Curriculum-Dependent and Curriculum-Independent Factors in Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Adaptation of Science Curriculum Materials for Inquiry-Based Science
- 839 Downloads
In this nested mixed methods study I investigate factors influencing preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials to better support students’ engagement in science as inquiry. Analyses focus on two ‘reflective teaching assignments’ completed by 46 preservice elementary teachers in an undergraduate elementary science methods course in which they were asked to adapt existing science curriculum materials to plan and enact inquiry-based science lessons in elementary classrooms. Data analysis involved regression modeling of artifacts associated with these lessons, as well as in-depth, semester-long case studies of six of these preservice teachers. Results suggest that features of the existing science curriculum materials, including measures of how inquiry-based they were, have a relatively small influence on the preservice teachers’ curricular adaptations, while teacher-specific variables account for a much greater percentage of the variance. Evidence from the case studies illustrates the critical impact of the preservice teachers’ field placement contexts as an explanatory, teacher-specific factor in their curricular adaptations. These findings have important implications for science teacher educators and science curriculum developers, in terms of not only better understanding how preservice teachers engage with curriculum materials, but also how programmatic features of teacher education programs influence their ability to do so.
KeywordsElementary Science Inquiry Curriculum materials
This research is funded by a PECASE/CAREER Award grant number REC-0092610 and the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science, a CLT grant, number 0227557, both from the National Science Foundation, as well as the University of Michigan Rackham School of Graduate Studies and University of Iowa College of Education. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2011 meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching in Orlando, FL. I appreciate the interest and cooperation of the preservice teachers who made this research possible. I also thank Betsy Davis, Joe Krajcik, Jay Lemke, Michaela Zint, Shawn Stevens, Carrie Beyer, Michele Nelson, Brian Pinney, and Mandy Biggers for their help in thinking about these issues and their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
- Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2010). 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.Google Scholar
- Forbes, C.T., Biggers, M., & Zangori, L. (2011). Supporting elementary teachers’ evaluation and adaptation of science curriculum materials: The PIESC3 professional development model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL, April 3–6.Google Scholar
- Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010b). Beginning elementary teachers’ beliefs about the use of anchoring questions in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education, 94(2), 365–387.Google Scholar
- Grossman, P., McDonald, M., Hammerness, K., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Dismantling dichotomies in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith (Ed.), The handbook of teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 243–248). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Luft, J. A. (1999). Assessing science teachers as they implement inquiry lessons: The extended inquiry observational rubric. Science Educator, 8(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
- Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Morton, B. A., & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hour in four subjects by public school teachers in grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2003. Retrieved Sept 23, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/index.asp.
- National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Leaning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
- Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar