Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Planning for Reform-Based Science: Case Studies of Two Urban Elementary Teachers

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The intent of national efforts to frame science education standards is to promote students’ development of scientific practices and conceptual understanding for their future role as scientifically literate citizens (NRC 2012). A guiding principle of science education reform is that all students receive equitable opportunities to engage in rigorous science learning. Yet, implementation of science education reform depends on teachers’ instructional decisions. In urban schools serving students primarily from poor, diverse communities, teachers typically face obstacles in providing reform-based science due to limited resources and accountability pressures, as well as a culture of teacher-directed pedagogy, and deficit views of students. The purpose of this qualitative research was to study two white, fourth grade teachers from high-poverty urban schools, who were identified as transforming their science teaching and to investigate how their beliefs, knowledge bases, and resources shaped their planning for reform-based science. Using the Shavelson and Stern’s decision model for teacher planning to analyze evidence gathered from interviews, documents, planning meetings, and lesson observations, the findings indicated their planning for scientific practices was influenced by the type and extent of professional development each received, each teacher’s beliefs about their students and their background, and the mission and learning environment each teacher envisioned for the reform to serve their students. The results provided specific insights into factors that impacted their planning in high-poverty urban schools and indicated considerations for those in similar contexts to promote teachers’ planning for equitable science learning opportunities by all students.

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. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. C. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. (2014). The nature and influence of teacher beliefs and knowledge on the science teaching practice of three generalist New Zealand primary teachers. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9428-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argument and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: a beginning elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Livingston, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teachers’ thinking about instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: real-world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffold. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: a comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 459–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Poverty: Definitions. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html

  • Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony of ‘no child left behind. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: what science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: the importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan-Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 617–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2012). Examining the beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9297-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, C. T., Biggers, M., & Zangori, L. (2013). Investigating essential characteristics of scientific practices in elementary science learning environments: the practices of science observation protocol (P-SOP). School Science and Mathematics, 113(4), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Full Option Science System (FOSS) (2005). Magnetism and electricity: teacher guide. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulp, S. L. (2002). The status of elementary science teaching. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved December 16, 2012, from: http://2000survey.horizonresearch.com/reports/elem_science/elem_science.pdf

  • Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.

  • González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el Puente: building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16, 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.

  • Institute for Inquiry. (n.d.). Fundamentals of inquiry. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/workshops/fundamentals

  • Johnson, C. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved December 16, 2012, from http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%20Research%20.pdf

  • Joyce, B. (1978–79). Toward a theory of information processing in teaching. Educational Research Quarterly, 3, 66–77.

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Educational reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khisfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective views versus implicit ‘inquiry orientated’ instruction on sixth graders views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kid’s Count Data Center. (n.d.). Data by state. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Default.aspx

  • King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science education reform in the United States (pp. 402–404). In F. Abd-El-Khalick, S. Bougaoude, R. Duschl, N. Lederman, R. Mamlok-Naaman, A. Hofstein, M. Niaz, D. Treagust, & H. Tuan (Eds.), Inquiry in science education: International perspective. Science Education, 88, 397–419.

  • Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2009). The design and validation of EQUIP: an instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Measured Progress. (2011). NECAP: Test design. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http://www.measuredprogress.org/necap.

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable Talk® sourcebook: for classroom conversation that works. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2004). Electric circuits: Teacher’s guide. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012). Digest of education statistics 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states .Washington, DC: Achieve Inc. on behalf of the 26 states and partners.

  • Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC) (1997). Guidelines for the responsive classroom. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osei-Kofi, N. (2005). Pathologizing the poor: a framework for understanding Ruby Payne’s work. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, K. D., Bennet, B., & Sherman, D. F. (1991). Themes of uncommonly successful teachers of at-risk students. Urban Education, 26(2), 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera Maulucci, M. S. (2010). Resisting the marginalization of science in an urban school: Coactivating social, cultural, materials, and strategic resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 840–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videotaped lesson analysis: effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, W. W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solorzano, D., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J.P. (2002). Challenging instruction for “all students”: Policy, practitioners, and practice (Report No. JCPR-WP-253). IL: Joint Center for Poverty Research.

  • Spillane, J.P. (2005). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstood education policy. CPRE Policy Brief RB-43. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.

  • Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: what district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thadani, V., Cook, M. S., Griffis, K., Wise, J. A., & Blakey, A. (2010). The possibilities and limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of poverty”. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsurusaki, B. K., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Koch, P., & Contento, I. (2013). Using transformative boundary objects to create critical engagement in science: a case study. Science Education, 97, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay, B. R. (2005). Practicing reform-based science curriculum in an urban classroom: a Hispanic elementary schools teacher’s thinking and decisions. School Science and Mathematics, 105(7), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., Luster, B., & Wenzel, S. (1999). Meaning making in a community of learners: struggles and possibilities in an urban science class. Research in Science Education, 29(2), 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Salve Regina University, 100 Ochre Point Avenue, Newport, RI, 02840, USA

    Elaine Silva Mangiante

Authors
  1. Elaine Silva Mangiante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Silva Mangiante.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mangiante, E.S. Planning for Reform-Based Science: Case Studies of Two Urban Elementary Teachers. Res Sci Educ 48, 207–232 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9566-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9566-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation