Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PROMOTING EFFECTIVE SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION AND SCIENCE TEACHING: A FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER DECISION-MAKING

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of research on science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bavelas, J.B., Chovil, N., Coates, L. & Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991a). Hunter lesson design: The wrong one for science teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(4), 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991b). Generic lesson design: The case against. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D.C. (1985) Reform in education: The case for pedagogy. Presentation Before the Deans of Land Grant Colleges Meeting, February.

  • 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,

  • Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M.P. (1992). Research is required reading: Keeping up with your profession. The Science Teacher, 59(7), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clough, M.P. & Berg, C.A. (1995). Preparing and hiring exemplary science teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 31(2), 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.theaste.org

  • 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 

  • Clough, M.P. & Olson, J.K. (2003). Unpublished Work. Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenstermacher, G. (1983). How should implications of research on teaching be used. Elementary School Journal, 83, 496–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fullan, M.G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Third Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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. http://www.scienceideas.org/narst%5F2007/

  • Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1994). Looking in classrooms, 6th Edition. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J.I. (1983). A summary of a study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching, 5th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindsvetter, R., Wilen, W. & Ishler, M. (1989). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhatigan, J.J. & Schuh, J.H. (2003). Small wins. About Campus, 8, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

  • Roth, W.M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71, 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, J.P. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students’ learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, L.S. & Renner, J.W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.narst.org/news/e-narstnews_july_2006_.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Slater, T.F. (2003). When is a good day teaching a bad thing. The Physics Teacher, 41(7), 437–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, RE. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 752–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer (2008). Springer international handbooks of education. 24 Volumes, The Netherlands, Springer. http://www.springer.com/series/6189?detailsPage=titles

  • Stofflett, R.T. & Stefanon, L. (1996). Elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of successful conceptual change teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. Science Education, 72, 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education, Iowa State University, N157 Lagomarcino, Ames, IA, 50011-3190, USA

    Michael P. Clough, Craig A. Berg & Joanne K. Olson

Authors
  1. Michael P. Clough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig A. Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanne K. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Clough.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clough, M.P., Berg, C.A. & Olson, J.K. PROMOTING EFFECTIVE SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION AND SCIENCE TEACHING: A FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER DECISION-MAKING. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 821–847 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9146-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9146-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation