My research question grew out of a problem within my own classroom. This problem is the lack of scheduled science instructional time. I chose this question because, as a teacher of fourth graders, I am responsible to prepare them for the state science test each spring. However, within the daily schedule, that we are required to follow, there is not an assigned time for science instruction.
Question: Will providing a structured science time of 30 minutes four times a week within the daily schedule of the school day raise science scores of fourth graders on the state test?
By providing a structured science time of 30 minutes three times a week, it is expected that the class of 28 fourth graders will increase the number of students passing the …show more content…
That is, until the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and all the high stakes testing that came with it. It is felt that accountability pressures upon schools affects students’ opportunities for science education (Hayes & Trexler, (2015). Teachers report a decrease in science instructional time due to accountability pressures. The pressures that are put upon teachers to assure that their students do well on the district and state tests in both math and language arts has clearly led to the decrease of instructional time in the classroom for science. (Cowen, 1999, Judson, 2013, NSTA, 2011). Kathryn Hayes reported that “Most of the time, accountability was brought up as a barrier to science education” (2014, pg. 161).
Although many teachers have expressed that having standards in the subject areas are a good thing, they also feel that the state tests, in science or other subject areas, do not accurately represent what their students know (Lindskoog, 2014). The pressures of accountability for high stakes tests have had a greater effect on elementary science instructional practices than do other factors such as socioeconomic factors such as race minority or poverty. (Hayes & Trexler, …show more content…
Teachers want to do what is best for their students, but at the same time are constrained by the site administration to comply with their desires. Teachers reported being told by their administrators that science was not important or the state would test for it (NSTA, 2011). “Principals can more fully promote and support science instruction at the school level by fulfilling roles such as science leader, curriculum analyst, provider of in-service instruction, monitor of student progress, and trouble shooter” (Cowan, 1999, pg. 24). Gladys Pickrom, (2015), suggests that when principals show support by science it can be done in many ways. She offers ideas such as math and science related field trips, after school science programs, professional development and mentor support. Also, when students are able to hear from guest speakers (again supported by the principal) it gives them a new perspective into how these professionals are already using science to help in todays’
Question: Will providing a structured science time of 30 minutes four times a week within the daily schedule of the school day raise science scores of fourth graders on the state test?
By providing a structured science time of 30 minutes three times a week, it is expected that the class of 28 fourth graders will increase the number of students passing the …show more content…
That is, until the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and all the high stakes testing that came with it. It is felt that accountability pressures upon schools affects students’ opportunities for science education (Hayes & Trexler, (2015). Teachers report a decrease in science instructional time due to accountability pressures. The pressures that are put upon teachers to assure that their students do well on the district and state tests in both math and language arts has clearly led to the decrease of instructional time in the classroom for science. (Cowen, 1999, Judson, 2013, NSTA, 2011). Kathryn Hayes reported that “Most of the time, accountability was brought up as a barrier to science education” (2014, pg. 161).
Although many teachers have expressed that having standards in the subject areas are a good thing, they also feel that the state tests, in science or other subject areas, do not accurately represent what their students know (Lindskoog, 2014). The pressures of accountability for high stakes tests have had a greater effect on elementary science instructional practices than do other factors such as socioeconomic factors such as race minority or poverty. (Hayes & Trexler, …show more content…
Teachers want to do what is best for their students, but at the same time are constrained by the site administration to comply with their desires. Teachers reported being told by their administrators that science was not important or the state would test for it (NSTA, 2011). “Principals can more fully promote and support science instruction at the school level by fulfilling roles such as science leader, curriculum analyst, provider of in-service instruction, monitor of student progress, and trouble shooter” (Cowan, 1999, pg. 24). Gladys Pickrom, (2015), suggests that when principals show support by science it can be done in many ways. She offers ideas such as math and science related field trips, after school science programs, professional development and mentor support. Also, when students are able to hear from guest speakers (again supported by the principal) it gives them a new perspective into how these professionals are already using science to help in todays’