Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 283-312

  Schneider, Rebecca M ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b   Blumenfeld, Phyllis ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM ENACTMENT; REFORM CLASSROOMS; SCIENCE MATERIALS; TEACHER LEARNING;

CURRICULA; EDUCATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 16244381373     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20055     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, R.D. (1992). Perspectives on complexity: An essay on curricular reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 861-876.
3. Anderson, R.D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 33-36.
4. Anderson, R.D. & Helms, J.V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16.
5. Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6-8, 14.
6. Barton, A.C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 899-917.
7. Blumenfeld, P.C., Fishman, B.J., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
8. Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R., Patrick, H., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Teaching for understanding. In B.J. Biddle, T. Good, & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.M. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-389.
10. Borko, H. & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In R.C. Calfee & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
11. Borko, H. & Shavelson, R. (1990). Teachers' decision making. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 311-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Bouillion, L.M. & Gomez, L. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 878-898.
13. Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
14. Bybee, R.W. & DeBoer, G.E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-387). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
15. Carlsen, W.S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 15-21.
16. Chang, H.-h., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N. (1998). The Union City story: Education reform and technology students' performance on standardized tests. New York: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
18. Cohen, O.K. & Ball, D.L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (No. CPRE Research Report RR-043). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
19. Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., & Ball, D.L. (2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In R. Boruch, F. Mosteller, & P. Janeway (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 80-119). Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
20. Collopy, R. (1999). Teachers use of and learning from curriculum materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
21. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
22. Davis, E.A. (2002). Scaffolding prospective elementary teachers in critiquing and refining instructional materials for science. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 71-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Fishman, B. & Best, S. (2000). Professional development in systemic reform: Using worksessions to foster change among teachers with diverse needs. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
24. Fishman, B., Best, S., Foster, J., & Marx, R.W. (2000). Fostering teacher learning in systemic reform: A design proposal for developing professional development. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
25. Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers' self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 67-80.
26. Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T., Levi, L.W., & Fennema, E. (1998). Teachers as learners: Developing understanding through children's thinking. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.
27. Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (vol. 6). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.
29. Heaton, R.M. (1992). Who is minding the content: A case study of a fifth-grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 153-162.
30. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
31. Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1019-1041.
32. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, C., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
33. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
34. Krajcik, J., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., & Fishman, B. (2000). Inquiry based science supported by technology: Achievement among urban middle school students. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
35. Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Ladewski, B., Bos, N., et al. (1996). The casebook of project practices: An example of an interactive multimedia system for professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15, 119-135.
36. Ladewski, B.L., Krajcik, J.S., & Harvey, C. (1994). A middle grade science teacher's emerging understanding of project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 499-516.
37. Lampert, M. & Ball, D.L. (1998). Mathematics, teaching and multimedia: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
38. Linn, M.C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (vol. 1, pp. 265-294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Lunetta, V.N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (vol. 1, pp. 249-264). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B., et al. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 499-516.
41. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.
42. Marx, R.W., Freeman, J.G., & Krajcik, J.S. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B.J. Fraser & K.B. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (vol. 2, pp. 667-680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. McGilly, K. (1996). Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
44. Metz, K.E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-128.
45. Meyer, K.M. (1997). Catalysts and impediments to change in science teachers' beliefs and practices. Ann Arbor: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
46. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
47. Minstrell, J. & Van Zee, E.H. (2000). Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for die Advancement of Science Press.
48. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. National Science Teachers Association (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
50. Pinkard, N. (2000). Can culturally responsive technological curricular materials motivate teachers to reflect on their instructional practices and perceptions of students' abilities? New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.
51. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Are changes in views about mathematics teaching sufficient? The case of a fifth-grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 195-211.
52. Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
53. Putnam, R.T., Heaton, R.M., Prawat, R.S., & Remillard, J.T. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: Discussing case studies of four fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 213-228.
54. Remillard, J.T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315-342.
55. Remillard, J.T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 331-350.
56. Rivet, A. (2003). Contextualizing instruction and student learning in middle school project-based science classrooms. Ann Arbor: Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan.
57. Rivet, A., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Riser, B. (2003). Design principles for developing inquiry materials with embedded technologies. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.
58. Roth, W.M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59. Ruopp, R. (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 305-319.
60. Schneider, R.M. & Center for Highly Interactive Computing in Education (1999). Why do I need to wear a bike helmet? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
61. Schneider, R.M. & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 167-217.
62. Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410-422.
63. Scott, C. (1994). Project-based science reflections of a middle school teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 75-94.
64. Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 746-767.
65. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
66. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 164-178.
67. Smith, D.C. & Neale, D.C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1-20.
68. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
69. Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,128-150.
70. Spillane, J.P., Diamond, J.B., Walker, L.J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 918-940.
71. Stratford, S.J., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 215-234.
72. Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a community of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 21-32.
73. Tinker, R. (1996). Thinking about science. Concord Consortium (http://www.concord.org).
74. Tobin, K., Roth, W.-M., & Zimmermann, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 941-964.
75. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
76. Van Den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (vol. 1, pp. 421-447). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
77. Wallace, J. & Louden, W. (1998). Curriculum change in science: Riding the waves of reform. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (vol. 1, pp. 471 -485). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
78. White, B.Y. & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
79. Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209. Itascu, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.