View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

National Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Science Education Teachers: Insights into Instruction and Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: National Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Science Education Teachers: Insights into Instruction and Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: William J. Therrien (ORCID 0000-0003-0594-5129), Vivian C. Wong, Ling Chen, Christina M. Taylor, Jennifer L. Chiu, Bruna Gonçalves, Qing Liu, Bryan G. Cook, Christian T. Doabler, Elizabeth Swanson, Priscilla B. Brame, Shannon Budin, Eunsoo Cho, Sheila J. Conway, Kimberley M. Davis, Michael W. Dunn, Michael N. Faggella-Luby, Jenna Gersib, Zaira Jimenez, Rachel L. Juergensen, Sharlene A. Kiuhara, Erica S. Lembke, Amelia K. Moody, Jared R. Morris, Reagan Murnan, Cherish M. Sarmiento, Cassandra M. Smith, R. Alex Smith, Michael Solis, Heidi R. Stinchcomb
Source: Science Education. 2025 109(5):1406-1421.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 2201464
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Grade 5
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Elementary School Teachers, Science Teachers, Grade 4, Grade 5, Science Education, Inclusion, Students with Disabilities, Teaching Methods, Educational Practices, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Teacher Surveys, Time Factors (Learning)
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21972
ISSN: 0036-8326
1098-237X
Abstract: Elementary science education, particularly in the 4th and 5th grades, is essential for setting the foundation for lifelong science learning, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This stage is especially critical for students with disabilities, as achievement gaps between them and their peers emerge during elementary school. Despite this importance, little is known about how science is taught in elementary classrooms during these critical years, particularly for students with disabilities. To address this gap, we surveyed teachers from a nationally representative sample of U.S. schools to examine elementary science education, including instructional practices, allocation of time, and the inclusion and support of students with disabilities. Our findings reveal that limited instructional time is allocated to science, with significant variability across classrooms. The amount of time dedicated to science instruction was significantly influenced by external factors, such as whether science was a tested subject. Students with disabilities often face additional barriers, including being pulled out of science instruction for special education services, resulting in missed opportunities to engage in science. These findings highlight the need to address opportunity gaps in science instruction to ensure all students have meaningful access to quality science education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/aje43/?view_only=None
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1482938
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHdLOE548_sx-8GBN8fa5VhAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP5ELJ1FVu1wXpMKJgIBEICBm1WkD2b4Hx8ZRRn72pAA_upQ16PhIVs7zOEhr-pzgIbZR81QnbrDxaN5hAPWLiwVmy6vfx6YTZNLjALRDBuRX0krwkt0hiwDlBSArc0HhNVQXTqXMT2wtkkuWKBfcJv2zkoezM56JtEE_XSJY8RmwoGfUHlWScCoCseEVxWh_QiZdN5XnvEl_nDrXMixw30nlr7x7dQq63FnQi-K
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187844691;sed01sep.25;2025Sep11.06:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187844691-1">National Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Science Education Teachers: Insights Into Instruction and Inclusion of Students With Disabilities </title> <p>Elementary science education, particularly in the 4th and 5th grades, is essential for setting the foundation for lifelong science learning, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This stage is especially critical for students with disabilities, as achievement gaps between them and their peers emerge during elementary school. Despite this importance, little is known about how science is taught in elementary classrooms during these critical years, particularly for students with disabilities. To address this gap, we surveyed teachers from a nationally representative sample of U.S. schools to examine elementary science education, including instructional practices, allocation of time, and the inclusion and support of students with disabilities. Our findings reveal that limited instructional time is allocated to science, with significant variability across classrooms. The amount of time dedicated to science instruction was significantly influenced by external factors, such as whether science was a tested subject. Students with disabilities often face additional barriers, including being pulled out of science instruction for special education services, resulting in missed opportunities to engage in science. These findings highlight the need to address opportunity gaps in science instruction to ensure all students have meaningful access to quality science education.</p> <p>Keywords: elementary science education; national teacher survey; students with disabilities</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The importance of scientific proficiency in today's society is undeniable. It is essential for navigating and thriving in a world dominated by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]). K‐12 science education is the primary means by which we expect all citizens, including those with disabilities (i.e., students who have Individualized Education Programs [IEPs]), to attain at least a baseline level of proficiency in science (e.g., scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts). However, as the demand for individuals with advanced skills to fill roles in the expanding STEM field grows (National Science Board, National Science Foundation [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]), a baseline level of knowledge is not enough, and science education must strive to achieve even higher levels of proficiency among all students, including students with disabilities.</p> <p>While much attention is given to the importance of specialized science education in middle and high school, the foundational science education provided in elementary schools is particularly critical, as it not only underpins future success in secondary science settings and beyond, but also fosters meaningful STEM identities and helps address inequities in access to high‐quality science learning opportunities (National Science Teaching Association [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>].; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]). The importance of elementary science education is especially evident for students from historically marginalized backgrounds, who have traditionally faced significant learning gaps in science compared to their peers (Bellibas [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]). These gaps result in achievement disparities long before students can take specialized science courses (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]). Notably, a significant achievement disparity between students with and without disabilities is also evident throughout the elementary school years (Morgan et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Upper elementary grades (i.e., 4th and 5th grade) may be particularly critical for science education, as instruction in these grades often shifts away from ensuring students acquire basic literacy and mathematical skills (National School Boards Association, Center for Public Education [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]), potentially allowing for more emphasis on content areas. Schools also may be particularly incentivized to focus on science instruction during these grades as high‐stakes science assessments begin to be implemented in 4th or 5th grade across the U.S. (Education Commission of States [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]). Due to the "Science for All" movement that has existed for decades (American Association for the Advancement of Science [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>]) combined with efforts to include students with disabilities in general education settings (McLeskey et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]), science instruction provided in general education classrooms is the primary, and in many cases, the only context in which students with disabilities have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with science content and practices.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-3">Current Understanding and Gaps in Upper Elementary Science Education</hd> <p>Although the need for science education in elementary schools, especially in the upper grades, is well‐recognized, limited information exists about the science instruction elementary students with disabilities receive; however, what we do know is often discouraging. Researchers consistently report that elementary school teachers tend to devote little time to science instruction. In a survey conducted in 2018, Horizon Research Inc ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]) reported that science was taught every day of the week in only 35% of 4th through 6th‐grade classes, and on average, elementary classrooms spent 20 min teaching science daily compared to 60–90 min for mathematics and language arts.</p> <p>While the overall average time spent teaching science is concerning, Blank ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]) found significant variability in the amount of instructional time devoted to science education across upper elementary classrooms. Some schools allocated as little as 2 h or less per week to science instruction, while others devoted nearly 4 h per week. Researchers (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]) have investigated the reasons behind such disparities, suggesting that differences in state accountability systems might, in part, contribute. Specifically, when science is a subject included in high stakes standardized testing, more instructional time tends to be devoted to it.</p> <p>Another challenge in elementary science education stems from teachers' qualifications. Unlike high school science teachers, who predominantly hold degrees in science fields, only a small percentage of elementary teachers share this background (Horizon Research Inc [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). The gap in formal science training likely contributes to the fact that many elementary teachers feel underprepared to teach science effectively (Horizon Research Inc [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]; Sandholtz and Ringstaff [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]). This lack of comfort and expertise in science may significantly affect various aspects of science instruction, from the amount of time allocated to its quality (Koirala et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-4">Inclusion of Students With Disabilities in Science Education</hd> <p>While there is limited information on science education for upper elementary students overall, understanding how students with disabilities experience science education in 4th and 5th‐grade classrooms is even less clear. The literature offers various approaches for teaching science to students with disabilities (e.g., Therrien et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]; Villanueva et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]), including recent innovations in vocabulary instruction using multimedia tools (Coleman et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]; VanUitert et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref22">35</reflink>]), yet we lack a comprehensive understanding of their actual instructional experiences.</p> <p>Although the majority of students with disabilities spend most of their school days in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]), the educational approaches they encounter vary significantly across districts and schools (Burns and Ysseldyke [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]). For schools that employ pullout instruction for students with disabilities, it is unclear which subjects students are pulled out from and the nature of the instruction provided during these periods. For example, if students with disabilities are pulled out of science instruction to receive reading remediation (Al Otaiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]), they likely have far fewer opportunities to engage in science than their peers. For schools that implement co‐teaching, the extent to which this approach is utilized during science lessons remains unclear, as does its impact on the overall science educational opportunities available to all students, including those with disabilities.</p> <p>Similar to their limited formal training in science, upper elementary teachers often also lack specialized training in educating students with disabilities (Bemiller [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]). This gap in training frequently results in misconceptions among teachers about students with disabilities, such as the belief that disabilities are merely behavioral issues or excuses for academic failure (Kahn and Lewis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]). This lack of education may directly affect the quality of science instruction provided to students with disabilities as teachers struggle to determine the most appropriate educational settings and resources for these students (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-5">Understanding the Current State of Science Instruction</hd> <p>Unfortunately, there is limited and outdated information on how teacher, school, and state‐level policy characteristics relate to science instruction for upper elementary students, particularly those with disabilities. The last comprehensive survey of elementary science instruction, conducted by Horizon Research in 2019, predates the pandemic and did not focus on students with disabilities. Other sources, such as Vannest et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>]), were also conducted before the pandemic and were not nationally representative. Additionally, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]) <emph>Call to Action</emph> relied on a review of previous reports, expert consultation, and public comment rather than directly surveying educators. Due to these gaps in the literature, there is a need to understand the science education instruction that upper elementary students, particularly those with disabilities, receive. With this knowledge, we can identify necessary changes and improvements to ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, can thrive in science education.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-6">Research Purpose and Questions</hd> <p>This study aims to fill the knowledge gap on upper elementary science education by surveying 4th and 5th grade teachers from a nationally representative sample of U.S. schools to understand their perceptions of science education provided to students, particularly students with disabilities. We adopted an ecological approach to examine potentially important variability in survey responses (Bronfenbrenner [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]), exploring how teachers' responses varied based on differences in teacher, school, and state policy characteristics. Below are our research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-7">Science Instruction</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How much time is allocated for science instruction, and what factors influence this allocation?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there associations between teacher, school, and policy‐level variables and the likelihood of teachers not teaching science as planned?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the associations between teacher, school, and policy variables and the frequency with which students with disabilities (i.e., those with IEPs) are pulled out of science instruction, and what type of instruction do they receive when pulled out?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there variability in the time devoted to science instruction among teachers, and if so, what are the associations with teacher, school, and policy‐level variables?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187844691-8">Teacher Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What factors contribute to teachers' perceived preparedness to teach students with disabilities overall and specifically in science, including their qualifications and experience, as well as school and policy‐level influences?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187844691-9">School and Policy Level Impacts</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do high‐stakes assessments and the adoption of the NGSS influence the allocation of instructional time for science, particularly for students with disabilities?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187844691-10">COVID‐19 Pandemic</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How has the COVID‐19 pandemic affected the amount of time devoted to science instruction in 4th and 5th grades?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187844691-11">Methods</hd> <p>To promote transparency and reproducibility, the sampling plan for the survey study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/aje43/?view%5fonly=e2e15296866c42e988fe8a22b35d72c1. All statistical analyses conducted are exploratory and, therefore, not included in the preregistration.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-12">Data Sources</hd> <p>Data for this study were derived from three primary sources: a survey administered to general education teachers in 4th and 5th grades at the sampled schools, administrative data on the sampled schools and districts obtained through the Common Core of Data, and a data set constructed by the research team detailing state policy characteristics. This section outlines the procedures for generating and recruiting the survey sample, calculating sampling weights, the measures used to assess teacher, school, and district covariates and outcomes, and the analytic plan for descriptive and inferential analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-13">Sample Recruitment</hd> <p>To generate a nationally representative sample of elementary schools, we employed The Generalizer (Tipton and Miller [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]) to identify public schools for recruitment. The inference population consisted of public elementary schools in the United States with 4th and 5th grade students, encompassing both Title I and non‐Title I schools. However, charter and magnet schools were excluded from the population frame. Eligible schools were stratified based on five school‐level variables hypothesized to be associated with science achievement (Curran and Kitchin [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]): school size, socioeconomic status, urbanicity, percentage of non‐White students, and percentage of English learners. Each stratum consisted of homogeneous sets of schools that collectively represented the inference population. The research team randomly sampled 100 schools from each stratum, resulting in a final recruitment sample of 400 elementary schools distributed across the four strata. Following the selection of sample schools, we collected the names and email addresses of all fourth and fifth‐grade general education teachers from publicly accessible staff directories on school websites, resulting in a recruitment sample of 3708 teachers. In cases where a selected school did not provide staff directories or did not list teacher grade levels, we replaced it with the next school on the randomized list for that stratum. This ensured we maintained the target of 100 schools per stratum using only schools that allowed for publicly available teacher contact information.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-14">Survey Response Rates</hd> <p>Between April and June 2023, we sent emails to all 4th and 5th grade teachers in the sampled schools, inviting their participation in the survey. We received at least one survey response from 49.1% of the sampled schools (<emph>N</emph> = 197). The response rate among the recruited teachers was 4%, yielding 163 teacher responses across 123 schools. Sampling weights were constructed to ensure that the schools in the analytic sample were observationally comparable to the national population and to account for nonresponse among teachers within responding schools. In the Results section, we present descriptive statistics evaluating the representativeness of the schools and teachers in our analytic sample. Overall, we found that the sample of respondent schools and teachers closely resembled the population of schools and teachers we aimed to represent.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-15">Administrative Data</hd> <p>To gather student enrollment and demographic information for the schools in our sample, we integrated school administrative data from the Common Core of Data and district locale information from the NCES Educational Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) program.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-16">State Policy Data</hd> <p>To generate a nationally representative sample and schools in our sample operated, we also compiled a state policy data set by reviewing States' Department of Education websites so we could include variables on the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the grade levels at which science is a state‐tested subject.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-17">Measures</hd> <p>The survey instrument was adapted from the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME + ; Banilower et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]) to focus on teachers' experiences and perspectives on science education for students with disabilities in the 4th and 5th grades. It includes multiple question types, such as multiple‐choice questions, Likert‐scale items to gauge attitudes and perceptions, and open‐ended questions. These questions were designed to capture a comprehensive view of teachers' instructional practices, support mechanisms for students with disabilities, and their perceived preparedness to teach science. The survey was designed for completion within approximately 15 min and was organized into sections covering background and teaching experience, current science instruction, teaching and supporting students with disabilities, and general teacher demographics. The final survey is available on our OSF project page.</p> <p>To ensure content validity, the survey was reviewed by science and special education experts. Feedback was incorporated to refine questions for clarity and relevance. Additionally, a pilot study with current and former 4th and 5th grade teachers helped identify and address ambiguities in the items, ensuring their applicability to the target population.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-18">Dependent Variables</hd> <p>The survey examined teachers' attitudes and practices related to students with disabilities and science instruction. Teachers were asked to rate their preparedness to teach students with disabilities generally, and in science specifically, using a Likert scale ranging from "not adequately prepared" to "very well prepared." The survey also inquired about the frequency of science lessons, how often teachers planned to teach science (ranging from daily to monthly), and whether they typically adhered to these plans. If deviations occurred, teachers were asked to identify the reasons (e.g., prioritizing other tested subjects, special events, curriculum complexity). Additionally, teachers reported on the number of students with IEPs in their classes, the types of services provided to these students (e.g., push‐in, pullout), and the classes from which students were usually pulled out for services.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-19">Teacher Characteristics</hd> <p>To better understand the characteristics of the teachers in our sample and examine predictors of their attitudes and practices, the survey included questions about their educational backgrounds and classroom experiences. Teachers were asked whether they held degrees in elementary, science, or special education and whether they were generalists or subject‐specific teachers. They were also asked to specify the types of training they received for teaching students with disabilities, such as coursework, professional development, or other specified training. Information was also collected on the number of years they had taught in any subject at the K‐12 level, in special education, in science, in science specifically at the 4th or 5th grade level, and at their current school.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-20">Instructional Approaches</hd> <p>The survey also explored teachers' instructional approaches for delivering science lessons. Teachers reported whether they delivered science instruction independently or co‐instructed with other teachers and whether they taught science as a stand‐alone subject or integrated it with other subjects. If integrated, teachers were asked to specify the subjects combined with science. Additionally, teachers indicated whether they taught science throughout the school year or as discrete units. The survey also inquired about the types of instructional supports teachers used for planning science lessons, including state science standards, pacing guides, curriculum materials, textbooks, research articles, and professional development.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-21">School and State‐Level Information</hd> <p>To understand the demographic and geographic characteristics of the schools, we merged survey data with Common Core Data, which included information on total student enrollment, student‐to‐teacher ratios, and enrollment by racial groups. We calculated each school's percentage of White, Black, and Hispanic students. Additionally, district‐level data from the EDGE program were merged to obtain locale information for each school, categorizing them into city, suburban, town, and rural areas based on population size and proximity to populated areas. We also created two binary state policy variables indicating whether, by the 2023‐2024 school year, the state had adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and whether science was a tested subject at the teacher's grade level.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-22">Analysis</hd> <p>Our quantitative analysis consists of two parts: a presentation of summary statistics from the teacher survey responses and a series of regression analyses exploring the factors associated with teachers' attitudes and practices in science teaching for students with disabilities. The descriptive analysis includes means, frequencies, and distributions across several dimensions, such as teacher background characteristics, preparedness for teaching science, instructional approaches, and the use of resources and materials for lesson planning.</p> <p>To further investigate predictors of teachers' attitudes and practices, we employed the following logistic regression model: <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00368326:media:sce21972:sce21972-math-0001" display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>log</mi><mfenced close=")" open="("><mfrac><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mi>π</mi></mrow></mfrac></mfenced><mo>=</mo><mi>α</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mi mathvariant="italic">Teacher Characteristics</mi><mo>)</mo></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mi mathvariant="italic">Instructional Characteristics</mi><mo>)</mo></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mi mathvariant="italic">School Characteristics</mi><mo>)</mo></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>4</mn></msub><msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mi mathvariant="italic">State Policy Characteristics</mi><mo>)</mo></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> where <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00368326:media:sce21972:sce21972-math-0002" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>log</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">⁡</mi><mo>(</mo><mfrac><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mi>π</mi></mrow></mfrac><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> represents a series of binary outcomes for each teacher <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00368326:media:sce21972:sce21972-math-0003" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>i</mi></mrow></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> , including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Whether the teacher feels prepared to teach students with IEPs (1 = yes, 0 = no),</item> <p></p> <item> Whether the teacher feels prepared to teach science to students with IEPs (1 = yes, 0 = no),</item> <p></p> <item> Whether the teacher plans to teach science daily (1 = yes, 0 = no),</item> <p></p> <item> Whether science teaching occurred as planned (1 = yes, 0 = no), and</item> <p></p> <item> For teachers indicating that they have IEP students who receive pullout services, whether these services were typically provided during science class (1 = pullout occurs during science, 0 = other classes, including reading and math).</item> </ulist> <p>The independent variables in the model include controls for <emph>teacher characteristics</emph> (e.g., whether the teacher has a degree in science education and/or special education, experience teaching science to 4th or 5th graders, and whether the teacher is a subject‐specific instructor), <emph>science instructional approaches</emph> (e.g., whether science is taught throughout the year or in discrete units/blocks, and whether science is integrated into other subjects), <emph>school characteristics</emph> (e.g., the proportion of students in the school who are White, Black, and Hispanic, and the urbanicity of the school—city, suburb, town, or rural), and <emph>state policy characteristics</emph> (e.g., whether the teacher works in a state that has adopted the NGSS, and whether science is a tested subject at the teacher's grade level in their state). For each set of regression analyses, we used clustered standard errors to account for nonindependence of teachers within schools.</p> <p>To improve the interpretability of the results, we present odds ratios for each dependent variable and calculate marginal effects, using appropriate sampling weights to ensure the results are nationally representative (see Online Supporting Information S1: Appendix A, Table A1 for odds ratio results). Odds ratios in logistic regression express the likelihood of a particular outcome occurring relative to it not occurring, based on a one‐unit change in the predictor variable. However, odds ratios can be difficult to interpret directly, especially when outcomes are rare or when the odds ratios are far from 1. To provide a more intuitive understanding, we also calculated marginal effects, which estimate the change in the probability of an outcome for a one‐unit change in the predictor variable. While odds ratios convey the strength of associations, marginal effects translate these associations into probabilities, making the results more practical to interpret. We use these marginal effects when presenting results in the Results section.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-23">Results</hd> <p>In this section, we present the characteristics of our respondent sample, assess the representativeness of the analytic sample relative to the inference population, and discuss descriptive findings from the survey alongside results from our regression analyses on the correlates of teacher instructional attitudes and practices. The raw data without identifiable information have been made available on our OSF project page.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-24">School and Teacher Sample Characteristics</hd> <p>Survey responses were collected from 123 schools and 163 general education teachers teaching 4th and 5th grade science across the United States. Tables 1 and 2 provide unweighted summary statistics of the school and teacher characteristics in the analytic sample. Schools in the sample are geographically diverse, representing 33 states and spanning urban (23%), suburban (37%), town (18%), and rural (21%) areas. By spring 2023, 70% of the teachers in the analytic sample were working in states that adopted the NGSS.</p> <p>1 TABLE Teacher characteristics of analytic sample (unweighted).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>StDev</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th><th>Missing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Teach 4th Grade (%)</td><td>163</td><td>46.01</td><td>49.99</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Teach 5th Grade (%)</td><td>163</td><td>49.69</td><td>50.15</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Teach 4th and 5th Grade (%)</td><td>163</td><td>4.29</td><td>20.34</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Years of teaching 4/5th science</td><td>161</td><td>8.05</td><td>7.33</td><td>0</td><td>35</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Generalist/subject‐specific</td></tr><tr><td>Generalist (%)</td><td>160</td><td>61.88</td><td>48.72</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized in science (%)</td><td>160</td><td>15.00</td><td>35.82</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized in other subjects (%)</td><td>160</td><td>23.13</td><td>42.30</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Female (%)</td><td>162</td><td>87.65</td><td>33.00</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Race/Ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td>Asian (%)</td><td>161</td><td>0.62</td><td>7.88</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Black/African American (%)</td><td>161</td><td>6.83</td><td>25.31</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic/Latino (%)</td><td>161</td><td>10.56</td><td>30.83</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Native American/Alaska (%)</td><td>161</td><td>0.62</td><td>7.88</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific (%)</td><td>161</td><td>1.24</td><td>11.11</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>White (%)</td><td>161</td><td>84.47</td><td>36.33</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 TABLE School and policy characteristics of analytic sample (unweighted).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>StDev</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th><th>Missing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Race/Ethnicity composition</td></tr><tr><td>Asian (%)</td><td>150</td><td>7.90</td><td>14.64</td><td>0</td><td>79.37</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Black/African American (%)</td><td>159</td><td>11.16</td><td>17.01</td><td>0</td><td>97.14</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic/Latino (%)</td><td>162</td><td>23.87</td><td>24.67</td><td>0.22</td><td>98.12</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Nat. Hawaiian Pacific Isl. (%)</td><td>120</td><td>0.76</td><td>4.10</td><td>0</td><td>44.58</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>White (%)</td><td>163</td><td>50.63</td><td>30.77</td><td>0.32</td><td>98.66</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Locale</td></tr><tr><td>Urban (%)</td><td>163</td><td>23.31</td><td>42.41</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Suburban (%)</td><td>163</td><td>37.42</td><td>48.54</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Town (%)</td><td>163</td><td>18.40</td><td>38.87</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Rural (%)</td><td>163</td><td>20.86</td><td>40.76</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FTE Teacher</td><td>162</td><td>34.98</td><td>14.20</td><td>7.60</td><td>94</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pupil/Teacher Ratio</td><td>162</td><td>15.63</td><td>3.85</td><td>8.37</td><td>26.13</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total Enrollment</td><td>163</td><td>530.09</td><td>205.90</td><td>117</td><td>1013</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>4th Enrollment (%)</td><td>162</td><td>17.78</td><td>7.13</td><td>6.17</td><td>46.34</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>5th Enrollment (%)</td><td>163</td><td>18.59</td><td>8.22</td><td>8.13</td><td>53.66</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FR Lunch (%)</td><td>137</td><td>47.16</td><td>27.74</td><td>5.04</td><td>100</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Male Student (%)</td><td>163</td><td>48.34</td><td>2.25</td><td>42.82</td><td>53.28</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>NGSS States (%)</td><td>163</td><td>69.94</td><td>45.99</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Science Being Tested (%)</td><td>163</td><td>55.21</td><td>49.88</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>On average, these schools employed 35 full‐time equivalent teachers, with a pupil/teacher ratio of 16:1 and an enrollment of 530 students. Approximately 18% of the students in schools were in 4th grade and 19% were in 5th grade. The mean percentage of students eligible for free or reduced‐price lunch was 47%. The mean racial/ethnic composition of the schools was 51% White, 11% Black, and 24% Hispanic, with 48% of students being male.</p> <p>Among the teacher sample, 75 (46%) taught only 4th grade, 81 (50%) taught only 5th grade, and 7 (4%) taught both 4th and 5th grades. Most teachers identified as female (88%). In terms of specialization, 62% were generalists, 15% specialized in science, and 23% specialized in other subjects (e.g., Spanish, ESL, STEM). On average, these teachers had 8.05 years (SD = 7.33) of experience teaching 4th and 5th grade science. A slight majority (55%) of the teachers were teaching in grades where science is a state‐tested subject.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-25">Representativeness of the Analytic Sample</hd> <p>Supporting Information S1: Table A2 in Appendix A compares the characteristics of schools across three groups: the inference population of schools, schools where we received at least one teacher response (unweighted), and the reweighted sample of schools. School characteristics, including pupil/teacher ratio, percentage of 4th and 5th grade students, and demographic composition, are similar across all three groups. Given the low response rate among teachers, we also assessed the representativeness of our analytic teacher sample (Supporting Information S1: Table A3 in Appendix A). Overall, our teacher sample closely mirrors the characteristics of public school teachers nationally in terms of race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and years of teaching experience. For example, 7% of teachers in our analytic sample identified as Black/African American, compared to 6% nationally. Similarly, 10% identified as Hispanic/Latino, compared to 9% nationally, while 85% identified as White, compared to 80% nationally. In terms of educational attainment, 48% of our sample held a bachelor's degree (compared to 41% nationally), and 52% held a master's degree (compared to 49% nationally). Regarding teaching experience, our sample is comparable to the national distribution: 9% of teachers had less than 3 years of experience (7% nationally), 38% had 3–9 years of experience (29% nationally), 26% had 10–20 years of experience (37% nationally), and 27% had over 20 years of experience (26% nationally). Although the low response rate may limit the generalizability of our findings, the characteristics of teachers in our analytic sample align closely with those of public school teachers nationally, particularly in factors such as experience and education that are hypothesized to influence instructional practices and teaching preparedness.</p> <p>To enhance the generalizability of our findings, the following descriptive results have been weighted to represent the inference population; unweighted responses are available on the OSF project page.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-26">Science Instruction Practices and Resources and Preparedness to Teach Science</hd> <p>Table 3 provides summary statistics of teachers' responses to survey items. Participants were asked if they provided science instruction individually or with another teacher. Results showed that 77% taught science alone, while 23% co‐taught with another teacher. Additionally, 73% taught science as a separate subject, and 27% integrated it with other subjects. Among respondents who reported integrating science with other subjects, 89% did so with reading, 53% with mathematics, 28% with social studies, and 4% with other subjects (e.g., writing). Because participants could select more than one option, the percentages do not sum to 100%.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptives results of teacher characteristics, attitudes, and practices (weighted).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th><th>Missing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">General Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Generalist/subject‐specific</td></tr><tr><td>Generalist (%)</td><td>158</td><td>62.92</td><td>48.46</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized in science (%)</td><td>158</td><td>13.13</td><td>33.88</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized in other subjects (%)</td><td>158</td><td>23.95</td><td>42.82</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Highest level of education</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelors (%)</td><td>161</td><td>48.03</td><td>50.12</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Master (%)</td><td>161</td><td>51.70</td><td>50.13</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Doctoral (%)</td><td>161</td><td>0.26</td><td>5.14</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Degree in elementary education (%)</td><td>161</td><td>90.75</td><td>29.06</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Degree in science education (%)</td><td>161</td><td>9.61</td><td>29.56</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Degree in Special Education (%)</td><td>161</td><td>9.70</td><td>29.68</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Years of teaching 4/5th science</td><td>159</td><td>8.16</td><td>7.03</td><td>0</td><td>35</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructional Practices</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Science instruction provided</td></tr><tr><td>Only from you (%)</td><td>161</td><td>76.80</td><td>42.34</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>From you and another teacher (%)</td><td>161</td><td>23.20</td><td>42.34</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Integrate teaching science</td></tr><tr><td>On its own (%)</td><td>161</td><td>72.65</td><td>44.71</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>With other subjects (%)</td><td>161</td><td>27.35</td><td>44.71</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Among those who report integrating science instruction with other subjects, the following subjects that integrated science (checked all that apply<ext-link href="a" />)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading (%)</td><td>44</td><td>88.84</td><td>31.85</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics (%)</td><td>44</td><td>52.68</td><td>50.51</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Social studies (%)</td><td>44</td><td>27.86</td><td>45.35</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Other (%)</td><td>44</td><td>3.88</td><td>19.54</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Resources and support (checked all that apply<ext-link href="a" />)</td></tr><tr><td>State standards (%)</td><td>160</td><td>68.68</td><td>46.53</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pacing guide (%)</td><td>160</td><td>40.34</td><td>49.21</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Provided curriculum/program (%)</td><td>160</td><td>64.35</td><td>48.05</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher preparation courses (%)</td><td>160</td><td>19.80</td><td>39.97</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>School/district/state resources (%)</td><td>160</td><td>45.17</td><td>49.92</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>PD resources (%)</td><td>160</td><td>27.57</td><td>44.83</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Textbooks (%)</td><td>160</td><td>28.78</td><td>45.42</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Research articles (%)</td><td>160</td><td>20.70</td><td>40.64</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other teachers (%)</td><td>160</td><td>55.12</td><td>49.89</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Online searches (%)</td><td>160</td><td>67.51</td><td>46.98</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other (%)</td><td>160</td><td>3.36</td><td>18.07</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Preparedness</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prepared teach 4th and 5th grade science</td></tr><tr><td>Not adequately prepared (%)</td><td>161</td><td>4.51</td><td>20.82</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat prepared (%)</td><td>161</td><td>30.82</td><td>46.32</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Fairly well prepared (%)</td><td>161</td><td>42.68</td><td>49.62</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Very well prepared (%)</td><td>161</td><td>22.00</td><td>41.55</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prepared teach science to IEP</td></tr><tr><td>Not adequately prepared (%)</td><td>157</td><td>4.30</td><td>20.35</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat prepared (%)</td><td>157</td><td>21.90</td><td>41.49</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Fairly well prepared (%)</td><td>157</td><td>52.10</td><td>50.12</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Very well prepared (%)</td><td>157</td><td>21.70</td><td>41.35</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency and Adherence to Plan</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency of science instruction</td></tr><tr><td>Daily (%)</td><td>161</td><td>44.51</td><td>49.85</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple times a week (%)</td><td>161</td><td>37.92</td><td>48.67</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Once a week (%)</td><td>161</td><td>3.14</td><td>17.49</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Every other week (%)</td><td>161</td><td>4.06</td><td>19.81</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Monthly (%)</td><td>161</td><td>7.08</td><td>25.72</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Other (%)</td><td>161</td><td>3.29</td><td>17.90</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Minutes for science teaching</td><td>155</td><td>50.20</td><td>27.35</td><td>0</td><td>180</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Minutes block for science weekly</td><td>151</td><td>175.13</td><td>115.46</td><td>0</td><td>540</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teach science as planned</td></tr><tr><td>All of the time (%)</td><td>161</td><td>23.37</td><td>42.45</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Most of the time (%)</td><td>161</td><td>58.55</td><td>49.42</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>About half the time (%)</td><td>161</td><td>15.45</td><td>36.25</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Less of the time (%)</td><td>161</td><td>2.63</td><td>16.06</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Barriers faced (checked all that apply<ext-link href="a" />)</td></tr><tr><td>Focus on tested subjects (%)</td><td>116</td><td>72.02</td><td>45.08</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Remediation is prioritized (%)</td><td>116</td><td>49.59</td><td>50.22</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Special events (%)</td><td>116</td><td>31.03</td><td>46.46</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Curriculum difficult to use (%)</td><td>116</td><td>10.71</td><td>31.06</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Not have enough materials (%)</td><td>116</td><td>14.41</td><td>35.27</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Not have science curriculum (%)</td><td>116</td><td>5.18</td><td>22.26</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Need too much prep time (%)</td><td>116</td><td>15.54</td><td>36.39</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Other (%)</td><td>116</td><td>3.88</td><td>19.41</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Impact of COVID‐19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Compared pre‐pandemic to now</td></tr><tr><td>Increase (%)</td><td>158</td><td>16.38</td><td>37.12</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>No change (%)</td><td>158</td><td>43.72</td><td>49.76</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease (%)</td><td>158</td><td>23.68</td><td>42.65</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Didn't teach science last year (%)</td><td>158</td><td>16.23</td><td>36.99</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Compared pandemic to now</td></tr><tr><td>Increase (%)</td><td>160</td><td>41.37</td><td>49.40</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No change (%)</td><td>160</td><td>32.41</td><td>46.95</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Decrease (%)</td><td>160</td><td>13.65</td><td>34.44</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Didn't teach science last year (%)</td><td>160</td><td>12.57</td><td>33.26</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Supporting Students with IEPs</td></tr><tr><td>Number of students</td><td>159</td><td>26.07</td><td>11.43</td><td>7</td><td>98</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Number of IEPs (%)</td><td>147</td><td>18.82</td><td>10.76</td><td>0</td><td>57.14</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Number of LD (%)</td><td>127</td><td>14.99</td><td>9.68</td><td>0</td><td>57.14</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Number of autism (%)</td><td>133</td><td>2.74</td><td>4.21</td><td>0</td><td>33.33</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Services for IEPs (checked all that apply<ext-link href="†" />)</td></tr><tr><td>Only from you (%)</td><td>148</td><td>23.78</td><td>42.72</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Push‐in (%)</td><td>148</td><td>53.33</td><td>50.06</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Pull‐out (%)</td><td>148</td><td>78.18</td><td>41.44</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Other (%)</td><td>148</td><td>1.64</td><td>12.74</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Percentages may exceed 100% for checked that apply questions as respondents could select more than one answer.</p> <p>The survey also identified the types of resources 4th and 5th grade teachers use to teach science. Among respondents, 69% used state standards, 40% used a pacing guide, and 64% were provided with a specific curriculum or program. Additionally, 45% used state and district resources, 68% used online resources, and 29% used textbooks. Furthermore, 21% used research articles, and 3% reported using other resources (e.g., community resources, graduate programs). Teachers also reported the types of support they received, such as training and courses. Among respondents, 20% had taken a teacher preparation course, 28% participated in professional development, and 55% received support from other teachers. Because teachers were asked to indicate all resources and supports that they had received, the percentages do not sum to 100%. When asked how prepared they felt to teach science, 5% of the 4th and 5th grade teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 161) reported feeling inadequately prepared, 31% felt somewhat prepared, 43% felt fairly prepared, and 22% felt very well prepared.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-27">Time Allocation and Barriers to Implementing Science Instruction</hd> <p>Teachers were asked about the frequency of their science instruction. Among them, 45% taught science daily, 38% multiple times a week, 3% once a week, 4% every other week, and 7% monthly. Additionally, 3% selected other (e.g., twice a month, alternating with another teacher, once in a while, alternating with another subject). The average duration of each science lesson was 50.2 min (SD = 27.4), ranging from 0 to 180 min, with an average of 175 min (SD = 115) of science taught per week.</p> <p>To understand the barriers 4th and 5th grade science teachers face, we also asked how often they were able to teach science as planned. Responses ranged from "All the time" to "Less than half the time." Only 23% of teachers reported that their science lessons went as planned all the time. The majority, 59%, said most of the time, 15% indicated about half the time, and 3% reported less than half the time.</p> <p>Teachers identified additional barriers they faced, selecting all applicable options. The most common barrier was the need to focus on tested subjects, cited by 72% of teachers. Additionally, 50% reported that remediation often took priority over science instruction, and 31% cited special events as a barrier. Less common issues included the curriculum being too difficult to use (11%), a lack of materials (14%), and the absence of a science curriculum (5%). Finally, 16% of respondents reported that science instruction required too much preparation time, and 4% selected other barriers, such as having to teach another subject simultaneously, behavior problems, special schedules, and insufficient time.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-28">Impact of COVID‐19 on Science Instruction</hd> <p>We also analyzed the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the time teachers spent on science instruction. Participants were asked to compare their teaching time (a) before the pandemic to now and (b) during the pandemic to now using a scale of Increase, No Change, Decrease, or "I didn't teach science before this year." Comparing pre‐pandemic to now, 16% of teachers reported an increase, 44% reported no change, 24% reported a decrease in science instruction, and 16% did not teach science before this year. When comparing the time spent teaching science during the pandemic to now, 41% reported an increase, 32% reported no change, 14% reported a decrease, and 13% did not teach science before this year.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-29">IEP Service Provision and Classroom Impact</hd> <p>On average, teachers reported having 26.07 students (SD = 11.43) per class, with approximately 19% of students having an IEP. Teachers were asked to indicate how these students received their IEP services—provided by the teacher themselves with no direct support from a special educator, provided by special education teachers in a pullout setting, or provided by special education teachers who provided support within the general classroom. About 24% of teachers reported that students received IEP services from them alone, 53% reported that special education services were provided by a special educator in the general education class, and 78% indicated that students were pulled out to receive IEP services. Finally, 2% responded that their students received accommodations only (e.g., questions read aloud, assistance answering questions). Because teachers were asked to indicate all types of IEP services students in their class received, the percentages do not sum to 100%.</p> <p>To understand how IEP services conflicted with different subjects, teachers were asked how often pullout services interrupted instruction in reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and special classes. Responses were categorized as often, sometimes, rarely, or never. Descriptive results on the frequency of pullout service interruptions across subjects, as well as the types of instruction or support provided during IEP pullout services, are presented in Supporting Information S1: Appendix Table A4.</p> <p>The percentage of student pullouts varied across subjects. In reading, about one‐quarter of respondents indicated that pullouts occurred often, with a majority reporting either "sometimes" or "rarely." Similarly, for mathematics, about half of respondents noted that pullouts happened either "often" or "sometimes." However, in science and social studies, pullouts were less frequent, with a significant proportion of respondents—32% in science and 34% in social studies—reporting that pullouts "never" occurred. The trend was most pronounced in special classes such as physical education, art, and music, where an overwhelming majority (74%) stated that students were never pulled out, indicating that pullouts are far less common in these noncore subjects. Overall, pullouts appear to be more frequent in core academic areas, particularly reading and mathematics, and much less so in special classes like physical education, art, or music. Among teachers who indicated that their students with IEPs receive pullout services, 95% reported that these students receive reading support, 78% reported mathematics support, and 19% reported other types of support (e.g., speech) during pullout services.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-30">Predictors of Teachers' Preparedness for Teaching and Science Instructional Practices</hd> <p>This section explores the associations between teacher characteristics, instructional practices, school environments, and state policies with teachers' reported preparedness to teach students with disabilities, the frequency of science instruction, and the probability of students with disabilities being pulled out of science classes.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-31">Preparedness to Teach Students With Disabilities in General</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the marginal effects from logistic regression models predicting teachers' perceived preparedness to teach students with IEPs in general. The preparedness of teachers to instruct students with IEPs varies significantly depending on their educational background, experience, and geographic location. Teachers with a degree in science education experience a 24% decrease in the probability of feeling prepared to teach students with IEPs, generally, compared to those without a science education degree. Conversely, holding a degree in special education is associated with a 27% increase in the likelihood of feeling prepared to teach students with disabilities in general. Additionally, each additional year of teaching experience is positively associated with an increase in the probability of feeling prepared to teach students with IEPs. Geographic location is also related to teachers' perceived preparedness. Teachers in "town" schools have a 24% lower probability of feeling prepared to teach students with IEPs compared to their suburban counterparts, while this probability is 38% lower for teachers in rural schools. Moreover, teachers in states where science is tested at the grade level they teach experience a 13% decrease in the probability of feeling prepared to teach students with IEPs.</p> <p>4 TABLE Predictors of teachers' preparedness for teaching and science instructional practices (marginal effects).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Feels prepared to teach SWDs generally</th><th>Feels prepared to teach SWDs science</th><th>Plans to teach science daily</th><th>Teaches science as planned</th><th>Students are pulled‐out from science class</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teacher Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Has degree in science education</td><td>−0.24<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.01</td><td>−0.04</td><td>−0.33<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Has degree in special education</td><td>0.27<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.11</td><td>−0.18<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.13<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.17)</td></tr><tr><td>Has experience teaching science</td><td>0.03<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.02<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>(0.01)</td><td>(0.01)</td><td>(0.01)</td><td>(0.00)</td><td>(0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Is a subject‐specific teacher</td><td>−0.10</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.16</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructional Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Teaches science in units/blocks</td><td>−0.20<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.13</td><td>−0.07</td><td>−0.07</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Integrates science with other subjects</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.05</td><td>−0.17<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.06</td><td>−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Total enrollment</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>(0.00)</td><td>(0.00)</td><td>(0.00)</td><td>(0.00)</td><td>(0.00)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Urbanicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Suburban(base)</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>−0.14</td><td>0.02</td><td>−0.06</td><td>0.03</td><td>−0.10</td></tr><tr><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Town</td><td>−0.24<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>−0.12</td><td>−0.18<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.14)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>−0.38<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.13</td><td>−0.01</td><td>−0.10</td><td>−0.12</td></tr><tr><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.14)</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>(0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of school (White)</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>(0.36)</td><td>(0.31)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>(0.56)</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of school (Black)</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.73<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.55</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>(0.36)</td><td>(0.46)</td><td>(0.30)</td><td>(0.50)</td><td>(0.56)</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of school (Hispanic)</td><td>0.07</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.18</td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>(0.31)</td><td>(0.30)</td><td>(0.29)</td><td>(0.30)</td><td>(0.60)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">State‐Policy Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>State has adopted NGSS</td><td>0.00</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.40<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.22<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.05)</td><td>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Science is tested in respondent teacher's grade</td><td>−0.13<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>−0.15<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.20<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.11<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.24<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher N</td><td>153</td><td>152</td><td>155</td><td>155</td><td>102</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note:</emph> Standard errors are in parentheses. Clustered standard errors are used to account for nonindependence of teachers within schools. Logistic regression results in columns 1 through 5 include teacher, school, district, and policy‐level variables as predictors. Coefficients are presented to ease the interpretation of predicted probabilities and marginal effects.</item> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.1</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187844691-32">Preparedness to Teach Students With Disabilities in Science</hd> <p>Teachers with a degree in special education, while feeling more prepared to teach students with IEPs in general, did not feel as prepared when it comes to teaching science. Years of teaching experience, however, is positively associated with a greater sense of preparedness to teach science specifically to students with IEPs. Additionally, in states where science is tested at the grade level a teacher instructs, there is a 15% decrease in the probability that a teacher feels prepared to teach science to students with IEPs.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-33">Scheduling Science Instruction Daily</hd> <p>The probability that teachers schedule daily science instruction is associated with factors such as having a special education degree, their instructional practices, and external influences including school location, student demographics, and state policies. Teachers with a special education degree are 18% less likely to plan to teach science daily. Teachers who teach science as a stand‐alone subject are more likely to provide daily science instruction. This is similar for teachers in suburban schools who are more likely to teach science daily than their colleagues in "towns." Finally, schools with a higher proportion of Black students tend to offer daily science instruction more frequently. Additionally, state‐level policies have considerable influence: teachers in states that have adopted the NGSS are less likely to provide daily science instruction, whereas those in grade levels where science is tested are more likely to do so.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-34">Teach Science as Planned</hd> <p>Teacher characteristics and state policies both influence whether teachers adhere to their planned science instruction schedules. Teachers with special education degrees are more likely to stick to their planned science instruction schedules. Experienced teachers are similarly more likely to teach science as planned consistently. However, teachers in states that have adopted the NGSS are 22% less likely to teach science as planned. On the other hand, teachers in states where science is tested in their grade are 11% more likely to adhere to their planned science instruction schedule.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-35">Pullout Services for Students With IEPs From Science Class</hd> <p>Finally, among the subset of teachers who indicated that students with IEPs receive pullout services, those with degrees in science education are associated with a lower probability that their students are pulled out of science class, suggesting fewer missed opportunities for science instruction. Conversely, in states where science is tested at the grade level a teacher instructs, students are 24% more likely to receive pullout services from science class, potentially leading to missed opportunities for science instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-36">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we investigated upper elementary science education by surveying 4th and 5th grade teachers from a representative sample of U.S. schools. Below, we discuss our results related to teacher characteristics, science instruction, school‐level factors (e.g., rurality, socioeconomic status), policy‐level factors (e.g., state‐level adoption of NGSS), and the impact of COVID‐19. We end with a discussion of limitations and conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-37">Teacher Characteristics</hd> <p>We investigated whether specific teacher characteristics are associated with their perceived preparedness to teach students with disabilities, both overall and in science. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Norman et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]), there was no relationship found between having a degree or specialization in science and teachers' perceived preparedness to teach students with disabilities, in general, and specifically in science. On the other hand, teachers who held a degree and/or licensure in special education reported feeling significantly better prepared than their peers to teach students with disabilities in general; however, this did not translate to them feeling more prepared to teach science to students with disabilities. Similar to previous studies and reports (e.g., Kahn and Lewis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]), having a science or special education background alone does not ensure teachers feel prepared to teach science to students with disabilities. Teachers likely need knowledge and experience from both areas to meet the needs of students with disabilities in science effectively.</p> <p>While having a science or special education background does not make teachers feel more prepared to teach science to students with disabilities, teaching experience likely plays a crucial role. Teachers in our study with more experience teaching 4th and 5th grade science reported feeling better prepared than their peers to teach students with disabilities overall and in science specifically. For each year of teaching 4th and 5th grade science, there is a 2% increase in the predicted probability of teachers' feeling prepared to teach students with disabilities. Additionally, experienced teachers were significantly more likely to follow their planned science instruction schedule, whereas those with less experience reported teaching science less consistently with their original plans. This supports previous findings that more experienced teachers tend to feel more prepared and effective in their teaching roles (Podolsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-38">Science Instruction</hd> <p>The vast majority of teachers reported teaching science alone as the sole instructor and as a separate subject. However, co‐teaching was implemented during science instruction in approximately 23% of the classrooms. We are unaware of other studies that report a percentage of elementary classrooms using co‐teaching overall or specifically in science. However, co‐teaching is often recommended as the special education service delivery model for content instruction (King‐Sears et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]). Regarding instructional materials, teachers reported using a wide variety of sources, but most did not report using a specific curriculum. While it may be beneficial to use eclectic instructional sources, not having a comprehensive curriculum as a base could be problematic. This is especially concerning because most 4th and 5th grade teachers do not have a solid foundation in science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]), and the lack of a comprehensive curriculum might make it challenging for them to teach science effectively.</p> <p>Approximately 45% of participating teachers reported teaching science daily, which is similar to the 35% of 4th through 6th grade teachers who reported teaching science daily in the Horizon Research Inc ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]) study. On average, teachers in our study taught science for almost 3 h per week. This is an encouraging amount of time compared to the 1.67 h per week reported by Horizon Research Inc ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]), although it is still significantly below the amount of time typically spent on reading (7.5 h per week) and mathematics (5.0 h per week) instruction. Consistent with findings by Blank ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]), we observed a wide variability in the time devoted to science instruction, with teachers 1 standard deviation (SD) below the mean providing approximately 1 h per week and teachers 1 SD above the mean providing nearly 4 h per week. This variability means that students with teachers 1 SD below the mean receive approximately 36 h of science instruction per year, while those with teachers 1 SD above the mean receive about 144 h per year, creating a substantial disparity in educational opportunities.</p> <p>We explored how often and why teachers might not teach science as they planned. Fortunately, the vast majority (82%) of teachers reported they taught science as planned all or most of the time. This is crucial because the time dedicated to science is already limited (Horizon Research Inc [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]), and losing more time would be problematic. However, only 23% reported teaching science as planned all the time. The most cited reasons for not teaching science as planned were the need to focus on tested subjects and to provide remedial instruction. This aligns with previous research, which found that teachers tend to devote instructional time to tested subjects (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the overall time dedicated to science instruction is likely insufficient for all students (Horizon Research Inc [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]), students with disabilities may have even more limited opportunities due to pullout special education services. In our study, reports from teachers about students receiving pullout instruction during science were mixed, with about half indicating it happens often or sometimes and half reporting it rarely or never happens. A student's likelihood of being pulled out for special education services depends on various factors, such as the school's approach to special education (e.g., inclusion, co‐teaching, pullout). However, what is clear from our study is that when students are pulled out from science instruction, they miss it entirely, as pullout instruction is almost always dedicated to reading or mathematics instruction. This means that for many students with disabilities, the opportunity to learn science is even more limited than the already insufficient amount of time provided to students without disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-39">School‐ and Policy‐Level Impacts</hd> <p>We explored the impacts of school characteristics and state policy on teachers' reported experiences with and approaches to science instruction. Contrary to our expectations, there were no statistically significant differences in the preparedness reported by teachers from rural and non‐rural settings. Previous research has suggested that rural teachers often do not feel prepared to teach students with disabilities (Hoppey [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]). Although we observed a trend in this direction, it was not statistically significant.</p> <p>At the policy level, we investigated the differences in teachers' survey responses between states that adopted the NGSS and those that did not. Additionally, we examined the impact on teachers' responses if they were teaching a grade that was subject to high‐stakes science assessments. Teachers in NGSS states reported significantly more often than teachers in non‐NGSS states that they were unable to teach science as much as they had planned. This difference could be due to the comprehensive and rigorous nature of the NGSS (NGSS Lead States [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]). The NGSS's explicit and well‐laid‐out standards may make it evident to teachers when they are not covering all the grade‐level standards, which in turn may make them more likely to recognize when they cannot teach science as much as they had planned.</p> <p>Previous research has shown a strong connection between increased instructional time and the inclusion of science in high‐stakes assessments (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]). We had a unique opportunity to explore this association further because all states have a high‐stakes science assessment in 4th and/or 5th grade (Education Commission of States [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>].). We found a similar strong association in our study. Generalist teachers who taught science throughout the year at a grade level for which science was tested delivered, on average, 205 min of science instruction per week. In contrast, generalist teachers who taught science in grades where it was not assessed averaged 153 min.</p> <p>While previous studies have explored the association between time devoted to science and its inclusion in high‐stakes assessments, we are among the first to examine how this factor influences not only time allocation but also the scheduling of special education services. In our study, students with disabilities were significantly more likely to be pulled out of science instruction in grades where science was subject to high‐stakes testing. One parsimonious explanation is that the increased emphasis on science during tested years results in more instructional time being allocated to science, which in turn increases the likelihood that pullout services are scheduled during those blocks. Further research is needed to confirm this finding and explore the underlying reasons for this pattern.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-40">COVID‐19 Pandemic</hd> <p>Previous research has shown that the COVID‐19 pandemic caused severe disruptions in education for all students, particularly those with disabilities (Lipkin and Crepeau‐Hobson [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]). Our study is the first we know of to explore teachers' perceptions of how science instruction changed from before, during, and after the pandemic. Teachers' perceptions of the time they spend on science instruction were mixed, with most reporting an increase or no change since the pandemic. However, approximately one‐fourth of teachers indicated that the amount of time they devote to science instruction has decreased since before the pandemic. Given that science often received less instructional time before the pandemic (Horizon Research Inc [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]), it is concerning that so many teachers report a reduction in time devoted to science post‐pandemic. Possible reasons for the decreased focus on science could be prioritizing tested subjects and providing remedial instruction in reading and mathematics (Blank [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref52">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-41">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>There are several limitations to our analyses. One limitation is that we relied on teacher perceptions, which might not accurately reflect actual practices. Additionally, although we weighted teacher responses to ensure they came from a representative sample of U.S. schools, representativeness relies on the assumption that teachers' perceptions within schools are relatively uniform. This assumption is likely valid for the most critical items, as decisions regarding the time dedicated to science instruction and whether students with special needs receive pullout instruction are typically made at the school level rather than by individual teachers. A second limitation of our analyses is that the teacher sample size likely limited the power for some of the sub‐analyses where we explored associations among relevant variables. Despite this, we had enough power to identify several noteworthy associations between teacher perceptions and teacher characteristics, as well as school‐ and state‐level variables. Future research should replicate our findings regarding teachers' perceptions of 4th and 5th grade science education for students with disabilities and extend the work to see how closely teachers' perceptions align with their actual practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-42">Conclusion</hd> <p>Ensuring all citizens, including those with disabilities, are proficient in core science content and practices is crucial for our nation's future (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]). Effective science education in elementary school, especially in the 4th and 5th grades, is essential to prepare students for advanced science classes and STEM careers (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]; National Science Board, National Science Foundation [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]). Despite this need, little was known about science instruction in these grades, particularly for students with disabilities. This study addressed this gap, finding that, overall, limited time is allocated to science instruction, with the amount of time significantly influenced by whether it is a tested subject or not. Additionally, there was extreme variability among teachers, indicating that some students receive much more science instruction than others, resulting in a significant opportunity gap. While many students with disabilities are included in science education, those pulled out of science for special education services likely miss science entirely, further increasing the opportunity gap for these students. Much of the debate about elementary science education for all students, and particularly for students with disabilities, centers on which type of instruction is most effective (e.g., Therrien et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]; Villanueva et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]). However, our study indicates that how elementary science is taught is likely a secondary concern until we ensure that sufficient time is devoted to science instruction for all students.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-43">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2201464. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This paper is a product of the Special Education Research Accelerator (SERA), which leverages crowdsourcing to conduct high‐quality studies in special education. For more information about SERA, please visit https://edresearchaccelerator.org/.</p> <hd id="AN0187844691-44">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/aje43/?view_only=None.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplemental Tables 328.</p> <ref id="AN0187844691-45"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Al Otaiba, S., A. G. Rouse, and K. Baker. 2018. " Elementary Grade Intervention Approaches to Treat Specific Learning Disabilities, Including Dyslexia." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 49, no. 4 : 829 – 842.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for All Americans. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.aaas.org/resources/science-all-americans">www.aaas.org/resources/science-all-americans</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banilower, E. R., P. S. Smith, K. A. Malzahn, C. L. Plumley, E. M. Gordon, and M. L. Hayes 2018. Report of the 2018 NSSME +. Chapsel Hill, NC : Horizon Research Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bellibas, M. S. 2016. " Who Are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated With the Achievement of Students With Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds." Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 16, no. 2 : 691 – 710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bemiller, M. 2019. " Inclusion for All? An Exploration of Teacher's Reflections on Inclusion in Two Elementary Schools." Journal of Applied Social Science 13, no. 1 : 74 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blank, R. K. 2013. " Science Instructional Time Is Declining in Elementary Schools: What Are the Implications for Student Achievement and Closing the Gap? " Science Education 97, no. 6 : 830 – 847. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21078.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burns, M. K., and J. E. Ysseldyke. 2009. " Reported Prevalence of Evidence‐Based Instructional Practices in Special Education." The Journal of Special Education 43, no. 1 : 3 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Coleman, O. F., R. L. Kunemund, D. A. Waterfield, et al. 2025. " Using Multimedia Instruction to Improve Science Vocabulary Knowledge: Investigating Impact of Three Formats." Journal of Special Education Technology : 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251314006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, F. C., and J. Kitchin. 2019. " Why Are the Early Elementary Race/Ethnicity Test Score Gaps in Science Larger Than Those in Reading or Mathematics? National Evidence on the Importance of Language and Immigration Context in Explaining the Gap‐In-gaps." Science Education 103, no. 3 : 477 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Commission of the States. (n.d.). 50‐state comparison: State summative assessments. ECS. Retrieved July 12, 2024, From https://<ulink href="http://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-state-summative-assessments/#:~:text=Few%20states%20exceed%20the%20science,of%2Dcourse%20assessment%20in%20biology">www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-state-summative-assessments/#:~:text=Few%20states%20exceed%20the%20science,of%2Dcourse%20assessment%20in%20biology</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoppey, D. 2016. " Developing Educators for Inclusive Classrooms Through a Rural School‐University Partnership." Rural Special Education Quarterly 35, no. 1 : 13 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051603500103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horizon Research Inc. 2019. Highlights From the 2018 NSSME+. Available: <ulink href="http://www.horizonresearch.com/highlights-from-the-2018-nssme">http://www.horizonresearch.com/highlights-from-the-2018-nssme</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn, S., and A. R. Lewis. 2014. " Survey on Teaching Science to K‐12 Students With Disabilities: Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes." Journal of Science Teacher Education 25 : 885 – 910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9406-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King‐Sears, M. E., A. Stefanidis, S. Berkeley, and V. Strogilos. 2021. " Does Co‐Teaching Improve Academic Achievement for Students With Disabilities? A Meta‐Analysis." Educational Research Review 34 : 100405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koirala, K. P., G. P. Gurung, and P. Wagle. 2020. " Impact of Teacher Qualification on Students' Achievement in Science." Scholars' Journal 3 : 61 – 79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipkin, M., and F. Crepeau‐Hobson. 2023. " The Impact of the COVID‐19 School Closures on Families With Children With Disabilities: A Qualitative Analysis." Psychology in the Schools 60, no. 5 : 1544 – 1559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, J., P. Peng, B. Zhao, and L. Luo. 2022. " Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement in Primary and Secondary Education: A Meta‐Analytic Review." Educational Psychology Review 34 : 2867 – 2896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09689-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeskey, J., E. Landers, P. Williamson, and D. Hoppey. 2012. " Are We Moving Toward Educating Students With Disabilities in Less Restrictive Settings? " Journal of Special Education 46, no. 3 : 131 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P. L., G. Farkas, M. M. Hillemeier, and S. Maczuga. 2016. " Science Achievement Gaps Begin Very Early, Persist, and Are Largely Explained by Modifiable Factors." Educational Researcher 45 : 18 – 35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future. Washington, DC : The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National School Boards Association, Center for Public Education. 2015. Learning to Read, Reading to Learn: Why Third‐Grade is a Pivotal Year for Mastering Literacy. National School Boards Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-learning-to-read-reading-to-learn-white-paper-2015.pdf?la=en&hash=8E0E470C3E263C66E4491EC035224DC9018C6D5F">www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-learning-to-read-reading-to-learn-white-paper-2015.pdf?la=en&hash=8E0E470C3E263C66E4491EC035224DC9018C6D5F</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2021. The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2022 (NSB‐2021‐2). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Teaching Association n.d. Elementary School Science. Retrieved July 10, 2024, From https://<ulink href="http://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/elementary-school-science">www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/elementary-school-science</ulink> https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norman, K., D. Caseau, and G. P. Stefanich. 1998. " Teaching Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classrooms: Survey Results." Science Education 82 : 127 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podolsky, A., T. Kini, and L. Darling‐Hammond. 2019. " Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of U.S. Research." Journal of Professional Capital and Community 4, no. 4 : 286 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandholtz, J. H., and C. Ringstaff. 2014. " Inspiring Instructional Change in Elementary School Science: The Relationship Between Enhanced Self‐Efficacy and Teacher Practices." Journal of Science Teacher Education 25 : 729 – 751.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Therrien, W. J., S. K. Benson, C. A. Hughes, and J. R. Morris. 2017. " Explicit Instruction and Next Generation Science Standards Aligned Classrooms: A Fit or a Split? " Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 32, no. 3 : 149 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipton, E. 2014. " Stratified Sampling Using Cluster Analysis: A Sample Selection Strategy for Improved Generalizations From Experiments." Evaluation Review 37, no. 2 : 109 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipton, E., and K. Miller 2023. The Generalizer. Webtool hosted at https://thegeneralizer.org.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2024). 45th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/45th-annual-report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannest, K. J., B. A. Mason, L. Brown, N. Dyer, S. Maney, and T. Adiguzel. 2009. " Instructional Settings in Science for Students With Disabilities: Implications for Teacher Education." Journal of Science Teacher Education 20, no. 4 : 353 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanUitert, V. J., M. J. Kennedy, K. N. Peeples, J. E. Romig, H. M. Mathews, and W. J. Rodgers. 2023. " Enhancing Science Performance of Middle‐School Students With and Without Developmental and Behavioral‐Based Disabilities Using the Content Acquisition Podcast Professional Development Approach." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 60, no. 3 : 515 – 543. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villanueva, M. G., J. Taylor, W. Therrien, and B. Hand. 2012. " Science Education for Students With Special Needs." Studies in Science Education 48, no. 2 : 187 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By William J. Therrien; Vivian C. Wong; Ling Chen; Christina M. Taylor; Jennifer L. Chiu; Bruna Gonçalves; Qing Liu; Bryan G. Cook; Christian T. Doabler; Elizabeth Swanson; Priscilla B. Brame; Shannon Budin; Eunsoo Cho; Sheila J. Conway; Kimberley M. Davis; Michael W. Dunn; Michael N. Faggella‐Luby; Jenna Gersib; Zaira Jimenez; Rachel L. Juergensen; Sharlene A. Kiuhara; Erica S. Lembke; Amelia K. Moody; Jared R. Morris; Reagan Murnan; Cherish M. Sarmiento; Cassandra M. Smith; R. Alex Smith; Michael Solis and Heidi R. Stinchcomb</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1482938
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: National Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Science Education Teachers: Insights into Instruction and Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22William+J%2E+Therrien%22">William J. Therrien</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0594-5129">0000-0003-0594-5129</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vivian+C%2E+Wong%22">Vivian C. Wong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ling+Chen%22">Ling Chen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christina+M%2E+Taylor%22">Christina M. Taylor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+L%2E+Chiu%22">Jennifer L. Chiu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bruna+Gonçalves%22">Bruna Gonçalves</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qing+Liu%22">Qing Liu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bryan+G%2E+Cook%22">Bryan G. Cook</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christian+T%2E+Doabler%22">Christian T. Doabler</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elizabeth+Swanson%22">Elizabeth Swanson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Priscilla+B%2E+Brame%22">Priscilla B. Brame</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shannon+Budin%22">Shannon Budin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eunsoo+Cho%22">Eunsoo Cho</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheila+J%2E+Conway%22">Sheila J. Conway</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kimberley+M%2E+Davis%22">Kimberley M. Davis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+W%2E+Dunn%22">Michael W. Dunn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+N%2E+Faggella-Luby%22">Michael N. Faggella-Luby</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenna+Gersib%22">Jenna Gersib</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zaira+Jimenez%22">Zaira Jimenez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+L%2E+Juergensen%22">Rachel L. Juergensen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sharlene+A%2E+Kiuhara%22">Sharlene A. Kiuhara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erica+S%2E+Lembke%22">Erica S. Lembke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amelia+K%2E+Moody%22">Amelia K. Moody</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jared+R%2E+Morris%22">Jared R. Morris</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reagan+Murnan%22">Reagan Murnan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cherish+M%2E+Sarmiento%22">Cherish M. Sarmiento</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cassandra+M%2E+Smith%22">Cassandra M. Smith</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22R%2E+Alex+Smith%22">R. Alex Smith</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Solis%22">Michael Solis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heidi+R%2E+Stinchcomb%22">Heidi R. Stinchcomb</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 109(5):1406-1421.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 2201464
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</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="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Surveys%22">Teacher Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Factors+%28Learning%29%22">Time Factors (Learning)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/sce.21972
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Elementary science education, particularly in the 4th and 5th grades, is essential for setting the foundation for lifelong science learning, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This stage is especially critical for students with disabilities, as achievement gaps between them and their peers emerge during elementary school. Despite this importance, little is known about how science is taught in elementary classrooms during these critical years, particularly for students with disabilities. To address this gap, we surveyed teachers from a nationally representative sample of U.S. schools to examine elementary science education, including instructional practices, allocation of time, and the inclusion and support of students with disabilities. Our findings reveal that limited instructional time is allocated to science, with significant variability across classrooms. The amount of time dedicated to science instruction was significantly influenced by external factors, such as whether science was a tested subject. Students with disabilities often face additional barriers, including being pulled out of science instruction for special education services, resulting in missed opportunities to engage in science. These findings highlight the need to address opportunity gaps in science instruction to ensure all students have meaningful access to quality science education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/aje43/?view_only=None
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1482938
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1482938
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/sce.21972
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1406
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Factors (Learning)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: National Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Science Education Teachers: Insights into Instruction and Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: William J. Therrien
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vivian C. Wong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ling Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christina M. Taylor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennifer L. Chiu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bruna Gonçalves
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qing Liu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bryan G. Cook
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christian T. Doabler
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elizabeth Swanson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Priscilla B. Brame
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shannon Budin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eunsoo Cho
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheila J. Conway
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kimberley M. Davis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael W. Dunn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael N. Faggella-Luby
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenna Gersib
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zaira Jimenez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel L. Juergensen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sharlene A. Kiuhara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erica S. Lembke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amelia K. Moody
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jared R. Morris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reagan Murnan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cherish M. Sarmiento
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cassandra M. Smith
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: R. Alex Smith
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Solis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heidi R. Stinchcomb
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-8326
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1098-237X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 109
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1