Strengthening Elementary Preservice Teachers' Physical Science Content Knowledge: A 3-Year Study
Saved in:
| Title: | Strengthening Elementary Preservice Teachers' Physical Science Content Knowledge: A 3-Year Study |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Long, Christopher Sean (ORCID |
| Source: | Research in Science Education. Jun 2023 53(3):613-632. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Elementary School Teachers, Preservice Teachers, Science Teachers, Physical Sciences, Pedagogical Content Knowledge |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11165-022-10071-9 |
| ISSN: | 0157-244X 1573-1898 |
| Abstract: | This study investigated how an intervention consisting of a series of physical science lessons embedded within the elementary science methods course impacted elementary preservice teachers' (N = 473) science content knowledge as evidenced in their scaled scores for the science content component of a standardized subject certification examinations for elementary teachers (TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (804) exam). The science content component of the certification exam was the instrument used to generate data for this study. The independent variables for this study were the timing of the exam attempt compared to the participation in the science intervention. The dependent variables included the scaled score for the exam and the science content competencies. Results for an independent sample t-test indicated that the difference between the mean scores for these two groups was statistically significant (t = - 4.21, df = 102, p < 0.001) with the preintervention group scoring lower compared to the postintervention group. Mean scores for the exam were higher (MS = 57.7%, SD = 29.8%) than the mean score for exam attempts occurring before the intervention (MS = 44.4%, SD = 29.2%). The results suggest that the intervention implemented as part of the science methods course had a positive impact on prospective teachers. That is, their science content knowledge resulted in an increased passing rate on the certification exam. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1376311 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFgWwcfaA2B0Cuw0gbWxbElAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNPyOPMt3awksuDMLAIBEICBm47yY3TzvyjUWtklcwj9y-a0o_1i870dRPNUqdz-vNdeMG6Hct6fpACNh1ZoUKiswmmqJ4oLz_w3id47JaZdBCw1jn0CRKwlxUP9J15vbV-spQ0FjWIumiKlVuLueSG3B-_LKRaNtN08tLkpV0HLjnTZbVgF03RXyx-fe3EKDuQ9S7KXU1jKkwz0Um7dbw7QTo26usUImZa7QpuT Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0163555201;g7201jun.23;2023May09.06:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163555201-1">Strengthening Elementary Preservice Teachers' Physical Science Content Knowledge: a 3-Year Study </title> <p>This study investigated how an intervention consisting of a series of physical science lessons embedded within the elementary science methods course impacted elementary preservice teachers' (N = 473) science content knowledge as evidenced in their scaled scores for the science content component of a standardized subject certification examinations for elementary teachers (TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref1">804</reflink>) exam). The science content component of the certification exam was the instrument used to generate data for this study. The independent variables for this study were the timing of the exam attempt compared to the participation in the science intervention. The dependent variables included the scaled score for the exam and the science content competencies. Results for an independent sample t-test indicated that the difference between the mean scores for these two groups was statistically significant (t = − 4.21, df = 102, p &lt;.001) with the preintervention group scoring lower compared to the postintervention group. Mean scores for the exam were higher (MS = 57.7%, SD = 29.8%) than the mean score for exam attempts occurring before the intervention (MS = 44.4%, SD = 29.2%). The results suggest that the intervention implemented as part of the science methods course had a positive impact on prospective teachers. That is, their science content knowledge resulted in an increased passing rate on the certification exam.</p> <p>Keywords: Assessment; Constructivism; Preservice science education; Intervention</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Current science education policy and reforms in the USA and in many other nations call for assessment of preservice teachers' science content knowledge through standardized subject certification examinations as part of meeting accountability standards for effective science instruction and for ongoing STEM initiatives in elementary and secondary classrooms. Although the goal of certification testing is to produce a high-quality teaching force, empirical data on teacher preparation and passing rates in standardized subject certification examinations shows little, if any correlation, between standardized subject certification examinations results and success in the classroom. Despite the empirical findings, standardized subject certification examinations or testing remains a readily accepted indicator of teacher quality and the Education Preparation Provider profile (Buddin &amp; Zamarro, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]; Harrell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). This reliance on standardized testing to measure the content knowledge of the preservice teachers dictates that Education Preparation Providers (EPPs) pay close attention to what is covered on the tests themselves, understanding such factors as the impact of an increase of cut scores required for passing certification exams, how many retests are allowed, and the actual number times the preservice teacher has tested or retested. It should not escape ones notice that retesting levies an increased financial cost representing an additional barrier to enter teaching (Turner et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref4">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Elementary preservice teachers who teach several disciplines, one of which is science, are specifically impacted by these accountability standards and testing measures especially since both past and current literature indicates that elementary preservice teachers are weak in their knowledge of science content (Anggoro et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Koc &amp; Yager, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]; Papadouris et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]; Tobin, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref9">52</reflink>]; Trundle et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref10">53</reflink>]). Correspondingly, this weakness is predominantly evident when elementary preservice teachers (EPSTs) take standardized subject certification examinations that require them to show their mastery of science content knowledge for teaching prior to their role as novice teachers in authentic elementary school settings (Rojas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]; Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]). In the USA and in the elementary teacher preparation context of this study, the passing rate of EPSTs is low and the number of times EPSTs retake the state standardized subject certification examinations is high. Literature contends that even if teacher preparation programs efficiently provide preservice teachers with the knowledge and skills for teaching, the low scores and the stress related to retaking the certification examinations, respectively, especially in the science content disciplines, levies an increased financial cost representing an additional barrier to enter teaching (Turner et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref13">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on this long-standing predicament, this study investigated how an intervention consisting of a series of physical science lessons embedded within the elementary science methods course impacted EPSTs' science content knowledge as evidenced in their scaled scores for the science content component of a standardized subject certification examination for elementary teachers (TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref14">804</reflink>) exam). As such, this study uses data from the standardized subject certification examinations to investigate the changes in teacher knowledge of physical science content before and after the intervention. Studies provide support for the purpose of this study as well as the study design (Lee &amp; Shea, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]; Norris, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]; Santu et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref18">45</reflink>]; Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref19">47</reflink>]). This study uses the term intervention to refer to the combined activities that were incorporated into the science method course with the purpose of providing physical science content instruction in the context of teaching. The intervention targeted learning of science concepts through demonstration lessons delivered by the faculty of the science methods course, microteaching, feedback, and reflection on the part of the EPSTs (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]). IRB approval was granted for this study. SPSS Version 25.0 was used to analyze the data. The research sought to address the following research question.</p> <p>What extent does EPSTs' participation in an intervention comprised physical science lessons impact their state certification test scores for TExES Competency 8 and the scaled score for the TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref21">804</reflink>) exam?</p> <p>It must be mentioned that this study is derived from a larger study of EPSTs' knowledge of science content (Long, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>]). Next, we present the supporting literature and the theoretical framework that guided the study.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>As early as 1960, research showed that elementary teachers were uncomfortable with teaching science because of their weakness in science content knowledge as well as their unfamiliarity with materials and manipulatives associated with scientific inquiry in enabling students' construction of science content (Victor, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]), a phenomenon that is still extant in today's elementary classrooms (Moodley &amp; Gaigher [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]; Sadler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref25">44</reflink>]). As a result of weakness and unfamiliarity many teachers prefer to engage in activity-driven (hands-on) or traditional (lecture-based) lessons that do support the learning of science concepts through scientific and engineering practices as envisioned by the current reforms in science education in the USA (NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]). Evidently, the problems associated with students' learning of science content in classrooms, according to scholars in the field, can be framed as the result of two problems: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>) insufficient science content knowledge among teachers and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>) inadequate content knowledge training in educator preparation programs (Antink-Meyer &amp; Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]; Çam et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>]; Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; Namdar, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]; Kiray et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]; Riegle-Crumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). These challenges were attributed to preparation by teacher education programs that did not address the content knowledge needs of prospective teacher candidates.</p> <p>Recent literature indicates that supporting elementary preservice teachers through the modeling of science content-based science teaching demonstrations (Subramaniam &amp; Harrell, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>]; Harrell &amp; Subramaniam, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]; Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]) and science content-based microteaching activities (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]; Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref42">50</reflink>]) impacts both their understanding of science instruction and conceptual understanding of the science concepts they need to instruct to their students, respectively. Among these studies, only one study (Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref43">50</reflink>]) investigated the impact of science content-based science teaching demonstrations and science content-based microteaching activities on EPSTs' change in science content knowledge. This study was specific to one ethnicity, Hispanic EPSTs (Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]). Thus, there is need to build knowledge on how interventions based on science content-based science teaching demonstrations and science content-based microteaching activities impact EPSTs' in general.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-4">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>The theoretical framework for this research uses three categories of teacher knowledge described by Shulman: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge (1986). This framework emphasizes comprehension and reasoning as well as transformation and reflection. Additionally, the basic premise of constructivist learning theory is used for the intervention in that learners do not passively acquire knowledge, but rather construct knowledge that is influenced by factors, primarily prior knowledge and how it relates to the new knowledge being constructed.</p> <p>In 1986, Shulman found that an effective teacher needed to possess three forms of knowledge to teach their students: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge (p. 9). The following year (1987) he went on to expand this list of three into a list of seven forms of knowledge that an effective teacher must possess to be successful: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of how the educational process works, and the knowledge of the purposes of education (p. 8). Shulman ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]) specified that subject matter knowledge (SMK) included both an understanding of how a particular subject is organized as well as the rules that include or exclude content from the subject. Ball and McDiarmid later ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]) described subject matter knowledge as including both "substantive knowledge of the subject" and "knowledge about the subject" (p. 8).</p> <p>Shulman ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]) describes pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as encompassing "...the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others" (p. 9). Accordingly, Shulman describes teachers with adequate PCK as knowing the best ways to teach concepts. Further, teachers with well-developed PCK know not only the content of what is taught, but also which teaching methods work best to deliver the content to their students. PCK is informed by both teaching experience combining formal knowledge bases, such as content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, curricular knowledge, assessment, and knowledge of students with content-specific/topic-specific professional knowledge (Berry et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]). These knowledge bases represent the "knowledge of and reasoning behind and planning for teaching a particular topic in a particular way for a particular purpose to particular students for enhanced student outcomes" (Gess-Newsome, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>], p. 36).</p> <p>According to Kind (2017) PCK may be personal and canonical. That is, personal PCK is based on experience and adapted for use in a particular setting while canonical PCK may be expressed as shared practices such as during professional development or teams of teachers within a school. This type of professional development has been shown to connect instructional practice with learning outcomes (Gess-Newsome et al., 2017; Pitjeng-Mosabala &amp; Rollnick, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref50">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>For novice teachers or experienced teachers who are new to a particular grade level, PCK is likely under-developed due to a lack of practice or experience and often fosters a reliance on curriculum materials and activity-driven lessons provided by the school (Hanuscin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]). "From a PCK perspective, the expertise elementary teachers may develop for one particular science topic that is taught at a specific grade level does not transfer to the teaching of another science topic at a different grade level" (Hanuscin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]; p. 683).</p> <p>Nilsson ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]) added that PCK makes content accessible to the learners as it includes knowledge of the requisite SMK combined with knowledge of a learner's strengths and weaknesses, knowledge of the curriculum to be learned, and the knowledge of a variety of instructional strategies. That is, the focus of elementary science lessons that cover density, energy transformations, and mechanisms of heredity must shift to conceptual learning and away from activities that are not anchored in understanding of the concepts (Nowicki et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]). Again, there must be more than an activity-driven lesson to promote understanding of concepts. The teachers must understand where the learners are starting and must scaffold and promote meaningful learning based on that prior knowledge. This means the teacher must have a thorough understanding of the content, and the best ways to teach it to a variety of learners (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]; Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref56">50</reflink>]; Zeidler, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref57">57</reflink>]). Furthermore, Loughran et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]) illustrate the interconnected nature of content representation and the professional and pedagogical experience repertoire stating, "The foundation of (science) PCK is thought to be the amalgam of a teacher's pedagogy and understanding of (science) content..." (p. 371). The strength of this interconnection will vary depending on the duration, quality, feedback of training provided, and meaningful teacher reflections on practice and context.</p> <p>More recent literature refers to subject matter knowledge as academic content knowledge and defines it as "...the general factual knowledge that a teacher possesses about a specific topic" (Gess-Newsome et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]). Specifically addressing science content knowledge, elementary educator preparation programs must ensure that preservice teachers have sufficient knowledge of science facts and an understanding of how science knowledge advances to allow their graduates to be able to move past schooling to educating their own students. The science standards that must be taught in the elementary grades cover a wide array of topics in life, physical, and earth/space science and are outlined by a variety of professional standards at the state and the national level in the USA (NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref60">34</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref61">33</reflink>]). EPPs use the standards adopted by the teacher education accreditation agencies to develop their own science curriculums for their courses. Science knowledge encompasses both a collection of facts as well as a way of approaching problems. For example, in the USA this new vision of science instruction is specifically formulated in the three-dimensional approach to science learning. That is, there is a shift and focus of the science classroom to learning environments where students use disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts with scientific and engineering practices to explore, examine, and construct evidence-based explanation for why phenomena occur and to design solutions to problems.</p> <p>The importance of the three-dimensional approach to science learning through investigation is an important aspect of teacher training if science is to be taught using ideas associated with constructivism. That is, there is more to science than disciplinary core ideas OR facts that are important to understanding; there are also methods of scientific inquiry, crosscutting concepts, and scientific and engineering practices though that must be learned (Menon and Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]; NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]). The difficulty preservice elementary teachers experience across all areas of science has been studied by researchers (Anggoro et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]; Harrell &amp; Subramaniam, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]; Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]; Koc &amp; Yager, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]; Papadouris et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref70">38</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref71">40</reflink>]; Trundle et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]). Scholars assert that effective teaching requires subject matter knowledge that cannot not be gained by the teacher while practicing their craft, but rather must be included as a part of teacher preparation before entering the classroom (Shulman, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref73">46</reflink>]; Sadler &amp; Sonnert, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>], Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]; Subramaniam et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref76">50</reflink>]). Importantly, adequate content knowledge permits the teacher to attend to the student's thinking beyond merely correcting wrong answers. Buchmann succinctly states, "...no amount of reflection, observation, general information or understanding or personal experience overcomes the lack of knowledge..." ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref77">8</reflink>], p. 16).</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-5">Methodology</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a physical science intervention during a science method course on the scaled score for the TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref78">804</reflink>) exam. As such, this study uses data from a state certification examination to examine preelementary and postelementary preservice teacher knowledge to examine changes in teacher knowledge before and after an intervention. Several studies provide support for the purpose of this study as well as the study design (Lee &amp; Shea, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref79">24</reflink>]; Norris, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref80">36</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref81">40</reflink>]; Santu et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref82">45</reflink>]; Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-6">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included elementary preservice teachers enrolled in a science method course that immediately preceded student teaching. The elementary teacher education program is situated within an R1 public university that is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Programs as well as the Texas Education Agency. Approximately 500 teachers complete the program and become certificated annually. The program is a traditional, 4-year BS program that includes a 2-year state mandated core, specialization courses in teacher education course, approximately 200 early field hours, and a semester of student teaching. As part of the core requirement, preservice teachers complete 12 h of science coursework within the College of Science (COS) and taught by faculty within COS. In particular, the preservice teachers complete a 3-h course in Conceptual Physics (PHYS 1210) that includes a lab.</p> <p>The ethnicity data for the preservice teachers is self-reported data that is included during registration for the state examination and is in line with the American Psychological Association guidelines (APA, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>]). The data provided from the state examination for this study included the following ethnicities and associated frequencies: African American (7%), Asian (3%), Hispanic/Latino (23%), two or more races (2%), and White/Non-Hispanic (65%).</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-7">Intervention</hd> <p>This intervention was designed around state teacher testing data that showed that EPST knowledge of physical science concepts was low, particularly on topics of chemical and physical properties of matter (69.3%). For this reason, the intervention featured in this study targeted physical science concepts (Competency 8) through demonstration lessons delivered by the faculty of the science method course, and the process cycle of microteaching, feedback, and reflection on the part of the preservice elementary teachers (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]). The three demonstration lessons were designed to address Competency 8 of the science domain of the elementary certification exam that includes the topic related to the physical and chemical properties of matter. The demonstration lessons followed the 5E lesson plan model. The first lesson targeted the concept of buoyant force and included activities to aid in the understanding of floating, sinking, and water displacement. The second lesson targeted the concept of density and provided explanations and practice in calculating density and paid specific attention to misconceptions related to the concept including weight, mass, and size (Harrell &amp; Subramaniam, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref86">18</reflink>]). The third lesson addressed dissolving and the role of temperature in the dissolving process as well as solubility (Harrell &amp; Subramaniam, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref87">19</reflink>]). The duration of the 3 demonstration lessons was approximately 12 h of class time and included many hands-on activities and opportunities for both formative assessment and reflection (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 provides the details of the demonstration lessons — the interventions — taught by the course instructors of the science method courses (for detailed descriptions of each demonstration lesson, see Harrell and Subramaniam ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]), Harrell and Subramaniam ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref90">19</reflink>]), and Long et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref91">27</reflink>])). As mentioned, each of the demonstration lessons followed the 5E lesson plan model. The five phases, Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate, were used to convey the scientific concept present in each demonstration lesson. The Engage phase motivates interest in the science concept and helps to expose prior knowledge about the science concept. The Explore phase facilitates an inquiry-based investigation related to the science concept. The Explain phase enables the communication of participants' developing understandings and explanations of the science concept derived from the Explore phase. Within this phase, the course instructor uses direct instruction to introduce formal definitions and explanations of the science concept and relates it back to participants' developing understandings and explanations of the science concept. The Elaborate phase provides learning tasks that allow the application of newly constructed knowledge of the science concept to familiar and/or different real-life contexts. The Evaluate phase is ongoing throughout the 5E learning cycle lesson and involves the use of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to ascertain ongoing development of the understanding of the science concept.</p> <p>Table 1 Interventions: demonstration lessons</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Engage&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Activity/discussion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants watched a video of cargo ships&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were given one bag filled with donut holes and a second bag with a greater number of donut holes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants watched a video illustrating the dissolving of solute in a solvent (e.g., mercury dissolving gold foil, sugar dissolving in water, salt dissolving in water)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Driving question&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do cargo ships made of steel and other metals float rather than sink?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do you determine the density of each bag?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;What happens to sugar and salt when they dissolve in water?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outcomes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were asked to discuss and write their explanations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants' explanations were noted for usage or absence of concepts related to buoyancy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were to determine the volume of each bag&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants used a triple beam balance to determine the mass for each bag&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants' explanations were noted for usage or absence of concepts related to the relationship between mass and volume&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were asked to connect their prior knowledge about dissolving with the dissolving activities observed in the video&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were asked to discuss and write their possible explanations about dissolving&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants' explanations were noted for usage or absence of concepts related to dissolving&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Inquiry&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants made models of cargo ships with aluminum foil and using pennies as the cargo&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants then placed their models in tanks filled with water to observe if their models floated or sank&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants measured and recorded data (volume and mass) for a set of density blocks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants conducted a series of experiments to dissolve different substances/solutes in water/solvent&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outcomes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participant were specifically asked to explain their observations of floating and sinking of their cargo ship models&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants used density formula to calculate the density of the blocks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants completed a table to indicate the solubility of different substances/solutes in water/solvent and provided explanations for why the different substances/solutes were soluble or insoluble in the water/solvent&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explain&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presentation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants presented their explanations of floating and sinking using their cargo ship models&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants presented their calculations of the density of the different blocks and arranged the blocks according to their respective densities&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants presented their explanations of dissolving&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Direct instruction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Course instructors presented the lesson on the formal definitions, descriptions, exemplars, non-exemplars, and explanations of concepts related to the conceptual understanding of buoyancy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Course instructors presented the lesson on the formal definitions, descriptions, exemplars, non-exemplars, and explanations of concepts related to the conceptual understanding of density&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Course instructors presented the lesson on the formal definitions, descriptions, exemplars, non-exemplars, and explanations of concepts related to the conceptual understanding of dissolving&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elaborate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Application&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants read and reread their written explanations and applied their knowledge of buoyancy from the Explore and Explain phases to reconstruct their explanations about cargo ships and buoyancy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants applied their knowledge of density from the Explore and Explain phases to explain oil floating in the ocean, Italian salad dressing, and for other common substances displayed on a density table&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants applied their knowledge of dissolving to three questions:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(1) Write what you learned about dissolving and discuss why it is important?,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(2) What is the difference between dissolving and melting?, and&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(3) What happens to sugar and salt when they dissolve in water?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evaluate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were asked to complete a worksheet that contained knowledge and application questions:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(1) What is the buoyancy?,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(2) Explain how substances denser than water like cargo ships made of steel float,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(3) Explain the difference between density and buoyancy, and&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(4) Explain the relationship between buoyancy, floating, and sinking&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants were asked to complete density calculations; explaining relational causation (e.g., two liquids have the same volume, but one has more mass, is the one with more mass denser?); and describing the relationship between mass, volume, and density&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participants completed a worksheet that contained a knowledge and application question: What is dissolving?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Instructors also used microteaching to reinforce content knowledge. Each participant designed and presented a physical science lesson. During lesson plan design, instructors provided two to three rounds of recursive feedback prior to delivery of the lesson. After the lesson, instructor feedback and peer feedback were provided to the participant to enhance reflection about the lesson from multiple lenses. The peer teaching and feedback intrinsic to this study has been shown to be beneficial in both achievement on state certification exams (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref92">27</reflink>]) and participants' attitudes towards science (Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>For each microteaching lesson, approximately 1/4 of the class served as peer evaluators. The peer evaluators utilized a rubric (see Appendix), based on the grading rubric used by the course instructors. The peer evaluators evaluated each participant's microteaching session based upon safety, ideas, and indicators, and each of the 5E learning cycle phases (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate) that they taught to a group of their peers who took on the role of fictitious elementary grade students and who were not assigned as peer evaluators. The peer evaluators were then asked to enumerate three to five "big science ideas" that were learned in the microteaching session and detail how each of those big ideas were mastered by the peers who took on the role of fictitious elementary grade students.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-8">Data Sources and Instrument</hd> <p>This study used state examination scores for preservice teachers who completed the TExES Core Subjects EC-6 Science exam (#804) more than once. That is, each time the participant took the examination, the score report was used. The examination uses 45 questions from four areas of science including the following: Nature of Science, Physical Science, Life Science, and Earth/Space Science. Represented within the four areas of science are 11 state standards subdivided into 18 competencies (Texas Educator Certification Examination Program, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref94">51</reflink>]). The score report provides the number of questions associated with each competency and the number of correct answers for each question. This study was limited to a review of data collected from the state testing agency database. Participant identifying information was coded. Score reports were downloaded from a secure database using the university's protected network.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-9">Data Analysis</hd> <p>There are three assumptions upon which this study is based. First, the sample chosen for this study is representative of the larger population of preservice elementary teachers. Secondly, the testing measure used in this study, a science subject test from an initial teacher certification examination, is a valuable tool in determining the content knowledge of an elementary teacher candidate. Finally, elementary teacher educators can use the data from certification testing to identify and address areas of science content knowledge weakness. Certification examination score reports were grouped for comparison based on when the exam attempt occurred with regard to participation in the physical science intervention, and whether or not the participant completed multiple attempts to pass the exam.</p> <p>This study used the time the test was taken in relation to participation in the intervention as the independent variable. Those participants who completed the examination before taking the science methods course were included in the preintervention group while those taking the examination after the course were part of the postintervention group. The scaled score for the science certification examination was used as the dependent variable. The scaled scores for this examination range from 100 to 300 and this study utilized a percent correct score for each competency as the competency questions varied in number from 1 to 4 based on the version of the examination that was taken. A paired sample <emph>t</emph> test with a significance level of 0.05 was used to compare the preintervention and postintervention groups. The assumptions for this test were met. The data used was a separate attempt on the subject examination which met the assumption of independence of observations. Levene's test was used to determine the data that met the assumption for homogeneity of variance, and a quartile-quartile plot demonstrated that the distribution of examination scores met the assumption for normality.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-10">Results</hd> <p>The physical science intervention included demonstration lessons that targeted the specific topics of buoyancy, density, and dissolving, microteaching, and reflection. With this purpose in mind, this study analyzed data reported by the state testing agency and included a scaled score for the science domain of the exam and the number of questions answered correctly for individual science competencies. Table 2 details the total number of initial test attempts examined in the study. Most test takers, 389, made their initial attempt after the intervention. However, 84 test takers attempted the test prior to the intervention. Table 2 shows that test attempts taken after the intervention were generally more successful than those taken prior to the intervention.</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive statistics for initial attempts</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Initial attempts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pass&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Total&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;% Pass&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Initial before intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;73&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;84&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;86.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Initial after intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;352&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;37&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;389&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;90.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 473</p> <p>Table 3 details the results of subsequent attempts made after failing the initial attempt. All sequential attempts were made postintervention. All 42 test takers who failed the initial test attempted a second try. Most participants, 88.3%, achieved a passing score in either the second or third attempt. Of all participants who retested only two participants did not ultimately pass the exam.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics for failed attempts by testing round</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Testing round&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pass&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Total&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;% Pass&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt 1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt 2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;64.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt 3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;57.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt 4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;80.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Attempt 5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Total&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;64&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;104&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 104</p> <p>Competency 8 addresses the topics of buoyancy, density, and dissolving and was the focus of the demonstration lessons delivered to participants by the science method course faculty as a part of the physical science intervention. As there are multiple versions of this test that might be given to a participant, raw scores could not be used. Rather a percent correct score was assigned to each testing attempt. The mean percent correct score for attempts made after the intervention (MS = 57.7%, SD = 29.8%) was higher than the mean score for attempts made before the intervention (MS = 44.4%, SD = 29.2%). After participation in the intervention, 11 of 15 Hispanic/Latino participants received a higher or the same percent correct score for Competency 8 on the second attempt (73%), while four showed a decline. Sixteen of 23 or 70% of White/Non-Hispanic participants received a higher or the same percent correct score for Competency 8 on the second attempt, while seven showed a decline. Fourteen candidates tested more than twice and eight of these candidates maintained or increased their score over time. This information might be of interest given that Competency 8 was the only one of the four physical science competencies to show a higher mean calculated percent score after the intervention.</p> <p>As shown in Table 4, the results of an independent sample <emph>t</emph>-test indicated that the difference between the mean scores for these two groups was statistically significant (<emph>t</emph> = − 4.21, df = 102, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001). The mean score for preintervention attempts was lower at 219.73 (<emph>N</emph> = 15, SD = 20.04) while the mean score for postintervention was higher at 238.24 (<emph>N</emph> = 89, SD = 14.93). The sample size for this comparison was not equal; however, the homogeneity of variance assumption was not violated.</p> <p>Table 4 Independent sample <emph>t</emph>-test results for preintervention and postintervention scaled scores from all participants making multiple attempts</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;MS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;95% CI for mean difference&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preintervention attempts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;219.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20.04&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722; 27.21, &amp;#8722; 9.79&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722; 4.21*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;102&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Postintervention attempts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;89&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;238.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14.93&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-11">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine the impact and efficacy of an intervention consisting of three physical science demonstration lessons on participants' scaled score for the TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref95">804</reflink>) exam. The results of this study utilizing the framework of subject matter knowledge as defined by past (Shulman, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]) and current scholars (Gess-Newsome et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref97">15</reflink>]; Sadler &amp; Sonnert, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref98">43</reflink>]) support the role of content knowledge intervention as a predictor of participant success on the certification exam. As mentioned in the theoretical framework supporting this study, content knowledge intervention and thus, participant success on the certification exam can be approached by the current vision of the three-dimensional approach to science learning (Menon and Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref99">29</reflink>]; NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref100">34</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]). That is, the challenge for science teacher educators is to model science investigations within science teaching methods for elementary preservice teachers (EPSTs) to participate in and engage with science disciplinary core ideas, methods of scientific inquiry, crosscutting concepts, and scientific and engineering practices. As such, it is hoped that the EPSTs will gain content knowledge not only to pass on the certification exam but also to develop pedagogical content knowledge to teach the content in their future science classrooms.</p> <p>The results of this intervention study indicated that the intervention presented a potentially effective means to assist the participants to master physical science content to gain passing scores on the TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (<reflink idref="bib804" id="ref102">804</reflink>) exam. Thus, the intervention was one effective way to assist preservice elementary teachers, like the participants in this study, in passing state required science exams for certification and contributes to the ongoing research on looking for the best ways to assist preservice elementary teachers in passing state science exams for certification (Hawkins &amp; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref103">20</reflink>]; Koc &amp; Yager, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref104">22</reflink>]; Koenig et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref105">23</reflink>]; Mesci &amp; Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref106">30</reflink>]). Additionally, the results of this study coheres with literature on the ongoing difficulties that preservice teachers encounter with understanding science concepts (Anggoro et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref107">4</reflink>]; Harrell &amp; Subramaniam, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref108">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref109">19</reflink>]; Forbes et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref110">13</reflink>]; Papadouris et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref111">38</reflink>]; Potvin &amp; Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref112">40</reflink>]) and the need to resolve this predicament through evidence-based research.</p> <p>In summary, the results of this study suggest that the intervention implemented as part of the science method course for this study had a positive impact on these participants. After participation in the study, the mean score for Competency 8 increased. That is participants content knowledge of the physical and chemical properties of and changes in matter resulted in an increased passing rate on the certification exam. The mean score of 44.4% (SD 29.2%) on the pretest increased to 57.7% (SD 29.2%). The retest mean scores show that almost 3/4 of the Hispanic/Latino participants and 7/10 White/Non-Hispanic participants demonstrated an increase in their content knowledge for Competency 8. This increase in content knowledge suggests that the intervention positively impacted the passing score on the exam via increased content knowledge about chemical properties and changes in matter. Finally, the <emph>t</emph> test results (<emph>t</emph> = − 4.21, df = 102) were statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001).</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-12">Implications</hd> <p>One important implication is for science teacher educators to integrate explicit instruction on science content into science method courses. This coheres with the recommendations made for such integration in the literature. For instance, Akerson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>]) recommend the need for explicit instruction on the nature of science, Trundle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref114">53</reflink>]) recommend the need for explicit instruction on content knowledge deficits in Earth/space science, and Papadouris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref115">38</reflink>]) recommend the need for explicit instruction on energy concepts. The integration suggested by the findings of this study call for the use of demonstration lessons coupled with microteaching experiences and cycles of reflection as successful ways of improving preservice teachers' science content knowledge for teaching (Lewis &amp; Tsuchida, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref116">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>A second implication is the need for science teacher educators to collect data and find effective and appropriate methods of analysis to enhance the continuous self-evaluation of science teacher education programs. The continual improvement through self-evaluation of the instruction designed for preservice elementary teachers is necessary if science teacher educators are to ensure their program's success in the face of increasing pressures from accreditation agencies that rely heavily on teacher certification scores (Akerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>]; Feuer et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref118">12</reflink>]; von Hippel et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref119">56</reflink>]). Although the problem of not passing a science subject test required for certification requires immediate attention, the recommendation for continued self-evaluation science teacher education programs is equally important because teachers without adequate science content knowledge may struggle to teach concepts they do not fully understand (Sadler &amp; Sonnert, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref120">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Apart from the implications for science teacher educators, the results of this study are also important for science teacher professional development. Literature claims that in-service teachers incorporating science activities into their classroom have difficulty in addressing their own students' misconceptions and are unable to tailor the lessons to fit their students' needs (Nilsson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref121">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-13">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163555201-14">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>The University of North Texas Institutional Review Board has reviewed and approved the research. The approval number/ID is Human Subjects Application No. IRB-19–531.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-15">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0163555201-16">Appendix A Peer Evaluation Rubric</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Criterion&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Absent (0)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Unsatisfactory (1)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Developing (2)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Target (3)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Exemplary (4)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Outstanding (5)&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ideas and indicators&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Big idea, TEKS, &lt;bold&gt;learning objectives, language objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, or align lesson with TEKS is missing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing three or more of the following components: "big idea" display of TEKS, &lt;bold&gt;learning objectives, language objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, and alignment of lesson with TEKS.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing two of the following components: big idea" display of TEKS, &lt;bold&gt;learning objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, &lt;bold&gt;language objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, and alignment of lesson with TEKS.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing one of the following components: big idea" display of TEKS, &lt;bold&gt;learning objectives, language objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, and alignment of lesson with TEKS.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Identifies big idea" display of TEKS, &lt;bold&gt;learning objectives, language objectives&lt;/bold&gt;, and lesson is aligned with TEKS.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;TEKS is aligned with instructional strategies and assessments (diagnostic, formative and summative).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Safety Rules and Regulations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Safety Rules and Regulations are missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Includes and lists Safety Rules and Regulations but are inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Includes and lists Safety Rules and Regulations when and/or where appropriate within the 5 phases &lt;bold&gt;but does not describe&lt;/bold&gt; and &lt;bold&gt;explain&lt;/bold&gt; Safety Rules and Regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Includes, lists and describes Safety Rules and Regulations when and/or where appropriate within the 5 phases &lt;bold&gt;but does not explain&lt;/bold&gt; Safety Rules and Regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Includes, lists, describes and explains&lt;/bold&gt; Safety Rules and Regulations when and/or where appropriate within the 5 phases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Safety Rules and Regulations are grade and content appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Engage&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Engage is missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing three or more of the following components: captures students' attention (e.g., discrepant events or questions); assesses prior knowledge and misconceptions; and connects to appropriate Explore student activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing two of the following components: captures students' attention (e.g., discrepant events or questions); assesses prior knowledge and misconceptions; and connects to appropriate Explore student activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing two of the following components: captures students' attention (e.g., discrepant events or questions); assesses prior knowledge and misconceptions; and connects to appropriate Explore student activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components: captures students' attention (e.g., discrepant events or questions); assesses prior knowledge and misconceptions; and connects to appropriate Explore student activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components and displays differentiated strategies to appropriate Explore student activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explore is missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Uses direct concrete experience with the concept Missing three or more of the following components: student centered, teacher acts as a guide, lesson involves a least 50% student interaction, Explore includes enough explanation (e.g., worksheet, lab) to enable students to navigate the Explore independently, lesson is inquiry based and includes pre-instructional and probing questions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Uses direct concrete experience with the concept Missing two of the following components: student centered, teacher acts as a guide, lesson involves a least 50% student interaction, Explore includes enough explanation (eg., worksheet, lab) to enable students to navigate the Explore independently, lesson is inquiry based and includes pre-instructional and probing questions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Uses direct concrete experience with the concept Missing two of the following components: student centered, teacher acts as a guide, lesson involves a least 50% student interaction, Explore includes enough explanation (e.g., worksheet, lab) to enable students to navigate the Explore independently, lesson is inquiry based and includes pre-instructional and probing questions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all component: student centered, teacher as guide, interactive, Explore includes enough explanation (e.g., worksheet, lab) to enable students to navigate the Explore independently, inquiry based including probing questions, direct concrete experience with the concept.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all component and integrates STEM science practices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explain&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explain is missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept. Missing three or more of the following components: information from Explore is analyzed, concept map is appropriate, a list of essential questions with answer key, teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept, teacher listens critically to explanation from students, and teacher uses recorded observations from students during explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept. Missing two of the following components: information from Explore is analyzed, concept map is appropriate, a list of essential questions with answer key, teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept, teacher listens critically to explanation from students, and teacher uses recorded observations from students during explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students explain concept using Explore and teacher and students interact during the Explain. Missing one of the following components: information from Explore is analyzed, concept map is appropriate, a list of essential questions with answer key, teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept, teacher listens critically to explanation from students, and teacher uses recorded observations from students during explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components: students explain concept using Explore, teacher and students interact during Explain, information from Explore is analyzed, concept map is appropriate, a list of essential questions with answer key, teacher clarifies information and shares scientific concept, teacher listens critically to explanation from students, and teacher uses recorded observations from students during explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components and uses both Student Explain and Teacher Explain to enable students' construction of science content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elaborate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elaborate is missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing three or more of the following components: student centered, activities or deepen understanding OR apply concept to a real world situation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing two of the following components: student centered, activities or deepen understanding OR apply concept to a real world situation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing one of the following components: student centered, activities or deepen understanding OR apply concept to a real world situation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components: student centered, activities or deepen understanding OR apply concept to a real world situation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Addresses all components and uses Elaborate strategies to enable students' construction of science content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evaluate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evaluate is missing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing three or more of the following components: Appropriate preplanned assessment with answer key is used (i.e., diagnostic and formative assessment). Teacher adjusts instruction for student learning and concept development, students reflect on learning at least twice during the lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing two of the following components: Appropriate preplanned assessment with answer key is used (ie., diagnostic and formative assessment). Teacher adjusts instruction for student learning and concept development, students reflect on learning at least twice during the lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Missing one of the following components: Appropriate preplanned assessment with answer key is used (i.e., diagnostic and formative assessment). Teacher adjusts instruction for student learning and concept development, students reflect on learning at least twice during the lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appropriate preplanned assessment with answer key is used (i.e., diagnostic and formative assessment). Teacher adjusts instruction for student learning and concept development, students reflect on learning at least twice during the lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appropriate preplanned assessments are differentiated to enable students' construction of science content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0163555201-17">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0163555201-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akerson VL, Morrison JA, McDuffie AR. One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2006; 43; 2: 194-213. 10.1002/tea.20099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akerson VL, Pongsanon K, Rogers MAP, Carter I, Galindo E. Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15; 2: 293-312. 10.1007/s10763-015-9690-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref84" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology. (2019). Race and ethnicity guidelines in psychology: Promoting responsiveness and equity. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-race-ethnicity.pdf">www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-race-ethnicity.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anggoro, A, Widodo, A, &amp; Suhandi, A. (2017). Pre-service elementary teachers understanding of force and motion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895.https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/892/1/012151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Antink-Meyer A, Meyer DZ. Science teachers' misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2016; 27; 6: 625-647. 10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref46" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D. L. &amp; McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers. National Center for Research on Teacher Education: Michigan State University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED310084.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref48" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berry A, Friedrichsen P, Loughran J. Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. 2015; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref77" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Buchmann, M. (1983). The priority of knowledge and understanding in teaching. Occasional Paper 61. East Lansing Institute for Research on Teaching: National Institute of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED241494.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buddin R, Zamarro G. Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics. 2009; 66; 2: 103-115. 10.1016/j.jue.2009.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Çam A, Topçu MS, Sülün Y. Preservice science teachers' attitudes towards chemistry and misconceptions about chemical kinetics. Asia - Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 2015; 16; 2: 1-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond BS, Maerten-Rivera J, Rohrer RE, Lee O. Effectiveness of a curricular and professional development intervention at improving elementary teachers' science content knowledge and student achievement outcomes: Year 1 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2014; 51; 5: 635-658. 10.1002/tea.21148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuer, M. J, Floden, R. E, Chudowsky, N. &amp; Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods, &amp; policy options. Report of the National Academy of Education.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565694.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forbes JL, Sabel CT, Zangori L. Promoting prospective elementary teachers' learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2015; 26; 4: 419-445. 10.1007/s10972-015-9431-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gess-Newsome JBerry A, Loughran J, Friedrichsen PJ. A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK; Results of the thinking from a PCK Summit. Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. 2015; Routlege: 28-42</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gess-Newsome J, Taylor JA, Carlson AL, Wilson CD, Stuhlsatz AM. Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education. 2019; 41; 7: 944-963. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanuscin D, Cisterna D, Lipsitz K. Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching structure and properties of matter. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2018; 29; 8: 665-692. 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1488486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrell P. Do state examinations measure teacher quality?. Educational Studies. 2009; 35; 1: 65-79. 10.1080/03055690802470274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrell P, Subramaniam K. A presumption of competence: Elementary pre-service teacher knowledge about dissolving. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 2014; 33; 3: 283-304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrell P, Subramaniam K. Elementary pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of dissolving: A Vygotskian concept development perspective. Research in Science and Technological Education. 2015; 33; 3: 304-324. 10.1080/02635143.2015.1027188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins S, Rogers MP. Tools for reflection: Video-based reflection within a preservice community of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2016; 27; 4: 415-437. 10.1007/s10972-016-9468-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiray SA, Aktan F, Kaynar H, Kilinc S, Gorkemli T. A descriptive study of pre-service science teachers' misconceptions about sinking–floating. Asia - Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 2015; 16; 2: 1-28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koc I, Yager RE. Preservice teachers' alternative conceptions in elementary science concepts. Cypriot Journal of Science Education. 2016; 11; 3: 144-159. 10.18844/cjes.v11i3.215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenig K, Schen M, Bao L. Explicitly targeting preservice teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator. 2012; 21; 2: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee CK, Shea M. An analysis of pre-service elementary teachers' understanding of inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education International. 2016; 27; 2: 217-237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis CC, Tsuchida I. A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: How research lesson improve Japanese education. Improving Schools. 1999; 2; 1: 48-56. 10.1177/136548029900200117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long CS. The effect of science education classes on pre-service elementary teachers' attitudes about science. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2019; 48; 6: 77-83. 10.2505/4/jcst19_048_06_77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long CS, Harrell PE, Pope E, Subramaniam K. Using microteaching to improve preservice elementary teachers' physical science content knowledge. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science &amp; Mathematics Education. 2019; 23; 4: 16-31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loughran J, Mulhall P, Berry A. In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004; 41; 4: 370-391. 10.1002/tea.20007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menon D, Sadler TD. Preservice elementary teachers' science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2016; 27; 6: 649-673. 10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesci G, Schwartz RS. Changing preservice teachers' views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education. 2017; 47; 2: 329-351. 10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moodley K, Gaigher E. Teaching electric circuits: Teachers' perceptions and learners' misconceptions. Research in Science Education. 2019; 49; 1: 73-89. 10.1007/s11165-017-9615-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Namdar B. Teaching global climate change to pre-service middle school teachers through inquiry activities. Research in Science &amp; Technological Education. 2018; 36; 4: 440-462. 10.1080/02635143.2017.1420643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council (NRC). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. 2012; National Academy Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. 2013; The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilsson P. Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education. 2008; 30; 10: 1281-1299. 10.1080/09500690802186993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norris, J. M. (2013). Some challenges in assessment for teacher licensure, program accreditation, and educational reform. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 554–560. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43651660">www.jstor.org/stable/43651660</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowicki BL, Sullivan-Watts B, Shim MK, Young B, Pockalny R. Factors influencing science content accuracy in elementary inquiry science lessons. Research in Science Education. 2013; 43; 3: 1135-1154. 10.1007/s11165-012-9303-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papadouris N, Hadjigeorgiou A, Constantinou CP. Pre-service elementary school teachers' ability to account for the operation of simple physical systems using the energy conservation law. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014; 25; 8: 911-933. 10.1007/s10972-014-9407-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitjeng-Mosabala P, Rollnick M. Exploring the development of novice unqualified graduate teachers' topic-specific PCK in teaching the particulate nature of matter in South Africa's classrooms. International Journal of Science Education. 2017; 40: 742-770. 10.1080/09500693.2018.1446569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potvin P, Cyr G. Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2017; 54; 9: 1121-1142. 10.1002/tea.21396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riegle-Crumb C, Morton K, Moore C, Chimonidou A, Labrake C, Kopp S. Do inquiring minds have positive attitudes? The science education of preservice elementary teachers: Do inquiring minds have positive attitudes?. Science Education. 2015; 99; 5: 819-836. 10.1002/sce.21177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojas, N. (2018). Education system in US: Nearly 2,400 North Carolina teachers fail math exams, prompting look at tests. Newsweek.https://<ulink href="http://www.newsweek.com/education-north-carolina-teachers-fail-math-exams-tests-1054333">www.newsweek.com/education-north-carolina-teachers-fail-math-exams-tests-1054333</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler PM, Sonnert G. Understanding misconceptions: Teaching and learning in middle school Physical Science. American Educator. 2016; 40; 1: 26-32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Coyle HP, Cook-Smith N, Miller JL. The influence of teachers' knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal. 2013; 50; 5: 1020-1049. 10.3102/0002831213477680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santu AO, Marten-Rivera JL, Bovis S, Orend J. A mile wide or an inch deep? Improving elementary preservice teachers' science content knowledge within the context of a science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014; 25; 8: 953-976. 10.1007/s10972-014-9402-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860">www.jstor.org/stable/1175860</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuls JV. Raising the bar on teacher quality: Assessing the impact of increasing licensure exam cut-scores. Educational Policy. 2018; 32; 7: 969-992. 10.1177/0895904816682315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subramaniam K, Harrell P. Framing prospective elementary teachers' conceptions of dissolving as a ladder of explanations. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2013; 24; 7: 1177-1199. 10.1007/s10972-013-9356-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subramaniam K, Kirby B, Harrell P, Long C. Using concept maps to reveal prospective elementary teachers' knowledge of buoyancy. Electronic Journal for Research in Science &amp; Mathematics Education. 2019; 23; 2: 1-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subramaniam K, Harrell PE, Long CS, Khan N. Pre-service elementary teachers' conceptual understanding of average speed: The systematicity and persistence of related and unrelated concepts. Research in Science &amp; Technological Education. 2022; 40; 2: 189-206. 10.1080/02635143.2020.1782880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Educator Certification Examination Program (2020). Preparation Manual Core Subjects EC-6 (291) <ulink href="http://www.tx.nesinc.com/Content/StudyGuide/TX%5fSG%5fobj%5f291.htm">http://www.tx.nesinc.com/Content/StudyGuide/TX%5fSG%5fobj%5f291.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobin K. Control of teacher certification in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education. 2012; 87; 4: 485-499. 10.1080/0161956X.2012.705150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trundle KC, Atwood RK, Christopher. A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2007; 44; 2: 303-326. 10.1002/tea.20121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner CS, Cosmé PX, Dinehart L, Martí R, McDonald D, Ramirez M, Zamora J. Answering the call: Hispanic-serving institutions as leaders in the quest for access, excellence, and equity in American higher education. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal. 2017; 11; 3: 251-275. 10.24974/amae.11.3.369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victor E. Why are our elementary school teachers reluctant to teach science?. Science Education. 1962; 46; 2: 185-192. 10.1002/sce.3730460231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Von Hippel P, Bellows L, Osborne C, Lincove J, Mills N. Teacher quality differences between teacher preparation programs: How Big? How reliable? Which programs are different?. Economics of Education Review. 2016; 53: 31-45. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeidler DL. Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2002; 13; 1: 27-42. 10.1023/A:1015129825891</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Christopher Sean Long; Pamela Harrell; Karthigeyan Subramaniam; Elizabeth Pope and Ruthanne Thompson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib804" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref119"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1376311 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Strengthening Elementary Preservice Teachers' Physical Science Content Knowledge: A 3-Year Study – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Long%2C+Christopher+Sean%22">Long, Christopher Sean</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-3551">0000-0002-6671-3551</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harrell%2C+Pamela%22">Harrell, Pamela</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Subramaniam%2C+Karthigeyan%22">Subramaniam, Karthigeyan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pope%2C+Elizabeth%22">Pope, Elizabeth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thompson%2C+Ruthanne%22">Thompson, Ruthanne</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+in+Science+Education%22"><i>Research in Science Education</i></searchLink>. Jun 2023 53(3):613-632. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Sciences%22">Physical Sciences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11165-022-10071-9 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0157-244X<br />1573-1898 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This study investigated how an intervention consisting of a series of physical science lessons embedded within the elementary science methods course impacted elementary preservice teachers' (N = 473) science content knowledge as evidenced in their scaled scores for the science content component of a standardized subject certification examinations for elementary teachers (TExES Core Subjects EC-6, Science (804) exam). The science content component of the certification exam was the instrument used to generate data for this study. The independent variables for this study were the timing of the exam attempt compared to the participation in the science intervention. The dependent variables included the scaled score for the exam and the science content competencies. Results for an independent sample t-test indicated that the difference between the mean scores for these two groups was statistically significant (t = - 4.21, df = 102, p < 0.001) with the preintervention group scoring lower compared to the postintervention group. Mean scores for the exam were higher (MS = 57.7%, SD = 29.8%) than the mean score for exam attempts occurring before the intervention (MS = 44.4%, SD = 29.2%). The results suggest that the intervention implemented as part of the science methods course had a positive impact on prospective teachers. That is, their science content knowledge resulted in an increased passing rate on the certification exam. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1376311 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1376311 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11165-022-10071-9 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 613 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Science Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Physical Sciences Type: general – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Strengthening Elementary Preservice Teachers' Physical Science Content Knowledge: A 3-Year Study Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Long, Christopher Sean – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Harrell, Pamela – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Subramaniam, Karthigeyan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Pope, Elizabeth – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Thompson, Ruthanne IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0157-244X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-1898 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 53 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Research in Science Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
