• William J. Boone
  • Sandra K. Abell
  • Mark J. Volkmann
  • Fran Arbaugh
  • John K. Lannin


In 2003 the University of Missouri (with the aid of US National Science Foundation funding) initiated an alternative certification program (ACP) to address the well-documented need in the US for increasing the quantity and quality of mathematics and science teachers for the middle and secondary levels. Nationwide current certification programs do not provide the quality and quantity of mathematics and science teachers needed in schools. As a result most American states have begun to experiment with ACPs as a way to address the shortage of math and science teachers. To evaluate the success of this program, we collected data from ACP participants regarding perceived preparation, self efficacy, and outcome expectancy at three time points in the program. State standards for beginning teachers were used to construct a perceived preparation instrument. Analysis of data suggests that over time, ACP participants exhibited an increasingly positive view toward their preparation for classroom teaching, as well as increased self efficacy. However, there was little change in the students’ outcome expectancy over time. In this article we share details of the unique ACP program and we describe steps taken to collect and evaluate a project data set. Our work provides useful guidance to researchers and practitioners in the field of science and mathematics teacher education.


ACP alternative certification instrument design mathematics education mathematics preservice teacher preparation national standards Rasch Rasch measurement science education science preservice teacher preparation self-efficacy state standards Winsteps 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2010_9205_MOESM1_ESM.doc (33 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 33 kb)


  1. Abell, S., Boone, W., Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Beilfuss, M., Volkmann, M., & White, S. (2006). Recruiting future science and mathematics teachers into alternative certification programs: strategies tried and lessons learned. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 165–183.Google Scholar
  2. Baghaei, P. (2008). The Rasch model as a construct validity tool. Rasch Measurement, 22(1), 1145–1146.Google Scholar
  3. Bleicher, R. (2004) Revisiting the STEBI-B: measuring self efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, T., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Teaching and knowledge: policy issues posed by alternate certification of teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: how well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker, P., Mayer, D., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of teach for America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1999). Missouri standards for teacher education programs (MoSTEP). [On-line]. Available:
  9. Desouza, S., Boone, W. J., & Yilmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in Southern India. Science Education, 88(6), 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnelly, L. A., & Boone, W. J. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’s evolution standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 236–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enochs, L., & Riggs, I. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: a preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feistritzer, E. (1998). Alternative teacher certification: An overview. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from
  13. Fox, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gomez, M. L., & Stoddart, T. (1992). Personal perspectives and learning to teach writing. In R. T. Clift & C. M. Evertson (Eds.), Focal points: Qualitative inquiries into teaching and teacher education (pp. 39–64). Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  15. Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher-researchers (Rev. ed). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from:
  17. Linacre, J. M. (2008). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch model computer programs. Chicago, IL: MESA.Google Scholar
  18. Liu, X., & McKeough, A. (2005). Developmental growth in students’ concept of energy: analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mulholland, J., Dorman, J., & Odgers, B. (2004). Assessment of science teaching efficacy of preservice teachers in an Australian university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 313–331.Google Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards (NSES). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nehm, R. H. &, Schonfeld I. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1131–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olson, L. (2004). Value added models gain in popularity. Education Week, 24(12), 1 & 14–15.Google Scholar
  24. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (The original work was published in Denmark in 1960).Google Scholar
  25. Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of pre-service elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scribner, J. P., Bickford, A., & Heinen, E. B. (2004). Alternative teacher certification: A program theory analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Silin, G., Snyder, J., Barry, M., Samuels, S., Sacks, A., & Ellenzweig, A. (2008). Alternative routes to certification. Occasional Paper Series. NY: Bank Street College of Education. ED502102.Google Scholar
  28. Stein, J. (2002). Evaluation of the NYCTF Program as an alternative certification program. ED467756.Google Scholar
  29. Stoddart, P., & Floden, R. (1996). Traditional and alternative routes to certification: Issues assumptions, and misconceptions. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 80–108). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA.Google Scholar
  31. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, MESA.Google Scholar
  32. Yilmaz, O., Boone, W. J., & Anderson, H. (2004). Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1527–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645–735). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Boone
    • 1
  • Sandra K. Abell
    • 2
  • Mark J. Volkmann
    • 2
  • Fran Arbaugh
    • 3
  • John K. Lannin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching, Learning and CurriculumUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Curriculum and InstructionPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations