Participation in a Multi-institutional Curriculum Development Project Changed Science Faculty Knowledge and Beliefs About Teaching Science

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 193-216

  Donovan, Deborah A ^a   Borda, Emily J ^a   Hanley, Daniel M ^a   Landel, Carolyn C ^b  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum development; Higher education faculty; K12 collaboration; Science content courses

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925520237     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-014-9414-z     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001a). Atlas of science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001b). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Retrieved from http://www.visionandchange.org/
7. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Ballone-Duran, L., Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (2005). A study of the effects of a LSC project on scientists’ teaching practices and beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education,16, 159–184.
9. Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education,31, 541–550.
10. Blackwell, P. J. (2002). Putting the pieces of teacher education together: Lessons learned by the Eisenhower initial teacher professional development programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1–5, 2002.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2001). Building teacher–scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics,100, 7–15.
13. Caton, E. L., Brewer, C. A., & Manning, M. (1997). Teaching with inquiry: Scientist/teacher partnerships for ecological and energy education. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America,78, 65.
14. Chaplin, S. B., & Manske, J. M. (2005). A theme-based approach to teaching nonmajors biology. Journal of College Science Teaching,35, 47–51.
15. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2007). Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research,3, 010103-010101–010103-010115.
16. Donovan, D. A., Atkins, L. J., Salter, I. Y., Gallagher, D. J., Kratz, R. F., Rousseau, J. V., & Nelson, G. D. (2013). Advantages and challenges of using physics curricula as a model for reforming an undergraduate biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education,12, 215–229.
17. Donovan, D. A., Rousseau, J. V., Salter, I. Y., Atkins, L. J., Acevedo-Gutierrez, A., Kratz, R. F., … Pape-Lindstrom, P. (2014) Life science and everyday thinking. New York: It’s About Time.
18. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge-Farmer.
19. Druger, M., & Allen, G. (1998). A study of the role of research scientists in K-12 science education. American Biology Teacher,60, 344–349.
20. Ebert-May, D., Dertling, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience,61, 550–558. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
21. Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science,28, 335–361.
22. Fedock, P., Zambo, R., & Cobern, W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education,80, 5–19.
23. Garmston, B., & Wellman, B. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing and collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordan.
24. Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & Otero, V. (2008). Physics and everyday thinking. Armonk, NY: Herff Jones Education Division.
25. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,66, 64–74.
26. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.
27. Handler, M. G., & Ravid, R. (Eds.). (2001). The many faces of school–university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
28. Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.php
29. Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research,72, 177–228. doi:10.3102/00346543072002177
31. Kaser, J. S., Dougherty, M. J., & Bourexis, P. S. (2013). Unexpected outcomes: Impacting higher education teaching practice via high school outreach. Journal of College Science Teaching,43, 43–47.
32. Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science,28, 469–490.
33. Kingsley, G. & O’Neill, D. (2001). Performance measurement in public–private partnerships: Learning from Praxis, constructing a conceptual model. Presentation given at the American Society for Public Administration 65th National Conference, Portland, OR, March 27–30, 2004.
34. Krockover, G., Adams, P., Eichinger, D., Nakhleh, M., & Shepardson, D. (2001). Action based research teams: Collaborating to improve science instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching,30, 313–317.
35. Krockover, G. H., Shepardson, D. P., Adams, P. E., Eichenger, D., & Nakhleh, M. (2002). Reforming and assessing undergraduate science instruction using collaborative action-based research teams. School Science and Mathematics,102, 266–284.
36. Laws, P. W. (1996). Workshop physics activity guide. San Francisco: Wiley.
37. Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., … Wyckoff, S. (2002). Evaluating college science and mathematics instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 388–393.
38. Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal,6, 386–399.
39. Luera, G. R., & Otto, C. A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements. Journal of Science Teacher Education,16, 241–258.
40. Maloney, P. A. (2007). Partnerships, policy, and educational change: The role of mathematics and science in K-16 reform. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy,1, 1–10.
41. McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Timmermans, J., Berthiaume, D., & Fairbank-Roch, G. (2006). Zones: Reconceptualizing teacher thinking in relation to action. Studies in Higher Education,31, 601–615. doi:10.1080/03075070600923426
42. McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley.
43. Mitchell, J., Levine, R., & Bitter, C. (2004). University and K-12 school partnerships: How does one make these happen? American Institutes for Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 16, 2004.
44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. National Research Council. (1997). Science teacher preparation in an era of standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: NSF Division of Undergraduate Education.
47. Ohana, C. (2003). Partnerships in math education: The power of university–school collaboration. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
48. Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., & Lopes, B. D. (2011). The relationship between teaching and learning conceptions, preferred teaching approaches and questioning practices. Research Papers in Education,26, 223–243.
49. Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics,65, 5–54.
51. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: The role of knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education,81, 1510–1516.
52. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1995). Observational studies. New York: Springer.
53. Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4–14.
54. Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35, 501–520.
55. Stokstad, E. (2001). Reintroducing the intro course. Science,293, 1608–1610.
56. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
58. Sunal D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Edwards, L., … Odell, M. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 246–257.
59. Sunal, D. W., Wright, E. L., & Bland Day, J. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science for the 21st century. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
60. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education,21, 275–284.
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
62. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
63. Weld, J., & Funk, L. (2005). “I’m not the science teacher type”: Effect of an inquiry biology content course on preservice elementary teachers’ intentions about teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,16, 189–204.
64. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
65. Zhang, X., McInerney, J., Frechtling, J., Michie, J., Wells, J., Miyaoka, A., & Nyre, G. (2009) Who benefits? The effects of STEM faculty engagement in MSP. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation by Westat. Rockville, MD. Retrieved from http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/18052