Journal of Elementary Science Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 21–34 | Cite as

The elementary Science Teaching Rationale (STR): Analysis via a preservice teacher Self-Report Instrument

  • Gary F. Varrella
  • Peter D. Veronesi


This paper represents Part I* of a two-part study examining preservice teachers’ development of a personalized, research-based Science Teaching Rationale (STR). Researchers have historically documented the application of the “rationale paper” (Clough, 1992; Veronesi, 1998) using qualitative methodologies. Since the rationale paper continues to receive attention at conferences (e.g., at the annual conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science) and grow in popularity as a term assignment among science educators, further study was warranted. This quantitatively dominant study, using the “Self-Report Instrument for the STR,” is the first work of its kind on the STR. It adds to the body of understanding regarding its impact on the thinking and dispositions toward science teaching of preservice elementary teachers. Discussion on development, implications, and elements of instrument reliability and validity are included.


PRESERVICE Teacher Science Teacher Elementary PRESERVICE Teacher Personal Epistemology State Dialog 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman, D. B. (2003). Taproots for a new century: Tapping the best of traditional and progressive education.Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 344–349.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. C. (1988).The development of expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  4. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice.Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.Review of Educational Research, 62, 37–60.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. W. (1999).Effective professional development schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Clough, M. P. (1992). Research is required reading.The Science Teacher, 59(7), 37–39.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2003).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cruickshank, D. R., Bainer, D., Cruz, J., Jr., Gievelhous, C., McCullough, J. D., Metcalf, K. K., & Reynolds, R. (1996).Preparing America’s teachers. Bloomington, IL: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Gess-Newsome, J. (1998, January).A review of the research on secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  11. Girden, E. R. (1996).Evaluating research articles from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’ professional perspectives.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002).Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992).Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialog. Available online: <>. Retrieved April 5, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. Jakubowski, E., & Tobin, K. (1991). Teachers’ personal epistemologies and classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),Educational environments: Evaluation antecedents and consequences (pp. 201–214). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1992). How teachers’ classroom cases express their pedagogical beliefs.Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology.Instructional Science, 11, 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council (NRC). (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.Google Scholar
  21. Penick, J. E. (2003, August/September). Teaching with purpose.NSTA Reports, 14, 46.Google Scholar
  22. Penick, J. E., & Harris, R. L. (2003).Teaching with purpose. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  23. Penick, J. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1980). Iowa-UPSTEP: A dynamic model in science teacher education now.Teacher Educator, 16, 14–18.Google Scholar
  24. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schön, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson (Eds.),Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19–30). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  27. Tillotson, J. W. (1998, January).A cycle of excellence in science teacher development. Paper presented at the Annual Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS) Conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  28. Varrella, G. F. (1997).The relationships of science teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
  29. Varrella, G. F. (2004). All star performers: Science teachers at the top of their game. In J. Weld (Ed.),The game of science education (pp. 22–47). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  30. Varrella, G. F., & Veronesi, P. D. (2004). Preservice teachers defining “self-as-teacher”: The elementary science teaching rationale.Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veronesi, P. D. (1998, January).“Our best” rationale for teaching elementary science: A first year report. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  32. Veronesi, P. D., & Varrella, G. F. (1999, March).Building a sound rationale for teaching among preservice candidates. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, S. M. (1990). The secret garden of teacher education.Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 229–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax
  2. 2.College at BrockportState University of New YorkBrockportUSA

Personalised recommendations