Developmental influences of science process skill instruction

Abstract

Science educators have claimed that well-conceived instructional strategies and curricular sequences, emphasizing the process aspects of science, will foster an understanding of the nature of science. Furthermore, a process emphasis on science has been cited for its ability to promote logical thinking skill, develop a locus of control "shift," and enhance science content acquisition. The intent of this investigation was to examine the purported influence and developmental nature of a science process emphasis during a given semester of study, as well as over extended cumcular sequences, each sequence being representative of three recognized preservice elementary science teacher preparatory programs. Data were collected from 135 elementary preservice teachers enrolled in science teaching methods courses at the endpoint of one of three sequences: (a) introductory process instruction with three subsequent semesters of integrated science content and teaching methods, (b) process instruction with separate subsequent content and teaching methods, and (c) only science content with subsequent teaching methods. Another 29 preservice teachers, assessed prior to entry into instructional sequences, provided a cross-sectional sample for examining developmental changes in locus of control, logical thinking, nature of science, and science content knowledge. Statistical procedures included Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Wilcoxon tests. Results indicated that a one-semester process skills course was influential in developing a basis for science content acquisition and in fostering an understanding of the nature of science. Results further indicate that expected additional gains are significant in science content acquisition through matriculation in an extended curricular sequence. Implications for science educators are discussed.

The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self–efficacy and outcome expectancy

“…In fact, this modeling is especially critical for those possessing more science course work to provide an alternative example to the model of science instruction these students may have seen most recently and more often. This inference is in harmony with previous research over the past 15 years that considered the elementary science methods course in relation to more traditional university science course requirements (Duschl, 1983;Gabel et al, 1977;Scharmann, 1988Scharmann, ,1989.…”

Science process skills and attitudes of preservice elementary teachers

“…The TIPS II (Okey, Wise, & Burns, 1982) was the instrument chosen to measure the proficiency level of subjects' process skills. Other instruments designed to detect and measure the level of proficiency of process skills were available, but the TIPS II was found to be a frequently used instrument that yields satisfactory results for the purpose of similar research (Downing & Gifford, 1996;Germann, 1989;Scharmann, 1989;Strawitz, 1989). Strawitz (1989) reported a reliability of .89 (Cronbach's alpha) for this instrument.…”

A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”

“…There is some suggestion that a focus on the nature of science in science teaching can help to restructure and change negative attitudes to science teaching (Carey & Strauss, 1968;Koballa & Coble, 1979;Lucas & Dooley, 1982;Riley, 1979;Scharmann, 1989). The picture of science teaching and learning is far more complex, however, as evidenced by several studies suggesting that some approaches to instruction have little or no effect on the abandonment of views of teaching and leaming by preservice and practicing teachers' understandings of the nature of science (Aguirre, Haggerty, & Linder, 1990;Lederman & Zeidler, 1987;Lucas & Dooley, 1982).…”