Curriculum-Dependent and Curriculum-Independent Factors in Preservice Elementary Teachers' Adaptation of Science Curriculum Materials for Inquiry-Based Science

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 179-197

  Forbes, Cory T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum materials; Elementary; Inquiry; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874192382     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-011-9245-0     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2010). In search of well-started beginning science teachers: Insights from two first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 661-686.
2. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and challenge of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
3. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009a). Supporting preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517-536.
4. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009b). 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.
5. Bodzin, A. M., & Beerer, K. M. (2003). Promoting inquiry-based science instructon: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39-49.
6. Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-37). New York: Routledge.
7. 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.
8. Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
9. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348-375.
11. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.
12. Dietz, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers' reflection on narrative images of inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3), 219-243.
13. 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.
14. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169.
15. Forbes, C. T. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers' adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based elementary science. Science Education, 95, 1-29.
16. Forbes, C. T., Biggers, M., & Zangori, L. (2011). Supporting elementary teachers' evaluation and adaptation of science curriculum materials: The PIESC3 professional development model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL, April 3-6.
17. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008a). Exploring preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 829-854.
18. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008b). The development of preservice elementary teachers' curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909-940.
19. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010a). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 365-387.
20. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010b). Beginning elementary teachers' beliefs about the use of anchoring questions in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education, 94(2), 365-387.
21. Grossman, P., McDonald, M., Hammerness, K., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Dismantling dichotomies in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith (Ed.), The handbook of teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 243-248). New York: Macmillan.
22. Gunckel, K. L. (2011). Mediators of a preservice teacher's use of the inquiry-application instructional model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 79-100.
23. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers' developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
24. Howes, E. V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do preservice teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 845-869.
25. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
26. Luft, J. A. (1999). Assessing science teachers as they implement inquiry lessons: The extended inquiry observational rubric. Science Educator, 8(1), 9-18.
27. 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/Boston: Kluwer.
28. Marx, R., & Harris, C. (2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477.
29. Metz, K. (2011). Disentangling robust development constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children's epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(11), 50-110.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Morton, B. A., & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hour in four subjects by public school teachers in grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
32. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2003. Retrieved Sept 23, 2006, from http://nces. ed. gov/programs/digest/d03/index. asp.
33. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
34. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
35. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Leaning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
36. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
37. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Pintó, R. (2004). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1-12.
39. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
40. 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.
41. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K., Smith, E., Covitt, B., Enfield, M., Bae, M., et al. (2008). Helping elementary pre-service teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345-377.
45. Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences-incorporating pre-service teachers as 'communities of practice'. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 77-83.
46. 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.
47. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching and reflection on prospective elementary teachers' science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.