Advertisement

Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale

  • Sarah M. BonnerEmail author
  • Katharine Diehl
  • Roberta Trachtman
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

We present a case study that examined the role of teacher belief change and agency development through enactment of an innovative student-centered STEM program in three public urban secondary schools. In the program, 9th grade STEM classrooms were restructured to incorporate daily small group instruction facilitated by 10th grade near-peers. We found that teachers who had successfully persisted in the program for several years attributed changes in their professional practices, principles, and norms to their experiences with students. Teacher agency developed as teachers reflected on reform-based experiences for planning, and as they further conceptualized their own authority to distribute it among their students. All teachers exhibited qualities of deep change, exerted agency in their own classrooms, and perceived they had school-level cultural resources to spread agentic actions beyond their classrooms, but not all teachers felt agentic in relationship to social structures in their schools. Through our findings, we identify perceptions about the student experience as a salient source of information that motivates teacher belief change. We further show how cultural and social-structural resources afford or hinder teachers from sustaining and scaling a relatively mature program.

Keywords

Teacher change Teacher beliefs Agency Scale Sustainability School reform 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1102729).

References

  1. Bonner, S. M., & Thomas, A. S. (2017). The effect of providing instructional facilitation on student college readiness. Instructional Science, 45(6), 769–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrmann, L., & Souvignier, E. (2015). Effects of fit between teachers’ instructional beliefs and didactical principles of reading programs. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergh, A., & Wahlström, N. (2018). Conflicting goals of educational action: A study of teacher agency from a transactional realism perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, D. L., Schnellert, L., & MacNeil, K. (2015). Collaborative inquiry and distributed agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran, K. F., Reinsvold, L. A., & Hess, C. A. (2017). Giving students the power to engage with learning. Research in Science Education, 47, 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ acceptability of school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, J. F., Hoagland, J., Pierre-Toussaint, N., Rodriguez, C., & Sanabria, C. (2011). Working in the crevices: Granting students authority in authoritarian schools. American Journal of Education, 117(3), 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2010). Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaniuka, T. S. (2012). Toward an understanding of how teachers change during school reform: Considerations for educational leadership and school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirk, C. M., Lewis, R. K., Brown, K., Karibo, B., Scott, A., & Park, E. (2017). The empowering schools project: Identifying the classroom and school characteristics that lead to student empowerment. Youth & Society, 49(6), 827–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lai, C., Li, Z., & Gong, Y. (2016). Teacher agency and professional learning in cross-cultural teaching contexts: Accounts of Chinese teachers from international schools in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Looi, C. K., Sun, D., Seow, P., & Chia, G. (2014). Enacting a technology-based science curriculum across a grade level: The journey of teachers’ appropriation. Computers & Education, 71, 222–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malmberg, L., & Hagger, H. (2009). Changes in student teachers’ agency beliefs during a teacher education year, and relationships with observed classroom quality, and day-to-day experiences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naraian, S., & Schlessinger, S. (2018). Becoming an inclusive educator: Agentive maneuverings in collaboratively taught classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. New York City Department of Education. (2016). Demographic snapshot- Citywide, borough, district and school. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from the New York City Department of Education Web site: http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/data/default.htm.
  24. Noack, M., Mulholland, J., & Warren, E. (2013). Voices of reform from the classroom: teachers’ approaches to change. Teachers and Teaching, 19(4), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smyth, J. (2007). Teacher development against the policy reform grain: An argument for recapturing relationships in teaching and learning. Teacher Development, 11(2), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Terhart, E. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: Reflecting an inconvenient truth. School Leadership & Management, 33(5), 486–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thornburg, D. G., & Mungai, A. (2011). Teacher empowerment and school reform. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 5, 205–217.Google Scholar
  30. Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. R. (2017). Secondary science teachers as curriculum makers: Mapping and designing Scotland’s new Curriculum for Excellence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 324–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, Y., Mu, G. M., & Zhang, L. (2017). Chinese inclusive education teachers’ agency within temporal-relational contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hunter CollegeCUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Allenwood Company, LLCNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations