Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 463–484 | Cite as

Supporting new science teachers in pursuing socially just science education



This forum explores contradictions that arose within the partnership between Teach for America (TFA) and a university teacher education program. TFA is an alternate route teacher preparation program that places individuals into K-12 classrooms in low-income school districts after participating in an intense summer training program and provides them with ongoing support. This forum is a conversation about the challenges we faced as new science teachers in the TFA program and in the Peace Corps program. We both entered the teaching field with science degrees and very little formal education in science education. In these programs we worked in a community very different from the one we had experienced as students. These experiences allow us to address many of the issues that were discussed in the original paper, namely teaching in an unfamiliar community amid challenges that many teachers face in the first few years of teaching. We consider how these challenges may be amplified for teachers who come to teaching through an alternate route and may not have as much pedagogical training as a more traditional teacher education program provides. The forum expands on the ideas presented in the original paper to consider the importance of perspectives on socially just science education. There is often a disconnect between what is taught in teacher education programs and what teachers actually experience in urban classrooms and this can be amplified when the training received through alternate route provides a different framework as well. This forum urges universities and alternate route programs to continue to find ways to authentically partner using practical strategies that bring together the philosophies and goals of all stakeholders in order to better prepare teachers to partner with their students to achieve their science learning goals.


Alternate route Science teacher education Research and practice Partnership Social justice 


  1. Abell, S., Boone, W., Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Beilfuss, M., Volkmann, M., et al. (2006). Recruiting future science and mathematics teachers into alternative certification programs: Strategies tried and lessons learned. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 165–183. doi: 10.1007/s10972-005-9001-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. About Us—School District of Philadelphia. (2016). Retrieved from
  3. Barton, A. C., & Tobin, K. (2001). Preface: Urban science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 843–846. doi: 10.1002/tea.1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2005). The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. New York: College Board.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, T. (2012). Policy brief the high cost of teacher turnover. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Google Scholar
  7. Catelli, L. A., Padovano, K., & Costello, J. (2000). Action research in the context of a school-university partnership: Its value, problems, issues, and benefits. Educational Action Research, 8, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers” What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189x031009013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, F., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179–193. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glennon, C., Hinton, C., Callahan, T., & Fischer, K. W. (2013). School-based research. Mind Brain and Education, 7, 30–34. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2010). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania GSE Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching force, updated April 2014. CPRE Report (#RR-80). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania CSE Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. J. (Eds.). (2008). Enabling practice: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. LaGuardia, A. (1999). A survey of school/college partnerships for minority and disadvantaged students. High School Journal, 82(2), 97.Google Scholar
  19. Loman, L. (2005). Successful practices in urban middle school science teaching. Doctoral dissertation, Science and Mathematics Education Centre Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, S. (2005). The cultural and social dimensions of successful teaching and learning in an urban classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA.Google Scholar
  21. McNew-Birren, J., Hildebrand, T., & Belknap, G. (2017). Strange bedfellows in science teacher preparation: Conflicting perspectives on social justice presented in a Teach for America-university partnership. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s11422-016-9791-z.
  22. Merrill, K. (2006). Creative arts high school demographic and academic characteristics. Retrieved from
  23. Olin, A., & Ingerman, A. (2016). Features of an emerging practice and professional development in a science teacher team collaboration with a researcher team. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 607–624. doi: 10.1007/s10972-016-9477-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olitsky, S., Loman, L., Gardner, J., & Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradiction and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1209–1228. doi: 10.1002/tea.20389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Farrell, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2015). Conceptualizing research-practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal for Education of Students at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2014.988334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruggirello, R. (2014). The role of administrator and teacher leadership in secondary science education reform. Doctoral dissertation, Science and Mathematics Education Centre Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  27. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  28. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (2016). Retrieved from
  29. Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005) Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. Tobin, K., Roth, W.-M., & Zimmermann, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 941–964. doi: 10.1002/tea.1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
  33. Wiliam, D. (2007a). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Wiliam, D. (2007b). Content then process: teacher learning communities in the service of formative assessment. In D. B. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 183–204). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for School PartnershipWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Science DepartmentGlenwood Springs High SchoolGlenwood SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations