Advertisement

Time and Teacher Control in Curriculum Adoption

Lessons from the Lighthouse Schools Project
Chapter
  • 425 Downloads

Abstract

Canadian provinces continue to be world leaders in developing science education curricula that emphasize science literacy for all students, constructivist inquiry science teaching approaches, and authentic assessment in science education (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 1997). In Canada, education is the responsibility of the provinces although the national trend is toward increasing cooperation and uniformity of curriculum requirements. Curriculum change is directed by provincial ministries of education through new curriculum documents, which in British Columbia (BC) are called Integrated Resource Programs (IRPs).

Keywords

Preservice Teacher British Columbia Science Curriculum Curriculum Change Unit Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Blades, D. W. (1997). Procedures of power and curriculum change. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Blades, D. W. (2001). The simulacra of science education. In J. A. Weaver, M. Morris, & P. Applebaum (Eds.), (Post) modern science (education): Propositions and alternate paths (pp. 57–94). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Blades, D. W. (2004). CRYSTAL lighthouse schools: Implementing excellence through peer professional development. Victoria, BC, Canada: University of Victoria Faculty of Education Pacific Centre for Scientific and Technological Literacy.Google Scholar
  4. Blades, D. W., & Parsons, C. (2007). Report on node #3: Lighthouse schools project. Victoria, BC, Canada: University of Victoria Faculty of Education Pacific Centre for Scientific and Technological Literacy.Google Scholar
  5. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2005). Science K to 7: Sciences integrated resource package 2005. Victoria, BC, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, R. J. (1991). Workloads, achievement and stress: Two follow-up studies of teacher time in Key Stage 1. Coventry, England: University of Warwick Policy Analysis Unit.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12. Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/
  8. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Futemick, K. (2010). Incompetent teachers or dysfunctional systems? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(10), 59–64.Google Scholar
  12. Little, J. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.Google Scholar
  13. Lumpkin, A. (2010). 10 school-based strategies for student success. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(2), 71–75.Google Scholar
  14. McNamara, C. (2005). Basics of developing case studies. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/casestdy.htm
  15. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a school district’s science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soy, S. K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
  19. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Ungerleider, C. (2003). Failing our kids. Toronto, ON, Canada: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
  21. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Yore, L. D., Anderson, J. O., & Shymansky, J. A. (2005). Sensing the impact of elementary school science reform: A study of stakeholder perceptions of implementation, constructivist strategies, and school–home collaboration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations