Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1185-1217

  Kloser, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Core teaching practice; Delphi panel; Pedagogy; Science education; Science teacher education

Indexed keywords

ITERATIVE METHODS; STUDENTS;

DELPHI PANEL; PEDAGOGY; SCIENCE EDUCATION; SCIENCE TEACHERS; TEACHING PRACTICES;

TEACHING;

EID: 84908214380     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21171     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Alexander, R. (2005).Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.
2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond&G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7-73.
5. Black, P.,&Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). "What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!": Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260-285.
8. Brophy, J. E. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077.
9. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810-834.
10. Brown, B. A., & Kloser, M. (2009). Conceptual continuity and the science of baseball: Using informal science literacy to promote students'science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(4), 875-897.
11. Center to Support Excellence in Teaching. (2012). Description of the thirteen elements. PLATO: Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations. Retrieved from http://platorubric.stanford.edu/Elements.html.
12. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.
13. Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386.
14. Cochran-Smith, M., McQuillan, P., Mitchell, K., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., D'Souza, L.,. . Gleeson, A. M. (2012). A longitudinal study of teaching practice and early career decisions: A cautionary tale. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 844-880.
15. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
16. Core Practice Consortium. (2012). Unpublished core practice vocabulary discussion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
17. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
18. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
19. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H.,&Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: Aguide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman. Glenview, IL.
21. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
22. Ford, M. J.,&Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391.
23. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of 'acting white"'. The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
24. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder&Herder.
25. Furtak, E. M. (Ed.). (2009). Formative assessment for secondary science teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
27. Gage, N. L.,&Needels, M. C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 253-300.
28. Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.
29. Gordon,T. J. (1994). The Delphi method. Futures Research Methodology, 6, 1-33.
30. Grimberg, B. I.,&Gummer, E. (2013). Teaching science from cultural points of intersection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 12-32.
31. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers'value-added scores (No. w16015), 1-39. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16015
32. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
33. Hattie, J.,&Timperley,H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
34. Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21-27.
35. Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. J. (2012). Multilevel assessment for discourse, understanding, and achievement. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 522-582.
36. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and howcan weget one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
37. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
38. Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research&Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.
39. Kang, H., Thompson, J.,&Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: The role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science Education, 98(4), 674-704.
40. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/reports.php
41. Kazemi, E., Franke, M. L., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers' ability to enact ambitious instruction. In Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Wellington, New Zealand
42. Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. P. (2001).Acritical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(2), 195-200.
43. La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409-426.
44. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
45. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
46. Latour, B. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
48. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: Asociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. Lyon, E. G., Bunch, G. C.,&Shaw, J. M. (2012). Navigating the language demands of an inquiry-based science performance assessment: Classroom challenges and opportunities for English learners. Science Education, 96(4), 631-651.
50. Martinez, J. F., Borko, H., & Stecher, B. M. (2012). Measuring instructional practice in science using classroom artifacts: Lessons learned from two validation studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 38-67.
51. Melville, W., & Bartley, A. (2013). Constituting identities that challenge the contemporary discourse: Power, discourse, experience, and emotion. Science Education, 97(2), 171-190.
52. Milrad, M. (2002). Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discovery learning. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 76-87.
53. Mpofu, V., Otulaja, F. S., & Mushayikwa, E. (2014). Towards culturally relevant classroom science: A theoretical framework focusing on traditional plant healing. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 221-242.
54. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
55. National Research Council. (2001a). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
56. National Research Council. (2001b). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
57. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
59. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
60. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information&Management, 42(1), 15-29.
61. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
62. Pianta, R. C., La Paro,K. M.,&Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
63. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional-moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.
64. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263.
65. Reeves, G., & Jauch, L. R. (1978). Curriculum development through Delphi. Research in Higher Education, 8(2), 157-168.
66. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
67. Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2006). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
68. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students' learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15-24.
69. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.