Supporting preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 517-536

  Beyer, Carrie ^a   Davis, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Critique and adaptation; Curriculum materials analysis; Educative curriculum materials; Preservice elementary teachers

Indexed keywords

EID: 76149136776     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-009-9148-5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, L. M., Smith, D. C., & Peasley, K. (2000). Integrating learner and learning concerns: Prospective elementary science teachers' paths and progress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 547-574.
4. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 43-61.
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(9), 6-8, 14.
6. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers' guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 401-423.
7. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.
8. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers' curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry (in press).
9. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
11. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90, 348-375.
12. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
13. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607-651.
14. Davis, E. A., Smithey, J., & Petish, D. (2004). Designing an online learning environment for new elementary science teachers: Supports for learning to teach. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference of the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
16. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 153-187.
17. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
18. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
19. Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Boston: MIT.
20. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9).
21. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning?. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA).
22. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Models standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
23. Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282-292.
24. 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.
25. Lederman, N., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers' conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146.
26. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
27. Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers' analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62.
28. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
29. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers' diagnosis and understanding of students' preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849-867.
31. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 767-790.
32. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of education statistics, 2007. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://nces. ed. gov/programs/digest/d07/.
33. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (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.
34. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional teaching standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
36. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331-355.
38. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 315-342.
40. 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.
41. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211-246.
42. Schneider, R., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 221-245.
43. Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K., Smith, E., Covitt, B., Bae, M., Enfield, M., et al. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345-377.
44. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers' use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41, 467-500.
45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
46. Smith, D. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science teacher education (pp. 163-198). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
47. Smith, J., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
48. Smith, D., & Neale, D. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1-20.
49. Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 538-568.
50. Weiss, I., Banilower E., McMahon K., & Smith, P. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://www. horizon-research. com.