The Impact of High School Science Teachers' Beliefs, Curricular Enactments and Experience on Student Learning During an Inquiry-based Urban Ecology Curriculum

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 35, Issue 15, 2013, Pages 2608-2644

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Pimentel, Diane Silva ^a   Strauss, Eric G ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum enactment; Scientific inquiry; Teacher beliefs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884492210     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.618193     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Ball, D. L. and 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
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J. and Weiss, I. R. 2007. Can professional development make the vision of the Standards a reality? Impact of the National Science Foundation's local systemic change through teacher enactment initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (3): 375 - 395. (doi:10.1002/tea.20145)
4. Barab, S. A. and Luehmann, A. L. 2003. Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87: 454 - 467. (doi:10.1002/sce.10083)
5. Berland, L. K. and Reiser, B. J. 2009. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93: 26 - 55. (doi:10.1002/sce.20286)
6. Beyer, C. and Davis, E. A. 2009. Supporting preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20: 517 - 536. (doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9148-5)
7. Blanchard, M. R., Sutherland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A. and Graner, E. M. 2010. Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94: 577 - 616. (doi:10.1002/sce.20390)
8. Bodzin, A. M. and Beerer, K. M. 2003. Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15 (2): 39 - 49. (doi:10.1007/BF03173842)
9. Brown, A. L. and Campione, J. C. 1996. " Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems ". In Innovations in learning: New environments for education, Edited by: Glaser, R. 289 - 325. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Brown, M. and Edelson, D. C. Teaching by design: Curriculum design as a lens on instructional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
11. Davis, E. A. and Krajcik, J. S. 2005. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3): 2 - 14. (doi:10.3102/0013189X034003003)
12. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3): 287 - 312. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A)
13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. and Shouse, A. W. 2006. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8, Edited by: Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. and Shouse, A. W. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
14. Environmental Literacy Council. 2004. 2004 review of environmental science textbooks Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1126.html
15. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). 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.
16. Forbes, C. T. and Davis, E. A. 2010a. Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7): 820 - 839. (doi:10.1002/tea.20379)
17. Forbes, C. T. and Davis, E. A. 2010b. " Beginning elementary teachers' curriculum design and development of pedagogical design capacity for science teaching: A longitudinal study ". In Handbook of curriculum development, Edited by: Kattington, L. E. 209 - 232. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
18. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E. and Clay-Chambers, J. 2008. Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (8): 922 - 939. (doi:10.1002/tea.20248)
19. Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. and Commonwealth of Australia. 2007. Australian school science education national action plan 2008-2012: Volume 1 Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/Australian_School_Education_Plan_2008_2012.htm
20. Herman, J. L., Klein, D. C. D. and Abedi, J. 2000. Assessing students' opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19 (4): 16 - 24. (doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00042.x)
21. Hollweg, K., Pea, C. H. and Berkowitz, A. R. 2003. " Why is understanding urban ecosystems an important frontier for education and educators? ". In Understanding urban ecosystems: A new frontier for science and education, Edited by: Berkowitz, A. R., Nilon, C. H. and Hollweg, K. 19 - 38. New York: Springer.
22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. and Erduran, S. 2008. " Argumentation in science education: An Overview ". In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. 3 - 28. Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Johnson, C. C. 2009. An examination of effective practices: Moving toward elimination of achievement gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20: 287 - 306. (doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9134-y)
24. Jones, M. G. and Carter, G. 2007. " Science teacher attitudes and beliefs ". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. and Lederman, N. 1067 - 1104. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Kahle, J. B., Meece, J. and Scantlebury, K. 2000. Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9): 1019 - 1041. (doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<1019::AID-TEA9>3.0.CO;2-J)
26. Kanter, D. E. and Konstantopoulos, S. 2010. The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94 (5): 855 - 887. (doi:10.1002/sce.20391)
27. Kennedy, M. M., Ball, D. L. and McDiarmid, G. W. 1993. A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers' knowledge, East Lansing, MI: The National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
28. Koziol, S. M. Jr. and Burns, P. 1986. Teachers' accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. The Journal of Educational Research, 79 (4): 205 - 209.
29. Lawrenz, F., Wood, N. B., Kirchhoff, A., Kim, N. K. and Eisenkraft, A. 2009. Variables affecting physics achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (9): 961 - 976. (doi:10.1002/tea.20292)
30. Lee, O., Penfield, R. and Maerten-Rivera, J. 2009. Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (7): 836 - 859. (doi:10.1002/tea.20335)
31. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S. and Bonner, J. J. 2007. The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44: 1318 - 1347. (doi:10.1002/tea.20191)
32. Martin, A. M. and Hand, B. 2009. Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39 (1): 17 - 38. (doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7)
33. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S. and Soloway, E. 1997. Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97 (4): 341 - 358. (doi:10.1086/461870)
34. Marx, R. W. and Harris, C. J. 2006. No child left behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106 (5): 467 - 477. (doi:10.1086/505441)
35. Mayer, D. P. 1999. Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1): 29 - 45. (doi:10.3102/01623737021001029)
36. McNeill, K.L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
37. McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
38. McNeill, K.L., & Pimentel, D.S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229
39. Ministry of Education. 1999. Curriculum outlines for nature of science and living technology, Taipei: Ministry of Education.
40. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. and Century, J. 2010. Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984-2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4): 474 - 496. (doi:10.1002/tea.20347)
41. Monk, D. H. 1994. Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13 (2): 125 - 145. (doi:10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5)
42. National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
43. National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44. O'Donnell, C. L. 2008. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in k-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1): 22 - 84. (doi:10.3102/0034654307313793)
45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10): 994 - 1020. (doi:10.1002/tea.20035)
46. Palardy, G. J. and Rumberger, R. W. 2008. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30: 111 - 140. (doi:10.3102/0162373708317680)
47. Pinto, R. 2005. Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89: 1 - 12. (doi:10.1002/sce.20039)
48. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A. and Goldstein, J. 2007. Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (1): 81 - 130.
49. Putnam, R. T. and 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. (doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004)
50. Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
51. Remillard, J. T. 2005. Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2): 211 - 246. (doi:10.3102/00346543075002211)
52. Remillard, J. T. and Bryans, M. B. 2004. Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35 (5): 352 - 388. (doi:10.2307/30034820)
53. Rice, J. K. 2003. Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes, Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
54. Sampson, V. and Clark, D. B. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92: 447 - 472. (doi:10.1002/sce.20276)
55. Sawyer, R. K. 2006. " Analyzing collaborative discourse ". In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Edited by: Sawyer, R. K. 187 - 204. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. and 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. (doi:10.1002/tea.20055)
57. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
58. Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne, J. 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3): 235 - 260. (doi:10.1080/09500690500336957)
59. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. and Chambers, J. C. 2000. Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35 (3): 165 - 178. (doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_3)
60. Snyder, J., Bolin, F. and Zumwalt, K. 1992. " Curriculum implementation ". In Handbook of research on curriculum, Edited by: Jackson, P. W. 402 - 435. New York: Macmillan.
61. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W. and Henningsen, M. 1996. Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2): 455 - 488. (doi:10.3102/00028312033002455)
62. Strauss, E.G., McNeill, K.L., Barnett, M., & Reece, F. (2008). Urban EcoLab: How do we develop healthy and sustainable cities? Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://urbanecolabcurriculum.com/.
63. Tabak, I. 2004. Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3): 305 - 335. (doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3)
64. Thadani, V., Stevens, R. H. and Tao, A. 2009. Measuring complex features of science instruction: Developing tools to investigate the link between teaching and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (2): 285 - 322. (doi:10.1080/10508400902797941)
65. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W. and Hoy, W. K. 1998. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2): 202 - 248. (doi:10.3102/00346543068002202)
66. UNFPA. 2007. UNFPA State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth United Nations Population Fund. Alexandria, VA: ACSD
67. Viennot, L., Chauvet, F., Colin, P. and Rebmann, G. 2005. Designing strategies and tools for teacher training: The role of critical details examples in optics. Science Education, 89: 13 - 27. (doi:10.1002/sce.20040)
68. Von Secker, C. E. and Lissitz, R. W. 1999. Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (10): 1110 - 1126. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1110::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T)
69. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M. and Carlson, J. 2010. The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3): 276 - 301.
70. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E. and Ferrini-Mundy, J. 2002. Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (3): 190 - 204. (doi:10.1177/0022487102053003002)
71. Zembal-Saul, C. 2009. Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93: 687 - 719. (doi:10.1002/sce.20325)