• Michael P. CloughEmail author
  • Craig A. Berg
  • Joanne K. Olson


Learning and effective teaching are both complicated acts. However, many administrators, teachers, parents, and policymakers appear not to recognize those complexities and their significance for practice. Fueling this perception, recommendations from isolated research findings often neglect the complexities in learning and teaching, and when implemented in classrooms often fall well short of the advertised effect. Consequently, education research is generally ignored, and the resulting research-practice gap raises concerns regarding the utility of university-based teacher education, and education research more generally. However, the strength of education research resides in the synergy resulting from its integration into a unifying system that guides, but does not determine, decision-making. Dewey (1929) argued for teacher decision-making guided by education research, but recently several writers have justly criticized education researchers for not providing comprehensible assistance to educators and policymakers (Good, 2007; Shymansky, 2006; Windschitl, 2005). This paper proposes a decision-making framework for teaching to help beginning and experienced teachers make sense of education research, come to understand crucial teacher decisions, and how those decisions interact to affect student learning. The proposed decision-making framework for teaching has significant utility in the design of science methods courses, science teacher education programs, effective student teacher supervision experiences, and professional development workshops.


decision-making framework research synthesis teacher decision-making teacher development teacher education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of research on science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In Appleton, K. (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54. )New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Balzer, A.L., Evans, T.P. & Blosser, P.E. (1973). A review of research on teacher behavior. Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Columbus, OH: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bavelas, J.B., Chovil, N., Coates, L. & Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991a). Hunter lesson design: The wrong one for science teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(4), 73–78.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991b). Generic lesson design: The case against. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 26–31.Google Scholar
  8. Berliner, D.C. (1985) Reform in education: The case for pedagogy. Presentation Before the Deans of Land Grant Colleges Meeting, February.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.Google Scholar
  11. Clough, M.P. (1992). Research is required reading: Keeping up with your profession. The Science Teacher, 59(7), 36–39.Google Scholar
  12. Clough, M.P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In Bybee, R.W. (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning, 2002 NSTA Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  13. Clough, M.P. (2003a). Understanding the complexities in learning and teaching science: The value of a research-based framework. Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January 29 - February 2.Google Scholar
  14. Clough, M.P. (2003b). Structure of a Secondary Science Methods Course Promoting and Reflecting a Decision-Making Framework for Teaching Science. Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January 29 - February 2.Google Scholar
  15. Clough, M.P. & Berg, C.A. (1995). Preparing and hiring exemplary science teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 31(2), 80–89.Google Scholar
  16. Clough, M.P. & Berg, C.A. (2006). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: A visual framework for teacher decision-making. Proceedings of the 2006 Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference. Portland, OR.
  17. Clough, M.P. & Kauffman, K.J. (1999). Improving engineering education: A research- based framework for teaching. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(4), 527–534.Google Scholar
  18. Clough, M.P. & Olson, J.K. (2003). Unpublished Work. Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  19. Clough, M. P., Madsen, A. J., Williams, M., Bruxvoort, C. N & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2003). Student teacher supervision practices consistent with a decision-making framework for teaching science. Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January 29 - February 2.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, D.K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R.S. Nickerson & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231–264.)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3–13.Google Scholar
  22. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–17.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.Google Scholar
  24. Duschl, R.A. & Gitomer, D.H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 37–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenstermacher, G. (1983). How should implications of research on teaching be used. Elementary School Journal, 83, 496–499.Google Scholar
  26. Floden, R.E. (2001). Research on effects of teaching: A continuing model for research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edition (pp. 3–16. )Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association (AERA).Google Scholar
  27. Fullan, M.G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420–423.Google Scholar
  28. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Third Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gabel, D.L. (Ed.) (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. A project of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175–205.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Good, R. (2007). A personal assessment of science education research. NARST 2007 presidential-sponsored symposium: A critical look at science education as a field of research. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 14–17.
  32. Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1994). Looking in classrooms, 6th Edition. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  33. Goodlad, J.I. (1983). A summary of a study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 465–470.Google Scholar
  34. Jackson, P.W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, M.G., Rua, M.J. & Carter, G. (1998). Science teachers’ conceptual growth within Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching, 5th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.Google Scholar
  38. Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keys, C.W., Hand, B.M., Prain, V.R. & Sellers, S. (1999). Rethinking the laboratory report: Writing to learn from investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kindsvetter, R., Wilen, W. & Ishler, M. (1989). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacKay, D.A. & Marland, P. (1978). Thought processes of teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Toronto, Canada. Eric Document 151 328.Google Scholar
  43. Marzano, R.J., Gaddy, B.B. & Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent: Research for Education and Learning.Google Scholar
  44. Olson, J.K. (2007). Preservice teachers’ thinking within a research-based framework: What informs decisions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olson, J. K. & Appleton, K. (2006). Considering curriculum for elementary science methods courses. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 127–151. )New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with ASTE.Google Scholar
  46. Olson, J.K. & Clough, M. P. (2001). Technology’s tendency to undermine serious study: A cautionary note. The Clearing House, 75(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  47. Olson, J.K., Bruxvoort, C.N., Madsen, A.J., & Clough, M.P. (2004). The effect of problem-based learning video case content on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of teaching. National Association of Research in Science Teaching International Conference, Vancouver, Canada, March 31–April 3.Google Scholar
  48. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  49. Penick, J.E., Crow, L.W. & Bonnstetter, R.J. (1996). Questions are the answer: A logical questioning strategy for any topic. The Science Teacher, 63(1), 27–29.Google Scholar
  50. Pizzini, E.L., Shepardson, D.P. & Abell, S.K. (1989). A rationale for and the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education, 73, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhatigan, J.J. & Schuh, J.H. (2003). Small wins. About Campus, 8, 17–22.Google Scholar
  52. Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  53. Roth, W.M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowe, M.B. (1974a). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part I—wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rowe, M.B. (1974b). Relation of wait-time and rewards to the development of language, logic, and fate control: Part II—rewards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanford, J.P. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students’ learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider, L.S. & Renner, J.W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  59. Shymansky, J.A. (2006). The State of the Association. Presidential Address, National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, San Francisco, CA, April 5. E-NARST News, 49(2), 8–10.
  60. Shymansky, J.A. & Penick, J.E. (1981). Teacher behavior does make a difference in hands-on science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sikula, J. (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd Edition. A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Slater, T.F. (2003). When is a good day teaching a bad thing. The Physics Teacher, 41(7), 437–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slavin, RE. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 752–758.Google Scholar
  64. Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J. & Lanier, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom: Red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1032–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Springer (2008). Springer international handbooks of education. 24 Volumes, The Netherlands, Springer.
  66. Stofflett, R.T. & Stefanon, L. (1996). Elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of successful conceptual change teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  68. Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. Science Education, 72, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Uhlenbeck, A.M., Verloop, N. & Beijaard, D. (2002). Requirements for an assessment procedure for beginning teachers: Implications from recent theories on teaching and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 242–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weiss, I.R. (1993). Science teachers rely on the textbook. In R.E.Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, volume seven: The science, technology, society movement. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  74. 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. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  75. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Windschitl, M. (2005). Guest Editorial: The future of science teacher preparation in America: Where is the evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy decisions. Science Education, 89, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael P. Clough
    • 1
    Email author
  • Craig A. Berg
    • 1
  • Joanne K. Olson
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics EducationIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations