Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science

Science Education

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 348-375

  Davis, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645724918     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20110     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82(4), 491-509.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Macmillan.
4. Ball, D., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers' guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 401-423.
5. Barab, S., & Luehmann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
6. Baumgartner, E. (2004). Synergy research and knowledge integration: Customizing activities around stream ecology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 261-287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Bazler, J., & Simonis, D. (1991). Are high school chemistry textbooks gender fair? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 353-362.
8. Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference for the Learning Sciences 2000 (pp. 142-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10. Bolin, F. (1987). The teacher as curriculum decision maker. In F. Bolin & J. Falk (Eds.), Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 92-108). New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, & multimedia (pp. 115-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Bridgham, K. (1971). Comments on some thoughts on science curriculum development. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Confronting curriculum reform (pp. 61-67). Boston, MA: Little Brown.
13. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
14. Bryan, L., & Atwater, M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821-839.
15. Bullough, R. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.
16. Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
17. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.
18. Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2002). Investigation of preservice elementary teachers' thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016-1031.
19. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 227-311.
20. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
21. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Seattle, WA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Davis, E. A. (2003). Untangling dimensions of students' beliefs about scientific knowledge and science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 439-468.
24. Davis, E. A. (in press). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education.
25. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
26. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (accepted pending revisions). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research.
27. Eisenhart, M., Cuthbert, A., Shrum, J., & Harding, J. (1988). Teacher beliefs about work activities: Policy implications. Theory into Practice, 27(2), 137-144.
28. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Harris, I. (1986). Communicating the character of " deliberation". Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(2), 115-132.
30. Howes, E. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do preservice teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 845-869.
31. Hubisz, J. (2003). Middle-school texts don't make the grade. Physics Today, 56(5). Available at URL: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-55/p50. html.
32. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Models standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
33. Johnston, S. (1993). A case for the "person" in curriculum deliberation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5-6), 473-483.
34. Karplus, R. (1971). Some thoughts on science curriculum development. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Confronting curriculum reform (pp. 56-61). Boston, MA: Little Brown.
35. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549.
36. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway. E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283-315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
37. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.
38. Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2000). Modern content and the enterprise of science: Science education in the twentieth century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume. One-hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 205-238). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
40. Lee, O. (1997). Scientific literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 219-222.
41. Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, Winter, 14-17, 50-52.
42. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Lloyd, G. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227-252.
44. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17.
45. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn't really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193-205). New York: Pergamon.
46. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.
47. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2003. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d03/index.asp
49. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1987). NCATE standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education units: The accreditation of professional education units for the preparation of professional school personnel at basic and advanced levels. Washington, DC: Author.
50. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
51. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional teaching standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
52. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.
53. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
54. Pintó, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1-12.
55. Prawat, R. (1993). The role of the teacher in reforming curriculum: Adaptation or reformulation? An essay review of the teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 425-430.
56. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
57. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 315-342.
58. Roby, T. (1985). Habits impeding deliberation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 17-35.
59. Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The Cold War reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgave.
60. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
61. Schneider, R., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245.
62. Shulman, L. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remote control of teaching. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 484-504). Hew York: Longman.
63. Squire, K., MaKinster, J., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A., & Barab, S. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468-489.
64. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
65. Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2005). Science teachers' transformations of the use of computer modeling in the classroom: Using research to inform training. Science Education, 89(1), 56-70.
66. Treagust, D., & Harrison, A. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture 'Atoms in motion'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157-1170.
67. Trumbull, D. (1999). The new science teacher: Cultivating good practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
68. Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 282-308). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
69. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
70. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, 17, 89-100.
71. Yerrick, R., Doster, E., Nugent, J., Parke, H., & Crawley, F. (2003). Social interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers' talk during physics inquiry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 443-463.
72. Zeichner, K. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 737-759). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
73. Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers' science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.