Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 879–905 | Cite as

Sustaining Reform-Based Science Teaching of Preservice and Inservice Elementary School Teachers

  • Barbara K. Sullivan-WattsEmail author
  • Barbara L. Nowicki
  • Minsuk K. Shim
  • Betty J. Young
Article

Abstract

This study examined the influence of a professional development program based around commercially available inquiry science curricula on the teaching practices of 27 beginning elementary school teachers and their teacher mentors over a 2 year period. A quantitative rubric used to score inquiry elements and use of data in videotaped lessons indicated that education students assigned to inquiry-based classrooms during their methods course or student teaching year outperformed students without this experience. There was also a significant positive effect of multi-year access to the kit-based program on mentor teaching practice. Recent inclusion of a “writing in science” program in both preservice and inservice training has been used to address the lesson element that received lowest scores—evaluation of data and its use in scientific explanation.

Keywords

Science inquiry Elementary science education Science content knowledge Preservice students Inservice professional development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. ESI-0455685). The authors would like to acknowledge the generous assistance of Sally Beauman and Elaine Mangiante who assisted us with logistics of the data collection.

References

  1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2010). In search of well-started beginning science teachers: Insights from two first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 661–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banilower E. R., Boyd S. E., Pasley J. D., & Weiss I. R. (2005). Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.pdmathsci.net/reports/capstone.pdf.
  6. Britton, E., McCarthy, E., Ringstaff, C., & Allen, R. (2012). Addressing challenges faced by early-career mathematics and science teachers: A knowledge synthesis. Retrieved from Website for Knowledge Management and Dissemination project: http://www.mspkmd.net/papers.
  7. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czerniak, C. M., Beltyukova, S., Struble, J., Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (2006). Do you see what I see? The relationship between a professional development model and student achievement. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science in grades 5–8: standards-based success stories (pp. 13–32). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demir, A., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Views of inquiry: Mismatches between views of science education faculty and students of an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eick, C. J., & Stewart, B. (2010). Dispositions supporting elementary interns in the teaching of reform-based science materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 783–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbes, C. T. (2011). Curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent factors in preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,. doi: 10.1007/s10972-011-9245-0.Google Scholar
  17. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teacher’s mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fulwiler, B. R. (2007). Writing in science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring student teachers: The growth of professional knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luera, G., Moyer, R., & Everett, S. (2005). What type and level of science content knowledge of elementary education students affect their ability to construct an inquiry-based science lesson? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17(1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luft, J. A., Lee, E., Fletcher, S., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Growing or wilting? Beginning biology teachers in a science-focused induction program. American Biology Teacher, 69(6), 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & 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). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGinnis, R., Parker, P., & Graeber, A. (2004). A cultural perspective of the induction of five reform-minded beginning mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 720–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation and evidence and abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. New England Common Assessment Program. (2008). Guidelines for the development of science inquiry tasks. Partnership by New Hampshire, RI, and VT Departments of Education.Google Scholar
  37. Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nowicki, B., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M., Young, B., & Pockalny, R. (2012). Factors influencing content accuracy in elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education,. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9303-4.Google Scholar
  39. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Overstreet, C. (2002). Information re: HRI science assessment instrument. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruby, A. (2006). Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools. Science Education, 90(6), 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, R. (2008). Mentoring new mentors: Learning to mentor preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(2), 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80(5), 535–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steele, D. F. (2001). The interfacing of preservice and inservice experiences of reform-based teaching: A longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(2), 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vanosdall, R., Klentschy, M., Hedges, L. V., Weisbaum, K. S., & Chicago, I. (2007). A randomized study of the effects of scaffolded guided-inquiry instruction on student achievement in science. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  50. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States (356 pp.). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc. Retrieved from http://www.horizonresearch.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/highlights/highlights .
  52. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Windshitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young, B. J., & Lee, S. K. (2005). The effects of a kit-based science curriculum and intensive science professional development on elementary student science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5/6), 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara K. Sullivan-Watts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barbara L. Nowicki
    • 2
  • Minsuk K. Shim
    • 2
  • Betty J. Young
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations