An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 141-168

  Marco Bujosa, Lisa M ^a   McNeill, Katherine L ^a   González Howard, María ^a   Loper, Suzanna ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

educative curriculum; reform oriented curriculum; teacher learning

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; TEACHING;

EDUCATIVE CURRICULUMS; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY; ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY; SCIENCE CURRICULUM; TEACHER LEARNING; TEACHER PREPARATION; TEACHING EXPERIENCE;

CURRICULA;

EID: 84982784047     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21340     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149.
2. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.
3. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422–449.
4. Arias, A. M., Marino, J., Kademian, S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Teachers’ Use of Educative Curriculum Materials to Engage Students in Science Practices. A paper presented at NARST, Pittsburgh, March 2014.
5. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2007). History of science curriculum reform in the United States and the United Kingdom. Handbook of research on science education (pp. 781–806). New York, London: Routledge.
6. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
9. Beyer, C., & 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(6), 517–536.
10. Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). New York, London: Routledge.
11. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
12. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
13. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1992). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
14. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
15. Davis, E., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
16. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. (2008). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.
17. 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.
18. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers' curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909–940.
19. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.
20. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23.
21. Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333–362.
22. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 413–461.
23. Jaffe, R., Moir, E., Swanson, E., & Wheeler, G. (2006). Online mentoring and professional development for new science teachers. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online teacher professional development: Emerging models and methods (pp. 89–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
24. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development attending to the coevolution of teachers' participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441.
26. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283–315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
27. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
29. Lee, O., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2012). Teacher change in elementary science instruction with English language learners: Results of a multiyear professional development intervention across multiple grades. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–42.
30. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.
31. 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.
32. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
33. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “Urban” in urban teacher education making a case for context-Specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128–144.
35. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268.
36. McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Lessons learned developing a teacher PCK assessment for scientific argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess rich argumentation rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261–290.
37. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.
38. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science Teachers Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. Committee on Strengthening Science Education through a Teacher Learning Continuum. Board on Science Education and Teacher Advisory Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New L-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
44. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.
45. Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.
46. Pintó, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1–12.
47. Regents of the University of California. (2013). Microbiome and Metabolism. Filed trial version of Middle School science unit developed by the Learning Design Group. Lawrence Hall of Science.
48. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
49. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.
50. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
51. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
52. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
53. Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods (S-TEAM). (2010). Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe. Trondheim: S-TEAM /NTNU.
54. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
55. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.
56. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63.
57. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47–64). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
58. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60. Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean?: Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
61. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
62. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: Elementary teachers’ use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989–1017.