The reluctant science teacher: a case study in teacher- perceptions and childrens' learning. by Judith Cousins & Adrianne Kinnear Departments of Science and Science Education Edith Cowan University Introduction. For a number of years there has been concern with the lack of confidence of many primary teachers when teaching science (Yates and Goodrum, 1990; Jeans and Farnsworth, 1992; Tasker, 1993). This lack of confidence has been attributed to a number of causes, including poor background knowledge, few readily available materials, classroom management difficulties and no structured curriculum packages. This paper presents part of the results of a case study investigation into the implementation of a science curriculum by teachers who expressed a lack of confidence and competence in teaching primary science. The focus of this paper is a group of six female primary teachers, together with their year five classes. It describes the experiences of the teachers as they implemented a structured science and technology curriculum in their classrooms over the course of a school year. In particular, the study 1. Describes the changes in the teachers' confidence and self- perceptions of competence as they worked with the curriculum; 2. Evaluates aspects of children's science learning in these classroom using their written work; 3. Identifies factors, including teacher-perceptions of childrens' learning, which were likely to affect teachers' confidence and competence as science teachers; Methods (i) The teachers Six year 5 female teachers were introduced to a structured science curriculum at the beginning of a school year. They were part of a twenty-teacher case study concerning reluctant primary school teachers. Some early findings of the study have been previously reported (Goodrum et al, 1993). The teachers were selected on the basis that they were reluctant science teachers, described themselves as lacking confidence with teaching science, and wished to participate in this study. Following a 3-day inservice, at which the curriculum was introduced and materials provided, the teachers' concerns, successes and attitudes were monitored over the school year, as they implemented the curriculum in their classrooms. The data-collection methods used to describe the teachers' confidence levels, self-perceived competence, and attitudes towards the science program are fully described in Goodrum et al, 1993, and included: ¥ Questionnaires ¥ Transcripts of semi-structured interviews and group discussions ¥ Analysis of teacher-diaries ¥ Classroom observations (ii) The children Work completed by the children over the course of the year's program was collected and evaluated. The work included ¥ Drawings resulting from group project work ¥ Individual science workbooks containing children's responses to evaluation activities as described in the curriculum materials. To gauge the children's attitudes towards their science lessons, a questionnaire was distributed at the completion of the year's program. For each questionnaire item, children were asked to tick one of five faces (showing varying degrees pleasure/displeasure) which best reflected their own feelings about science generally, and about specific aspects of the way in which science was taught during the year (Appendix 1). (iii) The curriculum The teachers were provided with a structured science curriculum package to work from for the year (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1989). This curriculum has several interesting features. It is very structured, with sequenced activities and organisational aspects explained in considerable detail. The package uses a constructivist perspective and a strong instructional model, described by the Five E'se Each unit of work, (one for each term) closely followed a model of Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration and Evaluation. Cooperative learning was the basis for classroom organisation and the model was well detailed to aid teachers in its implementation. Each of the year levels in the programme focused on a single concept area and science skill for the year. The Year Five programme, had Energy as the concept theme and Investigation as the skill (Figure 1). Within the curriculum package the three units of work were divided into 1. An introduction to energy and investigation where the children become familiar with, and recognise different forms of energy; 2. Energy chains and food chains where the children describe how energy changes form and then represent these changes by energy- chain diagrams; 3. Technology- design and efficiency. The children apply the concepts of machines and devices to explain energy efficiency in the process of design. Teachers generally view the topic of energy as rather daunting and considerable research has detailed the difficulties secondary and tertiary undergraduates have with understanding the intricacies of the topic (Osborn,1986, Viglietta,1990, Trumper, 1990, and Boyes and Stanisstreet, 1991). The difficulties arise partly because the 'language of energy is encountered in everyday experience and school pupils may lack the ability to distinguish between the vocabulary in the scientific and everyday contexts' (Boyes and Stanisstreet, 1991). The teachers in this study were no exception. In their initial questionnaires they all stated that they preferred, and indeed felt more comfortable with, biological topics rather than those with a physical science focus, as they lacked a strong science background. Several teachers felt they were faced with teaching a topic which they would have normally avoided. Results (i) The background of the teachers The selected teachers had between 5 and 25 years experience in the classroom. Four of the six had additional qualifications (B.Ed or Grad Dipl. or both). The range of subject majors was broad, with science being taken as a preservice major by only one teacher. All had very limited science experiences both in their high school education and later studies. Human biology or biology was the most often cited high school subject , though two teachers had done one or two physical science subjects in their final high school year. Two of the teachers had no formal science in high school beyond year 10. Two teachers had attended science inservice courses (half-day duration) since they began teaching and few listed any interests in science-related areas outside their professional duties. One teacher provided an interesting exception to this. She had taken the physical sciences throughout high school and had completed a year of pharmacy at a tertiary institution, completing units in organic and inorganic chemistry before transferring into education. When questioned as to why she didn't feel she had the background to teach science she responded "....I've done lots of science....in pharmacy I had to do....biology, physics and lots of other ones but I couldn't use them....I don't have everyday science...". Despite an apparent lack of science literacy and experience themselves, the teachers maintained some kind of science in their classrooms, teaching it for one hour per week across a variety of topics. Biological topics were the order of the day with occasional moves into some typical non-biological topics such as flight, magnets, flotation and powders. The number of topics covered by individual teachers indicated that topics were changed on at least a term basis and sometimes more often. Plants and animals were the most preferred topics, while physical science topics such as "everything using a bunsen", "chemistry type things", and "topics where I don't understand the concepts, e,g, heat and air", featured in their least-preferred lists. One teacher (the one referred to above with science in her background) stated as her preferred topics "what my husband will teach." The majority of the teachers used the WA Ministry of Education materials as their major resource with a smaller number utilising miscellaneous sources such as library books and peer's programs. None of the teachers demonstrated knowledge of familiar programs such as ESS or Science 5/13. Later in the course of the project, teachers commented on the unsatisfactory nature of their previous science teaching - the use of ad hoc choice of topics with which they felt most familiar accompanied by the perception that little learning of value was occurring. (ii) Teacher concerns and self-perceptions of their science teaching At the start of the study, all six scored themselves at the lowest level of confidence and competence when it came to teaching science. Most cited the need to use materials, and a lack of background knowledge as the primary reasons. Their identification of their most important needs at this point in time reflected these reasons. REASONS FOR LOW CONFIDENCE No background knowledge (5) Need for preparation/cleaning up/use of materials (5) Science was threatening in high school (1) Unsure of experimental outcomes (2) Lack of motivation/low prority (2) Lack of ideas/ topic materials (2) MOST IMPORTANT NEEDS Structured lesson plans/teaching resources (5) Background information (3) Available equipment (3) Actvities for 30 children (3) New ideas (1) Motivation (1) Reasons given by teachers at the start of the study, for their low confidence and perceived competence as science teachers, and areas of most need. (Number in parentheses indicates the number of responses). They saw themselves as more motivated, knowledgeable and skilled for teaching in the health areas and to a lesser extent in the biological sciences areas. As before, they recognised the physical sciences area as the most problematical for them. When asked to identify three most important needs related to science teaching, these needs were paramount: 1. Curriculum needs - in the form of integrated programs, structured lesson sequences etc, particularly those which would be practical for classes of thirty plus children; 2. Background knowledge and facts to improve their own science literacy for more effective teaching; 3. Readily available equipment and teaching resources for science. In the introductory group discussions, a perceived lack of science knowledge and their own lack of practical experience with science was the main topic of discussion among these teachers. In their eyes, this contributed to ¥ an inability to extend children's observations - " after experiments are sort of happening, I find it very hard to support with my sort of background knowledge....I haven't got the background to support it." " Don't ask me why, the reasons why it comes off." "I haven't got the facts to support what I said, to sound as though I sort of know what I'm talking about". "I can't interpret it to put into a vocabulary suited to the children." ¥ an inability to problem-solve as teachers when things don't proceed as planned: "You get that disgusted with it because it's not working and also they get fed up." "In maths,...I can find sixteen more ways of solving the problem because the background is there." "...if children...are having trouble with problem solving for instance, I can easy go about explaining the most simple way that will cater for their needs and yet I can't do the same for science." ¥ a contributory factor to their lack of enthusiasm for teaching science: "This person who has that knowledge and says look at this and what happens if you so this and is very enthusiastic about this all when they have the knowledge." "Things come alive and that's when the interest comes in, comes with the understanding." Consequently, they hoped the project would ¥ improve their motivation, enthusiasm, and confidence for teaching science,and ¥ Provide them with integrated programs, structured lesson plans and directions to teach such a program. (iii) The introductory inservice This was the vehicle for meeting initial concerns and encouraging and providing confidence for the teachers to begin a sequential long-term science program. The inservice evaluation questionnaire and the teachers' diary comments gave insights into the degree to which this was achieved. The teachers comments were particularly positive and they readily mentioned the value of the inservice. With few exceptions, they saw themselves as adequately prepared to begin in their classrooms. (One teacher had some concerns about the workability of the small group co-operative learning strategies and another felt she need more time to go over the course materials). The time provided for informal discussion with their peers and analysis and group evaluation of common problems in science teaching was considered particularly valuable in making individuals feel more at ease with their perceived shortcomings. One teacher's comments paralleled others - " I felt much more relaxed and less anxious about my teaching attempts in science after talking to other teachers who had similar thoughts and feelings." The incorporation of relevant background information for the teacher within the curriculum, the activities workshops and subsequent elaboration of knowledge in areas of particular concern (e.g. potential energy, what's inside a battery) appeared to overcome much of the initial background inadequacy fears of the teachers: " I felt I understood the concept of energy by the end of the day, resolved the problem of potential energy and felt quite confident about using the file." "...felt most confident about the intended science course....needed today to clarify exactly my intentions for teaching, my actual knowledge of energy and feeling secure...." The content discussions..."....have given me a curiosity and a thirst for knowledge." "At this stage I feel quite confident with the introductory unit....I fell very comfortable because 1. Lessons are planned 2. I feel I have grasped some basic concepts about energy 3. I have a clear idea of objectives 4. Evaluation has been catered for 5. I HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT I NEED TO CARRY OUT THE EXPERIMENTS!!!" This same teacher made some revealing comments about the issue of "lack of background (which) loomed large": "Now as I look at the situation I see things little differently. Science must be open-ended and teaching children to approach things in this way must be one of the main objectives - not the acquisition of knowledge. ....I am not using this approach myself - I want answers- this is my conditioning. This is not to say that background knowledge is not important, I still believe it to be a very valuable asset." The major concerns expressed by the teachers now became management ones: Will I be able to implement the small group cooperative learning with 30 plus children? How will I complete all the lessons in one term? By the end of the 3 inservice days, there was still some concern with timetabling - the potential difficulty of accommodating the suggested sequence of activities into a single terms work (with the accepted norm of one hour per week) However these issues were not major deterrents and the teachers expressed enthusiasm and an eagerness to commence the program. Thus, the major effects of the first inservice were to meet the teachers self-concerns of having to independently seek out information about a science program and they began to focus on task-orientated concerns of classroom management. Such task concerns tend to be most intense just prior to and as the curriculum is being implemented. The inservice had provided opportunities for ¥ gaining extensive information about the science program ¥ informal discussion which allowed the expression and legitimisation of the teachers' feelings of inadequacy with science, and the identification of solutions to potential problems. ¥ emphasising the term-by-term implementation of the program, with help at each new stage. Common management concerns of resources had been minimised by the providing of all the equipment. (iv) Implementing the science program (a) The introductory unit Reasonably, the teachers focussed much of their effort on the short-term, lesson-to-lesson use of the program, carefully following the teachers' notes with little substantial deviation. The overall feeling among the teachers, at the completion of the first term's efforts was one of enthusiasm, satisfaction with their own efforts and those of the children (affective and cognitive) and a willingness and in most cases eagerness to move on to term 2. When reviewing the rich qualitative data from the various monitoring sources, it is useful to remind ourselves of two important aspects: (i) the program which the teachers were implementing was a major innovation in two ways - it was a structured and sequenced set of activities on a science topic where the concepts may be unfamiliar or threateningly difficult - ("Energy") and it involved a distinctly new strategy of classroom organisation, small group cooperative learning. Needless to say, the teachers' diaries reflected concerns and feedback mainly centered around these two aspects, but to varying degrees. (ii) the overriding issue was to determine to what extent the teachers' experiences contributing to an increased interest for, and confidence with the teaching of science in their classrooms. The type of focus of the teachers' diary and interview comments can give us some insight into the levels at which they were using the program and interpreting the outcomes as well as identifying any major concerns which might affect their attitudes (see the Teacher Profiles presented and discussed later in the paper). Two teachers (who had experienced least self-confidence in their ability to implement the program), Irene and Maureen, tended to be more preoccupied with the actual "mechanics" of the lessons and less so with the level of understanding or performance of the children - a "finding their feet" approach. Even so, the well- structured nature of the program in the hands of these experienced teachers meant that lessons tended to move smoothly , with all children very involved and interested. One might describe these teachers as being at the "management" stage in terms of their science teaching during this initial term. At the other end of the implementation scale were those teachers who commented very little on the actual detail of delivery of the science, who appeared more confident of their ability to proceed, and whose comments were orientated towards the children's responses and interpreting their level of understanding and skill development. These were Therese, who was the teacher with the science background, and Melanie, (described as "one of the best teachers in the school" by the deputy principal who had persuaded her to come into the program). Their concerns were moving towards the higher level of consequence - the effect of science program on the cognitive development of the children. All the teachers spent specially-directed initial time introducing the children to the cooperative learning strategy and ensuring that they were acquainted with group roles and organisation. This appeared to pay off in the long term in that the teachers found the organisation worthwhile and effective in encouraging group cooperation, materials sharing and efficient materials distribution. Though they had serious misgivings about the small groups, at the end of the term most were very positive about the results, so much so that some had extended its use to other subject areas. Only one teacher, Robyn, had term-long problems with the strategy; it did not suit her desk layout and children had to take time at the beginning of each science lesson to organise desks and chairs. While she recognised its benefits, she resolved to move back into larger groups for term 2. (She did this and interestingly, halfway through that term had reversed her decision on the basis that the cooperation was not as effective and was considering returning to the term 1 arrangement for term 3.). The consistent problem arising for all teachers was time - many found themselves slipping behind the required schedule if they were to complete the term's work. However, the majority had begun to look ahead somewhat and concertina lessons were they thought most appropriate. Again this was a noticeable feature of those teachers who indicated the most confidence with the materials at both year levels, the younger teachers). The less confident were assured that it was not a problem if they did not complete the program. To what extent did all this impact on the teachers' confidence as science teachers? Very positively, according to the teachers comments at the completion of the term's efforts.The majority scored their confidence and competence at a higher level than before implementation. There was little difference in reasons given between the two teacher groups. The use of a structured program was cited as the most significant factor contributing to their improved self- perceptions. Of the 3 teachers who felt their competence still needed improvement, only one, Robyn, indicated a reason - she still felt that her lack of background knowledge left her unable to diverge from or extend children's observations. The positive responses of the children (affective and cognitive) was a major factor, with the use of a structured program, in the teachers' perception that their understanding of the science and the teaching strategies were adequate to cope. It is interesting that adequacy of background knowledge did not figure prominently as a specific concern in discussions during this term nor at the second inservice. Thus, the teachers came to the second inservice at the beginning of the second term feeling more confident as science teachers and particularly satisfied (and surprised) with the interest and enthusiasm of the children. There was a marked willingness and commitment to begin the second term's science. (b) Energy flow chains With the introductory curriculum unit completed by the first weeks of term 2, the teachers moved on to the topic of energy chains and associated concepts. All the teachers were now using small group cooperative learning strategies to varying degrees, including Robyn, who re-established small group learning after trying larger groups to overcome the furniture layout problem. (The larger groups of 5 or 6 had resulted in group dynamic problems). Time to complete the activities as prescribed continued to be a major problem, and teachers tended to "concertina" lessons, reduce discussion time, or delete sessions which revisited activities. Perhaps more significantly, problems began to arise as teachers grappled with the concepts embedded in the curriculum activities. Concepts such as "useful/wasted energy", "input/output energy", were identified as particularly difficult for both teachers and children to grasp. As we will show later in the individual teacher-profiles, difficulty in understanding these energy concepts led to decreases in confidence and self-perceived competence. Despite this , with one exception, the teachers' enthusiasm for the program continued to be high , as evidenced by feedback at completion of term 2, mainly due to the continued enthusiasm for, and enjoyment of the program on the part of the children. Robyn was the exception. While her confidence remained higher than at the start, her perceived competence remained low. She felt "jaded" with the topic and suggested that the children felt the same. She continued to have serious concerns about her lack of a science background, as it influenced her abilities to teach science. (c) Design and build As the teachers moved into the "design-and-build" phase of the curriculum (the technology unit), they found the cognitive demands on themselves and the children were reduced, while the design activities stimulated the children's interests. Some conceptual difficulties remained ( with "input/output", and "energy efficiency") and difficulty in getting children to draw their initial designs was cited as a problem. Insufficient time to get through the prescribed activities continued to be an oft- repeated problem. However, with the exception of Robyn, teachers found this unit less difficult and this led in turn, to increased confidence with their science teaching. Robyn continued to have major concerns with her perceived difficulties with a lack of background knowledge. She continued to feel "bogged down" and perceived evidence of bordeom on the part of her children. She related an inability to extend or interest the children in the subject matter. This perception affected how she judged her competency as a science teacher. (v) Teacher profiles Figures 2 to 7 present "teacher profiles" - summaries of each teacher's perceptions and concerns expressed over the year's study. In these summaries, the confidence and self-perceived competence levels were obtained from questionnaire data. The pie diagrams represent the proportions of diary comments classified as follows: (i) "lesson sequence" : comments describing "what I did". These comments simply detailed the sequences of events in the classroom without any accompanying analysis. (ii) "Program change" : comments describing any deviations from the prescribed curriculum. (iii) "Positive comments" : General comments reflecting positively on the curriculum, its implementation or its effect on the children or the teacher. (iv) "Negative comments" : General comments reflecting negatively on the curriculum or its affects in the classroom. (v) "Child-evaluation": Comments which identified specific areas of learning successes or difficulties associated with groups of children or individuals. (vi) "Concerns - task": Comments relating to concerns which teachers had with regard to the actual job of providing weekly science lessons, and all the facets which it entails. (vii) "Concerns - self" : Comments which related to concerns teachers had regarding their own ability to teach successful science. Summaries of the relevant qualitative data obtained from diaries and intervies is presented below the quantitative summary. Taken together, the profiles provide: ¥ an indication of the personal focus of each teacher, as reflected in what each felt was important to record in the diary as a science lesson was completed; ¥ an overview of how perceptions of competence and confidence altered over the year; ¥ the key concerns which teachers expressed as they worked through the curriculum activities, and the extent to which these concerns impacted on their feelings of confidence and competence. In summary, the profiles reveal that (i) the provision of a structured curriculum, materials and regular contacts with research personnel contributed to increased confidence to teach science; (ii) with the exception of Robyn, there was a concommitant improvement in the level of perceived competence as science teachers; (iii) there were conceptual areas which teachers acknowledged as conceptually difficult to grasp, namely the concepts of "wasted energy" and "output energy"; (iv) in many cases, these cognitive difficulties were reflected in transient "dips" in confidence or self-perceived competence; (iv) throughout the year, positive comments prevailed about the program, mainly describing the children's apparent enthusiasm and participation in the activities. This positive feedback was a key element in teachers remaining committed to the program. As a result of the profile analysis, we were able to identify questions useful for foccusing the analysis of the children's responses. These were 1. To what extent did the children enjoy their science program, both from the point of view of the "energy" topic" and the group learning strategies? 2. To what extent could children construct energy chains and identify potential energy and wasted energy? 3. To what extent could children identify input/output energies in the systems they investigated? (vi) Children's attitudes towards their science In all six classrooms, children gave very positive responses at the conclusion of the school year, with regard to enjoyment of their science lessons (Figure 8). For four of the teachers, children scored either "yes" or "OK" in response to the question "Did you like science?". Irene's and Therese's class were a little less positive overall , though the majority was still very clearly affirmative. It is interesting that both these teachers commented, in terms 2 and 3 about the length and frequency of the prescribed discussion sessions. In both these teacher's classrooms, the children had a less positive response to the question "How do you feel about talking about science?" (Figure 9). While Robyn was at times consistent and emphatic in her comments with regard to flagging enthusiasm for the program on both her and the children's part, this was not at all evident in her children's responses. When asked how they felt about the different activities which were central features of their science lessons, again their responses were very positive (Figure 10). Least liked activities were recording (particularly more so with the boys) and reading about science. Being able to participate in activities and work with friends were the most popular features. (vii) Analysis of childrens' work (a) Construction of energy flow chains The curriculum provided a suggested strategy for evaluating this aspect of the children's learning. It involved providing children with scenarios of systems in which energy was being transformed. In the case of physical systems, the scenario was presented as a demonstration (e.g. a marble rolling down a ruler and hitting another marble, causing it to travel along the desk). In the case of a biological system , children were asked to construct a food chain containing a number of trophic elements. The suggested strategy also identified the components which teachers should look for in the children's diagrams. The "complete" chains as provided as guides for the teacher in the curriculum are reproduced in Figure 11. We used this strategy to evaluate one physical and one biological energy chain from those classes where teachers had completed this evaluation, and had provided us with sufficient numbers of work samples. The results of our "marking" of the children's work are summarised in Figure 12. Note that the figure indicates components which were present in the guide figures, but omitted by the children. The conspicuous omissions in the physical system were identification of which energies were "wasted" and "useful", and the recognition that the marble poised at the top of the ruler had potential energy. In all classes, the majority of the children were able to construct the main body of the energy chain with few omissions, recognising the pathway along which energy was transformation from one object to another. Again, there were exceptions to this generalisation - Melanie's children tended to "miss" the first link in the chain (the kinetic energy in the hand), while several children in Robyn's class were unable to produce a coherent chain of any form. There were only sufficient data from three teachers to evaluate the biological (food) chain . The children appeared to have much more difficulty with this system, when compared with their diagrams of the marble system. In all three classes, a large number of the children were unable to identify all the relevant links in the main pathway of the chain. Again, wasted/heat energy and potential energy were consistent omissions. In particular, potential energy of waste products was rarely identified. (b) Identification of input/output energy The system evaluated here was the "racing spool system", a well known vehicle for teaching science in primary classrooms. The children had worked extensively with this system and had the opportunity to construct an energy chain prior to being asked, in a later activity, to identify relevant input and output energies in association with the energy chain for the system. The complete diagram provided as a guide for the teacher in the curriculum materials is a complex one (Figure 13). The dotted lines on this figure emphasise the key features to be focussed on for the revisit of the system (i.e. wasted and useful energy, and energy output as forward motion). This particular activity was a group activity, so the work which we evaluated reflected group responses, not those of individual children. No groups identified the wasted energy of movement in the system (e.g. spinning, sideways or backwards movement of the spool). Most however, were able to identify an appropriate input energy into the system as either the kinetic energy of the hand (the majority), the kinetic energy of the swab, or the potential energy of the elastic band. With the exception of children in one classroom (Melanie's), no children could accurately identify the energy output of the system as forward motion. Conclusions This paper has described the changes in teachers' confidence and perceptions of confidence with science teaching, as they implemented a structured curriculum centered around the difficult topic of "Energy". It is important that the findings of this paper are viewed from the perspective of unconfident teachers working with quite young children on a difficult, and at times abstract, scientific concept. Despite some problems coming to terms cognitively with the more abstract aspects of the curriculum, the teachers' confidence improved as they worked with the curriculum. The key contributing features they identified were the structured nature of the lessons with provision of background information, provision of material kits and the effectiveness of the cooperative learning model (which some adopted in other non-science classes). The also saw themselves as more competent science teachers at the conclusion of the project. Teachers' concerns with children's learning were reflected in the childrens' written work and the more abstract aspects of the energy topic, such as heat energy and output energy were difficult for both the teachers and children. These concerns coupled with their own conceptual inadequacies with the programme content appeared to affect teachers' confidence and perceived competence as science teachers, at least temporarily. The curriculum itself recognises the abstract nature of some of these concepts, and suggests that teachers not be concerned if the learning appears incomplete - the groundwork is being laid for later understandings. For reluctant and unconfident teachers, this kind of message needs to be highlighted and emphasised so that childrens' conceptual inadequacies are not seen as reflecting inadequate teaching on the part of the classroom teacher. Regardless of these specific areas of difficulty, the children were very positive about their science experiences. In addition, the readiness of the children to discuss energy and relate it to their everyday experiences as well as their abilities to depict the main pathways of energy flow in various systems (particularly those with which they had hands-on experience) was often commented on. This enthusiasm and demonstrable learning were key factors in improving each teacher's perception of herself as a competent and confident science teacher. Acknowledgements This research was part of a larger project initiated by Dr. Denis Goodrum and funded by Edith Cowan University. Thanks are extended to the teachers who gave their time so willingly to the project and to Michelle Lamont for assisting with the interviews and classroom observations. References BIological Sciences Curriculum Study (1989) Science for Life and Living. Grade 5 Teachers Guide, EXperimental Edition. Dubuque, Kendall Hunt. Boyes and Stanisstreet (1991) Goodrum ,D., Cousins, Judith and Kinnear, Adrianne. (1992) The reluctant primary school teacher. Research in Science Education Jeans and Farnsworth (1992) Osboorne (1986) Tasker (1993) Trumper (1990) Viglietta (1990) Yates, S. and Goodrum, D. (1990) How confident are primary science teachers in teaching science? Research in Science Education 20, 300 - 305. Titles to figures Figure 1. Concept map of the major ideas covered in the year five units of Science for Life and Living,, the curriculum used in this study. Figures 2 - 7. Teacher profiles, describing the changes in self- confidence and competence of teachers as they implemented the science curriculum, the focus of diary comments and summary of concerns. Figure 8. Children's responses by class, to the question "Do you like science?" , as part of the questionnaire given to all classes at the completion of their science program . (See Appendix 1 for the complete questionnaire). Figure 9. Children's responses by class, to the question "How do you feel about...talking about science?" , as part of the questionnaire given to all classes at the completion of their science program. Figure 10. A summary of children's responses to being asked 'how they felt' about the various behaviours which were feature of the science program. Figure 11. Food chain diagrams provided as "guides" in the curriculum materials for child-evaluation. Figure 12. Analyses of children's representations of the food chains shown in figure 11. Figure 13. Curriculum representation of the "racing spool energy chain" and the key aspects of the analyses of children's representations of this chain. Appendix 1. Children's questionnaire distributed to all children at the completion of the school year. (The "face" questionnaire was required because of the young age of some of the children taking part in the larger project). uy|„ ully described in Goodrum et al()odel, described by the Five E's. the intricacies of the topic Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1989) Science for life and living. Grade 5 Teachers Guide. Experimental Edition. Duburque, Kendall Hunt. Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet. (1991). Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science students about energy sources for living organisms. Journal of Biological Education. 25 (3). p. 209-213. Goodrum, D., Cousins, J. & Kinnear, A. (1992). The reluctant primary school teacher. Research in Science Education. Vol. 22. p.163-169. Jeans, B. & Farnsworth, I. (1992). Primary science education: views from three Australian states. Research in Science Education. Vol. 22. p.214-221. Ogborn, J. (1986). Energy and fuel: the meaning of the 'go of things'. School Science Review, 68 (242). p.30-35. Tasker, R. (1993). Primary science: some attributes of quality teaching. Unpublished paper. CONASTA. Sydney, July. Trumper, R. (1990). Being constructive: an alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept - part one. International Journal of Science Education. Vol. 12. No. 4. p.343- 354. Viglietta, L. (1990). A more 'efficient' approach to energy teaching. International Journal of Science Education. Vol. 12, No.5, p. 491-500. Yates, S. & Goodrum, D. (1990). How confident are primary science teachers in teaching science? Research in Science Education. Vol. 20. p. 300-305. Grade 5 Teachers Guide, Ex. Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science students about energy sources for living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 25 (3), pp 209-213. , 22, pp163-169.. Primary science education: views from three Australian states. Research in Science Education, 22, pp214- 221. Ogbo,J. . Energy and fuel: the meaning of the 'go of things'. School Science Review, 68 (242), pp 30-35. Tasker, R. (1993). Primary science: some attributes of quality teaching. Paper presented at Conference of the National Science teachers' Association, Sydney, July. Trumper, R. (1990). Being constructive: an alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept - part one. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), pp343- 354. Viglietta, L. (1990). A more 'efficient' approach to energy teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), pp 491-500. (i) The teachers Six year 5 female teachers were introduced to a structured science curriculum at the beginning of a school year. They were part of a twenty-teacher case study concerning reluctant primary school teachers. Some early findings of the study have been prev