Implementing and sustaining science curriculum reform: A study of leadership practices among teachers within a high school science department

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 813-835

  Larkin, Douglas B ^a   Seyforth, Scott C ^a   Lasky, Holly J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum development; Educational change; Integrated curriculum; Science departments; Secondary school curriculum; Secondary school science

Indexed keywords

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; EDUCATIONAL CHANGE; INTEGRATED CURRICULUM; SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS; SECONDARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM; SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE;

INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS; TEACHING;

CURRICULA;

EID: 69649100391     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20291     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Anderson, R.D. (1994). Issues of curriculum reform in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational. Research and Improvement.
3. Anderson, C.W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In: Abell S.K. & Lederman N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Apple, M.W. (1993).Official knowledge:Democratic education in a conservative age. NewYork: Routledge.
5. 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 in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.
6. Barab, S.A., & Luehmann, A.L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
7. Bell, B. (2005). Learning in science: The waikato research. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
8. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996).Teacher development:Amodel from science education. London: Falmer Press.
9. Bower, J.M. (2002). Scientists and science education reform: Myths, methods, and madness. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
10. Brunkhorst, B. (1991). Every science, every year. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 36-38.
11. Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12. BSCS. (2000). Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools. Colorado Springs: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
13. Capper, C.A., Frattura, E.M., &Keyes, M.W. (2000). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1992). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
16. Czerniak, C.M., Weber, W.B., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
17. Davis, K.L. (1997). "Change is Hard": What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30.
18. DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Elmore, R.F., (2002). The limits of "change". Retrieved 10 August 2008, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2002-jf/limitsofchange. shtml.
20. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed.) NewYork:Teachers College Press.
21. Gallego, M.A., Durán, G.Z., &Reyes, E.I. (2006). It depends:Asociohistorical account of the definition and methods of identification of learning disabilities. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2195-2219.
22. Halverson, R.R. (2004). Accessing, documenting, and communicating practical wisdom: The phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education, 111, 90-121.
23. Irvine, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.
24. Johnson, C.C., Kahle, J.B., & Fargo, J.D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775-786.
25. Jones, M.G., &Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In: Abell S.K.&Lederman N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067-1104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Judson, E., & Lawson, A.E. (2007). What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 490-505.
27. Kennedy, M.M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Khourey-Bowers, C., Dinko, R.L., & Hart, R.G. (2005). Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and collegiality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 3-24.
29. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3.
30. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic Books.
31. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., &Davis, J.H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. (1st ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Lawson, A.E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientic inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 617-740.
33. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281.
34. Losen, D.J., & Orfield, G. (2002). Introduction. In: Losen D.J. & Orfield G. (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
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. Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
37. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007. National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. (No.NSES 2007-496).Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
38. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
40. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2001). Standards at key stage 3. London, UK: Science.
41. Robertson, A. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaborative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681-705.
42. Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their inuence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
43. Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. (1st ed.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89, 803-821.
45. Siegel, M.A. (2007). Striving for equitable classroom assessments for linguistic minorities: Strategies for and effects of revising life science items. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 864-881.
46. Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: St Martin's Press.
47. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin N. & Lincoln Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Stigler, J.W., &Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
49. United States Department of Education. (2002).No child left behind:Adesktop reference.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under. Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
50. Vars, G.F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 14.
51. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L.J., &Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294-302.
52. Wang, D., & Allen, M. (2003). Understanding by design meets integrated science. Science Teacher, 70(7), 37-41.
53. 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.
54. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:"Howpreservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
55. Zeichner, K. (2001). Educational action research. In: Bradbury H. & Reason P. (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 273-283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.