Introduction
Science Education in the United States is once again in the midst of another surge of reform. Today’s efforts result from the belief that all students are capable of learning science and, therefore, must be given the opportunities for optimal science learning (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Bryan & Atwater, 2002). Underlying the National Science Education Standards (2006) is the principle that science is for all students and that curriculum content must be designed to meet the varying interests, abilities, experiences, understandings, and knowledge of students (Yager, 2005).

Implementing these suggested science reforms has been the work of the past decade (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001). However, many of these reform reports have ignored the beliefs of classroom teachers (Battista, 1994: Pajares, 1992). Research on beliefs indicates that teachers are crucial change agents leading the way to education reform, and that teacher beliefs are precursors to change and differentiation (Brighton, 2003); Pajares).    

Like the students they teach, teachers bring to their classrooms a set of beliefs about teaching and learning that are shaped through years of personal experience (Britzman, 1998), and as learners within families, communities, and cultures (Love & Kruger, 2005; Perkins, 1999; Valdes, 1996).  In addition to the beliefs teachers hold about teaching and learning are their perceptions of the students they teach. Both teacher beliefs about learning and perceptions about their students translate into classroom instructional practice (Deemer, (2004); Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). These practices in turn, shape the dynamics of student learning.

Only a few in-depth studies focus on the connection between science teachers’ perceptions of students and whether these perceptions impact teachers’ decisions to implement best classroom practices.  Teachers’ beliefs and expectations of their students are part of a personal belief system influenced by prior personal experiences, experiences with diverse students, teachers’ role definitions, and knowledge of appropriate teaching strategies (Collins, 2004). Ultimately, these beliefs and expectations interact and may influence science teachers’ planning and delivery of instruction, influencing student achievement (Love & Kruger, 2005). To explore how beliefs about students can impact behavior, a qualitative single case study was undertaken in 2004.  It examined the beliefs of one seventh-grade science teacher concerning his students and how his beliefs influenced his instructional practice.

The aim of this case study was to examine what actually happens during science lessons in a middle school with a high percentage of low-income minority students. It provides for a deeper insight and understanding of how one teacher’s beliefs about his students influences his instructional practices. As Stigler and Perry (1999) pointed out, we really know very little about what takes place in classrooms, yet classroom practice represents the most direct means for affecting students’ outcomes. Furthermore, the intent of the research was to inform practice in science instruction.

Rationale
Given the assumption that teacher beliefs influence instructional practice, curriculum theorists such as Orpwood (1985) have suggested that more detailed case studies are needed to find out how teachers’ beliefs influence the process of instruction. Both Davis (1981) and Barnes (1982) have stated that in order to understand teachers’ rationales for instructional decisions, researchers need to interview teachers and observe their daily lessons, classroom practice, and interactions with students. Subjects such as science, which have experienced widespread curriculum revision, development and innovation in the past decade, are especially in need of such research (James, 1991).

An in-depth examination of one teacher’s beliefs and practices described in this study was intended to provide a framework for understanding: (a) the ways in which this science teacher’s beliefs about his students impacted his instructional strategies; (b) the beliefs this teacher held about his students ability to achieve in the science classroom; (c) the expectations this teacher held for his students academic futures; (d) the factors that influenced this teacher’s instructional practices; and (e) what factors impacted whether or not this teacher implemented best practice in his classroom.

The argument for qualitative single case study research dates back to the early 1980s with a classic essay by Russell (1980) who argued that teachers’ beliefs are contextually significant to the implementation of innovations, be they curricular, instructional, or in some other way the outgrowth of the research and development in the world of science education.  Furthermore, Russell claimed that attending to the uniqueness of an individual within a particular environment and understanding the process of an individual’s decision making are the primary purposes of qualitative single case research. Russell further stated that special attention needs to be given to providing an individual teacher with opportunities to talk about fundamental beliefs, and ensuring the integrity of what emerges.  According to Yin (2003) and Creswell, (1998), qualitative research does include single case study research that focuses on a single case only, emphasizing understanding human action within his or her natural setting and one that is not contrived.

Setting and participant for the study        

This study took place in a western U.S. city with a population of approximately 100,000. The city consisted predominately of White middle-class families, but included a large inner-city Latino population.  The middle school selected for this study was located in the heart of the inner city Latino community. According to the school’s demographic statistics office, the school was home to a total of 593 students. All students at the school were enrolled in the free lunch program and were identified as having low socioeconomic status. This middle school had a diverse ethnic student population that consisted of 391 (66%) Latino; 160 (27%) Caucasian; 42 (7%) African American, Asian and Pacific Islander students.  Three hundred forty-four students were identified as English language learners, 246 (48%) were homeless students (children without a permanent residence/address), 10 (2%) students were members of the Youth-in-Custody program (children incarcerated for juvenile crimes), 89 (15%) students were members of migrant families, 169 (28%) students were living with a single parent, and the mobility rate of the students was 35% (208 students). Mobility rate is based on how many students move in and out of the school at least two times during the school year.

Four science teachers were interviewed from the middle school selected for the study.  Subsequently, one male Caucasian teacher was selected and accepted the invitation to participate in the study. This particular seventh-grade teacher, Don (not his real name) was selected for this research because he was certified to teach middle-school science, held a biology teaching degree, had approximately 13 years experience at the school with about 180 students per year, and was considered an excellent science teacher by his principal. Moreover, Don expressed a great interest and enthusiasm in study participation. Finally, he seemed comfortable in talking, and appeared candid, forthright, and honest with his feelings and thoughts during the pre-selection process.

In order to gather detailed and in-depth data, Don agreed to allow day-to-day observations in his classrooms for a total of 6 weeks, 5 days a week, 5 hours a day, during the fall semester of the 2003 school year.  He taught six 50-minute classes per day. The science content he taught during the observation visits was bacteria and viruses, DNA, and cell theory.  The researcher was a graduate student from a local university and not previously associated with Don. 

Study credibility

To ensure credibility of this study, multiple data sources were triangulated (Yin, 2003). These data sources provided an in-depth understanding of how Don’s perceptions of his students influenced his instructional practices. Semi-structured interviews, impromptu interviews, casual conversations, and field notes that included day-to-day informal observations of Don’s activities served as the data source for this study.

The insights from this study are limited, of course, for they pertain to one science teacher. However, according to Munby (1984), “knowledge is not to be judged solely upon the criterion of its range of applicability” (p. 38).  Because this research illuminates one teacher’s beliefs on his professional activities, and indeed, what drives his choices for adopting or rejecting certain instructional approaches, the power of this case study derives directly from its ability to help us understand the particularities and complexity of unique professional practice (Roberts, 1982).

Case study snalysis and reporting of data

The design of this study reflected a recursive analytic framework of data collection, analysis, and participant response. Analysis of qualitative data is a process that continues throughout a study and is not a separate self-contained phase (Delamont, 1999).

In order to develop and verify assertions for possible inclusion in this case study, field notes and responses to interviews were transcribed. This information was used to form tentative assertions of how Don’s perceptions of his students were influencing his instructional practice in his middle school science classroom. The daily assertions and their accompanying evidence were examined for recurring patterns and regularities. Throughout the duration of the study, a classification of regularities was developed to categorize the recurring patterns and regularities into themes. The themes were used to develop a comprehensive analysis of the final descriptive case study narrative. The end product provided a rich, thick description of the study’s context so that others might have a base of information in the event they chose to transfer the findings to a similar setting (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Emergent themes

Don expressed through unsolicited and spontaneous comments and through interview statements his beliefs about the students he taught and how these beliefs drove his choices of curriculum and instructional practices.  Four major themes emerged from the data concerning his beliefs about his students and how these beliefs influenced his instructional practice. These themes were: teacher beliefs about how students impact instruction; factors influencing instructional practices; teacher beliefs about student achievement; and teacher beliefs about the theory of best classroom practice in science instruction.

Teacher beliefs about how students impact instruction

Throughout the duration of data collection for this study, Don expressed many thoughts and beliefs about his students’ home life. During interviews and casual conversation, he often shared first-hand knowledge of what many of his students faced at home; namely, severe poverty and for many, a lack of parental influence. At the onset of this research, Don wanted the researcher to understand some of the problems his students brought to school.

These kids come to school with problems in their families or own lives to the point of where learning science is not important to them right now. Having food on the table, electricity in their homes, and heat to stay warm by is what really matters to many of these kids….A lot of the kids’ parents are not home during the day or evening, and I have several students who have a parent, and even in a few cases, both parents who are in jail. With so many problems at home, learning may not be important to them, but at least by being here they are in a safety zone.

After Don shared his understanding of what his students’ home lives were like, he expressed that even though his class sizes were large, he was pleased that the students felt that they could find safety by attending science class.  One of the ways Don demonstrated his interest in students was by standing at the classroom door, welcoming his students to class. While doing this, Don often shook hands with his students as they entered the classroom, joked around with them, answered questions, and showed an open, friendly demeanor.  In these ways Don appeared to create a positive, inviting and comfortable learning environment for his students.

When asked if his understanding of students’ home lives played a role in his choices of instructional practice, Don stated,  With knowing why most of these kids are here at school, I believe it’s important to make learning science interesting for them. I try different strategies to grab their interests and to get their minds on science instead of what’s going on at home—at least they are here, so I may as well try to make science fun so they will learn something.

It was observed that Don used several approaches to make learning interesting and fun for his students. For example, he used a variety of learning activities such as designing concept maps, cutting and pasting activities, building models, and conducting demonstrations to help students learn concepts.  Also, Don made learning fun by telling jokes on a regular basis. One day as his period two students were entering his classroom, Don told the following joke:  “What did the cow say as it entered Mr. [Don’s] classroom? Moooo-vit!” The students laughed at Don’s joke as they settled into their desks, appearing to be interested in starting science class.

With an understanding of his student’s home lives and their reasons for attending school, Don tried to create a warm and inviting learning atmosphere. He did this by being friendly and funny not only at the classroom door at the beginning of each period, but also throughout the day. He also worked hard to design interesting, engaging lessons.  Designing such lessons was very important to Don because he wanted his students to not only learn, but to also enjoy learning during their time in science class.

After Don expressed his beliefs that many of his students attended school for daily food and safety, and that science learning was not a priority for many of them, he was asked about his influences in helping them. He stated,

There are kids that are willing to learn and others that are not….how these kids have been raised and understand the value of school is engrained by now. I believe parents and the desire to learn from within are the main factors that contribute to student learning….I just give the kids the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to learn.

Don repeatedly demonstrated during the study that he gave his students the “opportunity to decide for themselves" about content he was presenting. He did this by approaching those students not on task and quietly saying, “If you don’t want to work, fine—just don’t disturb the other kids who do want to learn and are working.” He also gave his students the choice to work alone or with a classmate. This decision resulted from his belief that his students could positively influence each other in learning science concepts and completing class assignments. 

Don also encouraged his students to participate in class. He walked around the classroom assisting students with their work as they asked questions, appeared to be confused, or were off task.  As he addressed the students, he encouraged them with comments like, “You are on the right track; That’s it; Absolutely; Good job, etc.”

Don explained his rationale for cooperative learning by invoking its practical efficacy: “I get more results by way of student cooperation by challenging kids when they tell me they are not going to do their work. My view is if teachers want to strong-arm the kids into learning that’s fine; that’s not my style.” He emphasized that at times the students’ lack of motivation did discourage him. However, he also said their lack of motivation was not the factor influencing the amount of energy he put into planning his lessons. “I would put the same amount of energy into my lesson whether my kids were motivated to or not,” he said.  “[I] can only take the horse to the trough, [I] can’t make it drink, but I will provide the water.”

Don arrived at his classroom early each morning to ensure that he had the proper amount of time to prepare his lessons and activities. He carefully considered each day’s activities and made the necessary preparations in order to have organized lessons. Quite often he would get on the Internet to find activities, photos, and other materials that might add to the quality of his lessons and motivate his students.

During many conversations with Don, the topic of varying student abilities crept often into the discussions. He was extremely sensitive to the range of learning levels and the communication barriers presented by English language learners. Don pointed out that many of his middle school colleagues taught with a traditional lecture method. He stated, “That doesn’t work here….If I have to lecture, it is for a very short period of time just to maybe explain something, and I try to inflect enough in my tone of voice to keep the kids listening and at least awake.”

When asked about his students’most difficult task, Don said it was writing. “They won’t write. They hate to write because so many can’t write.” Don explained that the school district administration implemented a program in which the students need to write every day—even if it was just a one-sentence statement. Don said that “The kids do need to write, but they’ve got to be taught how first, but I don’t have time to teach writing in class.” The discussion about writing brought about the following factors, according to Don, of why the students hate to write: “They can’t spell, they don’t have grammar skills, and they can’t speak correct English.” He continued to say “Many of the kids are not taught how to write at home, at this school in sixth grade, or even in grade school before coming here.” He further stated that the “Kids go through the motions of writing, but I don’t know if they are really learning from doing it. I just think to myself, man, you kids have no idea what you are writing, but you are writing—and really trying at that.”

During classroom observation, it was noticed that Don rarely had his students use textbooks. His explanation for this was that he felt most of his students did not have the ability to use or read a textbook. He explained that he did take a full day, usually the first or second day of the year, to show them how to use their science textbook. “You have to show them where the index and glossary are located in the book and how to use them. I have them look at the pictures and read the captions.” Don expressed frustration as he talked about the inability of the students to be able to use the textbook effectively.  He stated that the students could look up vocabulary words in the back of the book, but “to have them find an answer in a section of text is mind boggling to them.”  Don’s further frustration was that the textbook assigned to him by his school district did not match the reading level of his students. Therefore, Don added substitute material that better matched his students’ reading levels.

Don implemented several instructional strategies that he felt helped to engage his students in learning science. He had the students do things like making models of a virus out of white paper, use concept maps while taking notes, engage in drawing and labeling activities, make a study guide out of colored paper, and pay attention to content in videos. When asked how using these types of tools helped his students with learning, Don stated,

Very few of these kids learn without seeing. I showed the smallpox picture to them in class and the impact of the picture was amazing. I think they will remember it and the results of smallpox for a long time. I also have to show the kids how to do things instead of writing the instructions on the board because the kids do not read very well.

Adding to his rationale for multiple teaching strategies in his curriculum, Don stated, “I try and use a variety of instructional strategies to deliver the content I teach…[using] two different strategies with each class so that at least 80-90% of the kids will get what I am trying to teach.”

When asked how he determined the learning levels and abilities of his students, Don explained, 

At the beginning of each year, it takes a couple of weeks with the kids to determine the students’ ability to learn. I can tell at what level of learning they are after a few assignments have been turned in, listening to the questions they ask in class, and by gaining an understanding of their reading level. Once I get a grip of what their learning ability will be, I will design my instruction to meet that ability. Throughout the year, I change my instructional practice as I see the students’ learning level ability change.

Factors influencing instructional practices               

The factors that influenced Don’s choices of instructional strategies often emerged in day-to-day conversations. The number of students in his classes, the language barrier between him and his students, the subjects he likes to teach, a lack of classroom funding, classroom resources, his Spanish interpreter, and his personal life – all were factors that influenced him greatly when planning his instruction.

A major concern to Don was the number of students in his classes. He felt that an average of 42 students per class hindered his ability to conduct labs and do certain activities. He said, “The kids would just bump and bang into each other and get in each other’s way.” For this reason, Don had to design activities that the students could do in a crowded classroom. Because of the large number of students per class, his labs were limited to small groups using desks as lab counters. Don also stated that with so many students, “Sometimes preparing for a lab just wipes me out; no time to rest between classes because I have to completely set up the next class with the lab supplies for so many kids, and do it in only 5 minutes. At times I think I am crazy, but the kids like labs; that’s why I do it.”  He also mentioned that because of his large class sizes, his budget only allowed for inexpensive labs. “By having so many kids, I can only do labs that don’t cost much. If I do expensive labs, then I wouldn’t be able to do very many throughout the year.” He chose consciously to do frequent inexpensive labs rather than “bigger and more expensive labs here and there.”

Another factor Don considered when planning hands-on activities was the language problem his students faced. “Many lab activities might be harder for some of the language learner kids because I can’t get the point across to them in their language.” Don said that the students “have a difficult time understanding instructions, so I must be selective in the activities we do in class. They must be activities I can explain to them in a manner that they can understand what is expected of them to do. At times this is a huge challenge for me.”

Because of the language barrier between Don and his students, hands-on safety issues were an important factor to consider when designing and organizing activities. He said, “When the kids don’t understand what is expected of them very well, it wouldn’t be smart to put chemicals in front of them that could harm them if they misuse them.” Don was not suggesting that the students would be harmed due to inappropriate conduct. He simply felt that they might have a difficult time understanding that the chemicals could be dangerous to them if they were mishandled or incorrectly used, and he did not want them to get hurt. It was observed that the labs that Don had the students participate in required the use of materials such as M&M candies, pennies, dice, and other materials that would not harm his students.

When designing labs and other interactive activities, Don considered the complexity of the lab in light of his English language learners. He stated,

I have the kids do labs that are fairly simple. The labs can’t have too many steps or the kids get too confused. The frog lab is great because it takes just a few cuts and it’s done. Plus, they watch me and do what I do; that works best.

A typical safe activity was a genetics lab in which students tossed pennies to determine facial traits. With just a few steps, they tossed the pennies to determine certain traits such as hair and eye color. The students completed the lab within the allotted time frame.

Don believed that favorite topics influenced his choices of instructional practices. He explained that when he teaches his favorite subjects,

I am more enthusiastic about teaching certain subjects and it shows in the way I teach them. For example, I like teaching about animals much more than the structure of the earth because I know the kids can see the animals and understand it better than something they cannot see or touch.

It was observed during a lesson about viruses and bacteria that Don was enthusiastic about the topic he was teaching. He provided several graphic pictures of viruses and bacteria, and led a class discussion on how his students could contract certain viruses and bacteria. He engaged his students in shaking hands with each other, coughing (into the sleeve of their shirt to prevent the spread of germs), trading pencils and pens, touching the classroom desks, chairs, and water faucets to demonstrate how easily germs (bacteria) can be spread. The students showed their interest in this subject by asking many questions about viruses and bacteria. They asked the questions because his students were interested in knowing and learning about sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and how they caught a cold and sicknesses.

During the many discussions regarding classroom theory and practice, Don expressed frustration about the lack of money and resources for instruction. “A huge factor of what I do in here is tied to how much money, or should I say, little money, I have.”

He continued “many hands-on activities such as laboratory investigations need supplies. These supplies… need money to be obtained. I can’t afford to buy the things I would like to.” When asked what he would purchase if he could, without hesitation he eagerly stated that he would like to buy more microscopes and microscope slides. He also said,        

I’d like to buy 30 or 40 sets of atoms so that the kids can construct atomic structures. I’d like to put together about 10 to 20 boxes of classification “junk” so that the kids can classify the content of the boxes. I am always thinking, “I wish I’d have the money to buy these hands-on things as I find them in catalogs or wherever,” but I don’t. 

This comment led to the discussion of how much funding Don receives from his district and state legislature for classroom supplies, and how he spends those funds.

This year, I received $90 from the district. However, the district does not provide classroom supplies such as paper, staplers, paper clips, ink pens, tape, etc. Therefore, we must use this $90 to buy these basic supplies. Heck, I need a new pencil sharpener, but I have to pay for it out of this budget as well—it will have to wait a while.

Don discussed the fact that if he goes over the $90 budget, he must pay for supplies, even basic classroom supplies such as paper, out of his own pocket. In addition, each year, Don also received monies from the state legislature for classroom supplies. He said that it was good to get this funding because it could be spent on things other than teacher supplies.  “This year, the Legislature gave each teacher $175, and most of my Legislature money was used to purchase frogs because the kids really like to do the dissections.”  His other purchases included M&M’s and paper cups for the M&M lab, and paper plates for the fish lab on vertebrates. The rest of the money went toward other hands-on activities and incentives. The incentives were basically motivators such as candy bars, small prizes like baseball cards, and one and five dollar bills they can win by playing games.  Throughout this discussion, Don clearly indicated that the lack of funding impeded his ability to provide the kind of activities that motivated his students to learn.

In addition to state and district money as resources, Don expressed what he considered to be his greatest resources as a science teacher.

The first greatest resource available to me as a science teacher is the Internet. I get many photos like the bacteria and virus photos off the computer, concept maps, lab ideas, and stuff like that. Also, there is a super Spanish site where everything is in Spanish. However, many sites now are starting to charge for things that used to be free to teachers, and, they are charging a lot of money so I won’t buy anything.

Collaboration with other science teachers was the second greatest resource Don mentioned. “[A teacher] across the hall and I share and exchange ideas all the time, and that really helps. In fact, the magic book I had the kids do when we talked about viruses was one of her ideas. And, she asks me for ideas too quite often.”  When asked about his most valuable personal resource, he cited, “My wit because I am constantly thinking about and looking for new ways I can teach the kids, ways to change the class, and new things to try.”              

During one discussion, Don expressed concern that he would be losing his Spanish interpreter due to the requirements of No Child Left Behind Act.  When asked to explain this situation more fully, Don stated that “[NCLB] will require all staff assistants—I guess they are called para-educators, such as our Spanish interpreters, to have a minimum of an Associates degree in order to be in the classroom.”  He further added, “[The interpreter] is nearly 60 years old and will not be going back to school to earn an associates degree, so she will be ‘fired’ or should I say, basically let go.”  Don strongly added,

I don’t know what I’m going to do without her; she is such a great support to me.  How can I conduct labs and other activities without her assistance with the kids. You’ve seen the classroom rolls, there’s 46 kids in this class and it would take me all day to get around to all the students if I didn’t have her helping with the language barrier or other classroom problems; it’s going to hurt.

There were other factors in Don’s personal life that influenced his teaching behavior in the classroom: his family situation, his day-to-day mood, and his second and third jobs. Don explained how his home life influenced what he would do on any particular given day by stating, “Unfortunately, one big factor that puts me in a frame of mind for what I’ll be doing that day at school is what’s going on at home. I try and not get off track at school because of what might be happening at home.”  Don’s 19-year-old son died of a sudden heart attack 6 months before this study took place. Don spoke of the experience of losing his son and how it had affected his instructional practice.

When my son was in the hospital last year, at times I just wanted to throw in the towel. When I felt that way, I’d just give the kids a packet to work on….I didn’t want to conduct labs or activities that caused the kids to be talkative or loud. I did not have the energy—emotionally or physically. But I will tell you, the worst day this year is better than the best day last year. My energy level is up this year compared to last. I think this year is much better because of what I knew was going to happen, happened, and that cloud is not hanging over me any more.

Don acknowledged that his daily mood also contributed to what he was going to do in class from day to day.

For instance, if I’m personally having a bad day on Tuesday and planned on doing a lab with the kids that day, I will adjust my scheduled activities and maybe show the video I was planning to show on Friday instead. I’ll then do the lab on Friday.

Don said he often flip-flopped activities, especially if he was tired or depressed from losing his son. “So, if I’m having a bad day, I’ll wait and do certain things until I feel better,” he said.  Even though he decided to have his students do something other than was originally planned, Don always provided meaningful learning activities.  For example, one day Don decided to exchange a lab activity for a concept map-building activity.  Don’s ability to adjust lesson plans on such short notice suggested that he was basically well organized.

Don worked two extra jobs—one in the evening at the local hospital and the second during the weekend cleaning a bowling alley.

I have been working at the hospital for 21 years now. I work every Tuesday and Thursday, and every other weekend. I make $18 an hour and that really helps because it’s hard to make it on what I make teaching—about $45,000. Also, with my son needing a heart transplant, we needed the double insurance to cover the 20% the school’s insurance did not. To have to pay 20% of a $250,000 medical bill is a big chunk.

He further stated, “Sometimes I get so tired that I stand in front of the class and say to myself, man you are wasting your time in here today.”  Don’s personal energy was a factor in determining how he would organize his lessons.

Teacher beliefs about student achievement             

                During one of the semi-formal interviews, Don was asked to describe his students’ present level of science knowledge. This question spurred extensive discussion concerning his students’ achievement in science. He responded by stating that he believed that his students,

Probably have a very, very basic understanding of the general concepts of science.  Most of the things they do know is common knowledge, such as they know there is a moon, stars, and they do know that there are nine planets. They might know that plants undergo photosynthesis, but they couldn’t describe it. In fact, if you asked the kids what photosynthesis is, they would most likely say that it has “something to do with plants and food.” However, they would not be able to understand or learn the chemical process of how the plants produce that food through photosynthesis.

                  However, after Don stated these observations and beliefs, he did say that “I do believe that a small, very small group of students do have a greater depth of scientific understanding than what I’m describing.”

                              When asked about factors contributing to the success of students who understand complex science concepts and processes, Don responded by stating, “I believe their parents to be a huge factor in the kids’ desire and success to learn science or any other subject in school. My kids wouldn’t do jack if I weren’t there with a big hammer at the end of the day. The kids who get ‘A’s’ in my classes have parents who are there helping their kids earn that ‘A.’ Kids don’t succeed in learning alone.”

Don used a variety of assessment strategies to measure his students’ learning. During the time this study was being conducted, the students at the middle school were undergoing state and district testing, therefore, Don gave no tests over course materials.  When asked how he determined if the students were learning in his classes without taking tests, Don replied,

I do portfolio assessment most of the time because the kids don’t do well on formal tests. They don’t take tests serious [sic]. Furthermore, I don’t think tests are a fair way to grade these kids; it’s best to look at what they’ve done in class.

When asked how he determines a grade for the portfolios, he said that the first thing he will do once the portfolios are collected is to

…make sure the kids turned in all the required work. Then, I will glance at their work to see if it’s complete and to see if the kids got the general ideas.  I will look more in-depth at a few specific things like the map because it required reading and graphing skills to complete correctly; skills required to take the end of level CORE test.

Additional forms of assessment Don implemented to assess his students for learning are a variety of performance projects. These projects consisted of constructing graphic organizers, creating posters, writing a skit or play; performing in them as well, building models, participating in lab activities, and responding to oral tests. Don pointed out that most students enjoyed these varied types of assessments.

Don’s expectations for his students’ academic futures were mixed. He stated that he thought about 10% would go to college, then added,  

I think about 60% of my students, or should I say the kids here at [the middle school], will graduate from high school. A lot of our kids that will drop out of school will drop out at ninth grade—at least the last few years this has been the case. Even more disturbing to me than the drop out rate is the percent that will end up in jail.

He expressed concern about his students’ personal futures by saying,

I think that probably 5% of my kids will be in jail or at least locked up for some part of their lives. Right now I have three past students who are high school age locked up for murder. Two of my past students who are only ninth graders at the moment, are heading to trial for attempted murder charges.

Don sadly added,

Most of my students will not have academic futures at all. Right now I see many of my past students around town hanging on the streets or working in the food industry, and also in the housekeeping service. I don’t know how to change any of this; I don’t think I can.

Considering Don’s knowledge about the probability of a non-academic future for most of his students, it is to his credit that he is such a strong advocate for their learning.

Teacher beliefs about the theory of best classroom practice in science instruction      

The last theme that emerged from the collected data was Don’s personal belief about the theory of best classroom practice in science instruction. To fully understand Don’s conception of hands-on instruction, he was asked to describe how hands-on teaching applied to his classroom. “To me the theory of hands-on learning means that students’ minds are working while their hands are working at the same time,” he said. The day this question was asked, Don had his students cutting and gluing pictures of viruses and constructing a concept map. Don addressed this type of activity by stating,

Today in class I had the kids cutting and gluing. To me this is considered hands-on because they were engaged in building a concept map and thinking what to cut and glue in order to build the map about viruses. Their minds had to be “minds-on” in order for their hands to do the work of cutting and gluing and constructing the map correctly. I also consider this to be a problem solving activity because building the concept map is kind of like putting a puzzle together with the right pieces.

 He continued to say that he believed in providing hands-on experiences for his students. “The kids just can’t or should I say ‘won’t’ learn just through lecture; they must be ‘doing and experiencing’ the learning process.” Additionally he stated, “I have them do hands-on activities for sanity purposes. If I just lectured to these kids, they would go absolutely bonkers, and then I would!”

Don felt that he had a minimal understanding of the concepts of the constructivist approach of inquiry-based learning. At one point in a conversation about inquiry-based learning, Don was asked to explain inquiry-based science. 

If I was asked to explain inquiry-based learning to someone else, I would say that it would be ways in which to get the kids to come up with their own ideas, their own questions, explain in their own words why things happen and what is the process that is going on.

To illustrate this concept, Don said that the first thing he does each year is to do a demonstration where he puts a polymer powder in the bottom of a cup (before the kids enter the classroom), dump a little water in the cup while the kids are watching, ask the kids what will happen when he turns the cup upside down, and then turn the cup upside down to show what would happen.

The kids don’t know the powder is in the cup, and it just blows them away when no water is spilled. They have to figure out what is happening. This is what I’d tell another teacher “inquiry-based” learning is—asking, trying, and figuring this out for themselves.

When asked what type of inquiry-based activities he does with his students throughout the year, Don discussed one particular activity he does each year with each of his classes.

One inquiry-based lab investigation I like to do is an M&M lab. I consider it a scientific inquiry method because the kids have to hypothesize what is going to happen when the M&M’s are placed in a solution. Some kids hypothesize that the decal will come off, other hypothesize the color will come off, other think that the M&M will dissolve. I tell them that they must investigate to find out what will happen and to determine why.

Even though Don said that he felt he had a “minimal understanding of the concept of inquiry-based learning,” it was observed throughout the duration of the study that Don implemented many inquiry-based learning activities into his curriculum. He had his students hypothesize, analyze, predict, question, and investigate many of the concepts he was teaching.

Other areas of best classroom strategies that Don said he implemented into his instructional practice were cooperative learning. Concerning his use of cooperative learning, Don made the comment that “If you haven’t noticed, I can’t stop my kids from collaboratively working together; they just automatically do it. I let them work with the student sitting next to them.” Don felt it was more effective for student learning to have groups of two instead of four. He said the students talk with each other on a one-to-one basis and that they work very well together; helping each other in their own language.

Student discussion was another strategy that Don felt he implemented on a regular basis. His classroom was not a quiet one. He allowed his students to talk with one another while working on project and class assignments on a regular basis. He explained this by stating,

The idea of letting them talk with each other while they are working on class assignments is hopefully that they are talking and learning a little bit of what we’re doing in class. If I ask a question, I want them to be able to turn to their partner and explain what I just asked. After they discuss my question with each other, then they discuss it as a class.

He felt that allowing the students to talk amongst themselves about the lesson was a valuable learning tool for these kids.

Insights

This study has provided insight into the multitude of factors that a veteran middle school teacher considers when designing science instruction. Some of these factors, such as student class size and a lack of funding, were not surprising findings.  Far more important was the fact that this teacher truly understood his students—their cultural background, home lives, abilities to achieve in science, and learning needs—and considered these factors when designing his instructional practice. By considering these particular factors when designing instruction, this teacher demonstrated that he was one who understood and practiced the principles and theory of best practice in science teaching.

This study can help readers gain a greater appreciation for teachers of science—not just as teachers—but as “real” people living “real” lives outside the classroom. It was astonishing to discover at the onset of the study that this teacher’s 19-year-old son unexpectedly passed away, and that he was juggling a second and third job in addition to his daytime teaching responsibilities.  The teacher struggled on a daily basis with emotional ups-and-downs of coping with the loss of his son and being drained of energy from working one of his additional jobs the night before—while still delivering valuable instruction to his students.  Such a narrative illuminates the kind of personal issues our teachers face outside the classroom and the effects such problems may have.

The importance of support staff to help with English language learners was also a strong outcome of the study.  This teacher was fortunate to have an assistant that interpreted English to Spanish for his students. However, due to the No Child Left Behind Act, it was uncertain what would happen to this position.  Without a translator, the teacher was concerned about his ability to deliver quality instruction.  It was felt that this might ultimately limit many students’ access to learning science.

The discoveries made about the factors this teacher took into consideration when planning instruction, how he delivered instruction, and his concern that each of his students succeeded in learning science was of particular importance.  The beliefs this teacher held about his students, and how these beliefs positively affected his teaching practice, reinforced the conviction that we do indeed have individuals who truly are committed to learning about and practicing best science instruction in the classroom.

References

Ballone, L.M., & Czerniak, C.M. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-40.

Barnes, D. (1982). Practical curriculum study.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Battista, M.T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 462-470.

Britzman, D.P. (1998). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher educationeducation.HarvardEducational Review, 56(4), 442-455.

Bryan, L.A., & Atwater, M.M. (2002).  Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821-839.

Collins, A. (2004). An enactment of science, a dynamic balance among curriculum, context and teacher beliefs. Teachers College Record, 106(5), 888-891.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, E. (1981). Teachers as curriculum evaluators. Sydney, Australia: George, Allen and Unwin.

Deemer, S.A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environment. Educational Research, 46(1), 73-90. 

Delamont, S. (1999).  Gender and the discourse of derision. Research Papers in Education: Policy and Practice, 14(1), 3-21.

James, R.K. (1991). Understanding why curriculum innovations cussed or fail.  Curriculum Innovations, 7(2), 487-495.

Love, A. & Kruger, A.C. (2005). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in Urban schools serving African American students. Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 87-98.

Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of teacher’s beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 27-38.

National Science Education Standards. (2006). National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses

Orpwood, G.W. (1985). Toward the renewal of Canadian science education: Deliberative inquiry model. Instructional Science, 10, 477-489.

Pajares, M.F.  (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many facets of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-16.

Roberts, D.A. (1982). The place of qualitative research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 19, 277-292.

Russell, T.L. (1980). Teacher education research and the problem of change.  In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum in a new light: Essay from science education (pp. 114-125). Toronto: OISE Press.

Stigler, J.W., & Perry, M. (1999, April). Developing classroom process data for the improvement of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting to the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-124.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distance between culturally diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Yager, R. E. (2005). Accomplishing the visions for professional development of teachers advocated in the National Science Education Standards.  Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2), 95-102.

Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Application of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.