Inquiry-oriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 169-199

  Smith, Thomas M ^a   Desimone, Laura M ^a   Zeidner, Timothy L ^a   Dunn, Alfred C ^a   Bhatt, Monica ^a   Rumyantseva, Nataliya L ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Professional development; Science teaching; Teacher quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548351756     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373707306025     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Abd-el-khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. New York: John Wiley.
2. Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
4. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. F. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
5. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(2), 210-240.
6. Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. Journal of Official Statistics, 14(1), 15-29.
7. Aquilino, W., & LoSciuto, L. (1990). Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 362-395.
8. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teacher bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
9. Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement initiative. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.
10. Blumfeld, 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(5), 539-551.
11. 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.
12. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
13. Carlsen, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
14. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
15. Cavanagh, S. (2005, March 30). As test date looms, educators renewing emphasis on science. Education Week, 24(29), 14-15.
16. Cochran, K., & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707-718). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
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, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
19. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Corcoran, T B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
22. Corcoran, T., McVay, S., & Riordan, K. (2003, December). Getting it right: The MISE approach to professional development (CPRE Research Report Series RR-055). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
23. Corcoran, T., Shields, P., & Zucker, A. (1998, March). The SSIs and professional development for teachers: Evaluation of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Available at http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8nl/
25. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
26. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers' instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
27. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. S., Hayes, S., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Beyond accountability and average math scores: Relating multiple state education policy attributes to changes in student achievement in procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding and problem solving in mathematics. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5-18.
28. Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1991). Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: A comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In P. N. Beimer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367-393). New York: John Wiley.
29. Druva, C., & Anderson, R. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 461-419.
30. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73.
31. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. A., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
33. Fowler, F. J., Jr., Roman, A. M., & Di, Z. X. (1998). Mode effects in a survey of Medicare prostate surgery patients. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 976-989.
34. Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A. C., Yoon, K., & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(3), 915-945.
35. Gitomer, D. H., & Duschl, R. A. (1995). Moving toward a portfolio culture in science education. In M. S. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 299-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Glasson, G. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 121-131.
37. Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.
38. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
39. Hochstim, J. R. (1967). A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 976-987.
40. Hollweg, K. S., & Hill, D. (Eds.). (2003). What is the influence of the national science education standards? Reviewing the evidence: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
41. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
42. Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advanced organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 437-451.
43. 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.
44. Luft, J. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development program on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. The effects of professional development on science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
45. Luft, J., & Pizzini, E. (1998). The demonstration classroom in-service: Changes in the classroom. New York: John Wiley.
46. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Marx, R. W, & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477.
48. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
49. Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., & Moore, M. T. (2001). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report (NCES 2001-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office.
50. Mechling, K. R., & Oliver, D. L. (1983). Promoting science among elementary school principals. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
51. Mullens, J. (1995). Classroom instructional processes: A review of existing measurement approaches and their applicability for the teacher follow-up survey (NCES 95-15). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
52. Mullens, J. E., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (NCES 1999-08). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
53. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments. In 1996 proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 638-643). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
54. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
55. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 1,691-693.
56. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://www.nap .edu/readmgroorri/rxx)ks/nses/htrnl/l .html.
57. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
58. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
59. Newmann, E, Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001, January). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
60. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110 (2001).
61. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
62. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-553.
63. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-350.
64. Reynolds, A. (1995). The knowledge base for beginning teachers: Education professionals' expectations versus research findings on learning to teach. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 199-221.
65. Rhine, S. (1998). The role of research and teachers' knowledge base in professional development. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 27-31.
66. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1998). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York.
67. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61-94.
68. Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256-284.
69. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the "Prospects" study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
70. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
71. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245.
72. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50-91). New York: MacMillan.
73. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387-404.
74. Simon, M. A., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
75. Smerdon, B., Burkam, D., & Lee, V. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced? Teachers College Record, 101(1), 5-34.
76. Smith, T., Desimone, L., & Ueno, K. (2005). "Highly qualified" to do what? The relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented instruction in middle school math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 75-109.
77. Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum-The Reform Up Close study (CPRE Research Report Series #31). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
78. Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
79. Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 465-489.
80. Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Urban schools teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 722-745.
81. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates.
82. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). The NAEP 1996 technical report (NCES 199452). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
83. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 201-517). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
84. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/ rdonlyres/ C638111D-04E3-4C0D-9F68-20E7009498A6/0/ tellingthetruthteachers.pdf
85. U.S. Department of Education. (2007a). Fiscal year 2001-2008 state tables for the U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/about/ overview/budget/statetables/index.html
86. U.S. Department of Education. (2007b). Science framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
87. Von Seeker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151-160.
88. Von Seeker, C., & Lissitz, R. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.
89. Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419-435.
90. Wright, J. C., & Wright, C. S. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the National Science Education Standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 122-143.