Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

Despite significant pressure to reform science teaching and learning in K12 schools, and a concurrent call to reform undergraduate courses, higher education science content courses have remained relatively static. Higher education science faculty have few opportunities to explore research on how people learn, examine state or national science teaching standards for K12 schools, or learn and practice research-based instructional strategies. The contrast between what is expected of future and practicing teachers in their K12 classrooms and what they experience in content and instruction in typical college or university science courses can be striking. This paper describes a multi-institutional collaboration among content-area science faculty and K12 teachers to develop undergraduate content courses for future elementary teachers in life and Earth science. Using data from the project evaluation, we report evidence of change in faculty knowledge and beliefs about science teaching and learning, and how that this translated into pedagogical practice in their courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001a). Atlas of science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001b). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2001). Building teacher–scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, S. B., & Manske, J. M. (2005). A theme-based approach to teaching nonmajors biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35, 47–51.

  • Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2007). Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 3, 010103-010101–010103-010115.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge-Farmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druger, M., & Allen, G. (1998). A study of the role of research scientists in K-12 science education. American Biology Teacher, 60, 344–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedock, P., Zambo, R., & Cobern, W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education, 80, 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garmston, B., & Wellman, B. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing and collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & Otero, V. (2008). Physics and everyday thinking. Armonk, NY: Herff Jones Education Division.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

  • Handler, M. G., & Ravid, R. (Eds.). (2001). The many faces of school–university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.php

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, P. W. (1996). Workshop physics activity guide. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6, 386–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1997). Science teacher preparation in an era of standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohana, C. (2003). Partnerships in math education: The power of university–school collaboration. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (1995). Observational studies. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokstad, E. (2001). Reintroducing the intro course. Science, 293, 1608–1610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sunal, D. W., Wright, E. L., & Bland Day, J. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science for the 21st century. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (Project number DUE-0315060). Data collection and analysis were done in large part by the many talented graduate students who supported the internal evaluation program, including Phil Buly, Aaron Lear, Molli O’Neil, Anna (Carter) Thornton, Sarah Walker, and Aki Yada. The staff at FACET Innovations provided additional assistance in collecting, analyzing and sharing data from the external evaluation program. The authors also wish to acknowledge participating faculty from all partner institutions of higher education for their willing participation in the evaluation design so that others could learn from their experience.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department and Science Education Group, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 98225, USA

    Deborah A. Donovan

  2. Chemistry Department and Science Education Group, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 98225, USA

    Emily J. Borda

  3. Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 98225, USA

    Daniel M. Hanley

  4. The Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX, 78705, USA

    Carolyn C. Landel

Authors
  1. Deborah A. Donovan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily J. Borda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel M. Hanley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carolyn C. Landel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah A. Donovan.

Appendix: Interview Questions

Appendix: Interview Questions

Year 2 Interview

  1. 1.

    In your opinion, why is it important to develop this course?

  2. 2.

    What content and associated learning goals/standards are you planning to address?

    • Why those? How did you decide?

    • What are your strengths and weaknesses in your understanding of these particular content areas?

  3. 3.

    What needs of pre-college teachers are you planning to address? How did you identify them?

    • How will you address them?

  4. 4.

    What is your experience in curriculum/course design?

  5. 5.

    How will this course be similar to or different from present or past courses you have seen?

    • Why those particular similarities or differences?

  6. 6.

    How are you planning to “deliver” the content?

    • What will be the pedagogical approach used in the course?

  7. 7.

    How do you envision working with your colleagues?

  8. 8.

    What do you think is most important for promoting and maintaining a good collaboration?

  9. 9.

    From what relevant background or perspective are you answering these questions?

    • What background information/participation do you have with this or similar projects?

  10. 10.

    What research questions related to the content courses would you like to see addressed?

    • What are your suggestions for how and by whom?

    • Barriers to initiating/conducting sci ed research.

  11. 11.

    How would you like the evaluation team to monitor and evaluate your process of course development?

  12. 12.

    What is your motivation for participation?

    • What are the “rewards” for you to do this work?

  13. 13.

    What concerns do you have about the project or your participation in it?

    • What potential barriers to success might there be?

  14. 14.

    What else would you like to have or have done in order to facilitate what you have to do?

Year 4 Interview

Purpose…We’re looking to get a sense of the school to university experience…

  1. 1.

    In what ways did you interact with the TOSAs last year? (Please describe…Why did you meet to…initiation/purpose/incentive…did work for the grant have a role in facilitating these interactions?)

  2. 2.

    How do you see your role in these interactions? (prompting with traditional view…) Do you characterize these (your interactions) as mentoring or something else?

  3. 3.

    How have these teachers (and interactions) influenced your own teaching, what you do for university courses you teach? (provide specific, detailed examples)

    • What types of assessments do you use? Are these the same types you have used in the past, or are there some new that you are trying?

  4. 4.

    What expectations did you have, what did you hope to gain from working with teachers?

  5. 5.

    Have these experiences/interactions met your expectations? Explain, if so how; if not why not?

  6. 6.

    What recommendations do you have…What would you like to see happen next? (what kind/type of interactions would you like to see?)

  7. 7.

    What does research-based curriculum mean to you? Here’s a scenario: if you implemented something new, such as a research-based curriculum, how would you know it was successful? Let’s say you wanted to change it, what would you consider-what would inform your decision on how to change it? If you changed it/tweaked it a bit, how would you know if your modification was successful? What would you do if it “didn’t work”? (What types of information do you use when you’re thinking about modifying something)?

  8. 8.

    Do you currently teach a method’s course? Think about your preservice teachers. In general, what is your view of their understanding of science content? (estimate a %age by the end of your course)

  9. 9.

    What are your professional development goals for the coming year?

  10. 10.

    What needs do you have to help accomplish this?

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Donovan, D.A., Borda, E.J., Hanley, D.M. et al. Participation in a Multi-institutional Curriculum Development Project Changed Science Faculty Knowledge and Beliefs About Teaching Science. J Sci Teacher Educ 26, 193–216 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9414-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9414-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation