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.
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.
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.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argument and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
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.
Borko, H., Livingston, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teachers’ thinking about instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 40–53.
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.
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.
Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.
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.
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.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony of ‘no child left behind. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
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.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
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.
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.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
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.
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.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. London: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
Full Option Science System (FOSS) (2005). Magnetism and electricity: teacher guide. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.
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.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22.
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.
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.
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.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.
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.
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.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2004). Electric circuits: Teacher’s guide. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012). Digest of education statistics 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.
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.
Osei-Kofi, N. (2005). Pathologizing the poor: a framework for understanding Ruby Payne’s work. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 367–375.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, K. D., Bennet, B., & Sherman, D. F. (1991). Themes of uncommonly successful teachers of at-risk students. Urban Education, 26(2), 176–194.
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.
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.
Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392–413.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.
So, W. W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 71–86.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421–431.
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.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9566-2