Turnover among Novice Science Teachers - Essay Example

Running head: TURNOVER AMONG NOVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS Turnover Among Beginning Secondary Science Teachers: A Study of a National Group of Teachers Fatimah Alhashem Arizona State University Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons behind attrition of a group beginning secondary science teachers. This study used both qualitative and quantitative techniques to collect and analyze data to understand the reasons that teachers left the field of science teaching. As a multi methods study, there were two sources of data that were collected and analyzed independently to understand the topic. From the quantitative analysis, we found that…….., From the qualitative analysis, we found that. The study offers suggestions to those who work with beginning secondary science teachers to help reduce their turnover. Turnover among Beginning Secondary Science Teachers: A Study of a National Group of Teachers In the 1990s, there was a call to understand and address the issue of teacher turnover in the United States. In the 15 years since this call, the turnover rate of teachers is still a central theme in many discussions regarding the teachers, yet there is now a better understanding about this phenomena. For instance, teacher turnover now encompasses several definitions, including teachers exiting the profession, teachers changing fields, or teachers changing schools (citation??). Additionally there is now information regarding the reasons that teachers turnover. XXXX (XXX) reported that new teachers leave the teaching field because they fail to cope with the complications that can accompany teaching. Others may quit or move because of disruptive behavior amongst children, issues with the administration or parents, or lack of resources (XXXX, XXXX). Most of the studies surrounding turnover pertain to beginning teachers in general. That is, most reports report teacher attrition and mobility among all teachers, and then by current teaching position. In doing these analyses, large samples are quantitatively described and implications are made about various groups of teachers. While these analyses are important, there is a need to understand reasons for teacher attrition and mobility that are specific to science teachers. This type of analysis should take into account the nuances of the science teaching. Laboratory instruction is one area that is unique to science teachers. For science teachers, they need supplies to demonstrate phenomena and to have students explore basic phenomena in the laboratory. Another area that is unique to science teachers pertains to teaching out of field. Most science teachers are certified in one area, but often teach in different disciplines. A middle school science teacher, for example, who has a degree in life science and teaches a general science course, may be teaching out of field ¾’s of the academic year. These areas, and others, may contribute to science teacher mobility and attrition. In this research, we explore the idea teacher mobility and attrition among beginning secondary school science teachers. The decision to pursue this area resides in the unique teaching experiences of secondary science teachers (those in middle and high school), and the lack of studies which explore just beginning science teachers decisions to move or leave the profession. In pursuing this objective, the questions that drive this study are: What are the general trends of attrition and mobility among secondary science teachers over a five year period of time? How does this compare to national data? What factors not unique to teaching science, and what factors unique to teaching science contribute to teacher attrition and mobility? How do science teachers depict their decisions for leaving or moving? Related Literature Teacher Turnover The term “teacher turnover” was coined by Boe, Bobbit, and Cook (1993) in their paper that followed an increased activity of teachers leaving their jobs after only a few years. In their study, Boe, Bobbit, and Cook defined teacher turnover as the changes in teacher status from year to year, and that it consists of teachers leaving the profession, changing fields within the profession, or changing schools. With this view of teacher turnover, the authors defined two main contributing areas. The first is called teacher attrition and it describes teachers who leave the career of teaching in general. The second area, identified as teacher mobility, refers to teachers who transfer or move to different teaching jobs in other schools for various reasons. Another study by Billingsley (1993) supported three main characteristics that influence teacher turnover: personal aspects, external aspects, and employment aspects. Personal aspects consist of the demographic, family, and emotional factors related to the individual choosing the teacher occupation. External aspects relate to social and economic factors. Employment aspects consist of the individual’s qualifications, experience, and working conditions. Another study showed that teachers who achieved more advanced scientific knowledge were more likely to neglect the idea of teaching or to quit teaching after a short period (Shugart & Hounshell, 1995). Grissmer and Kirby (1997) in an earlier study, found that teacher turnover formed a U-shaped curve, noting that turnover takes place either at the beginning or end of the teaching career. In his research, Ingersoll (2001, 2002) projected that teacher hiring and quitting is cyclical. Ingersoll (2001) analyzed national data and concluded that the teaching occupation is a revolving door in which almost half of new teachers depart schools within five years. Lortie (2002) expressed that in their first year, new teachers adjust in a “learning-while doing” or “a stay-leave process” (Lortie, 2002, p. 60). The theoretical framework that will drive this research will be based on two main factors. Figure1 shows the main factor for mobility is an unsupportive administration, and the common factor for attrition is teachers becoming employed in a different career. More recent research in the area of teacher turnover has been conducted by Ingersoll (2001). He examined the turnover rates among teachers using data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS). In 2002, Ingersoll reported a 13.2% turnover among teachers from the years of XXXX-XXXX; amongst these, approximately half left the profession and half changed schools. The reasons for teacher turnover feel into three main domains: teacher characteristics, school characteristics, and organizational conditions. Teacher characteristics pertained to ……..School characteristics were reasons given by teachers that were beyond the control of policies and that resided in organizational conditions, and consisted of……. And, organizational conditions consisted of…../ When this analysis was completed, Ingersoll (2002) noted that turnover was very high when salaries and organizational support were relatively low. A study by Darling-Hammond (2003) of mathematics and science teachers showed dissatisfaction with the lower pay in the teaching career. Further, Guin (2004) indicated that upon being hired by a school system, new teachers tend to be assigned to schools populated by students with lower socio-economic status. If incoming teachers are, indeed, restricted to such schools, it seems likely that many would eventually seek better opportunities outside the system (Guin, 2004). Nevertheless, science teachers in general are dissatisfied with their salaries. These outcome measures typically fall into two categories: teacher attitudes (e.g., a teacher’s job satisfaction, efficacy, and commitment) and teacher retention or turnover. Reasons Behind Moving or Leaving Teaching According to national attrition data from the 1994-95 TFS for public school teachers, some of the main reasons for leaving included personal and family considerations (31%), poor health (5%), and school staffing actions (3%). Retirement accounted for 27% of teachers who left their profession. Twenty-four percent of public teachers wanted to escape from teaching altogether and enter a vocations other than teaching because they were dissatisfied with the career (Whitener, Gruber, Lynch, Tingos, Perona, & Fondelier, 1997). Teachers leaving the profession that participated in the NCES study (YEAR) listed their main reasons of dissatisfaction as lack of planning time, workload too heavy, and class size. These reasons point to a greater need for improved working environments, including everything from good leadership to community support. Ingersoll (2002) also discussed the high rates of turnover due to dissatisfaction. He informed that as high as 33% of new teachers leave teaching overall in their first three years and 46% depart within the first five years. He also affirmed in his study (2002) that the best teachers are often among the first to leave and almost half of all teacher turnover is due to dissatisfaction or teachers seeking different careers. Reasons for turnover overlap in many cases. Some teachers retire; others leave for personal reasons such family or relocating and some are dismissed. Nearly half of all teachers who enter the field, however, leave it within the first five years. Based on the Texas Education Agency (TEA), teachers with lower salaries are expected to leave teaching after their first year than their equivalents with higher salaries (TEA, 1995). The same study found that teachers were more likely to move to a district with better pay rather than to stay in a district paying the same or lower salary within the next five years (TEA, 1995). Working conditions play a much larger role than retirement when it comes to explaining why teachers transfer to different schools and districts or leave the profession entirely. In an analysis of teacher turnover, teachers reported retirement as a reason for leaving less often than job dissatisfaction or pursuing another job (Ingersoll, 2003). Huling-Austin (1986) noted that employment aspects such as unsupportive administrators may also lead to a teacher’s decision to leave the school (e.g., transfer or quit). More specifically, science teachers are often eligible to find another career outside teaching that provides a better salary and might require less effort (Huling-Austin, 1986). Therefore, one of the crises facing employers today is retaining employees who are currently in place (Langan, 2000). Among public school teachers who transferred from one school to another, moving to get a better teaching assignment was cited as a deciding factor approximately 38.1% of the time. Similarly, dissatisfaction with workplace conditions (cited by 32.7%) and dissatisfaction with the support received from administrators at their previous school (cited by 37.2%) were cited as other important reasons in teachers’ decision to move (NCES, 2007). Most educational leaders and researchers have focused on teacher attrition from the profession in general and migration away from schools serving lower-income students into schools serving higher-income students. Numerous studies have demonstrated that attrition of new teachers is high (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001). By some estimates, approximately 40% of teachers leave the profession within five years of starting to teach (Ingersoll, 2002). In this research, we build on prior research in several ways. Much of the research has investigated, for example, individual-level demographic predictors such as gender or race (e.g., Kirby, Berends, & Naftel, 1999). Further, much prior research on teachers’ careers has been methodologically limited. Some of the most significant studies have focused on only one or two years of data of Ingersoll (2001; 2002). Further, prior research has divided teachers into “leavers” from the profession, “movers” to a new school, and “stayers” who remain in their current school. The problem with this approach is that it designates someone as a “stayer” who remains in his or her school from year one to year two, regardless of whether he or she moved previously. Our approach and findings differ from the often-cited evidence presented by Ingersoll (2001a, 2001b) because we focus only on novice science teachers. Ingersoll (2002) also found that teacher turnover was higher than other professions and that the number of retirees was smaller than the number of teachers leaving the profession for other reasons (“leavers”). From that, he concluded that the focus should be on reducing non-retirement turnover. Drawing on large national surveys as well as wide-ranging interviews with high school teachers and administrators, Ingersoll (2002) revealed shortcomings in the two opposing viewpoints that dominate thought on the subject. He noted schools are either too decentralized, lacking adequate control and accountability or that schools are too centralized, giving teachers too little autonomy. Both views, he shows, overlook one of the most important parts of teachers’ work: schools are not simply organizations engineered to deliver academic instruction to students as measured by test scores. Most studies are about beginning teacher turnover in general, a study by Guarino, Santibañez, Daley, and Brewer (2004) explored science teacher recruitment and retention. In this study, they noted that teachers with advanced degrees or teachers with degrees in “high market-value” subjects such as mathematics, engineering, and science, typically left their teaching positions for jobs in other, non-education fields at the same or higher rates than do their colleagues without these educational qualities. Induction Programs to Support Teachers Retention Almost all of the previously-cited research recommended that novice teachers need support, acceptance, and belonging; otherwise, they can easily become disconnected, isolated, and thus part of the high attrition rates associated with the teaching profession. School leaders must then deal with this high attrition, which adversely affect schools as learning communities (Watkins, 2005). Establishing induction programs, however, to help reduce new teacher attrition and improve teacher quality has become the basis of much interest and research (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Focusing on retraining teachers is a positive effort, but we still need to understand more about the most common factors for teachers’ attrition. Current research does not yet provide definitive evidence of the value of mentoring programs in keeping new teachers from leaving the profession (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). According to research findings by Howe (2006), understanding how an induction program works can lead to increasing its capacity to improve new teacher retention and professional effectiveness. Methodology Participants This study was drawn upon data138 teachers who are a part of a longitudinal study funded by the NSF. The process of the data collection was the following: teachers completed interviews and written assessments about their understanding of science teaching and they were observed twice during each year of the study. In addition, teachers were interviewed about their classroom practices during eight weeks spread throughout the school year. The number of participants degreased along the study as shown in figure 2 because of leaving the profession or not willing to participate as it will show further in the findings. [Insert Figure 1 here] Data collection and analysis Marshall and Rossman (1995) said that a descriptive analysis is a proper research methodology when the researcher seeks to document a phenomenon of significance. Thus, collecting qualitative data regarding teacher turnover was coded according to categories that serve to answer the research questions (e.g., studying, moving, unsupportive administration). The variables were created by coding inductively participants’ different responses regard their reasons for changing schools or leaving the classroom. Then, coded data was placed on a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. During coding, the data was broken down into separate sections, closely examined, and analyzed for similarities and differences. Questions are asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis has provided some understanding of the reasons teachers quit and some description of the destinations of those leaving. In the process of collecting data, researchers focused on the written and digital forms of the pre- and post-interviews for teachers and weekly updates. The information gathered from interviews at the beginning of each year of the study included useful information on new schools or districts. Interviews with teachers at the end of the year focused on plans for the following year. The quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel software. As responses were examined, they were coded, placed in tables, and analyzed for emergent themes (Creswell, 2008). The emergent themes were further analyzed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to graphically analyze data for patterns of change over time. Last, because a research goal was to determine turnover differences between female and male teachers, we ran a cross tabulation to analyze the interdependent relationship between two tables of values, but not a causal relationship between the values. Validity For the validity of the research, we focused on taking more detailed coding memos. These were eventually accumulated into a narrative description explicating the theoretical explanation of data use and its implications. Next, if the data indicated conflicting responses, a discussion of these results indicated need for further analysis. The scale to evaluate teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy has been authorized for content validity and reliability by the researchers. The interviews were validated through a team-review process that involved several stages of redesign and modifications to mirror parts of the questions in order to be able to interpret qualified results. In addition, we used multiple data sources. When data from several different sources, such as documents and interviews converge on the same point for coding, there can be greater confidence in the conclusions’ validity than if only one data source informed the conclusions. Findings The first part of this analysis will focus mainly on the number of teachers who left the study during the five-year study period. The analysis shows the percentage of both groups of teachers who left the study or moved from their first school after one year. In table 1, 16.1 % of the teachers moved from their first school to a different school, while 13.1% of the teachers quit the study. Further details will be discussed in the second part of the analysis. [Table 1 insert here] After the second year of the study, 10% of the teachers had moved from the first school where they had started in the beginning of their career as shown in table 2. There was 2.2%, however, who moved from their second school. The leavers, who left the profession entirely, made up 13.4%. [Table 2 insert here] After the third year of the study as shown in table 3, only 5.9 % of the teachers moved from their first school, 4.9% moved from their second school, and 1% moved from their third school. The percentage of teachers who quit the study was 19.6%. [Table 3 insert here] After their fourth year of teaching, among the teachers who responded, 7% moved from their first school, 1.4% moved to their second school, and 1.4% quit the study. [Table 4 insert here] Next, we analyzed the data through frequency tables to determine the reasons behind teachers’ moving and quitting their profession. There were related reasons for both moving and quitting. Thus, we established two tables, 5 and 6, to represent the reasons for moving and quitting. Table 5 shows ten reasons why teachers move from their schools during the five year study period. Table 5 illustrates that the mobility of science teachers was higher in the first and in the second year of the study, while it became more sustained in the further years of the study. The main reason teachers left their school was “unsupportive administration.” There were 11 such cases within the five years study period. [Insert table 5 here] The second part of this analysis focused on the rationales behind teachers’ attrition. Table 6 shows seven different reasons teachers leave their career as a science teacher. There was one group of teachers who continued teaching science, but did not want to participate in the study. After the first year of teaching, the attrition rate peaked and it decreased gradually thereafter. The main cause for science teacher attrition was the ability to find another job other than teaching. Overall, the study lost 33.3% of the participants due to varied reasons. [Insert table 6 here] Discussion and Implications Many previous studies have concentrated on the causes of teacher attrition, focusing on both those who choose to leave and those that remained in teaching. In this study, the teachers’ reported reasons for leaving the profession or seeking out new positions within the field including insufficient administrative support as well as seeking different jobs for better salary or benefits. The findings emphasize what has been stated earlier in the literature review regarding teacher turnover. Previous studies found that teachers were moving from one school to another mostly because of an unsupportive administration. Thus, it is important for administrators and experienced teachers to comprehend both observation and peer-coaching strategies (Cooper & Mulvey, 2009). Future induction programs may scaffold or articulate and develop future programs to eliminate such factors of attrition. This makes it compulsory that both universities and school districts work collaboratively to implement successful strategies to reduce teachers’ turnover (Cooper & Mulvey, 2009). Conclusion Although participant attrition in the study remained low, several teachers either left the teaching profession or transferred from one school to another. This study analyzed a group of teachers who turned over during the study period and investigated the reasons behind their decisions while being in an induction program. In this study, we noted that science teachers’ turnover occurred mainly during the first two years and decreased as the study progressed. The primary reason behind teachers’ movement from one school to another pointed mostly to an unsupportive administration, although some attrition was due to taking non-teaching job opportunities. Understanding turnover’s nature and causes is of critical importance to both researchers and policymakers. While the overall rate of turnover in this study is relatively low, our results suggest that the average rate of teachers’ turnover is close to similar professions. Although studies point to the likely value of some induction and mentoring programs in decreasing the attrition of novice teachers, several pressing questions concerning induction programs remain that require more systematic research than currently exist in terms of reasons behind turnover. The findings suggest that we must develop and sustain professionally-rewarding career paths for teachers from more coherent induction programs. School systems should also support mentoring programs for new teachers and should develop clear and rewarding career paths to accomplish teaching. Recommendations for Further Study Our findings help explain arguments in previous research and suggest important avenues for future research on the topic. In particular, turnover comparisons can vary dramatically depending on the worker age distribution, specific comparison groups, and specific types of turnover under consideration. In addition to accounting for these observations, future research should consider in greater depth the role of pensions and possible alternative policies that could increase the quality and quantity of workers in classrooms. Further research can be conducted in the area. Factor analysis can be done to discover the effect that the various factors have on the propensity of science teachers to quit their position. Moreover, a study could be conducted from the administrators’ perspective and by studying the strategies management adopts to retain teachers and their effect on teacher turnover. Such a study could inform a useful, structured program for new science teachers for both the school and school district to assist them in their first year. References Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Author. American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. H. (1993). Whither didst thou go? Retention, reassignment, migration, and attrition of special and general education teachers in national perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, Texas. Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 137-175. Cooper, B. & Mulvey, J.D. (2009). Getting and keeping new teachers. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Why it matters what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13. Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teacher’s College Record, 99(1), 45-56. Guarino, C., Santibañez, L., Daley, G., & Brewer, D. (2004). A review of the research literature on teacher recruitment and retention. Technical Report No. TR-164-EDU. Los Angeles: RAND Corporation. Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(42), 1-30. Henry, M. (1986). Strengths and needs of first year teachers. Teacher Educator, 22(2), 10-18. Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Factors to consider in alternative certification programs: What can be learned from teacher induction research? Action in Teacher Education, 8(2), 51-58. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? National Association of Secondary School Principals, 88(638), 28-41. Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality: The recurring myth of teacher shortages. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 41-44. Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(4), 315-333. Langan, S. (2000). Finding the needle in the haystack: The challenge of recruiting and retaining sharp employees. Public Personnel Management, 29(4), 461-464. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and Science Education Reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Shugart, S. S., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Subject matter competence and the recruitment and retention of secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 63-70. Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal. 41(3), 681-714 . Texas Education Agency. (1995). Texas teacher retention, mobility, and attrition, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas 601(14). Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Villar, A., & Strong, M. (2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost analysis and five-year rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program for beginning teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Teacher Attrition and Mobility Results from the Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2004-05. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007307.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006313.pdf Watkins, P. (2005). The principal’s role in attracting, retaining, and developing new teachers: Three strategies for collaboration and support. The Clearing House, 79 (2), 83-87. Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K. J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., & Fondelier, S. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the Teacher Follow-up Survey, 1994-95. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education Appendix A Figure 1. Number of participants during the 5 years study period Figure 2. Number of participants changed school per year. Figure 3. Number of participants left study per year. Table 1. Post_Year_1 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid same school 97 70.3 70.8 70.8 first move 23 16.6 17.1 86.9 left study 18 13.0 13.1 100.0 Total 138 99.3 100.0 Missing System 0 .0 Total 138 100.0 Table 2 Post_Year_2 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid same school 88 63.8 73.9 73.9 first move 12 8.7 10.1 84.0 second move 3 2.2 2.5 86.6 left study 16 11.6 13.4 100.0 Total 119 86.2 100.0 Missing System 19 13.8 Total 138 100.0 Table 3 Post_Year_3 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid same school 70 50.7 68.6 68.6 first school 6 4.3 5.9 74.5 second school 5 3.6 4.9 79.4 third school 1 .7 1.0 80.4 left study 20 14.5 19.6 100.0 Total 102 73.9 100.0 Missing System 36 26.1 Total 138 100.0 Table 4 Post_Year_4 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid same school 64 46.4 90.1 90.1 first school 5 3.6 7.0 97.2 second school 1 .7 1.4 98.6 left study 1 .7 1.4 100.0 Total 71 51.4 100.0 Missing System 67 48.6 Total 138 100.0 Table 5 Mobility Reasons of Science Teachers Mobility Reasons After the first year After the second year After the third year After the fourth year Total Job in another school 5 1 0 1 7 Unsupportive Administration 3 6 0 2 11 teaching system 3 0 1 1 5 demography of school 3 1 1 1 6 Fired 0 1 0 0 1 Switch school 0 1 0 0 1 interested in High school 1 1 0 0 2 interested middle school 0 1 0 0 1 budget cut 0 1 1 0 2 Moving 2 0 3 0 5 Total 17 13 6 5 41 Table 6 Attrition Reasons of Science Teachers Attrition Reasons After year 1 After year 2 After year 3 After year 4 Total Family 0 3 1 1 5 Fired 6 2 0 0 8 Another career 5 3 3 0 11 Studying 2 2 3 0 7 teaching another subject 2 3 2 0 7 Budget cut 1 1 0 0 2 Moving 4 2 0 0 6 Teaching science but not participate 0 0 9 0 9 Total 20 16 18* 1 55 Note: *There were nine science teachers who did not participate in the study but retrained in their positions as science teachers in their same schools [Insert Figure 1 here] Read More