If you ask successful scientists what brought them into science, every one of them says a teacher

1. An analysis of the relationship between K-5 elementary school teachers’ perceptions of principal instructional leadership and their science teaching efficacy

2. If you ask successful scientists what brought them into science, every one of them says a teacher Alan Leshner
CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science

3. Rationale of Study:Overview • Effective science teaching in schools is strongly linked to teacher self-efficacy (Harlen and Holroyd, 1995, Ginns and Watters, 1999 Shallcross et al., 2002) • Poor instructional leadership (Edmonds 1979) andteacher attitude (Koballa & Crawley, 1985) contribute to ineffective science teaching • Principal instructional leadership is identified as: • contributing to higher student achievement in schools (Carter & Klotz, 1990, Hallinger & Heck, 2000, Hopkins, 2002, Southworth, 2002, O’Donnell & White, 2005) • influential toward increased teacher efficacy (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993, Woolfolk Hoy and Kolter Hoy, 2006) • a key component of successful science programs (NSTA, 2007a)

4. Rationale: Science Confidence • 71% of 514 teachers surveyed said they were fully confident teaching both math and English, only 12% felt the same for science (Harlen & Holroyd, 1995) • Positive changes in teacher behavior in science lessons can have positive impact on students’ learning (Arambula-Greenfield, 1997) • The majority of elementary school teachers are not science specialists (Akerson & McDuffie, 2002) • “Recent reports from across the UK have indicated there are still serious concerns relating to primary teachers' confidence and ability to teach science effectively”(Murphy, et. al., 2007)

5. Rationale: Principal Instructional Leadership • School principals are central to: • levels of teacher self-efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993, Woolfolk Hoy & Kolter Hoy, 2006) • effective teaching (van de Grift & Houtveen, 1999) • the success of the science curriculum (Mechling & Oliver, 1982) • Instructional leadership is: • “…central to successful school leadership”(Southworth, 2002) • a constantly utilized leadership model for research and practice (Hallinger, 2005, Marzano et al, 2005) • focus of recommendations for principal leadership by the National Science Teachers Association (2007)

6. Recent U.S. Thoughts • Current NCLB reform issues, have further raised the importance of elementary school teacher knowledge in science (Lowery, 2002) • In 2004 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan raised his concerns to congress regarding science and math saying they were the foundation of economic growth (Payne, 2004) • There is current interest in factors affecting standards of science teaching as these have raised concerns in recent years (Perkins-Gough, 2006)

7. Recent U.S. Thoughts • Education Secretary Arne Duncan (2009) said that he plans to “…launch a new era of science education in America.” and that “…science education is central to our broader effort to restore American leadership in education worldwide.” • “Research has shown that students begin to lose interest in science by the third grade…. to change that trend we must strengthen science education beginning in elementary school.”(Babe, 2009) • “There is evidence that the decline in attitudes to science starts in the primary school…. it is important to study attitudes to science as they influence pupils’ choice of careers and attainment.”(Jarvis, 2009)

8. Recent U.S. Thoughts • Teachers “mostly have positive emotions towards nature sciences and negative towards the hard sciences.” (Brigido et. al, 2011) • More than eight hours of instructional time are devoted each week to teaching English Language Arts and over five hours per week to math. By comparison, science is taught for less than three hours. (Honey – Reuters Blog, 2011) • In California Schools… “Science is not a priority in California's elementary schools because of the pressures of existing accountability systems, which are focused on English language arts and mathematics." UC Berkeley's Lawrence Hall of Science study, 2011 • “Teacher self-efficacy affects the time spent, effort toward, and quality of elementary science education” (Carver, 2012)

9. Statement of Study Purpose • The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between K-5 elementary school teachers’ perceptions of principal instructional leadership and their science teaching efficacy

10. Research Questions • What is the relationship between K-5 elementary school teachers’ perceptions of principal instructional leadership and their science teaching efficacy? • What other variables affect elementary school K-5 teachers’ perceptions of their science teaching efficacy?

11. Key Terms • Self-efficacy: • developed from the work of sociologist Albert Bandera (1977, 1982, 1997) • a person’s belief in their ability to perform a particular behavior • Teacher-efficacy: • “the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance”(Berman et. al. 1977, p.137) • linked to student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986, Ross, 1992),student motivation (Midgeley, et al., 1989),andstudent self-efficacy (Anderson, et al., 1988) • Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) • A teachers' level of belief that they can teach science (Enochs and Riggs, 1990)

12. Key Terms • Instructional Leadership: • theory of leadership often synonymously referred to by researchers as instructional management • Dimensions of instructional leadership (Hallinger, 1987) • Framing school goals: • Communicating school goals • Managing the instructional program • Supervising and evaluating instruction • Coordinating curriculum • Monitoring student progress • Promoting a positive school learning climate • Protecting instructional time • Promoting professional development • Maintaining high visibility • Providing incentives for teachers • Developing and enforcing academic standards • Providing incentives for learning

13. Methodology:Overview & Data Collection • Surveys and interviews used in a mixed methods design • Implementation in two phases • initial phase: survey • second phase: interview • Survey: • Email contact through elementary school principals to request permission • On positive response, covering letter forwarded to faculty by principal • Embedded link to survey on “Survey Monkey” web site • Interview: • Interviewees requested through follow-up email • Forwarded by principals to faculty

14. Survey Participants

15. Survey Demographics

16. Survey Instrument • Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Scale • Developed from the 25 item Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) (Enochs and Riggs, 1990) • Two sections in STEBI • 13 items address teachers' level of belief that they can teach science (Personal Science Teaching Efficacy) • 12 items assess the respondents' belief that their teaching will have a positive effect on the students they are teaching (Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy) • “Factor analysis clearly demonstrated that the scales measured two discrete and homogeneous constructs”(Enochs and Riggs, 1990, p.633) • 13-item PSTE section used for this survey

17. Survey Instrument • Instructional Leadership Scale • Developed from Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1987) • PIMRS is most fully tested and used framework of instructional leadership(Hopkins, 2002, Hallinger, 2005) • “Researchers who reviewed prior variations of instructional leadership definitions found that Hallinger and Murphy conceptualize instructional leadership comprehensively”(O’Donnell & White, 2005, p.58) • scale used a spread of 18 items covering each section • 6 items adapted to focus on principals’ science related instructional leadership behavior

18. Survey Instrument • Background Variables • Demographics section focusing on: • science coordinators in school • science kit in school • licensure requirements • college education • country of origin • grade level teaching • in-service training • gender • length of service • years with current principal • elementary school population

19. Interview Participants

20. Data Analysis • Survey responses analyzed using SPSS: • correlation analysis: to study strength and direction of relationship between variables through calculation of Pearson product moment correlation • regression analysis: to analyze the influence of variables on PSTE and instructional leadership through calculation of beta coefficients • factor analysis: to discover any patterns between the variables through a correlation matrix • Respondents completed: • some aspect of survey: n=356 (28.7%) • instructional leadership, PSTE and demographic: n=274 (22.2%) • Reliability: • instructional leadership scale: Chronbach’s alpha of 0.94 • PSTE scale: Chronbach’s alpha of 0.69

21. Probable Influences Between Variables – from literature • a) principal intervention variables (intervention variables deriving from the principal’s instructional leadership) • b) school demographic variables (school demographic variables beyond a principal’s direct instructional leadership) • c) personal democratic variables (demographic variables personal to the respondents) • See Path Model next

22. Results:Path Diagram

23. Results :Research Question One • What is the relationship between K-5 elementary school teachers’ perceptions of principal instructional leadership and their science teaching efficacy?

24. Results: Instructional Leadership/PSTE Correlation • The above illustrates: • .21 Pearson correlation sig. at .01 level • higher than average overall PSTE scale score. • mean overall instructional leadership scale score

25. What is PSTE again? • Personal Science Teaching Efficacy • A teachers' level of belief that they can teach science (Enochs and Riggs, 1990) • …or confidence in their ability to teach science

26. Results: Instructional Leadership/PSTE Correlation • The above illustrates: • .21 Pearson correlation sig. at .01 level • higher than average overall PSTE scale score. • mean overall instructional leadership scale score

27. Results: Instructional Leadership Items/PSTE Correlations

28. Results: Instructional Leadership/PSTE Findings • Significant correlations: • discusses goals at faculty meetings (.23**) • science coordinator designated for grade (.22**) • participates in science curriculum material review (.21**) • supports faculty recognition of student progress (.18**) • encourages new skills and concepts (.17**) • meets with teachers to discuss student science progress (.15**) • develops easily understood goals (.15**) • uses assessments to see progress to science goals (.14**)

29. Results: Instructional Leadership Item Averages Findings • Averages of higher than 3.5 • encourages new skills and concepts (3.74) • leads or attends instructional in-service (3.68) • discusses goals at faculty meetings (3.53) • protects instructional time of faculty (3.51) • All 6 “science factors” in lowest 8 for ranking • many of these have high PSTE correlations

30. Results:Major Interview Themes • Teachers saw principals as being central to raising PSTE levels through: • the promotion of professional development • use of scheduling, allowing team planning and collaboration time • setting agreed science goals • hiring faculty with science backgrounds • increasing assessment of science • utilizing resources and support staff • Interviewees added that principals: • often lack confidence in science • need to become more involved with science in school • rarely gave guidance in science • see reading writing and math as priorities

31. Results:Research Question Two • What other variables affect elementary school K-5 teachers’ perceptions of their science teaching efficacy?

32. Results:PSTE Scores/Background Variables

33. Results:PSTE/Background Variable Findings • Principal Intervention Variables • science kit in school (.16**) • science coordinator in grade (.14*) • science coordinator in school (.11*) • Personal Demographic Variable • science major or minor studied at college (.27**)

34. Results: Instructional Leadership/Background Variables

35. Results: Instructional Leadership Scores/Background Variable Findings • Principal Intervention Variables • coordinator in Grade (.25**) • coordinator in School (.24**) • science Kit in School (.20**) • science In-service Days (.19**) • Personal Demographic Variable • years in Education (.17**) • School Demographic variable • elementary School Size (-.12*)

36. Results:Major Interview Themes: • Interviewees experiences: • few positive memories from early years schooling • positive teacher education science experiences • felt they could teach elementary science to a reasonable level even if not fully confident • PYP curriculum structure could lower confidence levels and reduce science content in the classroom • Higher faculty confidence in relation to: • science kits • more background knowledge • more professional development • classroom experience • science aptitude • lesson preparation

37. Results: Path Analysis

38. Summary of Major Findings: • Significant correlations found between PSTE levels and: • the study of a science major or minor at college • principal instructional leadership and teachers’ PSTE levels • Certain aspects of instructional leadership are significant in explaining PSTE levels. These are a principal’s ability to: • discuss easily understood goals at faculty meetings • encourage new skills and concepts • use assessments to see progress to science goals • support faculty recognition of student progress • participate in science curriculum material reviews • discuss student progress in science with faculty • Significant principal intervention variables include: • the employment of a grade or school level science coordinator • the support of science kits in the school

39. Implications for Practice • Principals may: • focus on the higher-correlating instructional leadership scale items to raise PSTE • determine the science background of candidates when hiring • allocate more science teaching responsibilities to stronger science teachers in elementary school • initiate grade level coordinators to support immediate needs in larger schools • implement school level science coordinators, who can raise profile of science education, curriculum design, in-service and faculty collaboration • allocate budget for science kit, resources and support

40. Implications for Policy • Policymakers may increase: • licensure requirements for prospective teachers • budget allocations for in-service training • opportunities for prospective and in-service elementary school faculty to attend science courses • advocacy for government funding to support areas of science • dissemination of information and courses on science teaching through regional organizations such as NESA

41. How do I do as a Principal? • Principals have busy days • Getting into classrooms!! Leadership/management? • Budget constraints – 250 ES kids • Science coordinator? • Inclusive to all ELL students • Academic English • 2-Day annual PD days must be for Pre 3 – 12 • not just ES • 5 Half-day PDs • also for the whole faculty

42. How do I do as a Principal? • I love science! • Not everyone does • FOSS kits • Science method?/it is a resource not Common Core • Gr 3-5 Science/Social Studies split • Integrate Language Arts/Math? • Science Clubs/NESA virtual Science Fair • Raise profile • UbD in Atlas Rubicon • No “Science in a suitcase”/vertical alignment • Teachers’ PD money

43. Science is a wonderful thing, if one doesn't have to earn one's living at it. Albert Einstein

44. Strengths of this Study • Qualitative and quantitative research methods • High response rate at 28.7% • Unique study with this population • Most studies pre & post teacher educuation • Transferability • Schools from each of the nine international school regional associations

45. Limitations of this Study • Non-response error • Principal involvement • External Internet link • Interviewer bias • Respondents’ demographic range • Differing curriculum • Distributive instructional leadership through science coordinators • Science initiatives may have been implemented by prior school heads • Other background variables