A case study of one school system's adoption and implementation of an elementary science program

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 25-52

  Kelly, Michael P ^a   Staver, John R ^b  

^a Minot Public Schools   (United States)

^b KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELEMENTARY SCIENCE PROGRAMS; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; SCIENCE CURRICULUM; TEACHERS;

CURRICULA; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PERSONNEL; PRODUCTIVITY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 12444269009     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20043     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abell, S.K. (1990). A case for the elementary science specialist. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 291-301.
2. AIMS Education Foundation. (1989). Activities to integrate mathematics and science. Fresno, CA: AIMS Educational Foundation.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Atkin, J.M. & Black, P. (1997). Policy perils of international comparisons: The TIMSS case. Phi Delta Kappan 79, 22-28.
6. Badders, W., Bethel, L.J., Fu, V., Peck, D., Summers, C., & Valentino, C. (1996). Discovery works. Parsippany, NJ: Silver Burdett Ginn.
7. Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
8. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
9. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
10. Briscoe, C. & Peters, J. (1997). Teacher collaboration across and within schools: Supporting individual change in elementary science teaching. Science Education, 81, 51-65.
11. Cannon, J.R. & Crowther, D.T. (1997, March). An autopsy of an elementary science program implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
12. Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2002). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Crocker, R.K. (1984). Determinants of implementation of an elementary science program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 211-220.
14. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
15. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
16. Duschl, R.A. (1983). The elementary level science methods course: Breeding ground of an apprehension toward science? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 745-754.
17. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43-47.
18. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Fuller, F.F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
20. George, A.A., Hall, G.E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of a standards-based approach to teaching mathematics and student outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35, 8-25.
21. Hall, G.E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202-208.
22. Hall, G.E., George, A.A., & Rutherford, W.L. (1979/1998). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire (R&D Rep. No. 3032). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
23. Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
24. Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allen and Bacon.
25. Hall, G.E., Wallace, R.C., & Dossett, W.A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095126).
26. Hopkins, K.D. (1992). Review of the comprehensive test of basic skills (4th ed.). In J.J. Kramer & J.C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 215-217). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and University of Nebraska Press.
27. James, R. (1981). Understanding why curriculum innovations succeed or fail. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 487-495.
28. Kaser, J., Mundry, S., Stiles, K.E., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2002). Leading every day: 124 actions for effective leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
29. Kelly, M.P. (2000). A case study of one school system's adoption and implementation of an elementary science program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University.
30. Klopfer, L.E. & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Ghosts of crisis past. Science Education, 74, 133-154.
31. Kyle, W.C., Jr., Bonnstetter, R.J., Sedotti, M.A., & Dvarskas, D. (1989, April). Implementing an effective elementary program: The process of initiating change and its effect on students' attitudes. Poster session presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
32. Kyle, W.C., Jr., Shymansky, J.A., & Alport, J.M., Jr. (1982). Alphabet soup science: A second look at the NSF-funded science curricula. The Science Teacher, 49, 49-53.
33. Learning Team. (1996). NSTA awareness kit for the national science education standards. Washington, DC: Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Project.
34. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
35. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
36. McMahon, E.J. (1990). Implementing an elementary science program through community resources. Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 325 358).
37. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40. Newlove, B.W. & Hall, G.E. (1976/1998). A manual for assessing open-ended statements of concern about an innovation. (R&D Rep. No. 3029). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
41. O'Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 422-426.
42. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. Regents, University of California. (1993). Full option science system. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation.
44. Regents, University of California. (1996). Great explorations in math and science. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley.
45. Russell, S.J. (1998). Mathematics curriculum implementation: Not a beginning not an end. Hands On! 21, 6-29.
46. Sanders, J.R. (1981). Case study methodology: A critique. In W.W. Welch (Ed.), Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings of the 1981 Minnesota evaluation conference. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center.
47. Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48. Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Houang, R.T., Wang, H., Wiley, D.E., Cogan, L.S., & Wolfe, R.G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49. Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
50. Shepard, L.A. (1985). Review of the comprehensive test of basic skills. In J.V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Vol. 1 (pp. 386-389). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and University of Nebraska Press.
51. Shymansky, J.A. & Kyle, W.C., Jr. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 749-778.
52. Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101-109.
53. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
54. Taylor, J., Powell, J.C., Bess, K., & Lamb, T. (2003, March). Professional growth of out-of-field teachers: A professional development model to solve a problem. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
55. Tilgner, P.J. (1990). Avoiding science in elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421-431.
56. Vesilind, E. & Jones, M.G. (1998). Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 757-775.
57. Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Durham, NC: Research Triangle Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 620).
58. Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D.C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education. Vol. 7 (pp. 282-306). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.