Journal of Elementary Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 2004), pp. 51-63.

©2004 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human

Services, Western Illinois University.

Contextual Teaching and Learning

of Science in Elementary Schools
Shawn M. Glynn
Department of Science Education

Linda K. Winter
Department of Science Education
Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) integrates inquiry, problem- and project-
based learning, cooperative learning, and authentic assessment. Case studies were
carried out on 21 teachers who used CTL to teach science in elementary schools to
diverse groups of children. The findings indicated that the conditions that fostered the
implementation of CTL strategies were a collaborative interaction with students, a high
level of activity in the lesson, a connection to real-world contexts, and an integration
of science content with other content and skill areas. Furthermore, the CTL strategies
were best implemented when teachers used them in conjunction with sound classroom
management techniques.

Contextual Teaching and Learning of Science in Elementary

Schools
One of the major goals of recent reform efforts in science education has been to
ensure that various instructional approaches shared with teachers during inservice
teacher enhancement are relevant to the challenges that actually confront them in
their daily teaching practice (Meijer, Zanting, & Verloop, 2002). Our purpose in this
article is to report findings on an innovative approach that is having a significant
impact on the teaching of science in elementary schools.
For ten years now, the National Science Education Standards (National Research
Council, 1996) have provided a vision for science education reform. The standards
have helped teachers plan lessons, teach effectively, assess validly, and refine their
knowledge and skills continually. Since 1998, the University of Georgia (UGA) has
participated in a federally supported project to design a model program for the
continued professional development of elementary school teachers. In its present
form, the program reflects the significant influences of the standards, the Pathways
to the Science Education Standards—Elementary School Education Edition (Lowery,
1997), and an innovative instructional approach called Contextual Teaching and
Learning (Johnson, 2002; Sears, 2002; Sears & Hersh, 2000).
Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) is based on situated cognition
research (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Kumar & Voldrich, 1994) which has found that
constructivist processes such as critical thinking, inquiry learning, and problem
solving should be situated in relevant physical, intellectual, and social contexts
(Brown, 2000; Cavallo, Miller, & Saunders, 2002; Downing & Gifford, 1996; Driver,
Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Glynn & Duit, 1995). CTL is consistent
with a constructivist approach for the teaching of science in elementary schools

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 51

(Bentley, Ebert, & Ebert, 2000). The CTL approach anchors teaching and learning
in students’ diverse life contexts and prepares students for learning in the complex
environments they will encounter in their future careers.
CTL is a grassroots initiative that has emerged from teachers’ efforts to build
upon situated-cognition research and integrate into one approach a number of
validated strategies that are too often employed independently of one another.
As implemented in the UGA program for teaching science in elementary schools,
these CTL strategies include (1) inquiry learning, (2) problem-based learning,
(3) cooperative learning, (4) project-based learning, and (5) authentic assessment.
These strategies are described in detail in Table 1. In order for these component
CTL strategies to be used effectively, they should be used with other commonly
accepted good teaching practices such as promoting self-regulated learning and
addressing student diversity when teaching (Chiappetta & Koballa, 2002; Loucks-
Horsley, Lovle, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003).
CTL is a constructivist approach to learning in that it focuses on knowledge
that is highly contextualized and relevant to students (Driver et al., 1994; Johnson,
2002; Morrell, 2003). CTL emphasizes using concepts and process skills in real-
world contexts that are relevant to students from diverse backgrounds. This
approach “motivates students to make connections between knowledge and its
applications to their lives as family members, citizens, and workers and to engage
in the hard work that learning requires” (Sears & Hersh, 2000, p. 4).
CTL is not a cookbook approach to teaching science. Instead, its component
strategies provide a set of integrated tools that elementary school teachers
can use to instruct effectively and to address controversial yet fundamentally
important issues that may be raised in their classrooms—issues such as the origin
of the earth, the evolution of life, and animal rights, to name only a few (Tippins,
Koballa, & Payne, 2002).
The purpose of the present study was to gain insight into the conditions
that facilitate and hinder the implementation of CTL when teaching science to
children from diverse backgrounds. Accordingly, case studies were conducted of
21 elementary school teachers in their classrooms, following up their two-week,
full-time participation in a summer CTL graduate-level workshop.

52 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

 Table 1
Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) Strategies

CTL (Johnson, 2002; Sears, 2002; Sears & Hersh, 2000), like any approach
to instruction, is characterized by the use of some learning strategies more
than others. As implemented in the present program for elementary science
education, the following research-validated strategies are used in an integrated
fashion:

1. Inquiry learning. Students learn science in much the same way that science
itself is carried out. Inquiry refers to those processes and skills used by
scientists when they investigate natural phenomena. Inquiry involves an
understanding of “how and why scientific knowledge changes in response
to new evidence, logical analysis, and modified explanations debated within
a community of scientists” (NRC, 2000, p. 21).

2. Problem-based learning. Students are given either a real or simulated problem

and must use critical thinking skills to solve it (Gallagher, Stepien, Sher, &
Workman, 1995). Ideally, they will need to draw information from a variety
of disciplines. Problems that have some personal relevance to the students
are often good choices because they encourage strong participation,
learning, and perseverance.

3. Cooperative learning. Students work together in small groups and focus on

achieving a common goal through collaboration and with mutual respect
(Tippins et al., 2002). Each student within the group is viewed as making a
significant contribution to the goal.

4. Project-based learning. Students work independently or collaboratively on

projects of personal interest (Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 1994).
There is an emphasis on constructing realistic and valuable work products.
When these projects benefit others, and have wider social relevance, they
are often described as service learning (Billig, 2000).

5. Authentic assessment. Students are evaluated by means of their performance

on tasks that are representative of activities actually done in relevant, real-
life settings, often associated with future careers. An example of an authentic
assessment is a portfolio, which is “a purposeful and representative
collection of student work that conveys a story of progress, achievement
and/or effort” (Atkin, Black, & Coffey, 2001, p. 31).

Method
We are two university researchers who are studying elementary school
teachers in connection with a CTL implementation project supported by the U.S.
Department of Education. We each have been facilitating teacher professional
development for more than 20 years. We recognize that society is constantly
changing and, consequently, so is the nature of teaching and learning. Accordingly,

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 53

we welcomed the vision for reform that the standards offered us and adopted the
CTL strategies as a relevant means of implementing the standards when teaching
science in elementary schools.
The 21 inservice elementary school teachers included 20 women and one male.
Four of the women were African American, and one was Hispanic/Latino; the
other teachers were Anglo American. They ranged in age from 22 to 48 years old
(M = 32.1 years; SD = 6.7) and in teaching experience from one year to 27 years
(M = 8.3; SD = 5.2). All of the teachers had bachelor’s degrees; in addition, four had
master’s degrees and one had a doctorate. All of the participating teachers earned
the professional development credits necessary to retain state teacher certification.
They also received a stipend of $300 and curriculum materials.
The five CTL strategies the teachers learned have been validated by previous
research (see Table 1). Most of the teachers were already familiar with the
strategies, and many reported they used them regularly but independently.
During the two-week summer CTL graduate-level workshop, we demonstrated a
series of elementary (K-5) life science and physical science mini-lessons (e.g., bird
study, earth’s crust, blood circulation, soil erosion, and water pollution) selected
from a curriculum-resource Internet website (Columbia Education Center, 2004)
and a curriculum guide (Project WET, 1995). We incorporated CTL strategies into
the mini-lessons following the recommendations of Sears (2002). Following the
demonstration phase of the workshop, the participating teachers each carried out
three one-hour simulated practice mini-lessons and received formative feedback
on how to improve their use and integration of CTL strategies.
Sustained contact was maintained with the teachers over the following school
year to observe their implementation of CTL strategies and to determine what
facilitated and hindered implementation in actual classroom conditions. The
sources of data collected on the inservice teachers included initial semistructured
interviews followed by structured ones (Merriam, 2001), observations of science
lessons, teacher work products (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, and activity sheets),
and student work products (e.g., activity sheets, completed tests, models,
drawings, and posters).
Like all case studies, a limitation of the present ones is that they do not produce
generalizable findings as do studies with experimental designs (Silverman, 2000,
2001; Stake, 1988); their value instead is to “examine the circumstances of the case
to determine the ways in which the case fits the circumstances of the reader’s own
situation” (Erickson, 1986, p. 153). Case study methods were used here to provide
information on the circumstances that facilitate and hinder the implementation of
CTL strategies.

Findings
All 21 teachers used the CTL integrated strategies in their classrooms, with
most using the strategies well and often, as operationalized by an analytic scoring
rubric (Doran, Chan, & Tamir, 1998). The rubric, based on the CTL integrated
strategies and the more-emphasis conditions of the National Science Education
Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 52), is presented in Table 2. In the following sections,
for economy of presentation, we describe in detail the lessons of three of the
teachers—Ms. Anderson, Ms. Morton, and Ms. Roberts—who were representative
of the majority. The names of the teachers and their schools are pseudonyms.

54 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

Table 2
Analytic Rubric for Evaluating Lessons

Key: 4 = very
Contextual Teaching and Learning Strategies plus the good, 3 = good, 2 =
National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 52) satisfactory, and 1
Emphases = unsatisfactory
CTL integrated strategies: 1 2 3 4
Inquiry
Problem- and project-based learning 1 2 3 4
Cooperative learning
Authentic assessment 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4
“Understanding and responding to individual student’s 1 2 3 4
interests, strengths, experiences, and needs”
“Selecting and adapting curriculum” 1 2 3 4
“Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific 1 2 3 4
knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes”
“Guiding students in active and extended scientific 1 2 3 4
inquiry”
“Proving opportunities for scientific discussion and 1 2 3 4
debate among students”
“Continuously assessing student understanding” 1 2 3 4
“Sharing responsibility for learning with students” 1 2 3 4
“Supporting a classroom community with cooperation, 1 2 3 4
shared responsibility, and respect”

Case 1: Ms. Margaret Anderson, Wilson Elementary School, 1st Grade

Although Wilson Elementary School is in an urban setting, it has an unusually
large campus with open spaces for sporting events, nature trails, and a butterfly
garden. There are 461 students who attend Wilson in grades Pre-K through 5th
grade, and there are approximately equal numbers of boys and girls. Wilson
Elementary is quite diverse in terms of its student body: 22% of the students are
Anglo American, 21% are Hispanic/Latino American, 54% are African American,
and 2% are Asian American. About 7% have limited English proficiency. Wilson
has a relatively large number of students coming from low-income families, with
about 72% qualifying for a free or reduced price lunch under federal guidelines.
About 11% of the children qualify for special education services.
Ms. Margaret Anderson is an African-American woman, about 40 years of age,
who has been teaching children for 15 years, two of those at Wilson Elementary
School. She has an undergraduate degree in music and a master’s degree in early
childhood education. Ms. Anderson’s classroom is colorful, spacious, and well-
organized, with large blooming plants everywhere. Hanging from the ceiling

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 55

are three large kites in the form of butterflies. There also is a large aquarium,
computers, and an abundance of art supplies.
There are 22 students in Ms. Anderson’s class: 17 are African American and
five are Hispanic/Latino American. The children are enthusiastic, attentive, and
active; they also redirect well and raise their hands to speak.
Ms. Anderson begins her lesson on plants by reading the storybook The Carrot
Seed by Ruth Krauss. Next, she uses the K-W-L group instruction technique
to promote inquiry (Ogle, 1986), having students systematically respond to
categories of questions. By means of the K-W-L technique, the students share what
they know (K), what they want (W) to know, and at the end of the lesson, they
express what they have learned (L). Students then move to their tables, which
are set up for collaborative groups. Students work together and help one another
on problems and projects assigned by Ms. Anderson, who has appointed table
leaders to organize supplies for each group. Once seated at their tables, students
use resource photographs to answer questions such as “What is the biggest flower
in the world?” and “What plant has leaves that look like the ears of an elephant?”
After students find the corresponding photographs, Ms. Anderson asks questions
such as “Where do you think the plant in the photo grows?”
Ms. Anderson has brought in a variety of live potted blooming plants for the
students to examine as they identify the parts of the plants and the corresponding
terms such as root, stem, leaf, flower, seed, and seed coat. Students are encouraged
to lift their plants from the pots to touch and identify the various parts. Then, in
pairs, they draw their particular plant, and compare it with another pair’s plant.
These drawings, in addition to other learning products, are entered into student
portfolios and serve as authentic assessments that Ms. Anderson uses to determine
what students have understood (and possibly misunderstood) about the lesson.
Ms. Anderson motivates her students by sharing her own excitement for the
lesson. She also uses anticipatory techniques such as asking students to guess
what part of a plant she might be holding behind her back or partially revealing
a plant part for them to identify. She also enthusiastically asks students, “Are
you ready for my next question?” She encourages students to clap when others
contribute valid responses, and she verbally reinforces those responses.
During the course of the lesson, Ms. Anderson suggests a series of relevant
problems for the students to solve. For example, she explains that some types of
plants need less sunlight than others, and she uses one of their classroom plants,
an African Violet, as an example. She then asks her students to help her determine
the spot where the plant would receive just the right amount of sunlight for it
to thrive. She playfully personalizes the plant, appearing to capitalize on the
anthropomorphism and animism that characterizes the scientific thinking of pre-
operational children (Ginsburg, 1997; Piaget, 1951), while at the same time being
careful to ensure that the children do not form misconceptions about plants.
Ms. Anderson’s lesson is motivational as well as informative. She integrates the
CTL strategies with the content, and the children are clearly engaged. When asked
about her philosophy of teaching, Ms. Anderson explained that the CTL strategies
help her children learn and apply knowledge better than traditional drill, practice,
and memorization strategies. Regarding the impact of the CTL strategies on the
students’ learning about plants, she happily said, “If I ask them next year to
identify and show me the parts of a plant, chances are they will be able to do it!”
This comment and others by Ms. Anderson reflected her thinking that CTL was
a more constructive and meaningful approach to instruction than the traditional
approach that she had learned earlier in her career. The traditional approach, as

56 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

she described it, was one that emphasized rote learning, a process that she now
wanted to avoid. CTL, as she explained, provided her with an approach that made
science relevant to her students’ lives.

Case 2: Ms. Jeanne Morton, Baker Elementary School, 2nd Grade

Baker Elementary School is an urban school in an older historic section of the
city. There are 418 students enrolled in grades Pre-K through 5th grade, of whom
49% are Anglo American, 32% are African American, 10% are Asian American, and
8% are Hispanic/Latino American. About 5% of the students have limited English
proficiency. There are approximately equal numbers of boys and girls at Baker.
About 44% of its students come from low-income families and qualify for a free or
reduced price lunch, according to federal guidelines. About 14% qualify for special
education services.
Ms. Jeanne Morton is an Anglo-American woman in her early forties who has
been a teacher for more than ten years, two of them at Baker. In Ms. Morton’s
classroom, there are displays on every wall, there is a 50-gallon fish tank gurgling
softly in the corner, the windows have colorful butterflies posted on them, there
are posters of all sorts throughout the room, and books fill every available space.
At 9:45 AM, in connection with a lesson on butterflies, the daily “power walk”
begins. Students go outside to the butterfly garden and play area, bringing
their snacks. The students are energetic, inquisitive, and attentive. Ms. Morton
stimulates inquiry by directing the students to “look for something, alive or that
once was alive, that has changed since we went outside yesterday.” Following
this, students go back into the building, after individually telling Ms. Morton
what they have “discovered,” which is her “secret password” to re-enter the
building. Students then collaboratively work on problems and projects, including
constructing butterflies out of craft materials in accordance with the information
learned earlier, comparing butterflies to moths and other living things. These
models of butterflies, along with other work products, are placed in student
portfolios and used by Ms. Morton as authentic assessments of what her students
have learned from the lesson. The portfolios are available to parents so that they
can see the nature and quality of the work their children are producing.
At 10:45 AM, classes change, and Ms. Morton’s reading group comes in. The
story in the text is about fossils, so Ms. Morton has worn amber jewelry which she
passes around and discusses. She also has brought a lamp from home that has a
clear glass base filled with fossils that the children inspect.
Ms. Morton’s enthusiasm is in itself motivational—in response to it, students
seem to want to please her. She also uses many types of colorful materials and
gives each student sticky notes on which to list new scientific words. When
a student responds appropriately to a question she poses, she praises him or
her, saying, “That is a great start! Who would like to add on?” Other students
eagerly do so, resulting in a set of responses from which all students learn. She
encourages her students to touch the fossils and develop their observational skills.
The arrangement of student desks lends itself to cooperative learning, with the
desks set up in squares, and with each group of four students facing in with their
desktops making one “table.” Ms. Morton uses this arrangement in other activities
as well.
Much of Ms. Morton’s teaching is inquiry-based. Outside her classroom door, a
poem is posted that poses questions about a butterfly. All students have reflected
on it and can answer questions about it. Ms. Morton frequently asks a series of

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 57

questions, with one question evolving from another. She uses questioning to
prompt students to be resourceful in their creation of insect models: “We don’t
have enough pipe cleaners for everyone to get six, but you can have three; how
can we make six butterfly legs out of three pipe cleaners?” Ms. Morton’s frequent
use of CTL strategies was consistent with the philosophy of science teaching that
she shared with us:

I believe that students are ultimately driven to make sense of their physical
environment, and the more tools and opportunities that we give them to
interact with science and the real world around them, the more they will pursue
that knowledge as they grow and learn.

This statement, along with others of a similar nature, suggested that Ms.
Morton thought of CTL as a tool for achieving one of her primary goals—to
help her students embrace science as a way of knowing the world around them.
Given the diversity of her students, and the fact that many of them came from
economically disadvantaged circumstances, she felt she must be as proactive as
possible in fostering an appreciation of science in them. This goal was achievable
through CTL, according to Ms. Morton, and this was the reason she gave for
valuing CTL so highly.

Case 3: Ms. Alicia Roberts, Taft Elementary School, 4th Grade

Taft Elementary School is located in a suburb. There are 429 students enrolled
in grades Pre-K through 5th grade, with approximately equal numbers of boys
and girls. Taft is a very ethnically diverse school: 40% of the students are Anglo
American, 8% are Hispanic/Latino American, 43% are African American, and 7%
are Asian American. About 43% of Taft’s students come from low-income families
that qualify for a free or reduced price lunch under federal guidelines. About 11%
of the children qualify for special education services.
Ms. Alicia Roberts is an African-American woman in her late twenties who has
been teaching children for seven years, all of them at Taft School. She has a B.A
degree in early childhood education. Ms. Roberts has a well decorated classroom;
it is neat, organized, and attractive. There is a door leading out to a butterfly
garden. Within the classroom, there are four clusters of six desks, with sets of
multicolored paper Chinese lanterns hanging over each cluster, multiple bright
posters on the walls, and two bulletin boards labeled “Our Best Work.”
The 24 students in Ms. Roberts’ class include eight African Americans, one Asian
American, one Hispanic/Latino American, one Eastern Indian American, and 13
Anglo Americans. The students are active and attentive, occasionally getting so
energized by a task that they have to be gently reminded to calm down.
Ms. Roberts begins her lesson about food chains and food webs by reading
aloud to the students an excerpt from the book There Was an Old Lady that
Swallowed a Trout. She then reviews relevant technical terms previously learned
by the students and explains some new ones (e.g., ecosystem, producer, consumer,
decomposer, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore, scavenger). Students are divided
into groups of five and are given a variety of problems and projects to work
on collaboratively. For example, the students are given relevant terms on cards
and asked to alphabetize them quickly. Next, they are given definition cards and
are asked to collaboratively match them up with the terms. Then, Ms. Roberts
reassigns the groups and gives each student a card with the name of a living thing

58 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

(e.g., grass, caterpillar, snake) on it. The students in each group are then given the
task of making themselves into a plausible food chain, drawing it, and later placing
their drawings in the portfolios that Ms. Roberts uses for authentic assessment.
Later in the lesson, Ms. Roberts asks all the students to form a circle. She
enters the circle and goes to its center, declaring herself to be “the sun.” She then
holds onto a piece of yarn as she passes the yarn ball to “something or someone”
that depends on her to make its food (in this case, grass). The ball continues to
crisscross the circle until the students complete a food web. She explains that a
food web consists of the many overlapping food chains in an ecosystem. After the
students have all done this, Ms. Roberts reminds them of the story of There Was
an Old Lady that Swallowed a Trout and helps them to reflect on how it represents a
food chain.
Throughout the lesson on food chains and food webs, Ms. Roberts uses a variety
of manipulatives and activities, encouraging the students to work cooperatively
on their problems and projects. She encourages relevant discussion among her
students through reflective questioning. She allows her students to decide how
to best accomplish component tasks. Some of the large group activities, such as
making a comprehensive food web, require the cooperation of the entire class to
complete successfully.
This lesson is taught by Ms. Roberts with confidence and enthusiasm. The
students are engaged and on-task. She uses a classroom management system that
emphasizes students being responsible for themselves and each other. The system
works, does not interrupt the flow of the classroom, and seems to be quite effective
in providing a framework for the use of CTL strategies. When asked about her
philosophy of teaching, Ms. Roberts replied,

I enjoy teaching all subjects, and I like to use a lot of cooperative learning in
my classroom. I truly feel that students learn best from each other, so I try to
incorporate a lot of small-group and hands-on activities for them. It helps them
to retain the information they are taught, and it keeps learning fun for us all!

These comments and related ones made by Ms. Roberts reflected the value
she placed on the democratic goals of education. Cooperative learning, mutual
respect, and human rights were fundamentally important to her and represented
themes that emerged in her discourse. Her emphasis on democratic education is
particularly noteworthy because her class was among the most diverse of those of
the participating teachers. Ms. Roberts’ comments suggested that she thought of
CTL as a means for preparing her students not only in the area of science, but for
a life consistent with democratic values—a life of cooperation and mutual respect
for all members of society.

Discussion
The case studies of the 21 teachers provided considerable insight into the
conditions that facilitate and hinder the implementation of CTL strategies when
teaching science in elementary schools to diverse groups of children. Most of the
teachers used the CTL strategies well and often, as exemplified by Ms. Anderson,
Ms. Morton, and Ms. Roberts.
One condition that facilitated the implementation of CTL strategies was the
mode of interaction with students. CTL strategies were most easily implemented
when teachers treated their students as collaborators in the learning process.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 59

Teachers “collaborated” with their students by sharing decisionmaking with
them and respecting the decisions their students made, which empowered
their students and promoted autonomous learning. Often, these collaborations
involved subgroups of students working together, assisting in each other’s
learning and monitoring each other’s progress and products. Because the students
in these classes are diverse, collaborative learning can have long-lasting, positive
social consequences.
A second condition that facilitated the use of CTL strategies was the activity
level of the lessons. CTL strategies were most easily implemented when teachers
ensured that their students learned in an active, hands-on fashion and discovered
knowledge through their own initiatives.
The teachers discouraged rote learning in their students and fostered inquiry,
often using Socratic questioning to stimulate higher-order thinking and problem
solving when investigating natural phenomena.
A third condition that supported the use of CTL strategies was connection to
real-world contexts. Real-world contexts were accessed by going outside to make
observations and by bringing live plant and animal specimens into classrooms.
When the students were given opportunities to look for living things and put
their hands in soil, they became more engaged, attentive, and receptive to the
content and the use of the CTL strategies. The real-world contexts did not need to
be elaborate to be effective, as long as they were perceived by the children to be
relevant to the lessons.
A fourth condition that facilitated CTL was integration of science content with
other content and skill areas. Students were induced to call upon their knowledge
of mathematics, social studies, and literature—and use their oral, written, and
artistic expression skills to successfully complete their “authentic” projects. The
teachers profiled here used the CTL strategies to integrate science content with
other content and skill areas. For example, Ms. Anderson’s lesson on plants, Ms.
Morton’s lesson on butterflies, and Ms. Roberts’ lesson on food chains and webs all
incorporated inquiry, cooperation, problems, projects, and authentic assessments.
There were conditions that were found to hinder the implementation of CTL
strategies. Among the 21 teachers observed, some had difficulty using CTL when
particular classes acted in a manner which can be best described as unruly. When
CTL strategies were not used in conjunction with sound classroom management
practices (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003), then students who were not accustomed
to working collaboratively on problems and projects redirected their energy into
nonproductive acting-out behavior or “horseplay.” These students sometimes
engaged excessively in irrelevant side conversations, complained about the other
members of their groups, mishandled materials for the activities, and bumped or
pushed one another.
A related condition that hindered the use of CTL strategies was the manner
in which misbehavior and off-task behavior was dealt with by a teacher. When
a student was punished by loss of grade points or time out for misbehavior, this
tended to undermine CTL. The most effective teachers were those who anticipated
management problems and avoided them by prominently posting their policies
(illustrated with graphics) around their rooms. The most effective teachers also
helped their students to cooperatively monitor their own (and others) behavior and,
thereby, avoid off-task behavior. For example, on one occasion in Ms. Anderson’s
class, one of her students, Brad, got up during a cooperative activity and headed
off, away from his group, to play with some objects that were distracting him. Ms.
Anderson theatrically and comically put up her hand to shield her eyes from the

60 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

wayward student and whispered to the class, “Oh, Goodness! Brad should be with
his group! Don’t let me see him! Hurry, help him get back to his group!” Several of
his fellow students called to Brad and encouraged him to return to his spot which
he did. By prompting her students to monitor one another’s behavior in a positive
fashion, Ms. Anderson helped all to stay on task.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the case studies of teachers reported here indicate that a number
of conditions foster the implementation of CTL strategies when teaching science
in elementary schools. These conditions included a collaborative interaction
with students, a high level of activity in the lesson, a connection to real-world
contexts, and an integration of science content with other content and skill areas.
Furthermore, the CTL strategies were best implemented when teachers used them
in conjunction with sound classroom management techniques. Taken together, the
findings of these case studies support the view that the implementation of CTL
strategies can help elementary school teachers meet the challenges that confront
them when teaching science to children.

References
Atkin, J. M., Black, P. J., & Coffey, J. E. (Eds.). (2001). Classroom assessment and
the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Bentley, M., Ebert, C., & Ebert, E. S. (2000). The natural investigator: A constructivist
approach to teaching elementary and middle school science. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Billig, S. H. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service learning: The evidence
builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 658-664.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned:
How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551.
Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science on
preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 12(2), 1-6.
Cavallo, A. M. L., Miller, R. B., & Saunders, G. (2002). Motivation and affect toward
learning science among elementary school teachers: Implications for classroom
teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 25-38.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and
secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in
theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 5-15.
Columbia Education Center Website. (2004). Available online: <www.col-ed.org/
cur/index.html>. Retrieved June 26, 2004.
Doran, R., Chan, F., & Tamir, P. (1998). Science educator’s guide to assessment.
Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Downing, J., & Gifford, V. (1996). An investigation of preservice teachers’ science
process skills and questioning strategies used during a demonstration science
discovery lesson. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 64-75.
Driver R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing
scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 61

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-162). New York:
Macmillan.
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing
problem based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics,
95, 136-146.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing
conceptual models. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the
schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, E. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Kumar, D., & Voldrich, J. (1994). Situated cognition in second grade science:
Literature books for authentic contexts. Journal of Elementary Science Education,
6(2), 1-10.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Lovle, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lowery, L. F. (1997). NSTA pathways to the science standards—Elementary school
education edition. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Meijer, P. C., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student teachers elicit
experienced teachers’ practical knowledge? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 406-
419.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrell, P. (2003). Cognitive impact of a grade school field trip. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 15(1), 27-36.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Ogle, D. S. (1986). K-W-L group instructional strategy. In A. S. Palincsar, D. S. Ogle,
B. F. Jones, & E. G. Carr (Eds.), Teaching reading as thinking (Teleconference Resource
Guide, pp. 11-17). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Piaget, J. (1951). The child’s conception of the world. Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams.
Project Wet curriculum & activity guide. (1995). Bozeman, MT: The Watercourse and
the Council for Environmental Education.
Sears, S. J. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: A primer for effective instruction.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Sears, S. J., & Hersh, S. (2000). Best practices in contextual teaching and learning:
Program profiles and cross-profile analysis. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1988). Case study methods in education research: Seeking sweet
water. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp.
253-265). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

62 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2)

Tippins, D., Koballa, T., & Payne, B. (Eds.). (2002). Learning from cases: Unraveling
the complexities of elementary science teaching. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Acknowledgment
The work reported here was prepared in association with the Contextual
Teaching and Learning in Preservice Teacher Education and the Studies of
Novice Teachers’ Implementation of CTL Approaches in the Classroom projects
at the University of Georgia, with funding support from the U.S. Department of
Education, Contract #ED-98-CO-0085.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to

Shawn M. Glynn
Department of Science Education
212 Aderhold Hall
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30605
(706) 542-4249
sglynn@coe.uga.edu

Manuscript accepted July 8, 2004.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Fall 2004 • 16(2) 63