Skip to main content

From Budgets to Bus Schedules: Contextual Barriers and Supports for Science Instruction in Elementary Schools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pedagogical Content Knowledge in STEM

Part of the book series: Advances in STEM Education ((ASTEME))

Abstract

Improvements in teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge are critical in improving science education but may be insufficient to support and sustain instructional changes. This chapter describes how contextual factors influenced teachers’ use of research-based instructional strategies learned in professional development. The research draws on survey, observational, and interview data collected from 135 teachers who participated in four different intensive professional development programs that were situated in small, rural school districts with high-need student populations and that extended over 3 years. Each program had a slightly different STEM focus, but all four programs aimed to improve teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in science and to foster their use of research-based instructional strategies in science. Across programs, teachers’ science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and self-efficacy increased over the course of the professional development. Overall, teachers more frequently used research-based practices for teaching science. But contextual factors varied substantially across schools and districts and both fostered and hindered teachers’ science instruction. The most influential contextual factors included time for planning and collaboration, time for science instruction, administrator support, access to resources, and regional constraints. Identifying the contextual factors that influence teachers’ use of pedagogical content knowledge gained through professional development is the first step for formulating strategies for supporting and sustaining teacher change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P. (2006). Building community: Reforming math and science education in rural schools. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Council on Science and Technology. (2010). The preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science in California. Sacramento, CA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, and Education, 7(3), 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High hopes, few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, H., Gordanier, J., Henry, L., & George, A. (2007). Changing teaching practices in rural schools. The Rural Educator, 28(2), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement science teacher questionnaire. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/tq_k8sci.php.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE), 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at the changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Revised). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council (NSDC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, S., & Labov, J. (2009). Nurturing and sustaining effective programs in science education for grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an efficacy belief instrument for elementary teachers. Science Education, 74, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. (2017). Teacher professional development by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, L. (2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J.H. (2018). From Budgets to Bus Schedules: Contextual Barriers and Supports for Science Instruction in Elementary Schools. In: Uzzo, S., Graves, S., Shay, E., Harford, M., Thompson, R. (eds) Pedagogical Content Knowledge in STEM. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97474-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97475-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics