Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 656-677

  Penuel, William ^a   Fishman, Barry J ^b   Gallagher, Lawrence P ^a   Korbak, Christine ^a   Lopez Prado, Bladimir ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650123244     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20321     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3 - 31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Blank, R., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum, and standards in mathematics and science: Results from the Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project Final Report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
3. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289 - 325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145 - 170.
6. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211 - 244.
7. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
8. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294 - 343.
9. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Cooper, R., Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1998). Success for all: Improving the quality of implementation of whole-school change through the use of a national reform network. Education and Urban Society, 30(2), 385 - 408.
11. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
12. Desimone, L. M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 433 - 479.
13. Desimone, L. M., & Le Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1 - 22.
14. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81 - 112.
15. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145 - 1176.
16. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1 - 26.
17. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: Albert Shanker Institute.
18. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Fuhrman, S. H. (1993a). Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Fuhrman, S. H. (1993b). The politics of coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 1 - 34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915 - 945.
22. Herman, J. L., & Webb, N. M. (2007). Alignment methodologies. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 1-5.
23. Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289 - 318.
24. Hill, H. C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65 - 82). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
25. Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1 - 23). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16 - 30.
27. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003).Who controls teachers'work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Institute for Communication and Information Research. (2005). Summary of AMSTI external evaluation, student achievement data, 2005. Tuscaloosa: Institute for Communication and Information Research, University of Alabama.
29. Kali,Y., Linn, M. C.,&Roseman, J. E. (2008).Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
30. 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.
31. Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 227 - 266.
32. Knapp, M. S., & Plecki, M. L. (2001). Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1089 - 1100.
33. Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). IQWST: Investigating and Questioning our World Through Science and Technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
34. Kreikemeier, P., & Quellmalz, E. (2002). Aligning GLOBE to TEKS. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Texas Science Summit, San Antonio, TX.
35. Kruse, S. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359 - 383.
36. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction with nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 411 - 438.
37. Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1 - 22.
38. Li, J., Klahr, D., & Siler, S. (2006). What lies beneath the science achievement gap: The challenges of aligning science instruction with standards and tests. Science Educator, 15(1), 1 - 12.
39. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Lin, H.-T.,&Fishman, B. J. (2004). Supporting the scaling of innovations: Guiding teacher adaptation of materials by making implicit structures explicit. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 617). Santa Monica, CA: Erlbaum.
41. Lusi, S. F. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
42. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome&N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95 - 132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
43. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B. J., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063 - 1080.
44. Massell, D., Kirst, R., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
45. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133 - 152.
46. McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209 - 228). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
47. Means, B. (1998).Melding authentic science, technology, and inquiry-based teaching: Experiences of the GLOBE Program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1), 97 - 105.
48. Means, B., Penuel, W. R., Crawford, V. M., Korbak, C., Lewis, A., Murphy, R. F., et al. (2001). GLOBE Year 6 evaluation: Explaining variation in implementation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
49. Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1 - 13). Albany: State University of New York Press.
50. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340 - 363.
51. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2008). Missouri professional learning communities. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
52. Moss, M., Jacob, R., Boulay, B., Horst, M., & Poulos, J. (2006). Reading First implementation evaluation: Interim report.Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.
53. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921 - 958.
54. Penuel, W. R., Shear, L., Korbak, C., & Sparrow, E. (2005). The roles of regional partners in supporting an international Earth science education program. Science Education, 89(6), 956 - 979.
55. Quellmalz, E., Kreikemeier, P., Rosenquist, A., & Hinojosa, T. (2001, July). Aligning GLOBE to national and international standards. Paper presented at the 6th Annual GLOBE Conference, Blaine, WA.
56. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., Steinmuler, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers' design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman&S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), 4th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. (pp. 342 - 349). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3/4), 283 - 314.
59. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 75 - 102.
60. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252 - 297.
61. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Henry, J. J. (1998). Network of influences in an implementation of a mathematics curriculum innovation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 113 - 148.
62. Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67 - 100.
63. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 - 14.
64. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1 - 22.
65. Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? Elementary teachers' response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396 - 423.
66. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233 - 268). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
67. 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(2), 128 - 150.
68. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143 - 175.
69. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Spillane, J. P., & Burch, P. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87 - 102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
71. Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. E. (2002). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 201 - 225.
72. 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(8), 918 - 940.
73. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449 - 481.
74. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387 - 431.
75. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 963 - 980.
76. Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1 - 27.
77. The GLOBE Program. (2005). The "Next Generation" GLOBE (NGG): Developing strategic partnerships to improve science education, enhance environmental awareness, and increase understanding of the Earth as a system. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from https://globe1.globe.gov/webarchs/all/NGG WhitePaper 9 291.pdf
78. Uekawa, K., Aladjem, D. K., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Impact of comprehensive school reform on social capital and pedagogical change. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 11(3&4), 295 - 307.
79. Warren, L. L., & Muth, K. D. (1995). The impact of common planning time on middle grades students and teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(3), 41 - 58.