Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 43–64 | Cite as

An Action Research Project on Preparing Teachers to Meet the Needs of Underserved Student Populations

  • Gayle A. Buck
  • Jeanene G. Cordes
Model Program

Abstract

The focus of this action research study was on the initial stage in reforming our teacher preparation programs. We designed, conducted, evaluated, and revised the components of our teacher preparation programs that were aimed at providing preservice teachers with the confidence and knowledge needed to meet the needs of youth populations underserved in science education. The conceptual framework of this study predicted that providing preservice teachers with experiences in teaching science to at-risk youth in a nonformal educational setting and that exploring these experiences in a seminar setting will increase the teachers’ confidence and knowledge in regard to teaching science to children from underserved populations. The community-based experience allowed for an experience in which 20 preservice teachers taught in a situation in which at-risk youth were the majority, thus spotlighting their needs in a manner traditionally not experienced by these prospective teachers. A two-phase methodological design (J. Creswell, 1994) was utilized to answer the questions: (a) Did the plan lead to the desired outcomes? and (b) What strategies fostered or hindered progress toward the desired outcomes? The findings of this study were utilized to develop our next action step in preparing teachers to foster science literacy for All Americans.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, C. (1991). Policy implications of research on science teaching and teachers’ knowledge. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 5–30). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  3. Arhar, J., Holly, M., & Kasten, W. (2001). Action research for teachers: Traveling the yellow brick road. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Banks, J. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. Teaching Education, 4, 135–144.Google Scholar
  5. Bullock, L. (1997). Efficacy of a gender and ethnic equity in science education curriculum for preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1019–1038.Google Scholar
  6. Clair, N., & Adger, C. (1999). Professional development for teachers in culturally diverse schools. ERIC Digest: ED435185.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, D., & Barnes, C. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, & J. Talber (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4–10.Google Scholar
  10. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.Google Scholar
  11. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.Google Scholar
  12. Guba, E. (1978), Toward a methodology of natuaralistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 8. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  13. Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2000). Exceptional learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Haney, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.Google Scholar
  15. Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.Google Scholar
  16. Kanpol, B. (1998). Confession as strength: A necessary condition for critical pedagogy. Educational Foundations, 12(2), 63–75.Google Scholar
  17. Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research in retrospect and prospect. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1990). Teacher education and the social context of schooling: Issues for curriculum development. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 610–636.Google Scholar
  19. McDevitt, T., Heikkinen, H., Alcorn, J., Ambrosio, A., & Gardner, A. (1993). Evaluation of the preparation of teachers in science and mathematics: Assessment of preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Science Education, 77, 593–610.Google Scholar
  20. Meier, D. (1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 369–373.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2002). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Sharon, S. (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  24. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94–106.Google Scholar
  25. Southerland, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers’ view of inclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Science Education, 83, 131–150.Google Scholar
  26. Spiegel, A. (2002). Science education diversity: Preservice teacher opinions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  27. Stringer, E. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Wells, G. (1994). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: OISE Press.Google Scholar
  29. Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 105–132.Google Scholar
  30. Zeichner, K. (1992). Beyond inquiry-oriented teacher education: Rethinking the practicum (Rep. No. 1992-09-00). Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Saskatchewan University.Google Scholar
  31. Zeichner, K. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (NCRTL Special Rep. No. 1993-02-00). East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  32. Zeichner, K., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. (1998). A research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education: Design principles. Theory into Practice, 37, 163–171.Google Scholar
  33. Zeichner, K., & Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and inquiry-oriented teacher education: An analysis of two approaches to the development of curriculum for field-based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8, 95–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gayle A. Buck
    • 1
  • Jeanene G. Cordes
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Nebraska–LincolnLincolnU.S.A.
  2. 2.University of Nebraska–LincolnLincolnU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations