Feet Wet, Hands Dirty: Engaging
Students in Science Teaching and
Learning With Stream Investigations
Stream investigation and
restoration projects offer unique
experiential opportunities to
engage students in outdoor
learning experiences that are
relevant to the communities in
which they live. These experiences
promote an understanding of
watershed issues and establish
positive attitudes and behaviors
that benefit local watersheds and
help to create environmentally
literate citizens. Additionally, they
provide excellent opportunities
for students to practice issue
investigation and to learn relevant
field data techniques “doing as
scientists do.” Here we describe a
pilot program in which preservice
teachers enrolled in a science
teaching practicum course in
the second semester of their
professional course sequence
partnered with classroom teachers
in a local elementary school to
provide students in Grades 3 and 4
meaningful watershed educational
experiences that met the mission
of the Maryland Stream Initiative
program and also met curriculum
and learning goals for the
preservice students.
12
Journal of College Science Teaching
T
he two nonmajors science
courses described here and
the methods we used to
teach them evolved from
the following questions: (a) How
can we increase the science teaching efficacy of preservice teachers
while making them more aware of
environmental issues affecting their
communities, and (b) how can we
better prepare preservice teachers to
implement outdoor-based learning
experiences with their students?
Education and stewardship, the
heart of our project, is one of five
main components advocated in the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement
(C2K; Chesapeake Bay Program,
2000), a multistate promise to enhancing preservation, restoration and
education of the Chesapeake Bay and
its encompassing watershed. Outlined
specifically in commitment number
five, “Stewardship and Community
Engagement,” are objectives aimed at
providing all school-age children with
a “meaningful bay experience”; increasing partnerships among schools,
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR
By Sarah Haines
universities, and local agencies; and
enhancing the abilities of schools to
participate in education and watershed
restoration activities. As the nation’s
largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay is
a logical centerpiece for the scientific
commitment of teachers and students
as each engage in environmental education and outreach goals.
The rationale for our partnership
is all too often expressed in the science education literature. Numerous
national and international mathematics
and science studies have revealed that
many U.S. students and teachers are
not demonstrating even basic competence in these subjects (Bardeen
& Lederman, 1998; National Center
for Educational Statistics, 2012). At
the elementary level, if science is
even taught on a regular basis in the
classroom, the situation is dire, with
elementary teachers often expressing a lack of both the knowledge of
teaching and learning as well as the
knowledge of content necessary to
meet any standards for the effective
teaching of science. Science instruc-
Feet Wet, Hands Dirty
tion in the elementary classroom has
been cut by about 75 minutes per week,
only 25% of elementary teachers felt
qualified to teach science, and 58% of
3,400 elementary teachers surveyed
said they did not have enough science
professional development to carry out
meaningful science instruction (Center
on Education Policy, 2008; National
Research Council, 2007). Elementary
teachers specifically indicate that the
area in most need of professional development is in science (2000 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education; Horizon Research, 2001).
All of these reports, as well as public
rhetoric, advocate an essential need for
a renewed and invigorated emphasis
on science education and specifically,
as outlined by the C2K agreement, a
revitalized focus on the environment
as a context for learning.
These challenges are particularly
relevant in environmental education.
Although many states have implemented K–12 environmental literacy
plans (see http://www.cbf.org/ncli/
action/environmental-literacy-plansby-state for examples), one state has
implemented an environmental literacy
graduation requirement (http://maeoe.
org/maryland-environmental-literacystandards-graduation-requirement/),
and the national legislation No Child
Left Inside is still actively being lobbied for, there is still need for more
emphasis in environmental education
in teacher preparation programs. If
our students in teacher preparation
programs will be asked to address these
requirements in their classrooms, then
they will need the content knowledge
and skill set to do so.
Institutions of higher education
recognize the need to become proactively involved with local communities
and schools to improve the quality of
“hands-on” science education received
by preservice teachers and the students
they will one day teach. Our belief is
that we must first engage college-level
students with activities and hands-on
experience that they themselves will
implement with their elementary-
level students. Acting on this belief,
we sought to redesign two of our
nonmajors science courses to provide
a better learning experience for both
preservice elementary teachers and
students enrolled in a local elementary
school. These experiences increased
students’ science teaching self-efficacy
and allowed them to gain experience
teaching in an outdoor setting.
Course context
The courses described here are offered
to elementary education majors who
have junior status. The courses are
taken during a “mathematics and science semester” in which students are
enrolled in two mathematics courses
taught by faculty in the Mathematics
Department. One of these mathematics courses is a methods course and the
other is a practicum in which students
are placed in a school for a few hours a
week, where they teach and observe in
a classroom. Three courses are taught
by faculty in the Departments of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences and
the Department of Biological Sciences. These are earth/space science
and the two courses we will focus on
here: life science and a science practicum in which students teach science
in a local elementary school classroom once weekly. Ideally, students
are placed with the same professor for
their practicum and one of their science content courses; that is, a student
would have the same professor for the
science practicum and the life science
course, or the science practicum and
the earth/space science course. This
allows the professor to discuss science
concepts and teaching methods in the
content course and then observe the
students applying those concepts and
techniques in the practicum. However,
because of scheduling issues, it is often possible for a student to have different professors for each course. It
is also the case that many times, the
content being taught in the life science
and earth/space science courses is
not the same content that the students
are expected to teach in their science
practicum each week; therefore, if the
student is not familiar with the content
in the curriculum that is being taught
during the practicum, and that content
is not being covered in either of the
content classes, then the onus is on the
student to familiarize himself or herself adequately enough with the curricular content to teach it effectively.
This is probably the greatest fear we
see among our students; they are very
nervous about their lack of content
knowledge and their ability to answer
questions from their elementary level
students when they are not comfortable
with the content themselves. Therefore, part of our redesign plan was to
match the material being taught in our
life science class with the material the
students would be presenting to the
elementary level students during their
weekly science practicum. Our idea
was to tie into some of the existing
curricular movements within our state;
namely, the Meaningful Watershed
Educational Experience (MWEE) and
the Governor’s Explore and Restore
Your Stream Initiative.
Course logistics and setup
Being located within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, we decided to have
the central focus of the science content in the two courses be aquatic/
watershed related. In doing so, we
were able to incorporate outdoor
education and teaching techniques,
the requirements of all Maryland
schools to integrate a MWEE into
their curriculum each year (see www.
chesapeakebay.net for more information), the Maryland Environmental
Literacy Standards (see www.msde.
maryland.gov; http://www.maryland
publicschools.org/MSDE/programs/
environment/), and the Governor’s Explore and Restore Your Stream Initiative. The vision of the Explore and Restore Your Stream Initiative is to foster
environmental literacy by having students take responsibility for the stream
closest to their property, exploring and
restoring their “school-shed,” so to
speak. Environmental education teachVol. 46, No. 1, 2016
13
ing materials are provided through the
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). The aim is to expand
stream study and restoration projects
in Maryland schools, with students
conducting investigations both in the
classroom and, in particular, the outdoors. The rationale for this focus is
that engaging students in their local
environment is part of a rigorous process that helps our youngest citizens
become stewards of their environment, improves their skills in several
educational disciplines, and prepares
them for 21st-century jobs. MSDE and
partnering environmental agencies and
organizations (in this case, our university) provide help for teachers to engage their students in stream study and
action projects. Teachers will take their
students outdoors three times during
the school year to determine stream
health and share their data using online mapping and data analysis tools;
this will culminate in an action project
in which students improve their stream
over time.
Our partnering school, Pot Spring
Elementary School, was paired with
our university as part of the Explore
and Restore Your Stream Initiative.
We worked with three teachers at the
school, two third-grade teachers and
one fourth-grade teacher. We had a
total of 17 students: six were placed
in each of the Grade 3 classrooms
and five were placed in the Grade 4
classroom. Science was taught twice
in each classroom, so the preservice
interns were able to switch from being lead teachers to being assistants.
For the first hour, three of the students
led the lesson while the other three assisted, and for the second hour, the roles
were reversed. The preservice students
visited the elementary school weekly
for an entire semester. The content
covered was an ecology unit titled EcoTrekkers. The lessons covered concepts
such as decomposition, food chains and
food webs, and predator–prey interactions. The last 3 weeks of the semester,
the content focus was on a stream that
ran through the school property. Con14
Journal of College Science Teaching
cepts covered earlier in the semester
were related to the stream environment.
On the first day of stream exploration,
the students focused on physical characteristics. The second class session
focused on chemical characteristics of
the stream, and the preservice teachers
led the students in conducting chemical
tests such as dissolved oxygen, nitrates,
phosphorous, and pH. The final class
had the students sampling the stream
for macroinvertebrates, then examining
all of the data they had collected as a
whole—physical, chemical, and biological—to give the stream a “grade”
that indicated its health.
While the preservice students were
delivering this content to the students
at Pot Spring Elementary, they were
studying these very same topics in
their life science class on campus. The
two course syllabi were designed to be
somewhat in sync so that the preservice
teachers were learning the science content that they would be teaching in the
elementary school ahead of time. For
example, the first major concept that
the students covered at the elementary
school was decomposition and its importance to the stream ecosystem as it
is related to nutrient cycling and food
webs. Therefore, this topic was covered
(at a more sophisticated level) in the
life science class on campus prior to
the week the students would be teaching the topic at the elementary school.
Each concept taught by the preservice
teachers at the elementary school was
introduced in the life science course
with at least a week’s lag time, giving
the students time to become more familiar with the content before teaching
it themselves. The last month of the
semester involved in-depth student
investigations at the stream. Students
spent one week examining the physical properties of the stream, one week
examining chemical properties of the
stream, and a third week investigating
stream macroinvertebrates and using
those invertebrates, along with physical
and chemical parameters, to assess the
overall health of the stream. Therefore,
the class periods in the life science
course were structured in the same
way. The week before students took the
elementary level students out to study
physical properties of their stream, the
university students examined the physical properties of a stream on campus.
The chemical properties of the campus
stream were examined a week prior to
the elementary students’ investigations.
Likewise, the macroinvertebrate sampling took place by the university students a week before the elementary level students did their sampling. Although
the university students were learning the
content at a more complex level, the
topics matched. The alignment of the
content in the life science course and the
content being taught in the elementary
science practicum seemed to alleviate
much of the nervousness the students
felt about having to teach content that
they themselves were not familiar with
or comfortable with.
Methods
This study used a mixed-methods
approach, using both quantitative
and qualitative data to answer the research questions. The specific model
that was followed is the triangulation
design-convergence model (Creswell,
Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson,
2003), in which parallel results are
sought between the quantitative data
and qualitative data.
Quantitative data
Quantitative data was collected via
the students’ responses on the Science
Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument,
or STEBI (Enoch & Riggs, 1990).
This instrument was administered to
students at the start of the semester,
before students began teaching at the
elementary school (pre), and at the
conclusion of the semester (post).
The STEBI consists of a 23-item
questionnaire designed to measure
teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching.
Two aspects are measured: outcome
expectancy and personal teaching efficacy. The authors of the instrument
report a high reliability for both scales
of the STEBI: α = .90 for personal sci-
Feet Wet, Hands Dirty
ence teaching efficacy and α = .76 for
teaching outcome expectancy. Thus
the STEBI is widely used in science
education research.
Qualitative data
Qualitative data was gathered from
student reflective responses that
they were required to write each
week based on the lesson taught and
aspects of the lesson that they would
change if they were to teach the same
content again. Students were asked
to consider the following questions
as they formulated a response:
my science teaching?
• What occurred before or during
the lesson that hindered me in my
science teaching?
• What did I do this week to grow
as a science teacher?
• What occurred before or during
the lesson that supported me in
Data were coded to look for statements that corresponded to positive
TABLE 1
Comparison of student scores on the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument pre- and posttreatment
(scale 1–5).
Average
pretreatment
(N = 12)
Average
posttreatment
(N = 12)
1. When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher
exerted a little extra effort.++
3.75
4.58
2. I will continually find better ways to teach science.+
4.33
4.58
3. Even if I try very hard, I will not teach science as well as I will most subjects.*+
3.5
4.0
4. When the science grades of students improve, it is often due to their teacher having
found a more effective approach.++
4.17
4.67
5. I know the steps necessary to teach science effectively. +
2.42
4.42
6. I will not be very effective in monitoring science experiments.*
3.5
4.42
7. If students are underachieving in science, it is most likely due to ineffective science
teaching.++
3.33
4.33
8. I will generally teach science ineffectively.*+
3.92
4.08
9. The inadequacy of student’s science background can be overcome by good teaching.++
4.0
4.67
10. The low achievement of students cannot generally be blamed on their teachers.*
3.0
3.83
11. When a low-achieving student progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention
given by the teacher.++
3.5
4.5
12. I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary
science. +
3.0
4.25
13. Increased effort in science teaching produces little changes in student achievement.*++
4.0
4.42
14. The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in science.
3.25
3.75
15. Student achievement in science is directly related to their teacher’s effectiveness in
science teaching.++
3.25
4.0
16. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in science, then it is
probably due to the child’s teacher.++
3.33
4.42
17. I will find it difficult to explain to students why science experiments work.*+
3.25
4.42
18. I will typically be able to answer students’ science questions.
3.0
4.75
2.58
4.67
20. Given a choice, I will not invite my principal to observe my science teaching.*
3.17
4.33
21. When a student has difficulty understanding a science concept, I will usually be at a
loss as to how to help the student understand.*+
3.17
4.5
22. When teaching science, I will welcome student questions. +
4.08
4.25
23. I do not know what to do to get students excited about science.*+
3.83
4.33
+
++
++
+
19. I wonder if I will have the skills to teach science.*+
+
*Items that are reverse scored to produce consistent values between positively and negatively worded items.
+
Items designed to measure personal science teaching efficacy belief.
++
Items designed to measure outcome expectancy.
Vol. 46, No. 1, 2016
15
efficacy beliefs and outcomes, negative efficacy beliefs and outcomes,
and neutral or undecided efficacy beliefs and outcomes.
Results
Table 1 shows the results of the STEBI
responses both pre and post. For personal teaching efficacy, the two-tailed
p value is <.0001 (t = 6.1193, df =
14); M = –0.9947, CI = –1.3433 to
–0.6460 (paired two-tailed t-test). For
outcome expectancy, the two-tailed p
value is <.0001 (t = 8.5044, df = 7); M
= –0.7400, CI = –0.9458 to –0.5342
(paired two-tailed t-test). Items 5 and
19 showed the greatest differences between pre- and postconditions. These
items indicate that before completing
the coursework, students were not confident in their pedagogical knowledge
and skill set when it came to teaching science effectively, but perceived
that their pedagogical knowledge and
skills were much improved at the conclusion of the semester.
Analysis of reflective writing samples revealed two main themes. These
are listed below with accompanying
qualitative data:
The stream activities that the preservice
teachers participated in during the life
science course and that they conducted
at the stream with the elementarylevel students were reported as very
influential in enhancing their content
knowledge and in shaping their ideas
about environmental education.
“The stream activity really helped
me to know in more detail why
streams/the Bay are in such bad
shape (instead of just saying
‘pollution’). Now I know more
about what physical and chemical
characteristics, and certain
macroinvertebrates indicated
about a stream’s health.”
“Without a doubt the activities
at the stream . . . had the most
influence on environmental topics
for me. I think because we learned
16
Journal of College Science Teaching
about the good parameters of a
healthy stream and actually got to
explore two streams to have hands
on experience. This allowed me to
better process the content as well.”
“The activity I will never forget is
going to the stream learning about
all its characteristics, then I got to
share my amazing experience with
students at Pot Spring!”
“The stream activities also made
a large impact. I really liked how
we did the activity in BIOL 303
and learned a lot of information
about it because I was able to
relate the information to children
in SCIE376 while answering
additional questions that arose.”
“The stream really affected my
beliefs. When I saw how engaged
our students were during this
lesson, it really affirmed how
vital environmental science is in
the science classroom. It’s such
a personal topic for students
because it deals with their local
environment and really makes
science dynamic to them.”
“The stream study was the biggest
thing for me. In bio, we were
able to experience and participate
in the activity ourselves. It was
extremely exciting for us so
we knew going in to teach that
our students would enjoy it. We
were able to give them the best
experience because we had done it
ourselves!”
“When it came down to the
stream unit, it was especially
helpful going down to the stream
to complete an activity that was
almost identical to what we
would do with our students at Pot
Spring.”
“The stream investigation helped
me appreciate nature more. I also
learned a lot about the cool, but
nasty looking critters that live in
neighborhood streams. Learning
about the characteristics that
make up a healthy stream also
helped me want to take care of
the environment around me. I will
definitely use this activity with my
students.”
“It was very helpful to go down
to the stream and do the activities
ourselves before going to teach
them to the students.”
Coupled with their enhanced content
knowledge, having the opportunity
to teach the content to the Pot Spring
Elementary students weekly enhanced
preservice teachers’ confidence in
their abilities to be effective science
teachers.
“At the beginning of the semester,
using inquiry-based lessons was
very confusing to me and I had a
very hard time creating lessons.
However, through practice, I have
learned how effective it is to have
students answer inquiry questions
and use scientific reasoning.”
“I learned that teaching science
through inquiry is very beneficial.
The past few weeks have made
me very supportive of science
inquiry.”
“I feel so much more confident
with teaching science after taking
this course. While it was stressful
at times, I learned what real
teaching is like and how flexible
you have to be. I also learned that
creating inquiry-based lessons
is definitely possible and more
beneficial to the students.”
“I was never very good at science
and I was nervous that that
would show during my teaching.
However, after getting firsthand experience at Pot Spring
Elementary School . . . I feel way
more confident.”
Feet Wet, Hands Dirty
“The numerous teaching
experiences in SCIE376 (fallen
log, observing fields, and stream
activities) also played a role in
how I view environmental science.
I saw the effects that going outside
had on the students. They were
more engaged and more attentive
after going outside and exploring.
My combined experiences
have made me feel much more
confident and optimistic about
environmental science.”
“After doing the
macroinvertebrates lesson [at
Pot Spring Elementary School]
. . . I realized how important it
is to show my enthusiasm about
environmental ed. At one point in
the lesson, a water bug crawled on
me (which would have terrified
me in the past) and the students
screamed, but I kept my cool and
told the students that the bug was
harmless. Most of my positive
experiences from Pot Spring
Elementary School came from
lessons that we taught outside…
because the students were so
enthusiastic about the outdoors.
I now see the overwhelming
benefits of environmental
education.”
“Going to Pot Spring Elementary
School to teach our students was
also very beneficial because we
were able to apply what we had
learned in your class and pass that
knowledge on.”
Conclusion
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
called for reform in the training of preservice teachers. In part, the NCATE
(2010) report states:
To prepare effective teachers for
21st century classrooms, teacher
education must shift away from a
norm which emphasizes academic
preparation and course work
loosely linked to school-based
experiences. Rather, it must
move to programs that are fully
grounded in clinical practice and
interwoven with academic content
and professional courses. (p. ii)
In this way, students are better able to
connect the content that they are learning with the challenges of learning
how to use that content and pedagogical knowledge in a classroom setting.
It is important to point out that this
study only examined preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, and the data reported
were based on the preservice teachers’
self-reports. Direct assessment of the
improvement of their content knowledge was not a focus of this study. Future studies might address this aspect
of the preservice teachers’ learning.
With this limitation in mind, the results
of the redesign of these two courses
do suggest that coupling the content
seemed to improve self-efficacy of the
preservice teachers and enabled them
to have a positive experience teaching
outdoor science. The structure of the
redesign also fits the essence NCATE’s
suggestions. These findings indicate
to us that environmental education
and the use of the local environment
as a teaching tool most definitely
has a place in our nonmajors science
courses, and we are hopeful that we
can use this model in more of our
teacher preparation courses. ■
Acknowledgments
The Maryland Department of Natural
Resources provided the funding for
this project through its Explore and
Restore Your Streams initiative. The
administration of Pot Springs Elementary
School and its Grade 3 and 4 faculty
graciously agreed to partner with the
Towson University preservice students on
this project.
References
Bardeen, M., & Lederman, L. (1998).
Coherence in science education.
Science, 281(5374), 178–179.
Center on Educational Policy. (2008).
Instructional time in elementary
schools: A closer look at changes for
specific subjects. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from www.cep-dc.
org
Chesapeake Bay Program. (2000).
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement.
Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.chesapeakebay.
net/channel_files/19193/
chesapeake_2000.pdf
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L.,
Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E.
(2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In A. Tashakkori &
C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 209–240). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Enoch, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990).
Further development of an
elementary science teaching efficacy
belief instrument: A preservice
elementary scale. School Science and
Mathematics, 90, 694–706.
Horizon Research. (2001). 2000 National
survey of science and mathematics
education. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
Retrieved from 2000survey.horizonresearch.com
National Center for Education Statistics.
(2012). The nation’s report card:
Science 2011 (NCES 2012-465).
Washington, DC: Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://
nationsreportcard.gov
National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education. (2010).
Transforming teacher education
through clinical practice: A national
strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from www.ncate.org/
National Research Council. (2007).
Taking science to school: Learning
and teaching science in grades K–8.
Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Sarah Haines (shaines@towson.edu) is
a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Towson University in Towson Maryland.
Vol. 46, No. 1, 2016
17