Abstract
The provision of quality science education is a global priority beset by longstanding challenges, which can be amplified in rural and regional contexts. This creates a dual problem where stakeholders must focus on the improvement of science education outcomes whilst being cognisant of the established divided between metropolitan and non-metropolitan learners. Considering the recent positive TIMSS results which showed equitable science results for regional, remote and metropolitan Australian year 4 students, this paper aims to examine the relationship between primary teachers’ school location and their science teaching efficacy beliefs and reported science teaching practices. A total of 206 Australian primary science educators responded to a cross sectional quantitative survey. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square analyses found no statistically significant differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan teachers on measures of science teaching efficacy beliefs and reported science teaching approaches. This apparent contradiction of established research themes merits deeper school and student-focused research to understand the practical implications that could arise from these findings.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction and Literature Review
Many primary aged learners are limited in their capacity to apply the knowledge and skills gained in their formal science education experiences in ways that make meaning beyond the classroom. Evidence from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides robust, if fallible, evidence that most year 4 students across the majority of participating nations have difficulty in generalising their science learning to new contexts (Martin et al., 1997; Thomson et al., 2020a). The most recent iteration of the Australian Sample Assessment in Science Literacy also indicated limitations among primary students’ science knowledge and capabilities (ACARA, 2019) that can persist after the primary years (Thomson & De Bortoli, 2008; Thomson et al., 2019). It can reasonably be argued that systems of science education could be improved in terms of developing learners’ scientific literacy: a central tenant of science education research (Roberts & Bybee, 2014; NASEM, 2016) that is embodied in science curricula globally (ACARA, 2021a; Eggleston, 2018; Kim et al., 2013; NGSS, 2013). This study adopts a broad definition of scientific literacy as a learners’ ability to apply science knowledge and skills to novel contexts whilst recognising the wide-ranging socio-cultural impacts of science advancements (Bybee, 1997; Roberts & Bybee, 2014).
Primary teachers have the most direct role in developing children’s scientific literacy, but they themselves can often face hurdles from their experiences as science learners (Harms & Yager, 1981; Howitt, 2007). Indeed, despite their willingness to pursue engaging, student-centred science teaching practices (ACARA, 2019; 2013; Banilower, 2019), primary teachers can still be limited by their science content knowledge (Appleton, 2003; Murphy & Smith, 2012) and low science teaching efficacy beliefs (STEBs) (Denessen et al., 2015). These issues have been associated with an overreliance on passive, disengaging practices such as note taking, lectures and teacher-driven investigations (Goodrum et al., 2001; Goodrum & Rennie, 2007; Tytler et al., 2008), in addition to insufficient classroom time to satisfy minimum science curricular requirements (Goodrum et al., 2001; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012; Tytler & Griffiths, 2003; Tytler et al., 2008). Extant literature suggests that these issues are global in scope (Carlone et al., 2011; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Roth, 2014; Weiss et al., 2003).
These challenges can be compounded by inequitable educational experiences and outcomes between metropolitan and non-metropolitan students (Cardak et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2018; Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018; Halsey, 2018; OECD, 2013). For at least half a century, research has consistently shown that rural, regional and remote learners (hereafter referred to as non-metropolitan learners) experience greater disadvantage than learners enrolled in metropolitan schools (Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, 2000). Non-metropolitan education can often be diminished by poorer teacher retention, more inexperienced and ‘out-of-field’ teachers, and less relevant curricula, which often results in lower levels of educational attainment and lower likelihood of pursuing higher education (Cardak et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2018).
Science achievement is no different, with PISA and TIMSS data showing significant differences in the performance of metropolitan and non-metropolitan learners (Fraser et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2018). Science education gaps are likely related to staff capacity, resource availability and challenges to learning environments in non-metropolitan schools (Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018; Halsey, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2018). In accordance with trends in the field, the year 4 mathematics, year 8 mathematics and year 8 science assessments in the most recent iteration of the TIMSS all yielded substantial gaps between metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools (Thomson et al., 2020b). For example, the percentages of year 8 science students from regional (67%) and remote (50%) locations at or above the National Proficiency standard were below those from metropolitan centres (77%). Curiously, for the year 4 science assessment, the National Proficiency percentages of remote (74%), regional (75%) and metropolitan (80%) were similar as no statistically significant difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan was detected (Thomson et al., 2020b). When considered in conjunction with the significant overall increase in Australian year 4 students’ science achievement (Thomson et al., 2020a), further research into these trends of improved educational attainment and geographical equity is warranted. It may be the case that long-term efforts, by a variety of stakeholders, are beginning to influence the quality of Australian primary science teaching (e.g. Deehan, 2021, 2022; Fraser et al., 2019; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Skamp & Preston, 2021).
It is possible that the recent evidence of more equitable primary science performance between metropolitan and non-metropolitan learners (Thomson et al., 2020a, 2020b) could be reflective of the dissemination of more evidence based (Aubusson et al., 2015, 2019; Deehan et al., 2022), conceptually clear science teaching practices (Harlen, 2015; Roth, 2014) through Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes (Deehan, 2021, 2022; Fitzgerald et al., 2021). Such a claim cannot be investigated without an explicit understanding of what may constitute ‘best practice’ in primary science education. Thus, Appendix 1 presents a list of 38 evidence based primary science teaching approaches (Aubusson et al., 2015, 2019; Deehan, 2017, 2022) which serves as a foundation for the investigation of primary science education across metropolitan and non-metropolitan contexts in this paper. The following question will be answered in the paper:
-
Are there differences in the reported science teaching practices and science teaching efficacy beliefs of a sample Australian primary teachers based on school location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan)?
Theoretical Framework
The concept of teacher efficacy has been utilised as a major theoretical underpinning for this study due to its close association with classroom practices and outcomes, which cannot be directly investigated through distal data, and its well-established literature base spanning science education research (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Riggs & Enochs, 1990), education research (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Goddard et al., 2000) and psychology research (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Bandura’s seminal unifying theory of behavioural change emphasised the importance of self-efficacy in influencing coping behaviours, exertion of effort and resilience in the performance of desirable actions (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is not an immutable characteristic as it has been shown to vary based on positive or negative influences, with Bandura (1997a, 1997b) himself citing mastery experiences (ME), vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal (EA) as being the strongest influences on self-efficacy. It is clear such factors would be having complex impacts on teachers’ self-efficacy in all educational settings. Bandura also transitioned the concept of efficacy to teaching practice where he found that ME had the strong impact on teachers’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997a, 1997b). This connection between self-efficacy and firsthand MEs provides a reasonable theoretical justification for examining teacher efficacy and reported teaching practices. At the very least, Bandura’s extensive body of work (e.g. Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997a, 1997b) shows that self-efficacy is a construct that is both associated with desirable actions and malleable, which enhances its conceptual value in educational research. Teacher efficacy (TE) is a measure of an educator’s beliefs in their own and/or their profession’s ability to enhance student learning outcomes (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). TE is a valuable proxy measure in education because higher TE can be indicative of more committed teachers (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Høigaard et al., 2012) who adopt more effective teaching practice (Klassen & Tze, 2014; Nie et al., 2013) that often result in strong outcomes for their learners (Çoğaltay, & Karadağ, 2017; Goddard et al., 2000). TE has also been consistently operationalised through valid and reliable measures (e.g. Bandura, 1997a, 1997b; Humphries et al., 2012; Lumpe et al., 2000).
The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instruments (STEBI-A and STEBI-B) have been consistently employed as measures of inservice and preservice teachers’ STEBs for over three decades (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Riggs & Enochs, 1990) through a wide variation of research contexts (Deehan, 2017). Like the TE research, the STEBI research has linked primary teachers’ STEBs to desirable outcomes for both teachers and students (Deehan et al, 2020; Clark, 2009). In particular, teachers with higher STEBs are more likely to use more active teaching (Burton, 1996; Lardy, 2011), feel more positively towards their school leaders (Clark, 2009) and, most importantly, improve the science learning outcomes of their students (Angle and Moseley, 2009). There is also a clear gap in addressing the metropolitan and non-metropolitan divides in the STEBI literature as none of the 257 articles considered in a recent meta-analysis addressed this important area of educational equity (Deehan, 2017).
Methodology
A digital survey was used to investigate the potential teaching and efficacy differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan educators in a jurisdiction of close to 30,000 inservice primary teachers employed across slightly more than 1500 public schools. Quantitative data were collected from an online survey of educators’ primary science teaching practices and efficacy beliefs from mid-to-late 2021.
Context
There were 173 schools (> 10%) from the target population represented in this project. The Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA, 2021b) designates each Australian school’s geolocation based on the five levels of the Australian Statistic Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness Structure (ABS, 2016): (1) Major Cities, (2) Inner Regional, (3) Outer Regional, (4) Remote and (5) Very Remote. Table 1 shows the geolocation distribution of the schools sampled versus the target population. The geographical locations are reasonably similar, although the sample is more skewed towards regional locations than the target population. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ACARA, 2016) scores of the sampled and non-sampled schools, t(1594) = 1.845, p = 0.418, meaning that the sampled schools did not vary considerably from the target population in terms of parental occupation, parental education, school remoteness and Indigenous student enrolment percentages.
Participants
A series of recruitment approaches were employed as part of a non-probabilistic, purposive sampling of the target population of primary teachers. Two email invitations were sent to each school in the final two semesters of the 2021 school year. Physical mailouts, with QR codes to access the online survey, were sent to each school between email invitations. These primary recruitment strategies were supplemented by opportunistic snowball sampling and sharing across online platforms, both professional and social.
The final sample of 206 primary teachers, representing 0.67% of the target population, was strong in statistical terms (VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007), and the sampling ratio compares favourably to seminal work in this space (1:150) (Goodrum et al., 2001). Whilst sampling remains ungeneralisable, the characteristics of the sample afford some broader speculative interpretations of the findings. Table 2 summarises the demographic data for all 206 participants.
Quantitative Survey
The online survey was comprised of three key areas: the STEBI-A, science teaching approaches and curriculum coverage.
The STEBI-A
A selection of 16 5-point Likert scale items comprised the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) beliefs and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancies (STOE) scales (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). The eight PSTE items (e.g. ‘I generally teach science effectively’) are added together to measure participants’ beliefs about their personal effectiveness in science teaching. The eight STOE items (e.g. ‘The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be overcome by good teaching’) measure participants’ more general beliefs about science teaching to affect student learning positively. Upon initial publication, both the PSTE (α = 0.92) and STOE (α = 0.74) scales were valid, with the discrepancy being replicated (e.g. Moslemi & Mousavi, 2019) and discussed in the STEBI literature (Deehan, 2017; Unfried et al., 2022). The PSTE (α = 0.89) and STOE (α = 0.74) scales were reliable in this project (Pallant, 2020).
Science Teaching Approaches
The 38 science teaching approaches from Appendix 1 were presented to participants to dichotomously identify which they utilised in their science teaching practice. They were also afforded the opportunity to identify any additional approaches from their science teaching repertoires that they felt were not represented in the framework. The research teams coded the open responses to remove inappropriate (e.g. ‘Just do it’) and redundant (e.g. ‘Project-based learning’) responses. Open responses deemed appropriate by the research team included resource suites (e.g. ‘Inquisitive’), science fairs and integrated STEM approaches. Each participant was assigned a metric ‘Total Approaches’ score based on the number of relevant approaches selected or otherwise identified in their response.
Curriculum Coverage
Respondents were asked to identify all of the areas of the science curriculum they had addressed in their teaching during the past year. Eleven dichotomous items covered the strands and sub strands of the current Australian K-10 Science Curriculum (ACARA, 2021a). Table 3 organises the 11 curriculum areas presented to participants under the Science Understanding, Science as a Human Endeavour and Science Inquiry Skills. The maximum score on the Curriculum Coverage measure was 11.
Data Analyses
Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated for the measures of science teacher efficacy (i.e. PSTE and STOE) and reported science teaching approaches (i.e. total approaches and curriculum coverage) for the groups of metropolitan or non-metropolitan-based teachers. To determine the difference between the two groups, a one-way ANOVA was computed on the PSTE, STOE, Total Approaches and Curriculum Coverage variables (Pallant, 2020). For additional detail, the magnitude of differences was measured through Hedge’s G to account for the different group sizes. The context, data and variance assumptions for the ANOVA were not violated, at least in part due to the resilience afforded by the large total sample size (VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007). Non-parametric chi-squares were conducted for the sake of a more thorough interrogation of any between group differences on the reported use of the 38 separate science teaching approaches (Appendix 1).
Results—Are There Differences in the Reported Science Teaching Practices and Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs of a Sample Australian Primary Teachers Based on School Location (Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan)?
There are very few observable differences between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan groups on the PSTE, STOE, Total Approaches and Curriculum Coverage measures. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for the non-metropolitan and metropolitan teachers’ PSTE, STOE, Total Approaches and Curriculum Coverage scores. On both efficacy scales, the metropolitan and non-metropolitan educators displayed similar means and standard deviations, with both groups falling clearly into the ‘somewhat efficacious’ category (i.e. > 24 and < 32). In accordance with much of the existing STEBI literature (Deehan, 2017), the PSTE scores were higher than the STOE scores for both groups. The PSTE scale was the only measure with a between group mean difference greater than one point (1.06). The mean score differences between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan groups on the STOE subscale (0.18) and the Total Approaches measure (0.25) appeared negligible. In fact, Curriculum Coverage did not differ at all between the two geolocation groups.
There were no statistically significant differences detected between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan groups on the PSTE, STOE, Total Approaches and Curriculum Coverage measures. Table 5 presents the output for a one-way ANOVA on the four dependent variables between the geolocation groups. Despite the effect size (g = 0.194) indicating a small advantage to the metropolitan teachers on the PSTE scale, the difference was not significant (p = 0.162). Additionally, there were no statistically significant between-group differences on the STOE subscale (p = 0.720), the Total Approaches reported (p = 0.791) and the Curriculum Coverage scores (p = 0.992).
More precise chi-square analyses were conducted on participants’ responses to the 38 specific framework approaches, and the number of ‘other’ approaches identified to account for the lack of sensitivity inherent in the broad Total Approaches measure. Table 6 summarises the statistical output for the series of chi-square tests computed to ascertain the differences between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan teachers on the reported use of specific science teaching approaches. In an extension of the results of the one-way ANOVA presented above, there were no significant differences between the groups in the reported uptake of 95% of the specific approaches, including the rate of identification of ‘other’ approaches, a possible indication of similar approaches to science teaching in metropolitan and non-metropolitan primary schools. There were only two teaching approaches that differed in frequency between the two groups. The non-metropolitan educators were more likely to include peer tutoring in their science teaching repertoires, X2 (1, N = 200) = 5.518, p = 0.019, whereas their metropolitan counterparts reported using Debate strategies with comparatively greater frequency, X2 (1, N = 200) = 4.765, p = 0.029. However, the significance of these findings in practice is contestable due to the lower overall frequency of use for Peer Tutoring and Debate approaches.
Discussion
The findings presented in this paper seem to align with the most recent Australian TIMSS results, which showed no statistically significant differences in metropolitan, regional and rural year 4 students’ science achievement (Thomson et al., 2020b), as there were no substantial differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan primary teachers’ PSTE, STOE, Total Approach and Curriculum Coverage scores. Even further interrogation of between-group differences for specific teaching practices revealed that reported use rates were similar for 95% of the approaches presented in the framework. A tentative interpretation may be that the similar STEBs and reported science teaching practices of metropolitan and non-metropolitan primary teachers may be influencing more equitable year 4 science outcomes by school location according to the TIMSS (Thomson et al., 2020b). Perhaps, such findings reflect the efforts of teachers, researchers and other educational stakeholders to improve the quality and equity of primary science education (e.g. Aubusson et al., 2015; Aubusson et al., 2019; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Skamp & Preston, 2021). Indeed, interviews and surveys from a group of 17 primary science academics, supplemented by analysis of publicly available documents, indicated that authentic, accessible and student-centred practices are central in Australian pre-service primary science education (Deehan, 2022). However, any interpretation should be made with a high degree of caution as there is no classroom or student data to confirm reported practice or elucidate how teaching practices relate to student outcomes. Cautious optimism is the best way to interpret these findings as they contradict much of the educational research signalling rural and regional disadvantage. As outlined in the introduction, metropolitan learners have long experienced better short- and long-term educational outcomes than their peers in the regional and rural areas. Recent trends towards equity in Australian primary science warrant further investigation. At the very least, it appears that teachers may be resilient to issues surrounding place, and thus have tremendous potential to contribute to the long-term closing of metropolitan and non-metropolitan educational divides.
There are a number of viable research pathways that could build on this study. First, the absence of significant differences in primary teachers’ STEBs and reported practices between metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations, particularly when considered alongside the equitable rural, regional and metropolitan year 4 science achievement levels in the most recent TIMSS (Thomson et al., 2020b), merits deeper investigation to determine if these findings are aberrations or could inform discourse and decisions surrounding long-standing gaps in metropolitan and non-metropolitan educational outcomes. In particular, the experiences and perspectives of primary science educators and students alike could help to further clarify the nature of geographical location as it relates to primary science education. Second, the data presented in this project represents a single public education jurisdiction in Australia. This means that research at a national scale is needed to determine if these findings are part of a larger pattern of bridging rural, regional or metropolitan divides, or whether the findings are an aberration related to other educational factors, such as teacher traits, funding, resources and others. Similar research should also be pursued to position these findings within a global context. Third, school and classroom level data are vital to addressing the issue of ecological validity commonly associated with large scale quantitative research projects in education (Gorur, 2017) by providing more nuanced, detailed information.
Any interpretation of the findings presented in this manuscript should be tempered by a full understanding of the methodological limitations. Despite providing some useful and methodological defensible insights, the quantitative operationalisation of school locations unavoidably fails to capture the complexity of the lived experiences of those who live and learn in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan communities. Although the ASGS remoteness structure (ABS, 2016) is widely adopted, it cannot cater for issues such as for individual movement between jurisdictions and requires categorisation that may not have any tangible meaning in practice, thus creating an artificial sense of accuracy. Indeed, many educators are likely to have completed their ITE in metropolitan areas and thus may have rural and regional experiences and perspectives that differ from those with more long-term connections to their communities. The importance of the metropolitan- and non-metropolitan-focused analyses presented in this paper should not be overstated as place inherently intersects with factors such as socio-economic status and gender, in ways that were not considered. Additionally, the absence of students as a data source prevents a clear link between the educators’ STEBs and teaching practices, and student outcomes from being established without relying heavily on the theoretical framework (Efficacy). Also, despite the rigour of the framework of approaches (Appendix 1) underpinning this paper, it can neither be a complete reflection of all the approaches that may comprise a primary science teachers’ professional and pedagogical experience repertoire (Loughran et al., 2001, 2004) nor can it capture the complex ways that approaches are instigated and altered in classroom settings. Finally, despite the relative strength of the participant sample, the non-probabilistic recruitment techniques prevent full generalisation of the findings.
Conclusion
The findings presented in this paper contradict much of the existing literature that has described educational divides between metropolitan and non-metropolitan learners. When considered alongside the outlying equitable TIMSS science achievement for Australian year 4 students across regional, rural and metropolitan centres (Thomson et al., 2020a, 2020b), the similar STEBs and reported science teaching between metropolitan and non-metropolitan educators could be indicative of an emerging trend of geographic equity in Australian primary science education. It is important for students to be supported by efficacious teachers who, regardless of school location and status, can overcome general and localised challenges to the provision of high-quality science education (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997a, 1997b). This research has shown that both metropolitan and non-metropolitan learners may be equally likely to experience the benefits associated with higher teacher efficacy, including stronger teaching practice (Burton, 1996; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Lardy, 2011; Nie et al., 2013) and better student-outcomes (Angle and Moseley, 2009; Çoğaltay, & Karadağ, 2017; Goddard et al., 2000). The STEB findings presented in this paper are particularly important as non-metropolitan teachers have historically faced considerable challenges in the provision of high quality education (Cardak et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2018; Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018; Halsey, 2018; OECD, 2013). Whilst the non-probabilistic sampling and reliance on distal data prevent any definitive statements from being made at this time, there is a clear need for further research in this space as there may be insights relevant to addressing the wicked problem of geographical educational disparity.
Data Availability
Data for this project are available on request.
References
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., ... & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Accurso, K., Gebhard, M., & Selden, C. (2016). Supporting L2 elementary science writing with SFL in an age of school reform. In Second language writing in elementary classrooms (pp. 126–150). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Albion, P. R., & Spence, K. G. (2013). Primary Connections in a provincial Queensland school system: Relationships to science teaching self-efficacy and practices. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(3), 501–520.
Allen, J., & Park Rogers, M. (2015). Formulating scientific explanations using the Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) framework. Science and Children, 53(3), 32–37.
Angle, J., & Moseley, C. (2009). Science teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy as predictors of students’ End-of-Instruction (EOI) Biology I test scores. School Science and Mathematics, 109(8), 473–483.
Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 1–25.
Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: THe Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563.
Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., Ng, W., Burke, P., & Pressick-Kilborn, K. (2015). Quality learning and teaching in primary science and technology literature review Sydney: Association of Independent Schools, New South Wales.
Aubusson, P., Skamp, K., Burke, P. F., Pressick-Kilborn, K., Ng, W., Palmer, T. A., ... & Ferguson, J. (2019). Primary connections: Linking science with literacy stage 6 research evaluation final report. Prepared for Steering Committee of Primary Connections, Australian Academy of Science. Accessed 22 December 2021 https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/134515/1/Primary%20Connections%20Stage%206%20Evaluation_redacted_report_FINAL.pdf.
Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (2011). Primary Connections: ‘Melting Moments’: Year 3. Canberra: AAS
Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (2012a). Primary Connections: ‘Change Detectives’: Year 6. Canberra: AAS
Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (2012b). Primary Connections: ‘Spot the Difference’: Year 1. Canberra: AAS
Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (2019). Primary Connections. Canberra: AAS. http://primaryconnections.org.au/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). About ICSEA. https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2019). National Assessment Program – Science Literacy Year 6 Report 2018 (pp. 1–160). Sydney: ACARA. Retrieved from https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/resources/nap-sl-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=8737e5e_2
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2021a). Science: The Australian Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2021b, January 3). School Search. https://asl.acara.edu.au/School-Search
Aydede, M. N., & Matyar, F. (2009). The effect of active learning approach in science teaching on cognitive level of student achievement. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 115–127.
Deehan, J. (2017). The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instruments (A and B): A comprehensive review of methods and findings from 25 years of science education research (pp. 86). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Deehan, J. (2021). Online education practices and teaching team compositions in Australian preservice primary science education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(6), 78–97. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol46/iss6/5
Deehan, J. (2022). Primary science education in Australian universities: An overview of context and practice. Research in Science Education, 52(6), 1735–1759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10026-6
Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the science teaching efficacy beliefs and science experiences of a cohort of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2548–2573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1393706
Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2020). From students to teachers: Investigating the science teaching efficacy beliefs and experiences of graduate primary teachers. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 885–916.
Deehan, J., MacDonald, A. & Morris, C. (2022). A Scoping Review of Interventions in Primary Science Education. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2154997
Balım, A. G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students’ success and inquiry learning skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 35, 1–20.
Balim, A. G., Inel-Ekici, D., & Özcan, E. (2016). Concept cartoons supported problem based learning method in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 272–284.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Banilower, E. R. (2019). Understanding the big picture for science teacher education: The 2018 NSSME+. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(3), 201–208.
Barnett, M., & Morran, J. (2002). Addressing children’s alternative frameworks of the moon’s phases and eclipses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 859–879.
Biggers, M. (2018). Questioning questions: Elementary teachers’ adaptations of investigation questions across the inquiry continuum. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 1–28.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.
Brown, B. A., Ryoo, K., & Rodriguez, J. (2010). Pathway towards fluency: Using ‘disaggregate instruction’ to promote science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1465–1493.
Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529.
Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 226–249.
Burton, L. D. (1996). How teachers teach: Seventh- and eighth-grade science instruction in the USA. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Science Teachers Association, St. Louis, MO.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs Co: BSCS, 5, 88–98.
Cardak, B., Brett, M., Bowden, M., Vecci, J., Barry, P., Bahtsevanoglou, J., & McAllister, R. (2017). Regional student participation and migration: Analysis of factors influencing regional student participation and internal migration in Australian higher education. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. Curtin University.
Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity beyond knowledge-and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 459–485.
Carrier, S. J., Tugurian, L. P., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Elementary science indoors and out: Teachers, time, and testing. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2059–2083.
Caulfield-Sloan, M. B., & Ruzicka, M. F. (2005). The effect of teachers’ staff development in the use of higher-order questioning strategies on third grade students’ rubric science assessment performance. Planning and Changing, 36, 157–175.
Celikten, O., Ipekcioglu, S., Ertepinar, H., & Geban, O. (2012). The effect of the conceptual change oriented instruction through cooperative learning on 4th grade students’ understanding of earth and sky concepts. Science Education International, 23(1), 84–96.
Chen, J., & Cowie, B. (2014). Scientists talking to students through videos. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 445–465.
Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H. (2015). Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: THe Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
Clark, I. (2009). An analysis of the relationship between K-5 elementary school teachers’ perceptions of principal instructional leadership and their science teaching efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota).
Çoğaltay, N., & Karadağ, E. (2017). The effect of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement. In The factors effecting student achievement (pp. 215–226). Springer, Cham
Cooper, G., Strathdee, R., & Baglin, J. (2018). Examining geography as a predictor of students’ university intentions: A logistic regression analysis. Rural Society, 27(2), 83–93.
Cuervo, H., & Acquaro, D. (2018). Exploring metropolitan university pre-service teacher motivations and barriers to teaching in rural schools. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 384–398.
Davis, N. T., Jo McCarty, B., Shaw, K. L., & Sidani-Tabbaa, A. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 627–636.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.
De Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.
Delen, I., & Krajcik, J. (2015). What do students’ explanations look like when they use second-hand data? International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1953–1973.
Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612.
Denessen, E., Vos, N., Hasselman, F., & Louws, M. (2015). The relationship between primary school teacher and student attitudes towards science and technology. Education Research International, 2015, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/534690
Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 1–20.
Dial, K., Riddley, D., Williams, K., & Sampson, V. (2009). Addressing misconceptions: A demonstration to help students understand the law of conservation of mass. The Science Teacher, 76(7), 54–57.
Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1–12.
Drăghicescu, L. M., Petrescu, A. M., Cristea, G. C., Gorghiu, L. M., & Gorghiu, G. (2014). Application of problem-based learning strategy in science lessons–Examples of good practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 297–301.
Durmuş, J., & Bayraktar, Ş. (2010). Effects of conceptual change texts and laboratory experiments on fourth grade students’ understanding of matter and change concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 498–504.
Eggleston, J. (Ed.). (2018). School-based curriculum development in Britain: A collection of case studies. Routledge.
Elstgeest, J. (2001). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary Science: Taking the Plunge (2nd ed., pp. 36–46). Heinemann.
Enochs, 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(8), 694–706.
Etherington, M. B. (2011). Investigative primary science: A problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9), 52–74.
Evagorou, M., Nicolaou, C., & Lymbouridou, C. (2015). School students’ emotions about teaching a controversial issue. School Science Review, 96(356), 75–80.
Field, G. (2009). The effects of the use of Renzulli Learning on student achievement in reading comprehension, reading fluency, social studies, and science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 4(1), 29–39.
Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: Perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543–566.
Fitzgerald, A., Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Mills, R. (2021). Primary teacher educators’ practices in and perspectives on inquiry-based science education: Insights into the Australian landscape. Education, 49(3), 344–356.
Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (2013, November). An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on l'Interaction Homme-Machine (pp. 14–22).
Flick, L. (1990). Scientist in Residence Program Improving Children’s Image of Science. School Science and Mathematics, 90(3), 204–214.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41(4), 47–56.
France, A. (2021). Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 51(3), 845–859.
Fraser, S., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Responding to the demands of the STEM education agenda: The experiences of primary and secondary teachers from rural, regional and remote Australia. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(1), 40–59.
Genc, M. (2015). The effect of scientific studies on students’ scientific literacy and attitude. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 141–152.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Girod, M., & Twyman, T. (2009). Comparing the value added value of blended science and literacy curricula to inquiry-based science curricula in two 2nd-grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 13–22.
Girod, M., Twyman, T., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2010). Teaching and learning science for transformative, aesthetic experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801–824.
Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 121–131.
Glynn, S. (2007). The teaching-with-analogies model. Science and Children, 44(8), 52–55.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., Cañadas, G. R., & Contreras, J. M. (2016). Linking inquiry and transmission in teaching and learning mathematics and experimental sciences. Acta Scientiae, 18(4), 29–47.
Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian School Science Education - National Action Plan 2008–2012 - Volume 1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gorur, R. (2017). Towards productive critique of large-scale comparisons in education. Critical Studies in Education, 58(3), 341–355.
Grumbach, E. (2019). From facts to solutions. Science and Children, 55(6), 35–41.
Guerra-Ramos, M. T. (2011). Analogies as tools for meaning making in elementary science education: How do they work in classroom settings? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 29–39.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., ... & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.
Halsey, J. (2018). Independent review into regional, rural and remote education. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/50281
Hapsari, A. S., & Hanif, M. (2019). Motion graphic animation videos to improve the learning outcomes of elementary school students. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1245–1255.
Harlen, W. (2015). Towards big ideas of science education. School Science Review, 97(359), 97–107.
Harms, N., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What Research Says to the Science Teacher (Vol. II). National Science Teachers Association.
Hermansson, C., Jonsson, B., Levlin, M., Lindhé, A., Lundgren, B., & Norlund Shaswar, A. (2019). The (non) effect of Joint Construction in a genre-based approach to teaching writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 483–494.
Høigaard, R., Giske, R., & Sundsli, K. (2012). Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 347–357.
Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41–58.
Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of First-hand and Second-hand Data in Science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725–1751.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2000). Emerging themes—National inquiry into rural and remote education. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/rural_remote/emerging_themes.pdf
Hume, A. C. (2012). Primary connections: Simulating the classroom in initial teacher education. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 551–565.
Humphries, C. A., Hebert, E., Daigle, K., & Martin, J. (2012). Development of a physical education teaching efficacy scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 16(4), 284–299.
Jasdilla, L., Fitria, Y., & Sopandi, W. (2019). Predict Observe Explain (POE) strategy toward mental model of primary students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022043
Johnson, D. M., Wardlow, G. W., & Franklin, T. D. (1997). Hands-on activities versus worksheets in reinforcing physical science principles: Effects on student achievement and attitude. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(3), 9–17.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Kahn, S., & Hartman, S. (2018). Debate, dialogue, and democracy through science! Science and Children, 56(2), 36–44.
Kamii, C., & Ewing, J. K. (1996). Basing teaching on Piaget’s constructivism. Childhood Education, 72(5), 260–264.
Karaçalli, S., & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “electricity in our lives.” School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224–235.
Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem-based learning curricula. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 1–18.
Kim, S. S. (2019). The Effect of maker class emphasizing small group discussion and debate on elementary school students’ science learning motivation and scientific attitude. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 12(1), 54–63.
Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587–605.
Kim, M., Tan, A. L., & Talaue, F. T. (2013). New vision and challenges in inquiry-based curriculum changes in Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 189–311.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.
Kleickmann, T., Tröbst, S., Jonen, A., Vehmeyer, J., & Möller, K. (2016). The effects of expert scaffolding in elementary science professional development on teachers’ beliefs and motivations, instructional practices, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 21–42.
Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. (2007). The benefits of teaching and learning about agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 25–36.
Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66–78.
Koto, I. (2020). Teaching and learning science using youtube videos and discovery learning in primary school. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 7, 106–118.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lardy, C. H. (2011). Personal science teaching efficacy and the beliefs and practices of elementary teachers related to science instruction (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at San Diego).
Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of the nature of science. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Science Education (Volume 2) (pp. 600–620). Routledge.
Lee, P. L., Lan, W., Hamman, D., & Hendricks, B. (2008). The effects of teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students’ science learning. Instructional Science, 36(3), 191–201.
Lemlech, J. K. (2009). Curriculum and Instructional Methods for Elementary and Middle School (7th ed.). Pearson.
Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014). Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4–18.
Liem, T. (1990). Invitations to Science Enquiry (2nd edition). Thornhill, Ontario: S17 Science. http://www.stmary.ws/HighSchool/Physics/home/links/techStuff/TikLiemScientificInquiry.pdf
Liou, H. H., Yang, S. J., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W. (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 20(3), 110–121.
Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471–492.
Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 289–307.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1997). Science achievement in the primary school years: IEA’s third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS International Study Centre, Boston College.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Student Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/
Matson, J. O. (2006). Misconceptions about the nature of science, inquiry-based instruction, and constructivism: Creating confusion in the science classroom. Electronic Journal of Literacy through Science, 5(6), 1–10.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.
McKinnon, D.H., Danaia, L. & Deehan, J. (June, 2017). The design of preservice primary teacher education science subjects: The emergence of an interactive educational design model. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education (JAESE), 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.19030/jaese.v4i1.9972
McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153.
Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.
Morrison, J. A. (2008). Individual inquiry investigations in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(2), 117–134.
Mortensen, M. F., & Smart, K. (2007). Free-choice worksheets increase students’ exposure to curriculum during museum visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1389–1414.
Moslemi, N., & Mousavi, A. (2019). A psychometric re-examination of the science teaching efficacy and beliefs instrument (STEBI) in a Canadian context. Education Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010017
Mueller, M. P., & Bentley, M. L. (2009). Environmental and science education in developing nations: A Ghanaian approach to renewing and revitalizing the local community and ecosystems. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(4), 53–64.
Murphy, C., & Smith, G. (2012). The impact of a curriculum course on pre-service primary teachers’ science content knowledge and attitudes towards teaching science. Irish Educational Studies, 31(1), 77–95.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
Nersessian, N. J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Science and Education, 4(3), 203–226.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). www.nextgenscience.org/
Nie, Y., Tan, G. H., Liau, A. K., Lau, S., & Chua, B. L. (2013). The roles of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: Its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12(1), 67–77.
NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). (2017). NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum, Science and Technology K-6. NSW Education Standards Authority, Sydney. Retrieved from: http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/science/science-and-technology-k-6-new-syllabus
Nyamupangedengu, E., & Lelliott, A. (2012). An exploration of learners’ use of worksheets during a science museum visit. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), 82–99.
Ocak, G. (2010). The effect of learning stations on the level of academic success and retention of elementary school students. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 146–157.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Mathematics, engineering & science in the national interest. Canberra: Australian Government.
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2013). What makes urban schools different? PISA in Focus, 28.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. Kings College.
Özgelen, S., Hacıeminoğlu, E., & Yılmaz Tüzün, Ö. (2008). Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Reasoning Abilities and Learning Approaches in Inquiry Based Learning Environment. https://narst.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/2008_Abstracts.pdf
Ozogul, G., Miller, C. F., & Reisslein, M. (2019). School fieldtrip to engineering workshop: Pre-, post-, and delayed-post effects on student perceptions by age, gender, and ethnicity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(5), 745–768.
Paek, S., & Fulton, L. A. (2016). Elementary students using a tablet-based note-taking application in the science classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(4), 140–149.
Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–193). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS, (7th ed.). Allen & Unwin.
Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32.
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasničák, R. (2007). Short-term effects of field programme on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A Slovak experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247–255.
Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K., & Akerson, V. L. (2010). If we teach them, they can learn: Young students’ views of nature of science aspects to early elementary students during an informal science education program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 887–907.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teachers’ science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–637.
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 559–572). Routledge
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2013). Intervening in contexts of schooling. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Discourse in context: Contemporary applied linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 447–475). Continuum.
Roth, K. (2014). Elementary science teaching. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Science Education (Volume 2) (pp. 361–394). Routledge.
Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2018). Progression. In N. Serret & S. Earle (Eds.), ASE Guide to Primary Science Education (pp. 92–103). UK Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
Sari, D. K., Banowati, E., & Purwanti, E. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning model increase the creative thinking skill and students activities on elementary school. Journal of Primary Education, 7(1), 57–63.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., ... & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
Şeşen, B. A., & Mutlu, A. (2016). Predict-observe-explain tasks in chemistry laboratory: Pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding and attitudes. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 184–208.
Shanahan, M. (2010). Reading as scientists. Science and Children, 48(1), 54–58.
Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., & Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243–258.
Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Hayashi, K., & Hagita, N. (2015). Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 641–652.
Skamp, K., & Preston, C. (Eds). (2021). Teaching primary science constructively (7th edition). Cengage.
Slater, S. J., Slater, T. F., & Shaner, A. (2008). Impact of backwards faded scaffolding in an astronomy course for pre-service elementary teachers based on inquiry. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(5), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.5408/jge_nov2008_slater_408
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
Stephenson, P., & Warwick, P. (2001). Peer tutoring in the primary science classroom: Upper primary students teaching infants. Investigating, 17(2), 11–13.
Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25–29.
Stevens, S., Andrade, R., & Page, M. (2016). Motivating young Native American students to pursue STEM learning through a culturally relevant science program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 947–960.
Suduc, A. M., Bizoi, M., & Gorghiu, G. (2015). Inquiry based science learning in primary education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 474–479.
Sullivan, K., Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2018). A comparison of rural educational disadvantage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand using OECD’s PISA. SAGE Open, 8(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018805791
Tarhan, L., Ayyıldız, Y., Ogunc, A., & Sesen, B. A. (2013). A jigsaw cooperative learning application in elementary science and technology lessons: Physical and chemical changes. Research in Science and Technological Education, 31(2), 184–203.
Tekin, N., Aslan, O., & Yilmaz, S. (2016). Research Trends on Socioscientific Issues: A Content Analysis of Publications in Selected Science Education Journals. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9), 16–24.
Thomson, S. & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. The PISA 2006 survey of students’ scientific, reading and mathematical literacy skills. Australian Council for Educational Research: Melbourne.
Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Underwood, C., & Schmid, M. (2019). PISA 2018: Reporting Australia’s results. Volume I student performance. Australian Council for Education Research, Australian Government Department of Education: Canberra, Australia.
Thomson, S., Wernert, N., Rodrigues, S., & O’Grady, E. (2020). TIMSS Australia 2019: Highlights. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-616-1
Thomson, S., Wernet, N., Buckley, S., Rodrigues, S., Ogrady, E., & Schmid, M. (2020). TIMSS Australia 2019: Volume II School and Classroom Contexts for Learning. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-615-4
Ting, K. L., & Siew, N. M. (2014). Effects of outdoor school ground lessons on students’ science process skills and scientific curiosity. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(4), 96–107.
Topping, K. J., Peter, C., Stephen, P., & Whale, M. (2004). Cross-age peer tutoring of science in the primary school: Influence on scientific language and thinking. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 57–75.
Tytler, R., & Griffiths, M. (2003). Spending time on primary science in integrated units. Investigating: Australian Primary Science Journal, 19(1), 12–16.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Unfried, A., Rachmatullah, A., Alexander, A., & Wiebe, E. (2022). An alternative to STEBI-A: Validation of the T-STEM science scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(24), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00339-x
Van Joolingen, W. R., Aukes, A. V., Gijlers, H., & Bollen, L. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 256–264.
VanVoorhis, C. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 637–666.
Varma, K., & Linn, M. C. (2012). Using interactive technology to support students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 453–464.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet Psychology, 15(3), 60–73.
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research Inc.
Westman, B., & Whitworth, B. (2019). Supporting second-grade students’ thinking using the PEOE strategy. Science and Children, 56(7), 44–49.
White, R. L., Eberstein, K., & Scott, D. M. (2018). Birds in the playground: Evaluating the effectiveness of an urban environmental education project in enhancing school children’s awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards local wildlife. PLoS ONE, 13(3), e0193993.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445.
Wilcox, J., & Lake, A. (2018). Teaching the nature of science to elementary children. Science and Children, 55(5), 78–85.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
Yarusso, L. (1992). Constructivism vs. Objectivism. Performance and Instruction, 31(4), 7–9.
Zhang, J., Huang, Y. T., Liu, T. C., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2020). Augmented reality worksheets in field trip learning. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1758728
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions The study was funded by Charles Sturt University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Dr. James Deehan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dr. James Deehan, and A/Prof. Amy MacDonald contributed to subsequent versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Ethics approval was granted via the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee (H21071) and the NSW State Education Research Applications Process (SERAP 2021178). Informed consent was gained from all participants in the study.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Deehan, J., MacDonald, A. Examining the Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Educational Divide: Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs and Teaching Practices of Australian Primary Science Educators. Res Sci Educ 53, 889–917 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10113-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10113-w