Advertisement

THE PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF TEACHERS’ GUIDES FOR SCIENCE TEACHERS

  • Shu-Fen LinEmail author
  • Wen-Hua Chang
  • Yeong-Jing Cheng
Article
  • 274 Downloads

ABSTRACT

The processes of curricula, textbooks and student resources development have been broadly surveyed and studied while teachers’ guides have received comparatively little consideration throughout recent reforms in science education. Ideal curriculum materials align instruction with the goals of reform. Well-designed teachers’ guides contribute to communicating and supporting reform-based teaching. The purpose of this study was to investigate the functions and assistance that guides provide science teachers. A questionnaire was developed and administered to science teachers from a stratified sample of elementary and junior high schools in Taiwan. The findings indicated that the guides were of greater benefit to elementary school science teachers than they were to junior high teachers. These groups of teachers perceived the guides’ usefulness differently, but they believed that a clear, concise presentation of the purpose, reminders, answer keys, concept maps of the main topics and learning progression provided the most helpful and preferred layout. Teachers felt that the function of a teachers’ guide is to provide teaching resources rather than to guide teacher thinking. This study discusses design suggestions that can engage teacher thinking.

KEY WORDS

science curriculum materials teachers’ guides 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Available from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm.
  2. Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Backstrom, C. H. & Hursh-Cesar, G. (1981). Survey research. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. C. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. 14.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L. & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Peretz, M. & Tamir, P. (1981). What teachers want to know about curriculum materials. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, C.-Y., Chang, Y.-H. & Yang, F.-Y. (2009). Exploring secondary science teachers’ perceptions on the goals of earth science education in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2315–2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, J. (1973). The role of the content and structure of curriculum material in cognition. Research in Science Education, 3(1), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curriculum Corporation (2006). Statements of learning for science. Carlton South, Victoria, Australia: Author. Available from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/StmntLearning_Science_2008.pdf.
  12. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science & Education, 90(2), 348–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, E. A., Petish, D. & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. In S. Tozer, T. H. Anderson & B. B. Armbruster (Eds.), Foundational studies in teacher education: Reexamination (pp. 49–60). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for teacher learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halim, H., Samsudin, M. A., Meerah, T. S. & Osman, K. (2006). Measuring science teachers’ stress level triggered by multiple stressful conditions. International Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 4(4), 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu, S. Y. (1998). Decision making of curriculum development and instruction design. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 1(4), 1–12.Google Scholar
  20. Jen, T.-H., Lee, C.-D., Chen, K.-M., Lo, P.-H. & Chang, C.-Y. (2010). The science education in Chinese Taipei. In TIMSS 2007 encyclopaedia chapter. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  21. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Kesidou, S. & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, T.-Y. (1992). A survey on elementary science teaching. Journal of National Hsin Chu Teachers College, 8, 258–265.Google Scholar
  24. Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C. & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Education (2003). Curricula guidelines for elementary and junior high schools. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962.
  27. Powell, J. C. & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practise: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prawat, R. (1993). The role of the teacher in reforming curriculum: Adaptation or reformulation? An essay review of the teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (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
  32. Schwartz, M. (2006). For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherin, M. G. & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematic curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shkedi, A. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward a teachers’ guide: Implications for the roles of planners and teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
  35. Van Den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 421–447). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Wang, J.-J. (1999). A study of systematic change on science teaching. Proceedings of the 1999 action research conference for reform of teacher education. Taitung, Taiwan (pp. 23–52). Taitung: National Taitung Teacher College.Google Scholar
  37. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practise? Science & Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yore, L. D., Henriques, L., Crawford, B., Smith, L., Gomez-Zwiep, S. & Tillotson, J. (2007). Selecting and using inquiry approaches to teach science: The influence of context in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. In T. Osborn, E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 39–87). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for General EducationNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiungRepublic of China
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiRepublic of China
  3. 3.Department of Life ScienceNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations