Advertisement

University Mathematics and Science Faculty Modeling Their Understanding of Reform Based Instruction in a Teacher Preparation Program: Voices of Faculty and Teacher Candidates

  • J. Randy McGinnisEmail author
  • Tad Watanabe
  • Amy Roth McDuffie
Article

Abstract

This study was conducted in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher education program in the USA, the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation(MCTP). The goal of the undergraduate program was to prepare upper elementary/middle level specialists in mathematics and science. One significant aspect of the MCTP was the expectation that the program's professors (in mathematics and science) would model a new vision of effective pedagogy based on reform-based recommendations. We determined, in general, that the program's mathematics and science content professors accepted the dual role of modeling effective instruction at the same time they were delivering content. However, this dual responsibility raised in their minds an ‘issue of appropriate balance’ between content and pedagogical foci in their courses. Previously, the professors' had not questioned a focus heavily tilted toward content coverage. We also determined that the program's teacher candidates believed that the mathematics and science professors modeled effective instruction. One of the primary reasons that the teacher candidates believed that their professors were modeling effective instruction was that the focus in the courses was primarily on conceptual understanding, not memorization. A major implication was that the professors' modeling of reform-based instruction prompted the teacher candidates to develop a new vision of mathematics and science teaching shaped by their professors' example.

Keywords

teacher preparation science model interdisciplinary 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D.L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40–48. Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D.L. (1990). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservice methods course. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(2), 10–16. Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  8. Britzman, D.P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442–456. Google Scholar
  9. Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In [finish citation]. Google Scholar
  10. Goetz, J. & Lecompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  11. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349. Google Scholar
  12. LeCompte, M., Millroy, W. & Preissle, J. (1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  13. Marbach-Ad & McGinnis, J.R. (in review). A measurement of beginning science and mathematics teachers beliefs of subject matter and instructional actions over time. Google Scholar
  14. McGinnis, J.R. (2003). College science, mathematics, and methods teaching faculty talk about science and mathematics: An examination of faculty discourse in a reform-based teacher preparation program. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 1, 5–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGinnis, J.R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A., Parker, C. & Watanabe, T. (2002, October). Undergraduates' attitudes and beliefs of subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGinnis, J.R., Parker, A. & Graeber, A. (2004). A cultural perspective of the induction of five reform-minded new specialist teachers of mathematics and science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 720–747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGinnis, J.R., Roth McDuffie, A. & Parker, C. (1999, January). An action research perspective of making connections between science and mathematics in a science methods course. A paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Austin, Texas. Google Scholar
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science. Google Scholar
  20. National Science Foundation (1993). Proceeding of the National Science Foundation workshop on the role of faculty from the scientific disciplines in the undergraduate education of future science and mathematics teachers. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar
  21. Roth McDuffie, A., McGinnis, J.R. & Graeber, A. (2000, December). Perceptions of reform-style teaching and learning in a college mathematics class. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 225–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roth-McDuffie, A., McGinnis, J.R. & Watanabe, T. (1996). Modeling reform-style teaching in a college mathematics class from the perspectives of professor and students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 8–13, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394 432.) Google Scholar
  23. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. & Gallard, A.J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. White (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  24. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watanabe, T., McGinnis, J.R. & Graeber, A. (1996). Maryland collaborative for teacher preparation: Integrating mathematics and science in pre-service teacher education programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Research Council for Diagnostic and Prescriptive Mathematics, Melbourne, Florida, February 29–March 2, 1996. Google Scholar
  26. Zeichner, K.M. & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Randy McGinnis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tad Watanabe
    • 2
  • Amy Roth McDuffie
    • 3
  1. 1.Science Teaching Center, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Room 2226 BenjaminUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.268 Chambers Bldg., Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park
  3. 3.Washington State University, TriCitiesRichland

Personalised recommendations