teachers).
Finally, visionsconsistently appeared theleast frequently used and/or
cited in thecurriculum, theMEECS survey, and thefour teachers. Commitment
alsowas relatively weak in thecurriculumand asexpressed by thefour teachers.
Thesefindings suggest a needto strengthentheuseof visions in thecurriculum
aswell as in theclassroom, perhaps by encouraging and supporting teachers'
useof multiple approaches (includingproject-based, discovery/exploration, and
conceptual change) and by integrating ideas about howto incorporatevisions
338
into instruction during teacher education and professional development. Useof
multiple approaches ultimately may help increaseteachers' capacity to develop
AC in their students.
6.3.3 Instructional Methods andAC
My study foundthat themost prevalent instructional methods across the
four teachers do not match all of thosein theWater Quality Unit in Chapter 3 and
the MEECS survey in Chapter 5. Themost used and/or cited instructional
methods across thefour teacherswereexperiments/labs/computer labs,
discussion, lecture, in-class activity, and drawings/pictures/posters, but only
discussionwasfound in thetopfive methods in thecurriculumand
experiments/labs/computer labs in thetopfive methods in the MEECS survey.
Theother methods found in thetopfive in thecurriculumand in the MEECS
survey werefound in someof theteachers, but not all. Thesecases of
incongruenceindicatethat, as in thepedagogical approaches, themethods
suggested in thecurriculumor in thesurveywerenot always used in the
classroom, perhaps duetofactors influencing theteaching context of individual
teachers. Further study of thesefactors will enhanceour understanding of PCK
andAC and their possiblerelationship.
My study alsofoundthat an instructional method can beused in more
than onepedagogical approachor that an approach can include instructional
methods that other approaches also include. Similarly, a pedagogical approach
can represent morethan onegoal and belief or category of goals and beliefs, or
339
that onegoal and belief or onecategory of goals and beliefs is embodied in more
than one pedagogical approach. Magnusson et al. (1999) noted similar patterns
and explained that it is not theuseof a particular strategy but the purposeof
employing it that distinguishes ateacher's orientation to teaching science,
suggestingthat teachers may usethesamemethods or approaches, but their
purposesfor using themmay bedifferent.
6.3.4Student Skills and AC
Of thetopfiveskills-foci, critical thinking/thinkingon their own/analytical/
evaluationskillswasthefirst most prevalent student skills in thecurriculum, in
the MEECS survey, and in thefour teachers. Problemsolvingwas thethird most
prevalent student skills in thecurriculumand in thesurvey, andpredictingwas
thefifth most prevalent student skills in thecurriculumand in thefour teachers.
As thethreeskills above, many of theother student skills found in thecurriculum,
the MEECS survey, and thefour teacherswereprocess skills (e.g., information
gathering, observing, inferring/interpreting, research/ investigation/field data
collection). The predominanceof process skills may indicate increased attention
on learning about scienceprocesses in schools.
My study alsofound that process skills appeared to beassociatedwith
occurrences of planningandactionexperiences, critical thinkingandreflection,
and possibly other elements of AC. As such, an investigation of therelationship
between process skills andAC is recommended to enlighten EE practitioners
and researchers about ways to increaseteachers' useof AC.
340
My study alsofound that someskills observed in thecurriculum, survey,
and thefour teacherswere incidental or unintended. In other words, theseskills
(e.g., computer skills) resulted fromteachers' useof an approachor method that
was intended to address adifferent need in theclass. For example, theuseof
computers by someteacherswas intended primarily to keepstudents interested
in theclass, not to developtheir computer skills. As Eames et al. (2006)
identified, this implies a needfor teachersto bemoreawareof their pedagogical
decisions and strategies to maximize useof AC in theclassroom.
My studyfound that congruencebetween and among goals and beliefs
student skills wasvaried across thecurriculum, the MEECS survey, and thefour
teachers. That is, somegoals and beliefs were represented, manifested, or
embodied in somepedagogical approaches, instructional methods, and/or
student skills and viceversa, otherswerenot. Accordingto Lam& Kember
(2006), teachers' approachesto teaching normally followtheir conceptions
(beliefs) about teaching, but if contextual influences increase, they affect the
ways teachers teach. Thesecontextual influences possibly include lack of funds
to buy class supplies, materials, tools, or equipment; lack of time; lack of space;
content or curriculumrequirements; and MEAP (Michigan Educational
Assessment Program) test preparations. It is important to examinetheseand
other factors more in-depthto enlighten EE practitioners and researchers about
factors that influenceand increaseteachers' useof AC.
341
Furthermore, thevariability described abovepossibly indicates that there
areother factors besides goals and beliefs that influenceteachers' useof
pedagogical approaches, instructional methods, or student skills, or why
approaches, methods, or student skills do not always match goals and beliefs,
and soon. Further investigation of possiblefactors resulting in this variability may
be helpful in understanding PCK, and consequently in identifying how PCK can
increaseteachers' useof AC in theclassroom.
6.3.5 PCK Manifestations and AC
My study found that (1) reasonsfor using particular approaches, methods,
or instructional strategies, (2) knowledgeof student learning or understanding,
(3) ways used to overcomebarriers/constraints in teaching context, and (4)
activities or examplesthat connectedwell with students appearedto influence
theoccurrenceand extent of individual elements of AC in ateacher's instruction
morethan theother manifestations. Therefore, it is recommendedthat these
individual manifestations beexamined moreclosely and arestrengthenedto help
increaseteachers' useof AC and, ultimately, to improveteachers' capacity to
developAC.
It appearedthat prevalenceof individual elements of PCK did not predict
or indicate prevalenceof individual PCK manifestations or strength of teachers'
overall PCK. Based on consistency in and strength of useof pedagogical
approaches, instructional methods, and student skills, I expectedTeacher C or B
to demonstratethestrongest PCK, but it was Teacher D who did. Teacher D's
342
flexibility in terms of what to teach, when, and how, and thefact that shehad only
oneclass grouptoteach every day may havegiven her moreopportunities to
strengthen her PCK comparedwith theother teachers.
I predict that having astrong PCK may beadvantageousto ateacher
becauseit can provide him/her timeto plan his/her lessons in away that will
provideexperiences that can helpdevelopAC in students. In contrast, ateacher
who has aweaker PCK may need moretimeto plan and preparealesson, and,
therefore, may not beableto integrateAC into his/her instruction as much as
other teachers. Findings fromthreeteachers generally supportedthis suggestion,
but oneteacher (Teacher C, male, 6th gradescienceteacher) did not showany
evidenceof AC despitehaving arelatively strong PCK. Thesefindings imply that
there is a need to strengthen teachers' PCK, but that PCK may not betheonly
factor affecting teachers' useof AC in theclassroom. Consequently, further
investigation of factors influencing teachers' useof AC is recommended.
Someresearchers (Gess-Newsome, 1999; Leeera/., 2007; Magnusson et
al., 1999; Van Driel et al., 2001) havesuggestedthat PCK is developedthrough
classroomexperience, which implies that teacherswho have beenteachingfor a
long time haveastronger PCK compared with thosewho havefewer years of
teaching experience. My study found that length of teaching experienceseemed
to be related to strength of PCK in someteachers, but not in others. This
variability suggeststhat thereareother factors besides length of teaching
experiencethat influence PCK.
343
Findings also showed that, although, in many cases, theorder of
occurrenceof elements of AC or elements or manifestations of PCK appeared
thesamein thecurriculum, the MEECS survey, and thefour teachers, therewas,
in fact, an unequal use(extent) of AC or PCK asshown by thedifference in
percent values. This finding implies that, along with areexamination of thegoals
and objectives and thefocus of thecurriculumas suggested in Chapter 3, goals
and beliefs about teaching science, pedagogical approaches, and instructional
methods of curriculumusers aswell asthestudent skills, need to berevisited to
identify which of theseaspects of PCK target which elements of AC. Thiswill
help identify theweak points that needto beaddressedto increaseteachers' use
ofAC and eventually increasetheir capacity to foster AC in their students.
Subsequently, this will help informfuturedevelopment of EE curriculathat are
AC-oriented and guideteachers in howto developAC in their students.
6.4OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF AC
Besides elements or manifestations of PCK, content or subject taught also
appearedto play a role in theextent of useand distribution of AC in some
teachers. In particular, findings suggest that thenatureof sometopics (e.g.,
agents of erosion, air and water pollution) may haveinfluenced theintegration of
theknowledge/insight element of AC into someteachers' instruction instead of
theoverall occurrenceof AC, as I earlier hypothesized.
Another factor that may have played arole in theteachers' useof AC was
personal conviction. Theteacher who displayed thestrongest useof AC -
344
Teacher D - considered herself an environmentalist and, besides thefact that
shetaught an environmental topic at thetimeof my study, sheconsciously talked
about theenvironment and sharedwith her students someways to help protect
and conservetheenvironment throughout her class, evenwhen shewas not
teaching science. So it is possiblethat shemay still talk about environmental
problems or issueswith her students evenwhen sheis not teaching an
environmentally-related topic. Another teacher - Teacher B - did not teach an
environmentally-related topic at thetimeof my study, but nonetheless talked
about environmental problems or issues in her class. Thesefindings suggest that
factors other than elements and manifestations of PCK play a role in theuseof
AC. It is recommendedthat theinfluenceof content on useof AC beexamined
moreclosely by looking at teacherswho teachthesamecontent or at least a
topic that is related to theenvironment.
Another variablethat could bestudied more in-depth is ageof students,
which may haveaffected thetypes and/or extent of AC-related concepts, topics,
or activities that theteachers included in their classes. In my study, agegroups of
students varied- two classeswere7th grade, oneclasswas 6th grade, andone
classwas 5th grade. Working with moreclassesfor eachgradelevel (increase
samplesize) would haveenlightened my study asfar astheinfluenceof
students' ageontheteachers' useof AC was concerned. Other variables that
could bestudied areadditional roles or tasksthat teachers play or do besides
teaching, environmental knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or actions of teachers,
and length of teaching experience.
345
Finally, in terms of limitations of thestudy, it may bethat somedata
collection methods werenot themost effectiveways to collect certain types of
data. For example, thesurvey probably was not themost effectiveway to identify
manifestations of PCK of thefour teachers becauseit didn't specifically ask
teachers to describetheir PCK. SomePCK manifestations (e.g., reasons/
purposes of using particular approaches, methods, or instructional strategies,
knowledgeof curriculum, or reasonsfor choosing particular content) areprobably
better identified by directly asking theteacher becausethesetypes of datawere
not readily observed in classobservations. Theuseof mixed methods helped
address someof theseconcerns; therefore, it is recommendedthat futurestudies
usemixed methodswhen studying PCK to capture moreaccurately different
aspects of PCK.
In conclusion, adopting acritical pluralist perspectivein conducting my
dissertation research added richness to my work. I also believemy theoretical
perspectivewas also, at best, amore useful, appropriate, and adequate
approachto study themeanings of theteachers' social constructions and values
(Patterson& Williams, 1998). In my study, thesesocial constructions andvalues
werein thecontext of howteachersteach EE and their useof AC in the
classroom. Thiswas important in my research becauseit helped meelicit the
truemanifestations of theteachers' realities in theclassroom- theteaching
context within which eachteacher had to teach. Subsequently, this allowed for
comparison and contrast of theteachers' PCK and useof AC. Moreover, findings
fromthefour teacherswerecompared to findings fromtheMEECS survey
346
respondents andfromtheanalysis of an EE curriculum. As Eames er al. (2006,
p.21) noted, although results werehighly contextual and may not begeneralized
to awider population, someof thethemesthat emerged support or disputeother
researchers' findings and thereforemerit further attention. My study has identified
somewaysto assess PCK and teachers' useof AC and possibleassociations
between PCK and AC, and has provided possibleways to strengthenteachers'
PCK, increaseuseof AC in theclassroom, and integrateAC in EE and Science
curricula.
6.5 DELIMITATIONS
My study examined only theWater Quality Unit of theMichigan
Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS). TheWater Quality Unit
was selected because, according to thesurvey of MEECS participants, it was
oneof thetwo most used in thepast and at thetimeof thestudy. Within the
Water Quality Unit, I included only fiveof ninesections in eachof thenine
lessons, namely, theObjectives, Standards and Benchmarks, Background
Information, Procedures, and Assessment Options. Results may bedifferent if all
sectionswere included or if all MEECS Units wereevaluated. Although my study
hopesto informfuturedevelopment of EE and/or sciencecurriculathat aimto
developAC, results here may apply only to EE and/or sciencecurriculafor
Michigan andto curriculathat havesimilar content astheWater Quality Unit.
Thescopeof my study alsowas limited in terms of thenumber of
participants who wereincluded in thepool of peopleto besurveyed, in general,
347
andtheactual sizeof thesamplingframe, in particular. Only participants of
MEECS training sessions conducted between2006 and 2007wereincluded in
thelist, andfromthat list, only nameswith verified email and/or mailing
addresseswereincluded in thesamplingframe. Therefore, results may not be
generalizedto all participants of the MEECS training participants and usersto
date.
Finally, my study investigated only four scienceteachersfromthree
counties in Michigan. I was limited to asmall number of teachers becauseof the
sheer amount of datato becollected and analyzed. Scienceteacherswere
selected becausemuch of EE in K-12 schools is taught in scienceclassesand
most of theusers of theWater Quality Unit werescienceteachers (32.4%).
Results may apply only to thosewho teach scienceprimarily and to teacherswho
teach in schools within thesamedistricts or in districts having similar
characteristics asthefour teachers.
6.6 LIMITATIONS
Adopting a critical pluralist perspectiveallowed meto usemixed methods,
suchasclass observations, semi-structured interviews, CoRes, and surveys
(Scott & Oulton, 1999), and to usethestrengths of each approachto obtain a
holistic understandingof what I was studying (Babbie, 2005). But, aswith any
typeof research, my study had several limitations.
348
First, theselection of participants to be included in thesurvey and the
small number of teachers in thein-depth investigation affect thegeneralizability
of results (external validity). As described above, only nameswith verified mail
and email addresseswere included in thesurvey samplingframe. Only four
teacherswerechosen based on their willingness to participate, their location, and
thesubjects andgradelevels they taught. My study could havebeen
strengthened if thesamplesizewas larger for both thesurvey and thein-depth
investigation of teachers.
Second, theabsenceof using reminder postcards tofollow upwith mail
survey respondents may haveaffected the responserate. Dueto lack of funds,
reminders weresent to mail survey respondents via email. This may have
presented a problembecausenot all respondents may havegotten the
reminders for various reasons, including absenceof or invalid email addresses,
SPAM filters, or absenceof internet connection at homeor school.
Another limitation may befound in theuseof interviews and class
observationsto examineteaching practices of thefour teachers. Theuseof
interviews to gather personal opinions, thoughts, ideas, experiences, or practices
of theteachers may beasourceof internal validity threat. Teachers may not
havecommunicated what they truly felt or thought whenthey talkedwith meor
when I askedthemto describehowthey teach a particular content. Similarly,
threats to internal validity also can occur fromobservations. Teachers may not
haveshown howthey usually teachand interact with studentswhen I was
present dueto lack of comfort or perhapswantingto showdesirableattitudes or
349
behaviors. As suggested by Ary et al. (2002), it was, therefore, critical that I used
different methods and various sources of datato corroboratefindings and to
enhancethevalidity of my study.
350
O
?
C
co
>i
CD
co
CO
?
LlI
LU
CZ)
O
LLI
LLI
C
ID
_>,
"?
s
?-
?
4
CO
CD
O
<
s
e
CO
O
CL
?-
O
</)
4-*
D
<?
Q)
Ul
s>
e
'?
CO
Q.
E
?
O
V)
OZ
UJ
X
O
<
LLI
e
QJ
03
-Q
o
-S2
co
?
CD
"co
73
S
e
? 1
$"
s *
*- -S5 CD
li
m o C
h- J C -Q
CO
CO
CO
f
O
O
Q)
?
C
CD
O
CO
&
Q)
Q
CN
CO
Q)
-o
3
CO
O
Q.
Q)
?
C
Q)
e co
I
Q -2
00
e
co
e
C
Q)
" *>
-t Q)
CO -3
Q) .S
D)*=
CO
S v. $
o < co
3 "S. -4?
sii
5 8 3
Q. co Q)
io
42
.0)
"55
-Q
a
-2
co
o
O)
^v.
O
co
.0)
C
O
O)
-S
co
?
C
Q)
e
OO
?
Q
CN
O)
O)
C
co
-C
?
.o
S
co
-e
Q)
o
3
CO
e
Q)
E
&
Q)
73
-*-*
C
Q)
"O
3
CO
LLI
>
Z)
V)
Q)
-Q
d
.CO
CO
O
O)
"co
3
73
S
1S
e
co
CD
-o
.a e
S.2
'S
?? ?
i 3
:-5 *o
CO sfD
^>
e
co C0
e ^)
15
CD fe
Q -2
73
O
O
O)
co
s2
42
Q)
.co Q_
-C
CO g
J C Q)
Q) .N
Q) .-g
co ?
CM
co
O)
C
-S
.C
CO
.O
O)
Q
OO
73
C
co
CD
Q)
O
.O ^"
S 4-
CO 1S:
? ~
11
? co
CO rS
,0) J C
l co
O)
.C
co
-(D
CO
-
3 a
Q)
S
?
Q)
J CO
^"S
11
J C c
----S
&<.
o i
? (B
co e
vi J ~
-I
e?
I CO
42
.0)
"d
-Q
a
-2
co
o
O)
>v.
O
co
.0)
C
O
O)
-S2
CO
O
Q)
O)
C
CO
-C
?
?.
o
S
co
-C
Q)
sP
Q)
TD
3
C
Q)
e
Q)
73
J C
OO
CN
CO
C
.O
u
?
Q)
C
C
O
?
73
Q)
CD
73
CO
I
co
-Q
O
C
Q)
73
3
CD co
OO
Z
Z)
>
_l
<
Z)
a
te.
?
5c
5
o
- Q)
Q) CO
S o
CO r-
O
Q.
U.
O
V)
H
Z
LLI
2
UJ
_l
UJ
42
Q)
Q)
?
c
f
__ o
CI) V)
DQ c
-S
5 ?
O Q)
351
co
C
.O
?
f
e
e
o
?
o
e:
i
"cd
I
co
o
o
CD
.F
.F
O
-
?
f
o
co
o
IO
C
?
o
Q
CVJ
o
S
C
.f
CO
CO
f
?
I
co
C
.O
-G
CD
.?
I
CD
?
co
?
?3
CD
CO
CD
-Q
-?
O
.F
!
IO
CO
-Q
5
^CO
C -Q
f -SS
e ^
? f
S =
UJ
t- ?
C
.O
CO
CO
?
.co
CN
!
?
f
co
2
co
O
t
.?
f
Dj
.C
f
e
?
--<
.C
I
5 ^
5 .?
S TB -S
;c i
O ? f
co
D)
C
s
co
f
CK
CM
C
is
?
c
.o
1
O
*
O
?
.co
Q
CN
F
co
CD
-Q
"S ?
cd -S,
'S ET
Q i
co xf
S
C
.F
co
co
f
U
?
CO
,
i
1D)
.C
e
CD
-S
F
CL
O
O
O
CN
co
-Q
J O
?-
-2
-3
I
O
'S
-Q
CO
C
f
.e
C
f
CO
o
"
C
-C
?
f
f
co
co
.Q.
J -.
f
LL
IO
F
C
O
--<
.C
-S .?
??.?
sii
O ? f
f
1
.O
"(O
.D)
Io
.C
^C
co -S
F ?
CK ?
CN
TJ
CD
?3
C
C
O
O
CD
-Q
CC
C
S
U
to
a>
e
?
<?
S
"m
.?
'S)
?
O)
f
Q.
5 c
t.2
? "5
? CD
? .?
P
Q cd
CN
?
co
Q
Q
co
F
D)
C
CD
-C
?
"cd
Q.
F
?
e
?
?
s
C
.f
CO
CO
f
?
?
??
co
C
.P
co
F
-3
?-
?
CD
-?
co
C
.D
.C
*{-:
F
Q
CN
P
P
C
-C
?
f
f
CO
CO
e
.P
S5
co
?
co
C
CO
f
CO co
Ii
<3
IO
C
O
--<
.C
.C
-2
C
C
.P
S
-3
1
-f
s .?
D)
.C
S.
S-
.C
".
.C
co ?
.y .>- ? e
SI -S
8
o
i
"<d
C
.O
?
to
C
352
Oi
.C
S
f
CO
O
O
CO
co
I
O
?
o
J D
Co
.C
C
F
CO
o>
C
.O
co
I
IO
.F
CU
.C
s
f
IO
Oi
C
g "co
*~ CO O
O F S
co -g y
? P
co
S- 3. -S
CL v.
co o
io 43
P R o
<o J .c
f J o S
CC
co
F
&
S
co
o>
.C
e
co
-S
C
f
Q
5 O)
&5 .g
O C
S. -S
S C
O 3
CM
co
CO CO
-S c:
3
CO
.SiS
."5 f
c
Ô
OO
O)
.c
?
co
f f
o S
S-S
o g
Sa
"?
8$
O .F F
^S ts
co
-Q
O)
.C
55
3
O
CO CO
f f
s
Cl =
3 <->
Q CO
8.8
co t
S
?: a
IO
O)
.C
.s
"d
CO
e
S
-Q
I
co
O)
C
-S
CO
e
C
.O
55
o
f
Q
M-
2
co
J B
?
o
co
IO
O)
.C
.S
"d
CO
e
J j)
I
co
s
cd
C
C
O
O
co
-O
Co
F
F
-* s
-^"co
jp : c
^s
.o
5 co P
<*
"3-
-S> 55
O)
.C
s
?
IO
O
Q.
LL
O
V)
Z
O
5
H
V)
UJ
LU
Z
<
353
-C
.D)
CO
C
O
Q
CD
O
C
.O
?
co
73
C
co
)
.C
C
C
(D
Q.
C
.O
?
?;
?
C
co
D)
.C
-S
"(d
.?
S
co
e
CD
d
CO
C
.O
55
C
Q)
?
?
CO
CD
?
C
.CD
C
Q)
&
F
C
.O
?
CC
?3
C
co
O)
C
C
C
CO
Q.
CvJ
e
.?
?>
(D
(D
?:
"?
C
CO
O)
C
5
.e
"co
.?
CO
-C
.O)
?
C
CD
O)
-?
CD
O
CO
C
.O
.co
CO
-C
.O)
(?
C
O)
CD
O
5
?
C
co
O)
.C
-5
.C
"co
?
e
?
?
CD
C
O
?)
CD
?:
G- CO
O) C
.C
C
C
CD
Q.
co
CD
C
CD
&
CD
C
CD
O
O
co
C
.O
55
S
IO
UJ
O
Z
UJ
I-
UJ
Q.
?
O
O
Z
O
<
354
6.7 REFERENCES
Ary, D., J acobs, L. C, & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Researchin
Education (6th ed.). California: Wadsworth.
Babbie, E. (2005). Thebasicsof social research(Third ed.). Belmont, California:
ThomsonWadsworth.
education that promotes students' action competence. Retrieved April 12,
pedagogical contentknowledge(pp. 3-17). Dordrecht Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
J ensen, B. B. (2000b). Participation, Commitment, and Knowledge as
V. Simovska (Eds.), Critical Environmental andHealthEducation:
ResearchIssuesandChallenges(pp. 219-238). Copenhagen, Denmark:
178.
and approachesto teaching. TeachersandTeaching: Theoryand
Practice, 72(6), 693-713.
355
Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (1998). Paradigms and problems: thepractice
of social sciencein natural resourcemanagement. SocietyandNatural
Resources, 11,279-295.
Van Driel, J . H., Veal, W. R., & J anssen, F. J . J . M. (2001). Pedagogical content
knowledge: an integrativecomponent within theknowledgebasefor
teaching. TeachingandTeacher Education, 17, 979-986.
356
APPENDICES
357
APPENDIX A:
NON-RESPONSE ANALYSES
358
W
*->
C
F
TS
C
O
Q.
W
F
0
C
F
F
*>
F
CQ
"f
>
F
_?
C
O
'S
(O
?
3
s
UJ
s
e
?
f
s
e
f
O
CL
3
O
?-
O
f
s>
<
_c
"C
(Q
Q.
e
?
?
.2
'55
_>.
F (O
if
? S
? (?
C F
O UL
? C
?
J Di
) (0 z
ge|
f _. -C
m- (0 0
Sz
SiSZ
M- (O -,
O O)K
*.
O *J +*
*31
O f
?
_ C
J J S
?
H .S
? ?
Zg
(0
M-
* re
K (0
a
3
2
?
<
CN
O)
?"
O) O)
co
c
?
?
??
co
?
CO
co
00!
CM
S
IO
co
CM
LO
CM CO LO
CO
co
co
CM O)
CM co
CO
LO
CM
co
co
LO
CN
co
co
LO
O
O
co
co
LO
co
co
CO
?
CO

co
00
CM O) LO
CD
CM
CM
CO
>
J )
C
.O
^s
?
?
3
?
UJ
&
D)
0)
Q
Q)
-C
?
CD
co
S.
CO
Q)
S
O)
CD
(?
CD
S.
O)
Q)
Q)
Q
1
CO
CD
S,
O
-J
3
to
s
s)
e
U)
U)
?
a
3
2
?
f
s?
<
?
e
?
?
?
Q.
?
C
CU
s-
a)
co
co
?
?
CO
LO
f
?
C
f
O
f
>
_f
C
O
^p
<0
?
3
?
Ul
CO
CM
CD
00
d
O
LO
N-
??
CN
CN
CN
O
O
O
e
F
?3
C
O
Q.
CO
F
e
?
-s
e
?
?.
U)
Q)
CO
- I
?
0)
co
s-
?)
?
?
C^
359
C
O
?
?3
C
re
(A
e
f
?
C
O
a
(?
f
e
f
F
B
f
m
42
f
"f
m
?
C
?
J P.
?
?
O
re
E
_C
'C
re
Q.
e
?
O
(A
"35
m
e
<
f
(A
C
O
a
f ??
e^
O (A
? C
<
,f a
ja ?
? iS J =
- W .-e
5? c J
O
S?
s?
F .O
S^
f re
o
O o
ai B
Zg
o ? Q-
* g c
"355
H-
O g
* re
tu
e
e
?
?
p
f
?
Xl
<
J S
f
"f
m
?
J 2
re
?
O
fr
re
e
CO CO
CO
?
co
co
?
co
in
co
aad- j su .s
?.
CD
I
CD
O
O
CO
co
co IO
??
co
?
m
SJ io
G
?
CO
Ql CD
CO
?
C
co
CD
CD
O
5
C
.O
1CD
CJ
1
co
-C
O
co
CO
CD
O
C
P
.<4~4 CO
? -C
C
CO
m
?
C
co
I
"co
$
d
S
e
Q.
co
C
.O
"co
3
io
.O
5 co
e
3 .
co
CD
CD D
~D CD
c/>
m
-4
?
XJ
e
o
C Q.
? co
? f
i
Q. O
03 e
CD
*- Il
Il
CU Z
360
C
O
Z
s
e
p
(?
+
C
F
?
C
O
a
W
?
UL
C
F
?
$
f
OQ
(?
s
?
f
?
e
?
*3
?
3
_c
CO
a
E
?
O
?
"35
.>>
(0
C
<
f
V)
C
O
Q.
f 5^
*?
e^
O W
.2 a
? ?
s
e
C
? 5
f
?
e
?
I
?- IO Q
? i-s
? S .e
^= S
e
*. io
O F
g
O +> *
#81
? ?
(0
C
?? CO
co
CT.
I 5
If)
co
s>
Un
inI
M
CNI
??
co
Uo
ih
m CM CO CO CN co
(0
u_ F
* (0
0 lo
C
(0
TJ
O
E
+*
F
S
"<d
e
o
?
(0
C
s?
CO co co
col
CN
CD
in
?? CN
co
CD
-C
CD
~0
Oi
C
e
ce
32
.s
co
.93
<o
&s
co
CD
OO
1
.O
"co
.O)
C
co
O)
O)
.C
co
1
co
E -
O
O)
.C
C
co
CD
e
O)
.C
6
co
CD
e
O
S
co
co
2
U
co
co
co
-Q
co
O
.a
C
CD
s
C
O
Q.
CO
Q)
f
T3
C
O
CL
CO
?
i
?
C
o
CU
CC
361
APPENDIX B:
COMPARISONS BETWEEN MAIL AND WEB SURVEY RESPONDENTS
362
C
(O
J =
-C in f
d f
a> 3
? ? ?
2 - I
?? ?
? e ??) '?
_ aE 3
3 ? . - ?
Z f m ? CO
CSl CM CM CM CM
IO
O
CO
co
CJ )
O

C
(0
?
sc
?
s>
V)
f
_3
(0
>
co
co
CM
co
CN
s>
(? "?
f e
*: 2--S
IO CM CO
CO
CM
O ?-
? g.
?
co
t--
If)
O
O
s s-y
E to f
3 > 2
-S1S ?
CO T-
ir>
co
co co co co co co
co
E *j
ig
ro t
Q. e
E.ai
o w
?-s
^) cu
- cu
CO XJ
OT
I
(O
(O
>
9J
(O
f
- 2
1 O)
-g
O)
IO
8
2
O)
CO
O)
8
S
O)
co
363
Is-
CO
s?
?-
??
r-
?
??
?
?
5
S
CN
G-
co
CN
CN
G- ?-
?)
?
LO
CN
O
LO
CN
O
st-
N
O
CD
CO
" CN
I
CN
O
LO
CN
LO
CD
CM
CM
LO
CN
OO
CN
CM
LO
S-
CO
OO
CN
CO
CM
2,
CM
G-
co
co
r-
CJ J
o
CM
CM
co LO
CM
co
O
CO
LO
co
co
CJ )
CM CM
O
co
LO
CO
G-
??
oo
co
CJ )
O
O
O
co
CM
O
G-
??
LO CJ )
O
co
CM
CD
co
O
r-
LO
LO
CM
CO
CD
co
O
O
CJ )
O
O
oo
co
O
LO
CM
r-
O
CO
CM
CO
CO
co
LO
oo
?-
??
CJ )
CM
CO
OO
O CD
LO
G-
??
co
co co co
co
co
LO
co
r-
co
O
co co
?-
??
O
co
r-
O
CJ )
co
co
CD
CD
CJ )
CM
OO
co
co co
co
O
co
co
oo
co
CM
CO co
T3
(D
_c
"4
C
O
O
Gu
O
.Q
co
l-
D)
S
CJ ) O)
e
CJ )
co
\-
n
T)
cd
CO
.CJ
S)
1
-e
.O
"S)
<*
CD
O)
CD
O)
C
ce
O
co
O
O
c/3
.0)
XJ
CO
!
G
o
co
CD
O
C
.F
G
co
Cl)
O
C
.F
?
(O
C
O)
O
O
C
s
.F
F
O
C
cu
d
co
C
f
e
C
.5
lS
co
F
s
3
co
"(S
C
.O
co
e
C
.O
-C
co
?
3
/d
?
co
%
?
f
CO
F
O
?
co
CN
CJ )
CM
OO
OO
co
OO
CM
CO
O)
C
Ic
?
CO
?
03 -^
f ?
>> ?
? ?
CD fi
1
?-
??
co
CO
CD
CO
CM
CM
CO
LO
G-
??
CM
CO
co
CM
CO
g
o
co
(D
O)
E
e
lo
o
X)
CD
C
'co
CO
O
LU
LU
CO
CO
3
g
>
XJ
C
o =
?
>
XJ
O
in
TJ
C
co
co
E
B
co
O
LU
CO
CD
O
(O
CD
CC
O)
l
CD
C
LU
CO
s
?
?
co
CD
CO
=>
XJ
C
co
364
_f
"f
.?
XJ
C
03
SH
co
?
O)
5?
><
gei
s
'i5 "~
S1
s>
O)
?>
??
s?
O)
O)
??
CM
??
?
CO
CM
00
CM
CN
00
00
CN
CD
O
CO
CD
CO
co
CD
CM
s>
s>
CN
CM
00
O)
CD
m
?
s>
O)
co
co
?
CN
??
CM
CO
CM
CN
CO
CM
CO
?
CM CM CM CM
??
?
?
f
"co
?
\
=J
O
'-e
CD
Q.
F
?
CO
??
?
J D
_c
?
J D
E
Z
CD
F
F
m
?
C
?
W
?
?
re
e
F
s?
?>
a>
5
?
C
C
Cl)
??
? ?
s>=
&'>
O)-J =
e ?
f co
?
>
CO
f
J D
F
Q.
CO
.-el h
9> f
O C
!>
TO F
8|
Q. O)
jO C
f J
> C
3s
en
f
o
=s
F
>
'c
Q- o
=e
*S F
O) ~
.!=
Q. (?
F co
1 X) -*->
??
F
E
XJ
?
?
-S5
"f
CO W (?
E f
"- ? ?
s-5
f
(?
C
F
XJ
=J
"S)
f
'a
U)
? J =
?|
Il
p.2
8? f
Q- -i;
Q. e
co ?
=to
to F
.E ?
co
e
?
"w
_ ?
co >
S^
Q ^
co ?
^s
e e
Q. Q.
C o-
S d 2,
O X) O)
(0
f
O
O)
f
co
?
C
f
>
?
Q
f
C
co
J =
O
?
?
f
(0
F C
C F
f ?
OO Qj
>- O
f
a> f
p F
? ?
365
CM
s>
CN
co
o
f
en
?>
_F
5
o
_ e
CO -S
3 ?
Q. iE
f -?
.l
o o
? .w
? "05
.!= CJ *
3 C
sco
? J =
co o
CM
CO
N
?
-4-<
"e
?
?3
*-
CO
'S _
fe).g
eg
ci
co
?
a.
?
?
(0
l.
a>
s
co
?
~f
L-
"G
Q-*-
|| 5 ?
? ?
J Z M-
CO ?
m
co
"oJ ?
co a>
m ^
lo
Q)
S s
S-S?
? co
co
CP
m
s>
co
CD
LO
s>
m
s>
co
co
CJ )
CO
CM
CJ )
C
C
CO
_ f
CU "O
Q. C
co 3
O) F
LO
LO
co
CM
LO
CO
CO
f
CJ )
_f
O
C
^ =
co
co
.y e
co
Q.
Cl_
CO ^
jz co
f 5
J =; co
co
CM
co
LO
CO
F
?
? F
CO f
,2 >G
L-
CO O
.9 5
e co
F F
J Z -
"5 ?
$ E
3 a
co
?3
f
g
'zi
CO
CO
CO
f
C
f
"?
CO
"e
f
CO >> o
Q- s P?
co
s>
LO
F
f J 2
8-e
'
f H-
CO ~
U CO
=? ~
J 3 f
5 f
Q. C
F CO
g ?
'>
g ?
Q. >
CO
CO
LO
CO
-?-
CZ
f
TJ
ZS
s
?
D
_C
"-4
C
O
O
CN
?
_?
J D
co
f
s?
e
re
J =
?
"5
3
a
?
?
e
O
O
C
O
re
1-
_?
a
?
UJ
"d
f
>
O
?
(O
-- (?
.2
re
f
^?
??
s>
?
?
_?
CT-J =
S E
? E
= O
OO
366
CM
co
co"
CM
co
oo
co
co
Bsz
? f
etj
CO 3
a) co
IO
C
g
'?
"co
C
e
le
o
co
B
F
>
O
If)
co
co
cu
s?
TJ
o
e
j
t
?
CO
F
CO
co
f
i
O
C
co
en
en
m
EB
OJ
O)
CO
oo
co
oo
o
cd
CO
F CO
.!= f
?- ?
co PJ
2
|o
E-S*
I -i
F C
.C J
CN
s>
co
i_ to
O OJ
CN
O
CO
f
s? ?
en
o
? co
,co _f
O)
CSI
co
f
-!2 F
J i
f 2
.?
"f
g
"> _
P co
O.B
co
oo
co
^
o
co
co
o
co
Cvil
en
ml
Ol
c
5
s>
CN
CM
O
co s>
cd
O)
co
m
co
?
co
?I
CO co
OJ
?
I"-.
CN
CN
CN
IO
CN
CO
co
CO
.2
CO
CT co
UJ
Z
O
?
co
O
?
f
?
co
?
co
Q.
.O
f
>
f
TJ
CO
O
"co
co
.O
Q.
J O
f
>
f
TJ
C
co
E
C
O
'co
"
co
f
O
O
F O
co
"co
"
o
co
QJ
_o
f
>
f
TJ
Q.
O
f
>
f
TJ
Q.
.O
f
>
f
TJ
J O
15
CO
>|
TJ
"Sj
Q.
CJ
F
>
f
TJ
CO
CT
C
1*
O
Q.
_?
F
>
F
TJ
s
?
'-?
C
O
O
CM
CQ
>
S
03
>
s?
o
s?
co
s
f
Q.
C
F
e
f
>
s
a
E
e
?
"55
'5
s
?
<
f
s?
s
I
e
s>
e
"d
m
to
CO
C F
=-C
f ?
? ?
? f
St)
s
f
<?
?
m
?
+
?
f
"d'
e
f
E
a
?
f
>
f
Q
367
CM
CO
OO
CM
V)
O)
|>
o
co
E
_f
.Q
2
Q.
Q.
_0
>
F
a
(0
s>
co
co
oo
co
s>
co
CD
o
CM
TJ
O
O
O)
?
Vi
,?
"w
?
il
IP
ô co co _
f -* S
> F .N
F F .*;
w o
oo
CM
s>
o
E
o
C
O
"3
co
"co
e
o
CO
?
f
Q.
O C
I'D
F 5
TJ CO
CO
CM
co
CM
XJ
C
co
i
f
"d
co
co
.e
?
"e
F
TJ
"co
Q.
O CO
F ^
F co
TJ >
m
m
e
?
CO
?
F
Q.
F
?
C
f
f
CL
E
?
?
C
f
TJ
"co
Q. CO
? f
F ?
TJ Q.
IO
CJ )
+2
"e
f
TJ
co
CM
co
f
?)
?
C
f
TJ
"S)
f
?)
?
1
F .
co
co
m
s)
?
f
f
.15
?> 2
ro O
co -^
"C J 3
f E
" ro
?
oco o
.E co g
f o _
.e s) co
cn
OO
f
F
C
f
T)
fi
a. S
8-8
Q. CO F
oo
(O
CM
co
O)
e
f
O)
_c
"f
se
co
co
f
C
O)
C
f
co
C
f
co
cu O)TJ
J = C f
? .a >
CM
col
co
co
co
M
oo
co
a.
'.e
co
C
o
i
f
f
co
>
O
T3
F
_c
"-?
C
O
O
CN
Cu
_?
ce
K-
XJ
O
O
CD
&2\
a: ce
_ C
re F
o .-e
(O o
e
o
E
ai
_o
a>
>
?
Q
+
c
?
t>
3
W
C
F
SS
I
IS
4- f
F C
C f
CO 3
f *
I- </)
?
re
s
368
CN
CO
OO
O)
C
'4-
C
O
O
CN
Cu
Q)
.Q
CO
(?
-
-4- L_
c co
J 2 E
C .C
o o
o e
- <u
j2 ^
?- O)
m
oo
co
co
CM
in
o
o
CM
r--
COI
O O
(N
co
co
00
CM
O
W
.a -a a
? a> to
h?
c o 5
o c ro
DU
?
_o
'i
>
C
O)
c
'c
O
>
CU
to rs
?- CC
3
8 S"
369
?
<,
f
?
e
F
F
Q.
E
?
?
C
O
"d
<
"C
f
+"
C
f
W
2
a
f
?
s:
+
42
_f
"f
OQ
?
C
(O
J f
(O
O
O
(O
.2
"C
O
f
+?
(0
?
co
03
_f
s
f
e
?
e
? _
O P
O?
s
e
re
"re
?
<
S1
?
Oi
^
CM CM m s>
m
00
co

?
m
Il
?
?
^CM
?
m
co
m
s>
Il
Z
<
m
co
io
m co
CM
8
%
F
Z
3
V)
f
S1
CM
CM m
co
co
?
co CO
CO
I^
CM
i-
N-
Il
co
Il
2
CM
f
3
V)
"r
S1
co
sr
co co co
O)
CJ )
co
CM
co co
CM
?
CM
M
?
Is*
8"
re
O
>
re
f
m
"S f
"2 s?
?|
<?
re
3
a
f
?
e
?
?
C
O
'&
re
e
J S
a
?
LLl
"El
f
>
?
?
W
Q
?
5
f .2
SStJ
i ?
O)
C
? (?
m 2
re =
iE
M
i=?
?
'5
s
?
<
f
s?
?
F
yI
C
F
E
Q.
_?
F
>
F
a
- E
S
? F
(? a:
C
f
e
a
_?
f
>
f
C
f
?
3
+J
V)
Sj
4- C
e ?
f ^
?_re
3 f
(0 CC
e e
f f
? -?
3 3
(/> (0
s?
e
"?
?
'55
>
<
?-
? O
370
?? in O)
*
r^
00
o
<o
co
F
O
3
?
O
?? ??
??
co
?
CO CM
en
in
m
o
C
G) O
C <
re
CvI
oo
CM
CO
00
oo
co
co
co
CM
CD
co
CO
?
<
f
?
C
Q)
+
f
Q.
E
O
?
C
O
?
<
4-
O
(0
C
f
e
.2
UJ
73
3
;>
C
f
?
e
f
L.
I-
3
?
?
O
t
DQ
_F
?
re
a
e C
+-* ._ f
O e f
?02
CO
O)
00
CM
co
co
CO
C
O
>
I-
?
H
?
CM CM
00
C
U
E
1
e
O
?
CN
00
CO
co
CM
CO
CO
CO
N"
\s>
CO
co
CM
m
sj-
CM
in
"3-
f
O) ._
a j=
O)
?
C
00
ht
Im
CO
CJ )
CJ )
C
O
?
a>
"So
|5
C f
f Q.
Ii
lu ?
??
F
CQ
i"
re o,
W Ol
? ?
OO
?.
o
'S
p
e
f
li
EN
C
(B
-C
?
?d
3
SJ
Ol F
d 2
? ?
(B
f
(B
-Q
O
??
H3
C 0
e e
? a>
f C:
.!S "O
d S
? ?
COCD
C
If
F ?
s
CO
?
o
e
CD
L-
3
?
?
O
-O
fI
.C
C
O
CO
?
"e
a>
f
a.
371
APPENDIX C:
ACTION COMPETENCE
372
Appendix CL Criteriafor Action Competence(AC)
Thesecriteria, whichweredevelopedfromtheworks of Eames et al.
(2006), J ensen&Schnack (1997), Mogensen (1997), Breiting &Mogensen
(1999), and (J ensen, 2000a, 2000b), wereusedfor all AC analyses. AC in the
context of environmental education is thestudents' ability to act on environmental
concerns/issues/problems (J ensen & Schnack, 1997). To examinewhich goals
and beliefs representedAC, this investigator identified thegoals and beliefs that
related to helping students acquire knowledge, developcommitment, practice
visions, plan and takeaction, and think critically and reflect in thecontext of
environmental issues or problems.
Knowledge/Insight
Students...
o Gather/learn to gather information or develop knowledgefrom
various sources (this is also inplanningandaction)
o develop knowledge about effects, causes, changestrategies, and
alternatives
o increaseawareness of theenvironment
Commitment, motivation, attitudes, andvalues
Students...
o takeownershipor personal responsibility of their learning,
decisions, or actions
o makeinformed decisions on what actions to take
o makeacommitment to beactivecitizens in ademocratic society
o identify and understandtheir own and others' attitudes and values
or views and perspectives towards environmental issues (this is
also critical thinkingandreflection)
o develop positivevalues and attitudes toward theenvironment
o satisfy their learning interests
o developconnections betweenthemselves and their local
environment, culture, and people
o do self-directed research/learning
o becomeawarethat they havearolein environmental action
o increasetheir interest in theenvironment
373
o feel empowered to takeaction
o haveapositiveoutlook about theworld
o developtrust in their power to act or feeling that they can makea
difference
o developsocial skills (self esteem, ability to cooperate, self concept,
self confidence)
o identify their own position regarding an environmental issueor
problem
o think about their feelings regarding an issueor problem
Visions
Students...
o set goals or developvisions of their futureor howthey want their
lives or theenvironment/earth to look like
o ask themselveswhat they think will happen in thefutureand the
effects of environmental problemat hand to their future
o ask themselveswhat alternativeways of development areavailable
Planningandactionexperiences
Students...
o identify problems, plan (for howto solve), investigate, and present
findings
o communicate
o participatein consultative, democratic, collaborative, and
cooperativedecision making
o work collaboratively towards an action (solution to aproblem)
o shareideas and skills
o do higher order thinking skills (e.g., understanding, applying,
analyzing, and evaluating) (this is alsoin critical thinkingand
reflection)
o sharetheir emotional responseto an issuethey areinvestigating
o engagein cooperativediscussions
o build and practice researchskills
o identify possibleactions for theenvironment
o developskills in order to takeaction
o think innovatively and creatively about newideasor different ways
to resolveaconcern, issue, or problem
o apply knowledgeand skills in their other subjects or in real life
Critical thinking andreflection
Students...
o think about root causesof problems, pros and cons of an issue,
multiple and/or competing explanations, and possibleactions that
could betaken
o reflect on experiences at both personal and societal levels
374
o reflect on their (prior or current) knowledge, actions, participation,
attitudes, values, and motivations- e.g., students reflecting on how
they impact their environment
o explore, examine, or analyzeaproblemor issuein depth or at
multiplelevels (e.g., structural, scientific, and personal)
o question (thisis alsoinplanningandaction)
o beopen-minded- changeideas, decisions, and choiceswhen new
information is available(this is alsoin commitment, motivation,
attitudes, andvalues)
o challengecurrent practices
375
APPENDIX D:
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND PROTOCOLS
376
Appendix D.1. Mail Survey Instrument
TEACHER SURVEY ON TEACHING GOALS AND
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Fall 2007
Dear Teacher:
Weareconductingthis survey to examinedifferent types of teaching goals and
instructional strategies in order to improveteacher training and scienceand
environmental educationcurriculaand programs in thefuture. You havebeen identified
asa participant becauseyou teach scienceor social studies and/or you were/are
involved with theMichigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS). We
encourageyour participation becauseonly asmall number of teachers areaskedto
participatein this survey. Your responsesareof great importancetothesuccess of this
study.
Thereare22 short questions in this survey. Pleaseread each question carefully and
answer to thebest of your ability. Pleasenotethat thereis no right or wrong answer for
questions 15 and 16. Werecognizethat therearemany different ways of teaching and
that no oneteaching styleor strategy is better than others. Wesimply want to get an
ideaabout thetypes of teaching strategies and methods that teachers adopt.
Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose
not to participate. Return of this survey, however, representsyour consent to participate
in this part of thestudy. Wedo not ask for your nameto ensureyour confidentiality and
privacy. At theend of this 4-pagesurvey, vou will beasked if you would liketo
participatein thenext phaseof this study. If so, wewill ask for your nameand contact
information, which will betreated confidentially. Beassuredthat your nameswill not be
associatedwith your responses. This survey hasan identification or codenumber on the
topmost pageon theright only to keeptrack of distribution.
If you would like additional information about this survey, pleasecontact thestudy
investigator and coordinator, Angelita "Gel" Alvarado at 517-432-5037 (office) or at
alvara32@msu.edu. You may also contact theother study investigators, Dr. Geoffrey
Habron at 517-432-8086or at habrona@msu.edu. or Dr. Shari Dann at 517-432-0267or
at sldann@msu.edu. If you would liketo hear moreabout your rights as a participant,
you may contact - anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the
Human Research Protection Programs at Michigan StateUniversity by phone: 517-355-
2180, fax: 517-432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu. or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, Michigan48824.
Thank you. Thesurvey begins on the next page. Placethecompleted survey in the
enclosed stamped envelopeand drop it in themail. Keepthis pagefor your referencein
thefuture.
Sincerely,
AngelitaAlvarado
377
1 . Nameof School:
2. District:
Survey ID:
3. Which of thefollowing BEST describesyour typeof school? Pleasecircleone.
a. Public non-magnet
b. Public magnet
c. Public, alternative
d. Public, charter
e. Public, vocational
f. Privatechurch-related
g. Private, not-church related
h. I don't know
i. Other (pleasespecify):
4. Which of thefollowing BEST describesthecommunity whereyour school is
located? Pleasecircleone.
a. LargeCity (population is at least 250,000)
b. Mid-sizeCity (population is lessthan 250,000)
c. LargeTown (population is at least 25,000)
d. Small Town (population is lessthan25,000 but morethan2,500)
e. Urbanfringewithin a largecity
f. Urban fringewithin a mid-sizecity
g. Non-Metropolitan Rural
h. Metropolitan Rural
5. Approximately howmany (in percent) of your total school populationare. . .
(Pleasecheck onebox for each item).
a. eligiblefor free lunch?
b. eligiblefor reduced-priced lunch?
c. English languagelearners?
d. studentswith disabilities?
0 to 24%
D
D
D
G
25to
49%
D
G
G
G
50to
74%
G
G
D
G
75to
100%
G
G
G
6. Approximately what percent of your school's total student population is. . . (If
you don't knowtheexact percentage, pleaseprovideyour best estimate).
a) White: %
b) Multi-racial: %
c) American Indian: %
d) Alaska Native: %
e) Asian/Pacific Islander: %
f) Black/African American: %
g) Hispanic/Latino: %
h) Other (pleasespecify): %
378
7. What gradelevel/s areyou currently teaching? Pleasecircleall that apply.
a) Pre-K
b) Kindergarten
c) 1
d) 2
e) 3
f) 4
g) 5
h) 6
) 7
J ) 8
k) 9
I) 10
m) 11
n) 12
o) College Level
p) Other, pleasedescribe:
8. What subject/s do you currentlyteach? Pleasecircleall that apply.
a) Art/Music
b) LanguageArts/ English
c) Mathematics
d) Social Studies/Social Sciences
e) Science(e.g., Biology, Physics, Chemistry)
f) Literacy
g) AgriScience
h) Technology
i) Environmental Science
j) International Studies
k) Special Education
I) Life Skills
m) Languageother than English
n) Other, pleasespecify:
9. How long haveyou been ateacher? Pleasewritethenumber of years clearly
below.
At your current school
Total
10. Which of thefollowing Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport
(MEECS) Units' training haveyou participated? Pleasecircleall that apply.
a) Ecosystems and Biodiversity
b) Energy Resources
c) Water Quality
d) Air Quality
e) Land Use
f) None- I haven't beentrained in any of them
g) Do not recall specifics, but I did get trained in MEECS
379
1 1 . Which of theMEECS units haveyou used in thepast? Pleasecircleall that
apply.
b) Energy Resources
c) Water Quality
d) Air Quality
e) Land Use
f) None- I haven't used any of them
12. Which of theMEECS units do you CURRENTLY use? Pleasecircleall that
apply.
b) Energy Resources
c) Water Quality
d) Air Quality
e) Land Use
f) None- I amnot using any of themthis year
13. If you havealready been using theunit in this school year, when did you start? (If
you havenot started, when do you planto begin?) Pleasecircleonly oneanswer.
a) September
b) October
c) November
d) December
e) J anuary
f) February or later
g) I will not useit this year
14. What additional environmental education units, curricula, or programs haveyou
used or currently use? Pleaselist as many asyou can remember.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
15. What is/areyour primary goal/s as ateacher? What do you think should bethe
concerns of teaching (what should it beabout)? Pleaseusetheback if you need
morespace.
Personal goals as ateacher:
380
Concerns of teaching:
16. Howwould you describeor characterizethenatureof your instruction? Think
about howyou teach- for example, do you focus on giving your studentsfacts,
showing themhowto do somethingthen let themdo it, let themlearn ontheir
own, givethemhands-on activities or experiences, takethemoutdoors? Please
list (bullet points) examples of specific methods (e.g., joumaling, field trips, and
group projects) you useto help your students understand specific concepts.
Pleaseusetheback if you need morespace.
Thefollowing questions areintendedfor statistical purposes
17. Gender Female Male
18. In what year wereyou born?
19. Pleasecirclethenumber of yearsthat representsthe highest gradeyou have
completed.
Elementary High School College GraduateLevel
12345678 9101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122+
20. Total Continuing Education Units earned: Not Applicable:
21. What was/wereyour collegemajors/s?
22. What was/wereyour collegeminors?
381
Would you bewilling to participatefurther in this study? If so, pleaseprovideyour
name, phone number, andemail address, so I may contact you in thenext two
weeksto talk moreabout howyou might beableto help in this study.
Name:
Work PhoneNumber: HomePhone
Number:
Best placeand timesto call (e.g., prep hour, beforeor after school):
Email Address:
School:
THANK YOU very muchfor your participation in this survey. Your input will
giveus insights intoteachers' teachinggoals andstrategies. Pleaseput this
survey in theaddressed, stampedenvelopeanddropit in themail.
382
Appendix D.2. Web Survey Instrument
Michigan StateUniversity Teacher Survey on Teaching Goals and Instructional
Strategies Spring 2008
Dear Teacher:
Weareconductingthis surveyto examinedifferent types of teaching goals and
environmental education curriculaand programs in thefuture. You havebeen identified
as aparticipant becauseyou teachscienceor social studies and/or you were/are
involved with theMichigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS). We
encourageyour participation becauseonly asmall number of teachers areaskedto
participatein this survey. Your responsesareof great importanceto thesuccess of this
study.
Thereare22 short questions in this survey. Pleaseread eachquestion carefully and
answer to thebest of your ability. Pleasenotethat thereis no right or wrong answer for
questions 15 and 16. Werecognizethat therearemany different ways of teachingand
that no oneteaching styleor strategy is better than others. Wesimply want to get an
ideaabout thetypes of teaching strategies and methods that teachers adopt.
Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not bepenalized should you choosenot
to participate. Completion and submission of this survey, however, indicates your
voluntary agreement to participatein this part of thestudy. Wedo not ask for your name
to ensureyour confidentiality and privacy. At theend of this survey, you will beasked if
you would liketo participatein thenext phaseof this study. If so, wewill ask for your
nameand contact information, which will betreated confidentially. Beassuredthat your
nameswill not beassociatedwith your responses.
If you would like additional information about this survey, pleasecontact thestudy
investigator and coordinator, Angelita "Gel" Alvarado at 517-432-5037 (office) or at
alvara32@msu.edu. You may also contact theother study investigators, Dr. Geoffrey
Habron at 517-432-8086or at habrong@msu.edu, or Dr. Shah Dann at 517-432-0267 or
at sldann@msu.edu. If you would liketo hear moreabout your rights asa participant,
you may contact - anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the
Human Research Protection Programs at Michigan StateUniversity by phone: 517-355-
2180, fax: 517-432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AngelitaAlvarado
383
This consent formwas approved by theSocial Science/Behavioral/Education
Institutional ReviewBoard (SIRB) at Michigan StateUniversity. Approved 01/11/08
valid through 9/26/08. This version supersedes all previous versions. IRB#07-741.
Pleaseclick next to begin thesurvey.
Next
1. Nameof School
2. District
3. Whichof thefollowingBEST describesyour typeof school? Pleasecheckone.
â. Public non-magnet e. Public, vocational
^ b. Public magnet f. Privatechurch-related
^c. Public, alternative g. Private, not-churchrelated
^d. Public, charter E h. I don't know
_________ î. Other (pleasespecify)
C
4. Whichof thefollowingBEST describesthecommunitywhereyour SCHOOL IS
LOCATED? Pleasecheckone.
â. LargeCity (populationis at least ^f. Urbanfringewithinamid-sizecity
250'00) C g. Non-MetropolitanRural
b-^dêCty (populationis leSS thanC h. MetropolitanRural
250,000) F
? ^ , , , i. I don't know
c. LargeTown(populationis at least
25,000)
^d. Small Town(populationis less than
25,000but morethan2,500)
e. Urbanfringewithinalargecity
C
384
5. Approximately howmany (inpercent) of your TOTAL SCHOOL POPULATION
are... (Pleasecheck onefor eachitem).
Don't
25to 49% 50 to 74% 75 to 100% Know/Not
Sure
a. eligiblefor freelunch? CCCC
b. eligiblefor reduced-priced ? ? ? F"
lunch?
c. Englishlanguagelearners? CCCC
d. studentswithdisabilities? CCCC
6. Approximatelywhat percent of your school'stotal student populationis... (If you
don't knowtheexact percentage, pleaseprovideyour best estimate).
a. White
b. Multi-racial
c. AmericanIndian
d. AlaskaNative
e. Asian/Pacific Islander
f. Black/AfricanAmerican
g. Hispanic/Latino j
h. Other | --
7. What gradelevel/s areyoucurrentlyteaching? Pleasecheck all that apply.
G a. Pre-K G i. 7
amar jf
b. Kindergarten j. 8
G cl G k.9
G d. 2 G 1. 10
G e. 3 G m. 1 1
G f. 4 G ?. 12
g. 5 ?. CollegeLevel
G" dp. Other, pleasedescribe
1 h. 6 F ,F
385
8. What subject/s do you currently teach? Pleasecheck all that apply.
' a. Art/Music h. Technology
b. LanguageArts/ English i. Environmental Science
G" G"
c. Mathematics j. International Studies
d. Social Studies/Social Sciences k. Special Education
l i
e. Science(e.g., Biology, Physics, 1. LifeSkills
G
r
G
Chemistry) ?~
f. Literacy
g. AgriScience
?. Other (pleasespecify):
m. Languageother thanEnglish
9. Howlonghaveyoubeenateacher? Pleasewritethenumber of years clearly
below.
At your current
school
Total j
10. Whichof thefollowingMichiganEnvironmental EducationCurriculumSupport
(MEECS) Units' traininghaveyouparticipated? Pleasecheck all that apply.
G
G
G
G
a. Ecosystems andBiodiversity
b. Energy Resources
c. Water Quality
d. Air Quality
e. LandUse
_
f. None- 1 haven't beentrainedinany of them
g. Donot recall specifics, but I didget trainedinMEECS
386
11. Whichof theMEECS units haveyouusedinthepast? Pleasecheck all that
apply.
_
b. Energy Resources
c. Water Quality
G d. Air Quality
e. LandUse
f. None- 1 haven'tusedany of them
12. Whichof theMEECS units do youCURRENTLY use? Pleasecheck all that
apply.
_
b. Energy Resources
G c Water Quality
d. Air Quality
e. LandUse
f. None- 1 amnot usingany of themthis year
13a. If you havealreadybeenusingtheunit inthis school year, whendidyou start?
(If youhavenot started, whendo youplanto begin?) Pleasecheckonly oneanswer.
C a. September 2007 C e. J anuary 2008
E b. October 2007 ^f. February 2008 or later
^c. November 2007 g. I will not useit this year
E d. December 2007
13b. Pleasedescribeyour reasons for usingor not usingtheMEECS curriculumthis
year.
387
14. What additional environmental educationunits, curricula, or programs have
youusedor currently use? Pleaselist as many asyou canremember.
a.
b. G
c.
e. G
e.
I
15a. What is/areyour primary goal/s as ateacher (personal goals)?
-?- 1
15b. What do youthinkteachingshouldbeabout?
16. Howwouldyoudescribeor characterizethenatureof your instruction? Think
about howyouteach- for example, do youfocus ongivingyour studentsfacts,
showingthemhowto do somethingthenlet themdo it, let themlearnontheir own,
givethemhands-onactivities or experiences, takethemoutdoors? Pleaselist (bullet
points) examples of specific methods (e.g., journaling, fieldtrips, andgroup
projects) youuseto helpyour studentsunderstandspecific concepts.
1V I
21
388
Thefollowingquestions areintendedforstatistical purposes
17. Gender
1^ Female
C Male
18. Inwhat year wereyouborn?
19. Pleasecheckthenumber of yearsthat representsthehighest gradeyouhave
completed(checkonly one).
1-8Elementary
9-12 HighSchool
13-16 College
17-22 GraduateSchool
C
1 C 12
2 E 13
C3 c 14
^4 C 15
C5 C 16
C6 c 17
C7 c 18
C8 C 19
C9 C 20
C
10 ^21
11 C 22
20. Total ContinuingEducationUnits earned: PleasewriteN/A if this questiondoes
not applyto you.
389
21. What was/wereyour collegemajors/s?
a. J
I
I
22. What was/wereyour collegeminors?
b.
Pleaseprovideavalidemail address.
I
Wouldyoubewillingto participatefurther inthis study? If so, pleaseprovideyour
nameandphonenumber so I may contact youinthenext two weeks to talkmore
about howyou might beableto helpinthis study.
Name j
Work PhoneNumber J
HomePhoneNumber
Best placeandtimes to I
call (e.g., prephour,
beforeor after school)
School 1
THANK YOU very muchfor your participationinthis survey. Your input will giveus
insights intoteachers' teachinggoals andstrategies. Pleasecontact us if youhaveany
questions.
390
Appendix D.3. Pre-NoticeEmail for Mail Survey Respondents
Dear teachers and education professionals,
Greetings! We needyour help! You havebeen selected as a participant in astudy on
teaching strategies and methods and student learning. You havebeen selected because
you areascienceor social scienceteacher and/or you participated in theMichigan
Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS) training implemented by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in 2006. Thegoal of this study is to
identify different teachingstrategies and methods that help middleschool students learn
science, in order to improveteacher training anddevelop moreeffectivescienceand
environmental education curriculaand programs like MEECS.
You will receiveashort survey (22 items) in thenext threedays at your school or
homeaddress. We strongly encourageyou to completethis survey sincethis is only
sent to selectedteachers andeducation professionals. Your input will beextremely
helpful in our understanding of therelationships betweenteaching strategiesand student
learning. Thesurvey includes aself-addressed, stamped envelope. You may drop it in
any USPS drop box.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your participation and support. If you haveany questions,
pleasecontact meat alvara32(5)msu.edu or at 517-432-5037.
Sincerely,
Angelita (Gel) Alvarado
PhD Student
391
Appendix D.4. Pre-NoticeEmail for Web Survey Respondents
Dear teachers and education professionals,
Greetings! Weneed your help! You havebeen selected as a participant in astudy on
teachingstrategiesand methods and student learning. You havebeen selected because
you areascienceor social scienceteacher and/or you participated in theMichigan
Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS) training implemented by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in 2006. Thegoal of this study is to
identify different teaching strategies and methods that help middleschool students learn
science, in order to improveteacher training and develop moreeffectivescienceand
You will receivean email invitation in thenext threedays whereyou will begiven a
uniqueweb link to completeashort survey (22 items). Westrongly encourageyou to
completethis survey sincethis is only sent to selected teachers and education
professionals. Your input will beextremely helpful in our understanding of the
relationships betweenteaching strategies and student learning.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your participation and support. If you haveany questions,
pleasecontact meat alvara32(>msu.edu or at 517-432-5037.
Sincerely,
PhD Student
392
Appendix D.5. Email for WebSurvey Respondents
Dear Teacher,
Weareconductingthis surveyto examinedifferent types of teaching goals and
environmental educationcurricula and programs in thefuture. You havebeen identified
asaparticipant becauseyou teach scienceor social studies and/or you were/are
involved with theMichigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS).
Thereareonly 22 short questions in this survey. Weencourageyour participation
becauseonly asmall number of teachers areaskedto participate in this survey. Your
responses areof great importanceto thesuccess of this study. Pleaseclick on thelink
belowto completethesurvey.
httD://www.survevmonkev.com/s.aspx?sm=9aat6aGpKKN0HK2uw2 2frHTb31xi 2bqRv
zk3BinfGa2Uw 3d
This link is uniquely tied tothis survey and your email address, pleasedo not forward
this message.
Thank you very muchfor your participation!
Sincerely,
PhD Student
Pleasenote: If you do not wish to receivefurther emails fromus, pleaseclick thelink
below, and you will beautomatically removedfromour mailing list.
http://www.surveymonkev.com/optout.aspx
393
Appendix D.6. Reminder Email for Mail Survey Respondents
(OneWeek after Initial Invitation)
Dear Teachers and Education Professionals,
About aweek agoyou received asurvey fromMichigan StateUniversity about Teachers'
Goals and Instructional Strategies. You areselected becauseyou areascienceor social
scienceteacher and/or becauseof your participation in theMichigan Environmental
Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS) training last year. The purposeof thesurvey is
to seek your help in enhancing our understanding about ways that teachers helptheir
students learn in order to improveteacher training andto develop moreeffectivescience
or environmental education curriculumfor K-12 schools in Michigan.
If you haven't already doneso, pleasefill thesurvey and drop it in any USPS drop box. It
has 22 short questions only and should not takemorethan half an hour. We highly
encourageyou to completeit sothat wemay haveaclearer understanding of thetypes
of activities and experiencesthat help students learn themost. If you didn't receivea
survey or havemisplaced it, pleasereply to this email with your nameand mailing
address so that I may sendyou another survey right away.
Thank you so muchfor your time. I amlooking forward to receiving your input. Havea
wonderful week.
Sincerely,
PhD Student
394
Appendix D.7. Reminder Email for WebSurvey Respondents
(OneWeek after Initial Invitation)
Dear Teacher,
Last week wesent you an electronic surveythat asks about your teaching goals and
instructional strategies. Weareconductingthis survey in order to improveteacher
training and scienceand environmental education curriculaand programs in thefuture.
You havebeen identified asaparticipant becauseyou teachscienceor social studies
and/or you were/areinvolved with theMichigan Environmental Education Curriculum
Support (MEECS).
Thereareonly 22 short questions in this survey. Weencourageyour participation
becauseonly asmall number of teachers areaskedto participatein this survey. Your
responses areof great importanceto thesuccessof this study. Pleaseclick on thelink
belowto completethesurvey.
http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.aspx?sm=Y6zOs99EadJ wUvUXAXYZDA 3d 3d
This link is uniquely tiedto this survey and your email address. Pleasedo not forward
this message.
THANK YOU very muchfor your participation!
Sincerely,
AngelitaAlvarado
PhD Student
below, and youwill beautomatically removedfromour mailing list.
http://www.survevmonkev.com/optout.aspx?sm=Y6zOs99EqdJ wUvUXAXYZDA 3d 3d
395
Appendix D.8. Reminder Email for Mail Survey Respondents
(One Month After Initial Invitation)
Dear Teachersand Education Professionals,
About four weeks ago you received asurvey fromMichigan StateUniversity
about Teachers' Goals and and Instructional Strategies. You areselected becauseyou
areascienceor social scienceteacher and/or becauseof your participation in the
Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS) training last year. The
purposeof thesurvey is to seek your help in enhancingour understandingabout ways
that teachers helptheir students learn in order to improveteacher training and to
develop moreeffectivescienceor environmental education curriculumfor K-12 schools
in Michigan.
If you haven't already doneso, pleasefill thesurvey and drop it in any USPS drop box. It
has 22 short questions only and should not takemorethan half an hour. We highly
encourageyou to completeit sothat wemay haveaclearer understandingof thetypes
of activities and experiences that help students learn themost. If you didn't receivea
survey or havemisplaced it, pleasereply to this email with your nameand mailing
address sothat I may send you another survey right away.
Thank you so muchfor your time. I amlooking forward to receiving your input. Havea
wonderful week.
Sincerely,
AngelitaAlvarado
PhD Student
396
Appendix D.9. Reminder Email for WebSurvey Respondents
(OneMonth After Initial Invitation)
Dear Teacher,
About amonth agowesent you an electronic survey that asked about your teaching
goals and instructional strategies. Weareconductingthis survey in order to improve
teacher training and scienceandenvironmental education curricula and programs in the
future. You havebeen identified asa participant becauseyou teach scienceor social
studies and/or you were/areinvolved with theMichigan Environmental Education
CurriculumSupport (MEECS).
Thereareonly 22 short questions in this survey. WeSTRONGLY encourageyour
participation becauseonly asmall number of teachers areasked to participate in this
survey. Your responsesareof great importanceto thesuccessof this study. Pleaseclick
onthelink belowto completethesurvey.
http://www.survevmonkev.eom/s.aspx?sm=NJ Ya1Nzq1AzinlOudODvYw 3d 3d
This link is uniquely tied tothis survey and your email address, pleasedo not forward
this message.
THANK YOU very much for your participation!
Sincerely,
AngelitaAlvarado
PhD Student
Pleasenote: If you do not wish to receivefurther emails fromus, please
click thelink below, and you will beautomatically removedfromour mailing list.
http://www.survevmonkev.com/optout.aspx?sm=NJ Ya1Nzq1AzinlOudODvYw 3d 3d
397
Appendix D.10. ThankYou Email for Mail Survey Respondents
Dear Teachers,
Greetings! THANK YOU VERY MUCH for completing and returningthesurvey!!!! We
appreciateyour help in our researchendeavor to enhanceunderstanding of teaching
strategiesand methods that helpstudents learn science. If you haveindicated in your
survey that you arewilling to participatefurther in our study, you will behearingfromme
this week. I very much look forward to talking with you!!!
Again thank you all for your time, and best wishesfor therest of your school year.
Sincerely,
PhD Student
398
Appendix D.11. Thank You Email for WebSurvey Respondents
Dear Teacher,
I would liketo THANK YOU for participating in our survey. Your input is important in
helping us identify teachers' goals andteaching strategies, whichwill haveasignificant
contributiontowards improvingteacher trainingfor scienceand environmental education
teachersand developingeffectivescienceandenvironmental education curricula and
programs.
I appreciateyour timeandwillingnessto help meout. If you haveany questions about
my study, pleasedo not hesitateto contact meat alvara32@msu.edu or at 517-432-
5037.
If you havealready completed asurvey, pleasedon't do it twice. If you only partially
completed it thefirst timeandwould liketo completeit this time, pleaseclick thelink to
thesurvey:
http://www.surveymonkev.eom/s.aspx
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address, pleasedo not forward
this message.
Thank you onceagainfor sharing a little bit of your teachingwith me!
Sincerely,
PhD Student
below, andyouwill beautomatically removed fromour mailing list.
http://www.surveymonkev.com/optout.aspx
399
Appendix D.12. TheInterviewGuide
1 ) Pleasedescribeyour class as awhole.
2) Pleasedescribeyour school, theadministration and staff, and resources
and facilities available.
3) Pleasedescribetheparents' involvement in school/class activities.
4) How much of the Michigan benchmarks and standards or thegradelevel
expectations do you use?
5) How much of the MEECS (Michigan Environmental Education Curriculum
Support) do you use?
6) What areyour goals and objectives for teaching?
7) Does your teaching approach/strategy/methodvary with thetopic that you
teach?
8) Which part of thecurriculumis addressed by thelessons you will teach
this week?
9) Howdo your students prefer to learn? What do you do to address learning
styles? Pleaseprovideexamples.
10)Besides your textbook, what other resources do you usefor teaching?
1 1)What kinds of things do you do that arerelated to developing students'
critical thinking, ability to plan, to think about what they might beableto do
relatedto an environmental issueor problem?
400
Appendix D13. Informed Consent for Teachers
Teachers' Knowledge, Goals, Instructional Strategies, andViews
about Teaching and Student Learning
INFORMED CONSENT
Dear Teacher:
We inviteyour help! Weareconducting researchon the relationships between
middleschool scienceteachers' knowledge, goals, instructional strategies, and
views about teaching and student learning. This study'sfocus is teachers, and
you have been identified asasuitableparticipant in our project becauseyou are
amiddleschool scienceteacher aswell as your participation in the MEECS
(Michigan Environmental Education CurriculumSupport) training conducted by
the Ml Department of Environment Quality and your useof at least oneof the
MEECS units. Our end goal is to improveteacher training for futurescience
teachers and improveor develop scienceand environmental education curricula
and programs like MEECS. Your input into this study is invaluable as it will
illuminateour understanding of therelationships between teaching and student
learning.
Wearerequestingyour consent for you and your classto participatein this
project. It will involve 3 to 5 classroomobservation periods by thestudy
investigator and coordinator Angelita (Gel) Alvarado, 2 one-hour long interviews,
upto 5 short interviews (10to 15 minutes) to debrief someclassroom
observations, and an hour long survey that you canfill out at your leisurefor two
weeks. Gel's observationwill be no morethan 2 hours eachtime, and may be
completed in aweek'stimeor interspersedthroughout several weeks of a
particular scienceunit you areteaching. Gel will work with you to ensureher
observations and other interactionswith you and your classwill minimizeany
disturbanceto your instruction and thestudents' learning. Gel also intends to do
oneor two 30-minutegroup interviews with randomly selected students regarding
their experiences in your class and will work with you to avoid taking themout of
classfor theinterview. Gel may alsowant to browsethrough your lesson plan
and takephotographs of your classroomand of your students' work in and
around theclassroom. For this study, it is essential to audio-tapeall interviews
and video-tapesomeof theclassroomobservations. As part of your participation
in this study, you will beaskedto helpgather parental consent and student
assent (consent forms provided by this investigator).
Theinvestigatorsensureyour privacy andconfidentiality tothemaximum
extent allowableby law. This means that all information received andcollected
will betreated confidentially. Beassured that your nameswill not beassociated
with your responses; no nameswill berecorded on thenotes, interview
401
transcripts, surveys, video recordings, or student work. Only identification
numbers or codes will be used. Finally, no real names of peopleor theschool will
beused when results aresummarized and/or shared at professional conferences
or asjournal articles.
Your participation in this study is voluntary andthereis no penalty if you decide
not to participate. You may also stop participation at any time. Similarly, your
students' participation is voluntary. If astudent or a parent decides not to have
his/her child participatein thegroup interviewor not beaudio-taped, the
student's namewill not beincluded in the randomselection of interviewees.
Moreover, parentswho choosenot to let their children bevideo-taped or
photographed needto informyou (teacher) to ensurethat this investigator does
not includethemin thevideo-tapeor photographs. Participation in this study
poses minimal risks to you and your students. Such risks may includefeeling
uncomfortableto shareinstructional strategies or feeling uncomfortablewith
being "evaluated" (on theteachers' part) or fear of getting abad gradeif they talk
about their teachers (on thestudents' part). If you and your class participate, your
class will receivesomeeducational materials at theend of your participation.
Should you haveany questions about this study, you may contact thestudy
investigator and coordinator: Angelita (Gel) Alvarado, doctoral student, MSU
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, East
Lansing, Ml 48824, alvara32@msu.edu, 517-432-5037. You may also contact
theother study investigators, Dr. Geoffrey Habron, MSU Department of Fisheries
andWildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824,
habrong@msu.edu , 517-432-8086, or Dr. Shari Dann, MSU Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and ResourceStudies, Natural Resources
Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824, sldann@msu.edu, 517-432-0267. If you have
any questions about your rights or your students' rights asstudy participants, or
aredissatisfied at any time, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of theHuman Research Protection Programs at
Michigan StateUniversity by phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Pleasesignand returntheconsent belowandretaintheprevious
informationfor your reference.
Consent to Participatein theStudy onTeaching and Student Learning
I agreeto participatein this project. Pleaseinitial theappropriateoptions, sign,
and return to Gel Alvarado. Your participationwill be limited to theoptions you
initial below.
402
I DO consent to being video-taped as part of this project.
I DO NOT consent to being video-taped as part of this project.
I DO consent to being audio-taped as part of this project.
I DO NOT consent to being audio-taped as part of this project.
I DO consent to being photographed as part of this project.
I DO NOT consent to being photographed as part of this project.
I DO consent to have my classroomphotographed as part of this project.
I DO NOT consent to havemy classroomphotographed as part of this
project.
Name(print) Signature Date
403
Appendix D.14. InformedConsent for Principals
Teachers' Knowledge, Goals, Instructional Strategies, andViews
about Teaching and Student Learning
INFORMED CONSENT
Dear School Principal:
We inviteyour help! Weareconducting research on therelationships between
middleschool scienceteachers' knowledge, goals, instructional strategies, and
views about teaching and student learning. This study'sfocus is teachers, and
your teacher/s Mr. /Ms. and Mr. /Ms.
has been identified as suitable participants in our project becauseof their
participation in the MEECS (Michigan Environmental Education Curriculum
Support) training conducted by the Ml Department of Environment Quality and
their useof at least oneof theMEECS units. Our end goal is to improveteacher
training for futurescienceteachers and improveor developscienceand
environmental education curriculaand programs like MEECS. Your teachers and
their students' inputs into this study are invaluableas it will illuminateour
understanding of therelationships between teaching and student learning.
In order to exploretheteacher'sways of teaching and their influenceon student
learning, we needto:
Watch theteacher's teaching and interactionwith his/her class,
Videotapeand/or photograph someof theteacher's teaching and interaction
with his/her class,
Audiotapean interviewwith a randomly selectedgroupof students,
Photograph selectedwork of students in class, or thoseposted on thewalls
of theclassroomor anywherein theschool building.
Photographtheteacher's classroomand/or theschool building,
Conduct ateacher survey, and
Audiotapeteacher interviews.
Wearerequesting your permission to allowthestudy investigator and
coordinator, Angelita (Gel) Alvarado, to conduct theactivities listed above. Gel
will do upto 5 classroomobservations and eachvisit will be no morethan 2
hours, and may becompleted in aweek'stimeor interspersedthroughout
several weeks of aparticular scienceunit theteacher will becovering. The
404
students participating in 30-minutegroup interviews will berandomly selected; all
interviews will beconducted within theschool premises. Gel will work with the
teacher to ensureher observations and other interactions with theteacher and
thestudentswill minimizeany disturbanceon any part of his/her instruction and
thestudents' learning.
Theinvestigators ensureyour teachers' andstudents' privacy and
confidentialitytothemaximumextent allowableby law. This means that all
information received and collected will betreated confidentially. Be assuredthat
no names of teachers or studentswill beassociatedwith their responses; no
nameswill berecorded on thenotes, interviewtranscripts, surveys, video-
recordings, or student work. Only identification numbersor codeswill beused.
Finally, no real names of peopleor theschool will be usedwhen results are
summarized and/or sharedat professional conferencesor asjournal articles.
Your permissionto let us conduct this study in your school is voluntary and
thereis no penalty if you decide not to participate. You may also stop
participation at any time. Also, participation in this study poses minimal risks to
your teachers, students, or school, suchas concernfor negativepublicity for the
school, feeling uncomfortableto shareinstructional strategies or feeling of being
"evaluated" (on theteachers' part) or fear of getting a bad gradeif they talk about
their teachers (on thestudents' part). Thestudy investigator and coordinator will
ensureresults obtainedfromthis study will not in any wayjeopardizethenames
of theschool, theteachers, and thestudents.
Should you haveany questions about this study, you may contact theStudy
investigator and coordinator: Angelita(Gel) Alvarado, doctoral student, MSU
Lansing, Ml 48824, alvara32(S)msu.edu, 517-432-5037. You may also contact
andWildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824,
Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824, sldann(S)msu.edu. 517-432-0267. If you have
any questions about your teacher or your students' rights asstudy participants,
or aredissatisfied at any time, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish-
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection Programs at
Michigan StateUniversity by phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-432-4503, email:
irb@.msu.edu, or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Pleaseread and signtheconsent belowandretaintheletter for your
reference.
405
Consent toAllowStudy onTeaching andStudent Learning
As Principal of (school name), I hereby give
permission for my teachers and their studentsto takepart in this study primarily
conducted by Angelita(Gel) Alvarado, study investigator and coordinator, and I
authorizetheuseof any information collected for the purposes of thestudy
described above.
Name(print) Signature Date
406
Appendix D.15. Informed Consent for Parents/Guardians
MiddleSchool Students' Views of Their Learning Experiences in ScienceClass
INFORMED CONSENT
Dear Parent/Guardian:
Weinviteyour help! Your child's teacher, Mr./Ms. at
_____________School is collaboratingwith Michigan StateUniversity in
conducting research on relationships between middleschool scienceteachers'
ways of teaching and student learning. Your child's teacher was selected
becauseof his/her participation in thetraining provided by the Ml Department of
Environmental Quality to useat least oneof thefive units fromthe Michigan
Environmental Education CurriculumSupport (MEECS). The purposeof our
study is to examinehowyour child's teacher'sways of using and teaching oneof
thefive MEECS units may influenceyour child's learning. Hencethefocus of our
study is theteachers. Our end goal is to improveteacher training for future
scienceteachers and improveor develop moreeffectivescienceand
In order to exploretheteacher'sways of teaching and their influenceon student
learning, we needto:
Watch theteacher teach and interact with his/her class,
Videotapeand/or photograph someof theteacher'steaching and interaction
with his/her class,
Audiotapean interviewwith a randomly selected groupof students, and
Photograph selectedwork of students in class, or thoseposted on thewalls
of theclassroomor anywherein theschool building.
Thestudy investigator, Angelita (Gel) Alvarado, will conduct upto 5 classroom
observations and will work with your child's teacher to ensureher observations
and other interactions with your child will minimizethedisturbanceto your child's
learning. Your child will beaudio-taped, video-taped, or photographed ONLY
with your consent andyour child's assent. With your consent and your child's
assent, your child may berandomly selectedto participatein a30-minutegroup
interviewduring oneof Gel's classroomvisits. With approval of theteacher as to
when to conduct theinterview, Gel will ask your child about their learning
experiences in scienceclass, e.g., lessons, activities, projects, what they
learned, tests/exams, interactions with teachers.
407
Theinvestigatorsensureyour child's privacyandconfidentiality tothe
maximumextent allowableby law. This means that all information received
and collected will betreated confidentially. Be assuredthat your child's namewill
not be associatedwith his/her responses; no nameswill berecorded on the
interviewtranscripts or video recordings. Names on student work will beerased
and given acodefor analysis purposes. Only identification numbers or codeswill
beused. Finally, no real names of peopleor theschool will beusedwhen results
aresummarized and/or shared at professional conferences or asjournal articles.
Your child's participation in this study is voluntary and thereis no penalty if you
or your child decides not to participate. If you and/or your child decide not to be
audio-taped, participatein theinterview, or bevideo-taped, pleaseinformyour
child's teacher. Consequently, your child will not be recorded, interviewed, and/or
filmed about their experiences in theclassroom. You or your child may also stop
participation at any time by informing your child's teacher. Moreover, participation
in this study poses minimal risks to your child, for example, fear or concern of
getting abad gradeif they talk about their teachers or their experiences in class.
Thestudy investigator and coordinator will ensurestudent responseswill not
affect or jeopardizeyour child's gradein any way.
Should you haveany questions about this study, you may contact thestudy
investigator and coordinator: Angelita (Gel) Alvarado, doctoral student, MSU
Lansing, Ml 48824, alvara32(a>msu.edu, 517-432-5037. You may also contact
and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824,
Building, East Lansing, Ml 48824, sldann@msu.edu, 517-432-0267. If you have
any questions about your child's rights asastudy participant, or aredissatisfied
at any time, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Director of theHuman Research Protection Programs at Michigan State
University by phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu. or
mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Pleasesignand haveyour child returntheconsent belowand retainthe
letter for your reference.
Parent/GuardianConsent for Child to Participatein theStudy of Teaching
andStudent Learning
As parent/guardian of thechild named below, pleaseinitial appropriateoptions
below, sign your name, and enter thedate. By signing this consent form, you
408
authorizetheuseof any information collected for the purposes of thestudy
described above.
_____ I give my permissionfor my child to takepart in thevideo-tapingfor
research purposes to exploreteachers' ways of teaching and their influenceon
student learning.
_____ I give permissionfor my child to take part in theaudio-tapingof group
interviewfor research purposes to exploreteachers' ways of teaching and their
influenceon student learning.
_____ I give my permission for my childto bephotographedfor research
purposesto exploreteachers' ways of teaching and their influenceon student
learning.
_____ I give permissionfor my child'swork in classor anywherein the
school buildingto bephotographedor photocopiedfor research purposesto
exploreteachers' ways of teaching and their influenceon student learning.
Your childwill not beaskedto participatein any of theactivitieswithout
your permissionand his/her assent.
Nameof Parent/Guardian Nameof Child (print)
Signatureof Parent/Guardian Date
409
Appendix D.16. Student Assent Form
(This will bereadandverbally statedto thestudents; their signatureis
requiredat theend).
My name is 6el Alvarado. I'magraduatestudent fromMichigan State
University and I amconductingastudy on teachingandstudent learning. I am
askingyour help in understandingyour learningexperiences in your scienceclass
and your teacher's ways of teaching, for example, theactivities that you do,
your projects, homeworks/assignments, tests/exams, your interactions with
your teachersandyour classmates, what activities didyou likeand why, etc. My
end goal for doing thisstudy is to improveteacher trainingand scienceand
environmental education programs and curriculain order to help makeyour
learning experiences moreeffectiveand morefun!
Participation in this study will involvevideo and audio taping and/or taking
photos of class activities in theschool premises, group interviews with randomly
selectedstudents, and taking photos or making copies of someof your class
work. YOU WILL ONLY BE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IF YOU HAVE
PARENTAL CONSENT AND IF YOU SIVE YOUR ASSENT (IF YOU AGREE) TO
PARTICIPATE.
I will bevisitingyour class up to 5 times, and someof your class activities will
bevideo-taped or photographed.
For thegroup interviews, I need 6 to 8 students per group; thesestudentswill
berandomly selected, meaningyour names will bedrawnout of ahat. Wewill sit
in acircleeither herein theclassroomor outside(but in theschool premises). I
haveabout 15 questions to ask, and theinterviewwill beabout half an hour. I
will berecording our chat usingadigital audio-recorder. Sincethereare6 of us
(changenumber basedon thenumber of students in agroup), pleaseraiseyour
hand if you want to comment on aquestion or want to sharesomething. That will
make it easier for all of us to hear what each person has tosay. Also, please
speak clearly and loud enough for everyoneto hear. Pleaseremember that the
group interview is NOT atest and it is NOT acontest. You will NOT begraded
and your responses will NOT affect your grades in any way by participating in
this group interview.
410
Here's what elseyou should know. You DO NOT haveto takepart in this study.
Participation in this study is voluntary, so you can choosenot to participate, if
you want. Or you canjoin in thevideo-taping, photographing, or audio-taping,
and if at any timeyou wish to stop participation, you may do so. It'sno big deal
if you choosenot to participate, or if you decidenot to answer aquestion. In
addition, you do not haveto worry about your names or your teacher's name
being used or reported. I will not useyour name, your teacher's name, or your
school's name in my reports. You canalso discuss this study withyour parents or
guardianor withyour teacher if you haveany questions or concerns.
If you haven't already givenyour parental consent to your teacher, pleasehand
it to me.
Do you haveany questions about thestudy?
Pleasesign below.
I agreeto participatein thestudy investigating teachingand student learning in
middleschool science.
Student Name Signature Date
411
TableD.1. InterviewSchedules
(Number in parentheses is length of theinterviewin minutes)
Teacher A
10/30/2007(49)
12/07/2007(35)
12/13/2007(20)
12/20/2007(25)
1/28/2008 (33)
Teacher B
11/02/2007(61)
1/11/2008(48)
1/29/2008(10)
2/16/2008(37)
4/4/2008 (33)
Teacher C
1/10/2008(38)
1/11/2008(30)
1/14/2008(35)
1/29/2008 (32)
2/29/2008 (34)
Teacher D
2/28/2008 (90)
3/13/2008(20)
3/19/2008(10)
3/20/2008 (22)
4/24/2008 (46)
412
T3
C
re
tG
o
o
CM
(
F
C
re
>_
.e
O)
3
O
O
O
CM
a>
e
re
SZ
O)
3
O
_?
e
?
s
f
4-
Q.
re
?
<,
??"
f
?
U)
C
O
'??
re
*->
e
F
V)
f
a.
f
*? CO
C O
F O
a
?Tg
CM f
Q =
f
re
2 SZ
?9??
O ? ? ?
?- W ?- >-
W
?-
?.
LU
O
Z
O
?
a:
O
co
<
LiJ
LLI
O
Z
LU
O
CH
O
Q.
it
(0
m
co
03
(D
s>
OQ
CM
03
f
s
OQ
it
03
?
m
3
~?
"CO CJ )
ê
-^
?3 C
in e (C
"S
5^c
05
?
33
?
E ?
03 Oi
e O^
3 *- to
o <Q
SS <"
OJ -s
3
5^
C
2 o)
03 OJ
.t T3
C .t
:= 5 .">
/5 "s
.S B cd
O ?
3
o
it
Q
413
TD
F
C
O
?
(N
Q
?
co
o
? ?
w ?
W g
O)
W
? ?
2 =
LL J S
2 ?
2 .e
8"
3 C
? e
Q. C^-
W
ZJ e
? ?
>* OT
E ?
"?
-t'
C
>-
ZS ^ .
? 3-e e ?
< >, co ,^.?; t ?- u ?
-CD =
"" OT
W
1%
cd e e Q- Q-
S -E O Q) 3 (? Q)
Q. CO 0 J 3 *: i (-)
?? .32 W W1B 5 ?
to
0)
s
_-2
A A
A
W
5 0J
>> ?
O)
e.
Q) J =
? co
to
OT
E J S
O)
C
'(?
3
35
C to
co e
Q. O
? w
2 CO
Q)
E
?
hc
OT
>>
CO
O
?
a)
a.
W
zi ? e
cog
g! c
ils
S e'S
8-l*
OT C o iS
co zj ? !2
414
O J
jo g
CO
co t-
al
to co
F CD
-C C
=
cd -S
CD is
J i: CO
-^ Q)
t:
CO o
!>
W J
J = Q)
H J a
0)
& ;=
o co
S 2
? co
=j -
O XJ
co co
f Q)
Q)
?
C
CO O <=
o CD -
Q._. o
.S, ? ?
J 2 CT):=
=* <-
U) .5 -Q
CD 5^
.2 ^; co
O)T- O)
Sen-
I^
CO f CD
5 c ?
.2 o e
tj?<
I o ?
O r J =
Q) &>B
?? "-
???
O CD O)
co Z^
co
F
ê
e o
O co
J o
O e
EjJ
co 2
co f
* -
Q) CO
5 e
co ri
S Oi:
J u f
CO ,_
Q)
?
a) m
w 2
"^ Q.
CO Q.
- CO
co-S
CO co
Q)
C
O
O
co
. XJ
CD Q)
D) .N
XJ CO
Q) CO
If
.s f
.S2
CO >/
Ô
; O.
O) 5
S TJ
*_ f
f co
^
co .E
^co
F .92
o i
? co
f
I^
= &
O O)
O "O
>
-Q g
X) O
8I
F
(=: CO
.e e
f . .
<-
M
co
- QO
S?
Q)
CO
l-
F
XJ
C
CO
CO
-J (I)
CD g O)
w co
Q) 'S T-
Q) 31 =
C -CO
?
ci
CO
oo
O) ^
Si
-?
E
co
oa
Q CO
E
o
L.
**-
XJ
f
'S.
co
XJ
<
CO
O
O
CM
co
co
O
O
CN
J ^
O
_
XJ
O
5
co
XJ
C
4 CO
O)
e: e
co ?
J = -f
CO (O
E *?
o o
e co
? F
"O co
l_ o
o Q-
C 3
2 P-
'(O CO
(O C
F O
Q- 8
c co
uj 2
f co
? s
r co
O) CO
'ti
Q) 3
2 co
S <->
8
C?
S^
J 3 CO
Q- o
'n w
co 5
E f
f e
"D -o
<= "5
F O"

"?_ CO
? Z
" : F
^j co
^=>
? co
J = ?
f f :
Q -Q
=?
E-
f CO
1= 3'
? =*
Q. 3
O
XJ
C
? CO
O)
C C
'-G
co F
J = "f
J O
O O
e CO
f f
XJ CO
1_ O
? Q.
C 3
2 -
CO "55
f
CO
CO 3
co
.t=: ?
- F
G .Q
^> CO
CO "
?- O
co -~
3 5
? ?
?*=
co e
Q- !s
co _f
CD
TO t
CO
ti
f .E
f
CO
co
?
f
J D
- 8
O -Q
: -2
I i
f 5
O 3
co ?
co >*
??-
e =
F *
J 3 CO
?- CO
?G
C ~ :
Q. CD to
? go)
"Z j2
jS S.2
O)
J =
"G
jd
f
CO
5
>< o
J = c
5 -2
C
0)
C
O
Q-I
E
O
O
i
O
CL
_o
3
O
'-e
co
Q.
O)
C
'n
'(O
co
"0.(0
E Q-
XJ C
c o
co o
CO
XJ CO
C *^
F 3
12
i_ CO
J iE
2 w
co f
f
~O
f -~
J = w
co F
J =XJ
Sg
O ??
.2 ??
Q. ?_
J 2
"co -?
f 5
d ? >-
Q. Q.'
F C XJ
2 - e
,? co
J O
O) =
~co
O ?-
J D J O
F 3
co ?
*- 1=
O eg
CO Q-
? .E
Q. N
3 W
Q. 2
CO
XJ CO
f
Q.
E
CO F
Ceo ? .t; X
XJ
C
CC co
f 3 C
? O O
.E ja ?
co "?
Ê'5-
? c S
CO f TS
f *- !2
J = CO 52
? "?
co f
~XJ
3
? e- ?;
Q-
F
O
C
^ ?
Co ?
53
415
O
w
co
=f ^~-
c s>
O)O)
p? o)
?
o
CSI
co
o
o
CM
t= a>
co
?
?
co
?
?
CNl-
e
?
CO
O
e
co
E
CO
CO
O
O
O)
O)
(0
'S
?_
m
o
o
SS
*:
_l
?d
f
?
co
?
?
CM
co
co
?
?
* -
? CO
a>
? S
S-
C J =
"O CO
O) C/5 o
CO o ;
c s>e
o ^3 x
E-Il
O) g
!_ C C
o =* co
O = O)
0 2 ni
co .-t; ?>
IM
Mi
XJ
cl f
co
o) o
C= J =
a> co
0> -t.
C
?- ra
? co
a) e
O) F
?-s
e s>?
? "5 "s
C F 3
? 5 W
"2 io
? = co
-p e ?
? .2
5 a>
CTj*
CL P1 CO
>< u F
LU I
Q)
>
2
O-
E
0)
DI
xj
B
o
e
g) Q)
c co
CO g co
"5,--
'? "CO '_>
C
Q)
xj
X) -3
Q) CO
CO g)
< -C ~
Q) C
J = Q)
? -s
co =J
co o *-
&"
E-I
si
"S Q
co iti
co e
O)
g-8
LU
- -5
"" ~c"
C
O
co
co
Q)
Q)
II
XJ O
5 =
"o
-1^ CD
"P
co o
co 9-
js b
>< O
w .E
co
C
B
"e
-D O
a) ?
CO O
S.
<= J r?
o 7
E-I
si
'S S
CO -ti
CO C
co
o- 8
j
-0
S o co
5 o. 2
~ %'
e =>
co .2
to Q) fc
|
co F C=
<- -2
i-tj Q.
o 5 g
tog
-s ^<
'S) I E
c .-t; .
w co J 2
3 CO C
O X) ^
Q) CO CO
co 2 o
ja .!
co
co .
> co
> Q)
X) -J =
co o
J = e
O co
E ?
f o5
"2 I
O CO
'S o
CO (?
CO CO

O- -o
x xj
LLI CO
Ô
co co _
CO n_ T3
_J 0 O F
O F 1
O) .=
Iso
J = f -
J O J O
E >,.0
î ?_ co
05CO E
5v
*-G 2 o
x't^
? co ?
e o-jo
Ora-
o e E
O)-O
S o J 5
J S co ?
co o
g;
M *-^
O l_
O
4= O
Co ^.
N ^
S ro
S, ?-
?) O
O 0
"f .S2
g F
E "O
"co
o) 3
c o
O)O
co f
J = =>
O XJ
El
s
23
ZJ co
lo
J = co
CO "O
co 2
co c
"-g
O) Q)
-1
o.!t
CO XJ
Es
o .2
e '
co
3 co
co )
X) o
co
il
f -
is'*
'S O) "g
i Sii
_ et o
.55 w>
. e
f F
0-.> ,_
w"co o
i|l
B x>
co co ~
-1 ê
CO W O)
UJ --
- O O
O) -o o
Q) J = O
J =- co co
O
O
J =
O
co
f
J =
e
=>
^
J O
=s
2
t
co
CL
c?2
D
CD
'4'
C
O
O
co
O)
C
J
C
XJ
C
co
O)
C
X)
C
J S o)
Sa
co ?
f 2
-e C=
8
?
? ?
? co
f B
o .
o co
F o
co J =
=1 co
co
X)
f
?
F
C
C
o
o
CO
C
O
B c
- co
C
f
C
o
o
"
'o.
F CO O
=O)^
CO ~0)
Sog
=; co o
2-2 o
*= -1= SS
r\ ?
S- 5 ?
416
(D
C
o
co
CO
3 ^
es)
O)O)
ce ?)
o
o
CM
co
o
o
CM
co
CD
cd
?
f
co
?:
3
co
O
O
CN_
o
co
o
O)
O)
C
co
E
co
co
O
O)
O)
O)
co
cu
-CU,
IT
CD
F
C
o
co
co
3 -^
C O)
CJ )O)
CD O)
CD
Q)
o
co
co
3 --v
c O)
CJ )O)
CD O)
O
O
CN
F
Cl)
co
CO G
CD CJ )
Sa
S
*-H --*
3
O
'-e
CD
Q.
CJ )
C
'co
3
co
3
t co
? ?
-o co
l_ o
o P-
1$
ci)
ss
O O
.C +-
E o
i_ sz
-S-s
-o O
e-C
CD
cT-o
f O)
> ?
co *-
co
? o
CD
C Zi
o Q.
Q. lu Q) "
>- ? ;= T^
e -w CD
.2 f co
ro-g E
cw2
finir
e >.2.
Q) ^
"S^
co -Q
co '_
:
? O
CO f S
% E S
i-es
-~ O)
I-i
O)^
S^.
2n
co F
3 *-
O
1
Ec
f o
1
O)-O
e e
is w
co =
2 2fe eS
C CO
co co
"> f
>e
O) O
co
* CO
CD
O
co
CL
O
f
>
O T3
E
O
-Q
J O
"d
O
f
I o S=
co m ui2
o co
S "=
2 .S
Q. -C
Q. CD
CD Q.
?*, c .E
F t: ?
.> o 2
f o- =
P E 8
CO C
e
.2B
CO f
'5 b
f o
? ?
F
o
"co
Q.
O
5
CD
CO
CD
F
CO 3
=O
.2 g
"CO (D
? J =
"e CO
C =
E f
O -B
? co
o
CD
Q.
3
2
O)
o
.2
-Q
CD
E
E
o _
0 co
?>>
*S
1 o
F co
8 <0_
"e jjd
O = CD
XJ O O
f
_0 o
3 SZ
.2 >,
-C --e
co .>
-t>
O) co
.E e
W CD
SS
e-f
C F
2 t?
co 2
=5 =
-Q >- 2.
F zi O)
-e o
M- O) g
F
??
co
C
O
co
co Ti
U. CD
O)
-Q).
O-
F
>
F
>.2 "S
> Sz co
r- XJ *
111
E (D *-
_z f -
-K f
? ?
Q ro
cd 2 e
2?|?
~SZ f
O = ?-
c -? co
.* 5 f
.E Q. C
-C
O t
co o
o ra
G! ?
.t; cd
c?E
.E CO
-p f
c -
-= 3
C -**
C0
3
O
>.
i
f
^"S
O .!
T)
f
CO
co
f
3
q>
3
e
2. g ffl
o -
SZ C
o o
co ?
h-
.w
O NI
-Q H-*
-
C
f CD
F
Zi
o o
s f
5 c
O) ^
O
co >,
E
CD
x; o>
=E
f
Eg
c >*
co v2 ^.
? f "s?
fi "E^
? ? ?
?'f g
F O -~
J - F XJ
F X3 f
5 (O F
H-H J C
CO (D -,
5 5 >
co
XJ
O
s
<D
"e
O
O
OO
_0)
co
f
e co
fc f
Sf

Q. CD
in "^
3 i=
O co
".
CO ?-
?. o
O)
C
'co r
3 O)
F f
CO -.2
O -^
Q- ~
Q. CO
"i
O 3
CO .O
co t;
e? CD
ai a.
x>
e
co
co" e
.2.2
II
g 'lo
o ^
E e
1O co ^
co" ? f
El E
F J O =
75 3 F
2.Eg-
Cl CO CD
5
o
SZ
cd
i
^c->
3 O
2 i
^
3 "O
O f
1O S
f O
O) Q-
"O o
? o
5 .
8.2
* .ti
F o
2
?
co
f
F
SZ
HH 'S
C
f
>
f
? O)
co c
F ?
? I
.c ro
** co
CO C
F O
ge
? c
? o
i- O
C
3
(0"O-
Si
C X)
O 3
co
417
CD
CO ZS
3 O
C ?
S?
ro q_
^M
O
*- f
g, 3
R O)
? s>
<C
?
-o
? w
5.S5
O O)
*!
d S
w
ro "
ttiS
w F
8?
a.
Ss
X M-
F O
co
CD
C
o
U)
V)
C O)
O)C)
co O)
J 2 e o
f ? >r
o _|>
^> co
o =
O)^j=
US
8 81
Q. 2? g
E g f
co 5 o.
? S" o
b c-
F -r, W
" B
5 x .se
O
c .1=
g
f ~
5 2
ô)
5-E
in S
ob
Ib
f
J D J =
"1S
f O
w O)
O) e
i'
CO il
CO T3
O)
C
O)
C
5 -
F
O)
"O
_f
1 =
- *tr
O O
co
F
O)
co
O)
e
f
O)
C
I
?
?_ O)
O F
. "O
b w
f
J O
O) f
?? f J 2
e F
co -
"K Q)
e ?
E ?
f co
?
C C
O 3
'io E
CO e

LU ?>
-?
C
O
?
co "?
O) CO *J - _
^^ o o
o> F F
.5= -~ co
w 3
D F
3
O
'-e
CO
CL
O)
C
CO
=1
225
f
O)
?
_F
?
e
M- ?
S "d
2 f
C =
O
O
O
J =
?
(O
f
J =
).E c
F 1
co
..E g3
?3?
? ro E
CO e C
Ot
Q-1S O
fcr O (J
3 F
O 3 Q. g) O
m ? ?)
f
CO ^
Rs
-S- ?
CO 3
81
f
?3
?-
?
(? ?
(O ?
F -C
?. CO
X M-
LU O
CO
.S= E J =
(O Q. O
3 S
?_ CO F
Ô
Q. C
? F
M- '?1
-0S
-S- s)-?5
CO ?=> J =
C J l) 5=
8 .E
? = co
.9>, ?) =>
<^c fe
fe -m .P
co
F
co
8.'
5.
l-o
4- C
g>g.
'co O
=> O
*- CO
f
co
Ro
fe f
C F
"i
co o
5
F
co
O
O.
?-
?
Q.
"c
O
(O
co
_ F
CO i-
-s
C
co
O)
It
ro O
S Q.
f
?
C
co ?
? H
? "c
g- ?
.fe "c
8
*- O)
's -i
O) F
.S= ?
-? ?
ci ">
"2 ??
f ?
-s ?
5
-? ^
F -g
CO =
CO f
% fe
S-M^
UJ O
Og
F J
O) 0
J U -s
5 f
? ?
c c
fe <"
C J = F
o a -
-? IP
f ?
CO . :
CO CO .
J S-C-O
J = F E
? "? R
03 => 05
-S CO CO
?3
a)
"c
O
O
CO
Q
_o
CC
J O
M- "C
co F
J =-o
8^
12
F <J
o -o
CO F
f -d
f
> C
S
<?
-o
c
co
T3
F
CO
=1
CO
f
O
i
3
O
CO
f
? J =
O 5
-s
c
CO
-?
f
CO
3
CO
f
O
?-
O
CO
2
?
?
J =
O
U)
c
f
"c
?
.?
"co
t)
F
J =?
3
CO
418
N
>,
"c
z
O
O
co
co
co
o
C
CD
+- "D
-Q -s
co
-o
e
co
>
O
?
? "co
s?
LU LU ?
O
?
s <
"O
?
-*
_0) Q.
Q--
E
?
C
O
E
Ql
Zi
2
D)
CO
_C0 -^
O
O)
C
O
IO
N
C
O
O
?
s) CN
CN
co .-
.9 ^
CO ?
. I
co ? *
?3 *= w
c J TS
o o .59.
o 3 o
(DO O
co lu ?
C
co
75.-53 .
e o o
O . UJ
C
o
CO
co
Q.
ZJ
O
L
O)
CO
CO
_o
O
m
CD
>-
C
15 I
O
O
en
LO
IO
co
CN
"4
CO
O
Z!
^-5* o o
1LU ^"
CD 13 =3
Q-C-C-D
CO CO O LU
CD
o w
c (>
.5?
o O
CO TO
<co
CO CD
Q. C m CD >
2 * is ~5
D)-To o CO w
- -- - f
ig iS "S ?
co co v^ =.-
*r co . *_
z. sa co "
^co sz ?
-? -J -t
X
_>,
"c ,
O
O
CN
CO
co
S.2-2
Ecu E
Q_-~ CD
>>SZ
g>o
"9?
C
g
CO
O
ZI
"D
C
^ CD
CO c/)
c co
5 o
co o
?- >?
3
CD
G5 .P t
"O
ZJ
"co
CD
i3-^
CD j
L-
O
CD
SZ
o to
C 0
O
?
E
CJ O DO CO LU CL CL CL h- -je
S E
Q. O
3 O CD
O - C
D) c ~_ CO $
W O ^? S
? r i5 E
iS w o
o co J =
C CO CO _
"* J S 'c
jf CO o O >
p 3 ZJ 5
Is- Q. *-
CD
.C
O
CO
CD
h-
5^
"D
Zi
4
CO
CD
CD
E
^-<
tu ^-
SZ CO
*j il:
S to
co a)
cd >>
?
O
CD
E
D)*-
C CD
*-
8 2
+j CD
M- O
O C
c CD
D
Zi
O) CD CO
(D X
_l CD -B
52
O
CD
>
J )
CD
O
419
LO
CN
CO
CM
?
.a
_o
>
co
"d
e
2
"co
Q
zi
O
g> E
o o
co O
O)
O
C
?
?
^CO
Vf (
el
? co f ro
-Q O) _c O
c Z o o
c u ?
I= ? co
S h- <
?
f
?
"E
E
o
O
O.
<
LU
CO
J Z
O
c & c
Q) O Q)
EgE
e ~-e
co .?. co
Q. CO Q.
Q) L- Q)
Q Q
co
CN
(D
.C
î5
05 ra =>
o o y
a> o -h
?O
co
O
e <??
Q) O Q)
e e
e -g -e
co ?2 co
Q. CO Q.
Q) L- Q)
Q Q
O) Q)
E ?
8 il
CO -E O
C Q)
o _
e "E
B E
Q) O
CtL O
?
o
e
Q)
O
CO
O) w r- W -.=
Q) CO Q) co
E
O) J Z O
jz ? o
o co co
~Q) CO
Î- <
II
E
5 g
^cS
Q)
_Q)
?
E ?
O O)
Sra
" -fc C
W e
co f- J O
QoQ-
CN
O
CO
O
O
"co
J D
-4
Q)
CO
co
?
J Z
O
co
O
.*:
o
co
5
Q.
O) -*
J = b
?
2 E
-13 o
C co
o
Q)
_C
*
C
O
O
t
Q
_Q)
J D
CO
CO
Q)
c
Q) C
T3
ZJ T3
8
-
Q) .E
C co
? co
Z 75
co
?
g
co
a>
J D
co
.*:
co O)
*; CZ
_Q)
O
a: B
420
CD
C
o)
co
E
?
CZ
O
C
.Q
ZJ
?-
p
E
CO
CD
CO
Z>
xj
e
co
co
e
co
CL
cd
co
Z)
TJ
C
co
co
-I
C
cu
g
>
C
LU W
-C
O) O)
CO C
ri w
-e
<
co
co
o
'-4'
co
E
CD
SZ
4
CO
co
?
o
CO
~C"
92
TD
Z5
CO O)
O
co
O
O
C
CD
O
CO CO
?
C
s)
co
E
I
C
O
C
.O
ZJ
Q.
5 >*
? o
c?o)
C N
- CO
-e e
Z) co
"co
ZJ
s
^)
"co
co
Cl)
co
O)
C
co
ZJ
O)
C
CD
O
CO
cu
e
O)
co
E
I
C
O
CZ
O
J q
ZJ
L-
CO
E
co
xj
e
co
E .-t;
? co
CO CD
>, >
lu m
co
O
O)
-*
co
co
ZJ
s
CD
co
Z)
XJ
C
co
co
CD
>>
CO
O)
CZ
co
Q)
O
C
CD
O
co
O)
C
XJ
co
O)
CE
CD
C
O)
co
E
C
O
C
O
S
ZJ
CL
co
1
Z!
?.
C
S
"o
Cl
O
1
"?
CD
C
O
Z
CO
co
C
co
O)
C
"co
ZJ
cd
?
C
CD
?
co
X)
CD
C
O
CJ
ci
_CD
.O
co
CD
Cl
-4
"
O
SZ
O
co
C
ZJ
E
E
O
O
"
O
SZ
O
co
XJ
CD
C
'co
1_
co
I'
"e
ZJ
co
U
LU
LU
XJ
CD
co
ZJ
co
zi ro
O ^
co
e:
ZJ
O
CD
E
co =
O co
LU
LU -*-
^co
,CO,^
??
"8
TO J
C CO
O) 'S
C co
a cd
? .
?5
co
421
APPENDIX E:
CONDING INSTANCES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN TEACHER DATA
422
re
W
Q
J =
?
re
f
O)
C
o
?
"?
e
f
*>
(A
"(?
C
O
?
_c
s
e
re
U)
f
?
e
(0
(0
C
f
J =
?
?
f
e
C
CO
f
J 2
E
3
Z
?
C
(U
+
(0
f
F
(A
_F
.5
>
UJ
_f
ja
(0
en
e
?3
O
O
?- .=
OT
?
?
e
<?
-
(?
'(O
C
?
?
_c
+
?
O
?3
(U
?3
O
O
W
?
?
C
.2
_c
?
O
6
e
?
f
J =
?
(0
f
e
f
?
re
f
C
co
f
J =.
?
re
f
(0
e
?
re
f
(?
O
(A
(A
J J J
?
(A
f
co
CO
_f
.2
(0
>
CO
f
"05
.O
"D
C
CO
2
CO
O
O
s
?
*-
J F.
ZS
co
?
CO
CO
$
XS
CD
CO
CO
co
O
CO
O
?.
a.
co
C
CO
CD
E
e
ZS
O
E
CO
co"
?
?
e
CO
-*
CO
C
O
C
?
O
CO
?
-4
CO
_c
-5
co
co co
O CD
D)
O
%X
s o.
? o.
CL co
CN
?-
LO
n-
co
co
Is-
co
co
co
co
CN
co
C
.9 co
co ?
J = E
co
e*
N-
CN^
CN
N-
o
CN
O)
O
CO
CN
CO
?
?
co
o
Q.
? SQ
cd -
CO F
=TD
^3
CO to
LO
LO
co
CN
o)
"3-
CN
co
co
C
O
"-4
J S
"e
CD
CO V*
Q-CL
05 M-
Lt O
LO
CN^
co
CN
co
N-
O)
C
O
"o
<
(?
CD
O
C
J P1
"?
o.
E
o
O
LO
co
CN
O
LO
co
O
co
LO
O)
O)
co
CN
zi-
CN
co
CD
oo
co
co
ht
CO CO
O cu
D)
O
O
D)
co
co _
? Q.
CD Q.
Q- CO
co
co
C
.Q co
li
CO CD
S E
O)
423
Q
?-
?
jz
?
re
f
co
CN
??
??
LO
<35
CN
CO
?
L.
?
?
f
CD
CD
h*
CQ
?
SZ
?
RJ
F
??
en
co
s>
?3
CD
C
O
O
LL
_F
CC
OO
s
?
CO
?
?"
?
co F
="O
15 ^
CD
CO
C
O
"4-*
CO
-*
C
f
to ?
Q.Q.
^-
e ?
O
f
O
C
f
*
f
QJ
E
? ?
CN
C
O
<
F
?
3
F
CO
C
O
C CO
F V
O 2
Q-I
f
CM
CO,
CN
CD
CO
CD
CO
CO
CD
LO CO
LO
CD
LO
CD
CO
CO CO
O f
Ui
O
O
CO
CO ^
"s ?.
F Q.
CL CO
CO
C
.9 co
CO F
= E
LO
s
f
CO
?
X-W
f
co f
=?
'-* 5
CO^to
cd*
CN
LO
O
LO
LO
IO
CO
C
g
"4
.2
"e
f
CO N
Q-CL
03 ?-
a: ^
CN
f
o
C
f
f
Q.
E
o o
co
C
O
424
s
f
_C
C
O
O
UJ
.O
CC
f
?
re
?
e
C
?
S-
F
?
?
f
C
co
m
f
.C
?
?
f
C
?
CD
f
?
(0
f
g
(0
f
>
f
(0 _f
ja
.2
re
>
.92
"55
-O
s
e
CC
J O
CC
O
05
CO CD
CN co
co
CO
CO CO
O f
O ?
rag
ce 2
"s ?.
F Q.
CL CC
?"
CN
CO
C
.O CO
II
-?-> --'
CO F
CN
s
f
CO
O
Q- _
? <2
f
CO F
=?3
12 ^
C^"co
CN
CN
CN
CO
C
_?
"e
f
CO SS
2?
CLQ.
M-
co
CN
f
O
C
f
S -
? E
O O
CN
425

Angelita 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Angelita 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE INTERACTION OF MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

CURRICULUM, SCIENCE TEACHERS' PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen