Abstract
When introducing and implementing a new technology for science teachers within a school district, we must consider not only the end users but also the roles and influence district personnel have on the eventual appropriation of that technology. School districts are, by their nature, complex systems with multiple individuals at different levels in the organization who are involved in supporting and providing instruction. Varying levels of support for new technologies between district coordinators and teachers can sometimes lead to counterintuitive outcomes. In this article, we examine the role of the district science coordinator in five school districts that participated in the implementation of an online resource discovery and sharing tool for Earth science teachers. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted and coded interviews with district coordinators and teachers to examine the varied responsibilities associated with the district coordinator and to infer the relationships that were developed and perceived by teachers. We then examine and discuss two cases that illustrate how those relationships could have influenced how the tool was adopted and used to differing degrees in the two districts. Specifically, the district that had high support for online resource use from its coordinator appeared to have the lowest level of tool use, and the district with much less visible support from its coordinator had the highest level of tool use. We explain this difference in terms of how the coordinator’s promotion of teacher autonomy took distinctly different forms at those two districts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
ccs.dls.ucar.edu.
EarthComm (Smith et al. 2002).
All proper names and identities are replaced with pseudonyms.
In our sample, all the coordinators were women. We do recognize that men can be and often serve as science coordinators in the larger population.
This autonomy manifested itself in interesting ways with respect to teachers’ instructional practice. For example, we observed in one district the coordinator expected and believed that everyone would fully use a certain textbook in lockstep with one another, but because of perceived communication of teacher autonomy, many teachers in the district did not follow the content or pacing guides due to a range of issues in their classrooms such as student reading levels.
References
Ball DL, Cohen DK (1996) Reform by the book: what is–or might be–the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educ Res 25(9):6–8, 14
Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Brantlinger E, Jimenez R, Klingner J, Pugach M, Richardson V (2005) Qualitative studies in special education. Except Child 71(2):195–207
Brown M, Edelson D (2003) Teaching as design: can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Design brief. Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, Evanston, IL
Bryk A, Gomez L, Grunow A (2011) Getting ideas into action: building networked improvement communities in education. In: Hallinan MT (ed) Frontiers in sociology of education, vol 1. Springer, Netherlands, pp 127–162
Burch P, Spillane JP (2003) Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elem Sch J 103(5):519–535
Camburn E, Rowan B, Taylor JE (2003) Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educ Eval Policy Anal 25(4):347–373. doi:10.3102/01623737025004347
Cohen DK (1990) A revolution in one classroom: the case of Mrs. Oublier. Educ Eval Policy Anal 12(3):327–345
Cronin-Jones LL (1991) Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: two case studies. J Res Sci Teach 28(3):235–250
Davis EA, Kracjik J (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educ Res 34(3):3–14
Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (1995) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Fishman B, Marx R, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, Soloway E (2004) Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. J Learn Sci 13(1):43–76
Gibson IW (2001) The role of school administrators in the process of effectively integrating educational technology into school learning environments: new research from the mid-west. In: Society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2001, vol 2001, no 1, pp 502–506
Harry B, Sturges KM, Klingner JK (2005) Mapping the process: an exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educ Res 34(2):3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189x034002003
Henrick E, Cobb P, Munter C (2010) Educational design research at the district level: a methodology for supporting instructional improvement in middle school mathematics at scale. Educational Design Research Conference, Athens, GA
Honig MI (2006) Street-level bureaucracy revisited: frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Am Educ Res J 28(4):357–383
Honig MI, Hatch TC (2004) Crafting coherence: how schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educ Res 33(8):16–30
Kastens K, DeFelice B, Devaul H, DiLeonardo C, Ginger K, Larsen S et al (2005) Questions & challenges arising in building the collection of a digital library for education: lessons from five years of DLESE. D-Lib Mag 11(11). doi:10.1045/november2005-kastens
Knapp MS, Plecki ML (2001) Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1089–1100
Lee VR (2010) Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks. Int J Sci Educ 32(8):1099–1126
Lee VR, Recker M, Sumner T (2013) Variable appropriation of an online resource discovery and sharing tool. Paper presented at the CSCW in education workshop, San Antonio, TX
Maroulis S, Guimera R, Petry H, Stringer MJ, Gomez LM, Amaral LAN, Wilensky U (2010) Complex systems view of educational policy research. Science 330(6000):38–39
Maull K, Saldivar MG, Sumner T (2010) Online curriculum planning behavior of teachers. In: Third international conference on educational data mining, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 121–130
Maull KE, Saldivar MG, Sumner T (2011). Understanding digital library adoption: a use diffusion approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries, ACM, pp 259–268
McLaughlin MW, Talbert JE (2001) Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Papert S (1993) The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, New York
Penuel W, Fishman B, Cheng B, Sabelli N (2011) Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educ Res 40:331–337
Remillard JT (2005) Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Rev Educ Res 75(2):211–246
Rivet AE, Krajcik JS (2004) Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: an example of a sixth grade project‐based science curriculum. J Res Sci Teach 41(7):669–692
Saldaña J (2012) The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Schoenfeld AH (2011) How we think: a theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Taylor & Francis US, London
Shavelson R, Towne L (2002) Scientific research in education. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Smith MJ, Southard JB, Demery R (2002). EarthComm: earth system science in the community. It’s About Time, Inc., Mount Kisco, NY
Spillane JP (2005) Distributed leadership. Educ Forum 69(2):143–150. doi:10.1080/00131720508984678
Spillane JP (2006) Standards deviation: how schools misunderstand education policy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Spillane JP, Halverson R, Diamond JB (2001) Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Educ Res 30(3):23–28
Spillane JP, Diamond JB, Burch P, Hallett T, Jita L, Zoltners J (2002) Managing in the middle: school leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educ Policy 16(5):731–762
Spillane JP, Camburn E, Pareja A (2007) Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal’s workday. Leadersh Policy Sch 6(1):103–125
Sumner T, CCS Team (2010) Customizing science instruction with educational digital libraries. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on digital libraries, ACM, pp 353–356
Tyack DB, Cuban L (1995) Tinkering toward utopia: a century of public school reform. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19
Wilson SM (2003) California dreaming: reforming mathematics education. Yale University Press, New Haven
Ye L (2013) Integrating technology, curriculum, and online resources: a multilevel model study of impacts on science teachers and students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the time and participation of all individuals in this study, including teachers and district personnel, collaborating investigators, and the CCS development team. This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1043858. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, V.R., Leary, H.M., Sellers, L. et al. The Role of School District Science Coordinators in the District-Wide Appropriation of an Online Resource Discovery and Sharing Tool for Teachers. J Sci Educ Technol 23, 309–323 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9465-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9465-5