Science in primary education: Teachers’ attitudes towards science education

Abstract

There is a consensus among educators that science education is important for all students at all stages of the school system. Consequently the science curriculum has received an increasing recognition as an essential part of every school’s operation. The conventional image of science in schools comprises physical science (physics and chemistry), life science (biology), earth science and astronomy. But in recent years social and global issues have gained an increasing interest with regard to science and its role in modern society. Simultaneously educators have considered science education essential for all students in public schools, not only for lower-secondary and upper-secondary students, but also for younger grades. At the same time, constructivism has received intense attention in science education requiring active participation of learners and emphasising that teachers need to know how to promote what has been called ‘scientific literacy’. This is felt to be best achieved by examining learners’ prior ideas, and thus maintaining interest and critical thinking among them about the role and nature of science in in a global context. Shulman and his associates confirmed such ideas through their research project ‘Knowledge growth in teaching’ (Shulman 1986, 1987), where they focused on how novice teachers transformed their previously learned content knowledge of academic disciplines into forms suitable for learning and teaching in classrooms, leading to the terms of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and curricular knowledge. Science education in Icelandic compulsory schools has received increasing attention for the past three decades, especially in the wake of Iceland’s participation in international surveys such as PISA and TIMSS, where science has been among core subject areas. Several domestic studies on science learning and teaching have taken place during that time. The focus has been on how school science is taught in Icelandic public schools, under what conditions, and how schools have addressed the major branches of science. Alternatively, the focus has also been on what kinds of topics have received ample coverage and what kinds of topics fall into Elliot Eisner´s definition of null curriculum; namely, which topics have been neglected or received negligible attention in science education. The central purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ attitudes towards science education in primary schools as well as exploring the conditions in schools for learning and teaching the subject and investigating how class teachers in grades 1 to 7 were prepared to teach science. A mixed methods approach was used, where semi-structured interviews were conducted with three eminent science teachers who had extensive knowledge and experience of teaching the subject. The results from the interviews, along with data from other domestic research projects, were used as a basis for developing a questionnaire sent to a sample of 60 primary schools in Iceland. Systematic random sampling was used to select the schools where every third school was selected. School administrators were asked to send the questionnaire to all class teachers in their schools teaching grades 1 to 7. Responses were received from 131 teachers in 34 schools. Results indicate that most class teachers take care of science teaching in their classes, rather than special subject teachers, with the exception of a few 6th and 7th grade classes. Most respondents believed that their own science education was sufficient and that the subject itself was relatively easy to teach. Some maintained that they understood basic concepts commonly recognized in science and were capable of addressing them in their class work. But simultaneously many confirmed that they did not normally use some of the important subject specific words and concepts, such as force (30%), motion (30%), energy (26%), photosynthesis (33%), heat (43%), element (47%) and molecules (48%). Many schools seemed to lack materials and equipment for hands-on learning in lower grades, although some teachers claimed that they could actually manage without such tools and cover their syllabi in regular classrooms. Most respondents contended that physics and chemistry were difficult topics to teach and would have liked the national curriculum to be more supportive and instructive regarding objectives and guidelines about how to teach them. Some respondents mentioned the need for support from programme leaders or advisors in science, but few schools seemed to offer such professional support for science teaching. Specially equipped science classrooms were rarely used for teaching younger students and class work in science mostly involved discussion, written assignments and lectures, which corresponds to other research findings regarding science in Icelandic primary education. Finally, the results of this study evoke questions about science in teacher education and general teachers’ capability to teach science without any professional support.