Beginning elementary teachers' curriculum design and development of pedagogical design capacity for science teaching: A longitudinal study

Handbook of Curriculum Development

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 209-232

  Forbes, Cory T ^a   Davis, Elizabeth A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961125910     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1-25.
3. Appleton, K. & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 43-61.
4. 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.
5. Barab, S. A. & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.
6. Beyer, C. & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second-graders' scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381-414.
7. Beyer, C. & Davis, E. A. (2009-a). Supporting preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517-536.
8. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009-b). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers' curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679-703
9. 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.
10. Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, and G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-37). New York: Routledge.
11. Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher's belief systems about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835-868.
12. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Stories to live by: Narrative understandings of school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149-164.
13. Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report Series RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
14. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348-375.
15. Davis, E. A. (2008). Elementary teachers' ideas about effective science teaching: A longitudinal study In P. A. Kirschner, J. van Merriënboer & T. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
16. Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
17. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.
18. 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. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A.S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
19. Drake, C., Spillane, J. P. & Hufferd-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: teacher learning and subject-matter context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 1-23.
20. Enyedy, N. & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 905-935.
21. Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J. & Welsh, K. M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice. Science Education, 90, 68-93.
22. Feiman-Nemser, S (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
23. Fenstermacher, G. D. & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.
24. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S. & Tal, R (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.
25. Fishman, B. J. & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary. Science Education, 87, 564-573.
26. Forbes, C. & Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers' curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909-940.
27. Forbes, C. & Davis, E. A. (in press). Beginning elementary teachers' beliefs about the use of anchoring questions in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education.
28. Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for teacher learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014-2026.
29. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P. & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29.
30. Haney, J. J. & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers' beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783-802.
31. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
32. Lloyd, G. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227-252.
33. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P. & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391.
34. Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 532-537.
35. 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 Academic Publishers.
36. Marx, R. & Harris, C. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477.
37. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38. Morton, B. & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hour in four subjects by public school teachers in grades 1 through 4 (No. NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
39. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
40. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
41. Pintó, R. (2004). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1-12.
42. Putnam, R. T. & 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.
43. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 315-342.
44. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
45. Remillard, J. T. & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388.
46. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.
47. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A. & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
48. Schneider, R. & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245.
49. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-312.
50. Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S, & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional design. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 183-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
51. Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K., Smith, E., Covitt, B., Enfield, M., Bae, M. & Tsurusaki, B. (2008). Helping elementary pre-service teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345-377.
52. Smith, D. C. (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 education (163-197).The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
53. Smith, L. & Gess-Newsome, J. (2004). Elementary science methods courses and the National Science Education Standards: Are we adequately preparing teachers? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 91-110.
54. Southerland, S. A. & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers' views of inclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Science Education, 83(2), 131-150.
55. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L., Halverson, R. & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership and elementary science instruction: Identifying, mobilizing, and activating resources in a devalued subject area. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918-940.
56. Valencia, S., Place, N., Martin, S. & Grossman, P. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.