• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Changing teachers' practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA

Posted on: Friday, 7 March 2003, 06:00 CST

Changing teachers' practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA

Source: Studies In Science Education

INTRODUCTION

Educational reform and the use of new curriculum materials are often discussed together. For some educators, in fact, discussing educational reform1 without referring to curriculum materials is pointless, because they see a significant role for materials as a vehicle for reform. On the other hand, some educators see the two topics as quite separate, i.e., educational reform is viewed as dependent largely on matters other than the available curriculum materials. These varied perspectives, including gradations between the two extremes above, provide a backdrop for our analysis of the role of science curriculum materials in educational reform. Among the specific questions that could be raised are the following:

What are the implications for curriculm materials from the current reform agenda?

What roles can curriculum materials play in an educational reform process?

What are the relationships among reform-based materials, school culture, professional development, and the individual teacher?

Not all of these questions have definitive research-based answers, and such questions in turn raise yet other questions that are directly or tangentially related. The purpose of this analysis is to present answers where possible, but more importantly to explore the complexity of the issues at hand and clarify them from a research-based perspective.

We will address the questions from a US perspective, discussing a number of topics that provide a context for defining the role of curriculum materials, including the reform agenda in the United States, the context for reform, and the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of teachers. Again, there will be considerable variation in the definitiveness with which these topics can be addressed, but an exploration of them is important to any analysis of the role of curriculum materials in educational reform.

One conclusion of our analysis, to be delineated below, is that answers to the questions at hand are dependent upon the given situation and context. It is difficult to draw generalizations that will apply to all cultures and countries. Our information comes largely from the USA, but it is apparent, based on the information drawn from this one country, that each instance of educational reform and/or the use of new curriculum materials has a unique character. Each situation has many variations and it is not possible fully to understand it without bringing to bear a wide variety of information, and a systemic perspective. Based on the information from this one country - admittedly one which is internally diverse - it seems wise to assume that a given situation found within a particular country, even one which is more homogeneous than is the USA, is likely to display unique characteristics, and thus need to be approached with careful analysis and not with a formulaic process.

The role of science curriculum materials in educational reform will be considered from a classroom-based perspective. In other words, what do we know about the relationships between teachers and their use of curriculum materials? We have defined curriculum materials as the collection of textbooks, teacher's guides, and ancillary materials that are adopted for use in schools for teachers to use while teaching science. It is our contention that curriculum materials have a role in improving the teaching and learning of science. When placing materials in a larger context we will refer to `curriculum reform'. Curriculum reform is a systemic approach to changing what is taught in science, as well as how it is taught. This is possible because there are materials available that are standards-based2 in their approach to content, assessment, teaching and professional development. It is these types of materials that have the greatest potential for influencing teacher and student learning. Standards-based materials include inquiry as a part of the science content, they encourage a constructivist and student- centered approach to learning, and require long-term professional development for sustainable implementation. The professional development that supports the implementation of standards-based curriculum materials requires a transformation in teachers' ideas about and understanding of subject matter and teaching, and of the learning of science. We will frame our response to the question `What is the role of curriculum materials in improving science teaching and learning?' from the following perspectives:

Current science education reform recommendations for teaching and learning in the United States and the implications of those recommendations for curriculum materials.

The organizational context in which teachers use reform-oriented curriculum materials and how that context may influence individual changes in practice and thinking.

Teachers' knowledge and beliefs and the relationship of those knowledge and beliefs to reform-oriented classroom practice.

SCIENCE EDUCATION REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES

Reform efforts in the U.S.A. tend to cycle, as different issues come to the forefront for policymakers. This cycling has resulted in a somewhat cynical view of reform. Some argue that previous efforts to reform science education have failed (see, for example, Yager, 1992). But it is also possible to adopt Tyack and Cuban's metaphor (1995) of `tinkering toward Utopia' and look at the forward gains and lessons learned from previous reform efforts to provide a context for where U.S. science education is today.

The Evolution of Current Recommendations for Teaching and Learning

The current call to reform mathematics and science education started generically in reports published from 1983; it took another year before educators and policy makers began suggesting more specific ideas for the reform of curriculum, instruction and assessment. The earliest responses to these calls were simplistic when compared to the evolution of that vision 15 years later. For example, in the 1984 NSTA Yearbook Bybee, Carlson, and McCormack, after reviewing a series of national reports, suggested that science and technology education curriculum and practice could be redesigned to:

Integrate science-technology-society themes, problems, and issues;

Present a multi-disciplinary analysis of science and technology related problems

Provide opportunities for informal learning;

Demonstrate relevance to the student's world; and

Include computer literacy in the context of science knowledge, skills, and values. (246)

These ideas are simplistic because teachers could address this `re-design' of science education in an add-on manner, in which they continued doing much of what they had been doing in the classroom.

A more significant impact on the way U.S. science educators thought about curriculum came about a year later with AAAS Project 2061. In addition to the ideas from the NSTA yearbook listed above, AAAS helped redirect science educators to look at scientific literacy for all students, and then began operationally to define this literacy in the document Benchmarks for scientific literacy (1993). The following features are essential characteristics of reform-based curriculum and instruction as articulated by AAAS:

Include all natural and social sciences, mathematics and technology,

Make connections among the science disciplines and with other disciplines,

Attend to the research on how children learn and sequence instruction accordingly,

Eliminate the teaching of 'factoids' in favour of an approach that encourages students to understand more meaningful science themes and concepts in an integrated context, and

Re-organize curriculum and instruction to emphasize that depth of understanding is more critical than breadth of coverage.

The work started by AAAS in defining a reform agenda for U.S. science education was expanded and continued by the National Research Council in the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRCb, 1996). This document represents a joint statement from the science education community and the science community about what is important for students in the United States to understand and be able to do by the end of fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades. In addition to discussing the content of the curriculum, this document includes standards for teaching, assessment, professional development, programmes, and systems. The implications for curriculum materials that can be extracted from the NSES build on the features described above by AAAS:

Design instruction based on the prior experiences of students;

Align assessment with instruction by making it seamless with curriculum and instruction;

Attend to the content of the NSES document, but do not let the NSES be the curriculum;

Provide opportunities for students to understand scientific concepts and develop the abilities of inquiry;

Situate the subject matter disciplines in the context of inquiry, technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and the history and nature of science;

Provide more opportunities to integrate all aspects of science content;

Encourage depth rather than breadth, and;

Let scientific questions drive student learning and classroom experiences (NRCb, 1996; Collins, 1996).

It is important to note that in the ten years of policy documents summarized here, the view of science education in the United States has become much more inclusive in all aspects: students, teachers, and materials. In terms of students, there is greater emphasis on including all learners by making the content more relevant and the instruction more appropriate for the diversity of children attending public school in the U.S. The nature of the content covered has been broadened: the aims are to make it relevant, connected to the lives of students, and based in the socio-cultural history of how the knowledge base came to be. Pedagogically, the recommendations for reform have moved far beyond the earlier simplistic description of hands-on activities, to consider the ways in which learners construct their own meaningful explanations and take account of that process within instruction.

THE CONTEXT FOR CHANGE

Considering the context for change from the perspective of science education reform requires that we identify: curriculum materials that are available for teachers to use in their classrooms; the factors necessary to support reform-- based innovation; and the individual teacher's response to the innovation. This means that the context for reform-based change linked to curriculum has three primary aspects: materials as a vehicle for change, the support factors for change inside and outside the school, and the knowledge and beliefs of the individual teacher.

Science Curriculum Materials

Curriculum materials have a role in helping to initiate and sustain reform in science education because they are concrete, tangible vehicles for embodying the essential ideas of a reform. When these ideas are articulated poorly they represent only a token pass over the ideas essential to the reform of science education. When they are articulated thoughtfully and methodically the result will be a variety of models of how reform can be put into action. Standardsbased curriculum materials help teachers enact a reform agenda by offering concrete means for changing the role of the teacher to a facilitator of learning, helping students construct understandings, organizing the science content around large conceptual themes, and addressing the nature of science overtly, so that students participate in self-directed inquiries (NRC, 2000).

It is important to recognize the 'inert' character of curriculum materials. They do not by themselves generate changes in the classroom. They are a tool that teachers can use to enact changes. The behaviour and beliefs of the teacher are a critical factor in how the curriculum is put into action (Fullan, 1991). The interaction of the teacher with the materials determines what happens in the classroom. Positive action, i.e., teaching practice that is consistent with the current reform, by the teacher can result in a dynamic expression of reform in the classroom made most obvious by students who learn and enjoy science as articulated in documents such as the Standards (NRCb, 1996) or Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993). On the other hand, the curriculum materials could be transformed into a stagnant expression of reform in the classroom where the teacher chooses to ignore the reform initiatives manifest in the materials and the students despise learning science and do not see it as worthwhile. These two possibilities represent the extreme ends of a continuum that includes many combinations of the interactions among teachers, students, and curriculum. In reality, the potential influence of curriculum materials is as diverse as the teachers using them and, more importantly, is dependent on the teachers implementing the materials.

The recommendations in the current reform agenda in science education demand much of teachers. For example, the Standards (NRCb, 1996) suggest the following changes in emphasis in the nature of teaching:

Less emphasis on teaching all students the same and more emphasis on responding to individual student's need, strengths, and interests;

Less emphasis on rigidly following a curriculum and more emphasis on selecting and personalizing curriculum materials;

Less emphasis on student acquisition of knowledge and more emphasis on student understanding and the use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and processes;

Less emphasis on the presentation of knowledge through lectures, demonstrations, and use of text and more emphasis on guiding students in scientific inquiry; and

Less emphasis on testing students for factual information in a summative manner and more information on continuously assessing student understanding.

These shifts are significant changes for most secondary science teachers. Educational researchers have documented classroom practices in the U.S. for many years that are more aligned with the areas that the Standards suggest should be less emphasized, while there is not much evidence that teachers are using curriculum and teaching strategies that align with the areas of greater emphasis. Weiss (1987) describes the teaching of science at the secondary level in 1985-86 as dominated by the textbook, and by didactic teaching strategies such as lecturing. In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study ten years later, little had changed (IEA, 1996). Teachers still emphasize the accumulation of skills, rather than conceptual understanding, and, though the teachers are familiar with reform recommendations, few apply the key ideas in their classrooms (NRCa, 1996).

It is clear from the surveys of classroom practice cited above that rhetoric and recommendations are not enough to change real classroom practice. Teachers need tools they can use to enact these recommendations. Standardsbased curriculum materials could be one of these tools, though materials alone are not likely to have much impact. Teachers using reform-oriented materials need to modify their teaching practices so they are consistent with the ideas embodied in the materials. Ideally, these teachers will be in schools where their attempts to enact a reform agenda are supported and encouraged.

The instructional materials referred to in this document as `standardsbased science curriculum materials' share a set of characteristics consistent with the vision of science education suggested in reform documents such as the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and Designing Mathematics or Science Curriculum Programs (NRC, 1999). These documents identify high-quality, reformoriented instructional materials as having the following four distinguishing characteristics. They

are standards-based in that the science content, instructional strategies, and assessment tools optimize student learning as reflected in current research on teaching and learning.

are inquiry-based, which includes support for inquiry as a teaching strategy as well as the inclusion of content that addresses the abilities to do inquiry and the understandings about science as inquiry.

are based on a carefully developed conceptual framework that reflects the science disciplines and connects factual information to larger ideas, themes, and concepts.

are revised as a result of thoughtful and comprehensive field testing, which provides developers with data about the effectiveness of the materials when used by teachers and students.

Because the use of reform-oriented curriculum materials that embody these four characteristics requires many changes from typical practice in the United States, we know that the implementation of standards-based materials must be accompanied by comprehensive professional development (Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998). There are a variety of formats of professional development described in the literature, each with different degrees of success depending on the goals of the participants and leaders. In the next section we highlight research documenting substantial professional development efforts that were linked to the use of new curriculum materials.

Professional Development and the Use of New Curriculum Materials

Most U.S. school districts organize some kind of professional development when they adopt a new curriculum programme. Usually this professional development consists of optional one- or two-day workshops that provide overviews of the materials. This approach to professional development is unacceptable when considering the support necessary for the implementation of standards-based science curriculum materials. These materials may be a significant change for teachers in their approach to learning and teaching science. Because these curriculum materials require a revised conceptual understanding of science content, knowledge of the research on how students learn, and the pedagogical content knowledge to use the materials effectively, a comprehensive, transformative programme of professional development aimed at improving instruction is needed. Highly structured, standards-based curriculum materials, when combined with effective, sustainable professional development, have the potential for changing teaching practices in a manner that can lead to improved student achievement in and attitudes about science. For this potential to emerge, professional development interventions need to incorporate multiple elements of instruction - the teachers, students, content, and environments - and the interactions among these elements (Cohen & Ball, 2001).

As examples of what comprehensive, transformative professional development involves, we have highlighted the following two projects. Each of these projects focuses on what teachers know and believe and how that knowledge and those beliefs can lead to changes in practice. The majority of these examples included some aspect of curriculum development or implementation, but it was not their primary focus. In other words, the researchers set up a professional development project, often in collaboration with the teachers, and developed or used curriculum materials only as the participating teachers requested them in support of their teaching.

Project-Based Instruction Study

The Project-Based Instruction (PBI) study was designed to use a cycle of collaboration, enactment, and reflection to help middle school science teachers solve scientific problems and develop new practices and visions of classroom practice (Krajick et al., 1994). The researchers wanted the participating teachers to understand a constructivist approach to teaching, primarily by focusing on problem-based units of instruction that were organized around a driving question or problem to which central science concepts could be connected. The teachers, in collaboration with the university personnel, developed driving questions that helped students initiate an inquiry.

The researchers found that the teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning affected their comfort with the key ideas of project- based instruction. For example, participating teachers who viewed the curriculum as a fixed set of ideas to be conveyed to the students, were less likely to let the students pursue their own inquiries. The discrepancies between the premises of the project and the teachers' personal beliefs became the basis of the teacher-- learning piece of the study. The researchers set up a staff development model that combined collaboration, reflection, and orchestration to provide a method for teachers to learn more about the constructivist approach to teaching.

Ladewski et al. (1994) reported the case of Connie, a sixth grade teacher involved with the PBI study. Connie held several beliefs that were in conflict with the premises of PBI, such as the teacher being the central figure in the classroom and that it was important to cover the fixed body of content set by the district curriculum framework. Through her work as a collaborator, Connie became more comfortable with the premises of PBI and confronted her prior beliefs. Ladewski et al. indicate that an interactive approach that involved university personnel and helped teachers enact a curriculum with constructivist underpinnings was more successful `than attempting to implement a prescribed program designed for her classroom by someone else. Many times throughout the research effort Connie identified her active collaborative role as a major influence in encouraging her to continue to explore the challenges and dilemmas of enacting project-based science' (514).

PBI represents a `best case' scenario of finding a successful method for encouraging teachers to change their practices from a traditional transmission model to a model that allows for students to conduct scientific inquiries and construct meaningful understandings of science. The limitation to this scenario, however, is in the number of teachers that can be reached in a reasonable time frame. The PBI team had a four-year grant and worked with 11 teachers. The shifts in knowledge, beliefs and practices are significant and aligned with a reform vision of science education, but the model is not practical for wide scale change. So, even though the PBI researchers do not seem to advocate the use of curriculum materials developed by someone else as a means of encouraging teachers to change practices, if science educators want to increase the number of teachers using these instructional strategies, we need to consider other models of affecting the relationship among beliefs, knowledge, and practice, especially the role standards-based materials can play.

Cognitively Guided Instruction Project

In mathematics education, a group of researchers developed the Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) project with the purpose of investigating `whether providing teachers access to explicit knowledge derived from research on children's thinking in a specific content domain would influence the teachers' instruction and their students' achievement' (Carpenter et al., 1989: 500). This project tested the hypothesis that if a teacher's pedagogical content knowledge is increased, then a change in practice will result. The researchers were hoping for changes in practice that indicated a more cognitively-guided approach to the teaching of mathematics.

This project was not focused exclusively on teachers' subject matter knowledge; the CGI researchers also asked questions about the teachers' beliefs and student achievement, as well as the relationships among these three factors. They found that CGI teachers were significantly more `cognitively guided' in their beliefs about teaching than were the control teachers, though the two groups of teachers did not differ significantly in their perspective of whether or not children could construct mathematical knowledge. In the analysis of the classroom observations, the CGI teachers spent significantly more time on word problems, while control teachers spent more time on number facts and review. Carpenter et al. (1989) concluded that providing teachers with access to explicit information from the research base (formal knowledge) did change practice and beliefs.

Knapp and Peterson noted in their review of reform and educational literature that '(t)he traditional method of "disseminating" new ideas by presenting teachers with a packaged product, a preconceived set of procedures, is one cause of this tendency toward surface-level and fleeting reform, because it fails to take into account the existing knowledge, beliefs, values, and purposes of teachers and the cultures and contexts in which teachers work' (1995: 41). While this critique of reform efforts that include curriculum materials has merit, Knapp and Peterson do not discuss the possibility that reform-based materials can serve as a model of concepts integrated with strategies that enhance a teacher's opportunities to teach for understanding. As noted in earlier discussions, however, the role of reform-based curriculum materials as a positive model is only possible in the context of professional development that challenges the existing beliefs and knowledge that teachers bring to these materials.

So, while Knapp and Peterson might argue that prepackaged curriculum materials are not likely to be an effective tool for changing teacher practices and beliefs, it is also true that at least 90 percent of secondary science teachers in the U.S. use textbooks in some way; most often to define their course of study and their instruction (Weiss, 1987). Because of the pervasive use of textbooks, we suggest there is a role for standards-based curriculum materials in helping teachers begin and maintain a change in practice that is difficult without support in the form of ongoing professional development.

Using Professional Development to Enhance the Role of Materials in Educational Reform

The role of professional development cannot be considered in isolation of the individual teachers' practice. Ideally, when a new curriculum is adopted there are changes in practice that result in improved student learning and attitudes. Yet, changes in practice and thinking do not necessarily result simply from providing new knowledge in a professional development context. Rather there is a complex relationship among knowledge, beliefs, and practice that is unique for each teacher. There is no one path that teachers take in changing knowledge, practices, and beliefs. Guskey (1986) found that professional development activities were most effective at changing beliefs when teachers could be helped to adopt a new practice and could see that it was successful and argued that changes in belief follow changes in practice. Richardson (1994) challenges this position on the basis of her study of staff development in reading instruction. Richardson suggests that in the process of change there is a constant interaction between beliefs and practice and this process can begin in different places based on the person and the setting implying an iterative and reflective approach to the professional development that accompanies the use of reform- oriented curriculum materials.

There are a number of studies emerging at conferences and not yet published that show interesting trends in the relationships among standardsbased science and mathematics curriculum materials, professional development, and student learning. For example, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Imperial County, California student achievement data collected over four years indicates that elementary students using standards-based mathematics (PA) and science (CA) curriculum materials are scoring significantly better than their peers in more traditional programmes (Briars & Resnick, 2001; Klentschy, 2001). This positive outcome is particularly strong if teachers use the curriculum materials as the developers intended them to be used. This fidelity of use is much more common in schools that have been involved in long-term professional development related to the implementation of the new programme.

Similar findings are reported in an evaluation report for the Local Systemic Change projects funded by the National Science Foundation (Weiss, et al., 1999). The Horizon Research group notes that by collecting data via classroom observations, teacher interviews, and teacher surveys, they were able to determine that elementary teachers involved in these projects changed their perceptions of how important science was as a part of the curriculum. Teachers that participated in forty or more hours of professional development in science by learning about new standards- based curriculum materials increased the amount of time they spent teaching science. In addition to spending more time teaching science, the lessons taught were more inquiry-- oriented and offered students more opportunities to work with hands-on materials.

Standards-based curriculum materials are designed to challenge teachers to think differently about learning and teaching science. Instead of a textbook that only provides `what to teach,' these curriculum materials also provide instructional support for `how to teach.' This integrated approach to materials, i.e., a combination of content and strategies, makes the standards-based materials different from what most teachers are accustomed to. Therefore they need a rich form of on-going professional development to help them learn how to use them, and in particular, professional development that focuses on learning new ways of teaching science, addressing how students learn, is needed. These experiences must model the instructional approaches used in the curriculum materials so that the professional development is a powerful learning experience for teachers. Our contention is that in order for professional development to support the implementation of standards-based curriculum materials it must help transform teachers' ideas about and understanding of subject matter, teaching, and learning science.

Standards-based curriculum materials often challenge teachers' beliefs about learning and teaching science; consequently, the pedagogy of the professional development to learn how to use them needs to be transformative. In other words, the professional development that supports these materials needs to lead to changes in practice that are consistent with the approaches and ideas embedded in the materials. Five features that characterize transformative professional development (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999) include the following:

Creates a sufficiently high level of cognitive dissonance to disturb the equilibrium between teachers' existing beliefs and practices and their experiences with subject matter, students' learning, and teaching.

Provides time, contexts, and support for teachers to think so they can resolve that dissonance through discussion, reading, writing, and revise their thinking.

Connects the professional development strategies to the teachers' own students and context.

Provides a way for teachers to develop practices that are consistent with their new understandings.

Provides support for attending to new issues and problems, understanding the issues, translating these new understandings into practice.

In other words, effective professional development should parallel the pedagogy of the curriculum materials it is designed to support. Until the pedagogy of professional development for curriculum implementation becomes transformative, the long-term impact of standards-based curricula will fall short of its potential to support sustainable reform.

School Culture and the Use of New Curriculum Materials

Teacher change is often considered a key element in successful educational reform because the assumption is that better teaching will lead to a better education for the students affected by the change (Richardson & Placier, in press). Change at the level of the individual teacher is only one dimension of educational change. Another dimension is the school, or organizational, level of change. This level of change links the political, structural, and cultural aspects of educational reform to the changes occurring at the individual level. There are two large categories of factors to consider when thinking about organizational change from the school perspective. The first category is external factors, or those that originate outside of the school system. The second category is local factors, or those that are specific to the particular school district or building.

External Factors

In the United States the most obvious external factors are related to federal or state government agencies, legislation and policies. These factors help place the school in the context of the larger society and connect education to the well being of citizens in general. External factors are usually manifest as policies and legislation set forth by governing bodies or government-sponsored agencies. Education tends to get a lot of attention from government officials, especially at election time. Most presidents, governors, and legislators have something to say about the state of education and how they can help. Agencies such as national or state departments of education, and the National Science Foundation (especially for mathematics and science education) help set the agenda and fund the changes set forth at the policy level for education. At the state level, external factors influence change at the local level through such vehicles as standards, certification requirements, and state-mandated testing. These efforts may be supportive of the changes that are being tried at the local level, or they may be in contradiction to them. Table 1 emphasizes how external factors can be supportive or non-supportive of curriculum- based reform efforts.

Local Factors

While external factors set a general context for change, local factors are more directly related to the school where the change is occurring. These factors include a variety of players and levels such as voters in the community, administrators in the district, and administrators and teachers in the building. At the local level, the community can deem a national recommendation for an engaging, hands- on, standards-based science programme unsuitable for their setting and elect to keep a traditional approach. On the other hand, the voters can pass a bond issue that allows the high school to build new laboratory facilities to support inquiry-oriented curriculum materials, the middle school to upgrade their computer equipment so that data can be shared around the world, and the elementary schools to support a science resource teacher who helps teachers implement a new programme.

Table 1:

At the building level, the process of vision building is essential to the change process (Fullan, 1991). In the best permutations of this process school leaders work with the members of the school community to select and articulate an appropriate plan for the future. Because the use of standardsbased curriculum materials often requires a shift in teachers' beliefs and knowledge about science, learners, and teaching, the selection and implementation of any new programme must begin with vision building. The piece of the vision specific to science education should be related to the school's complete vision, not an isolated activity. Without this process, school communities have no sense of what they are headed toward and why that goal is worthwhile; each reform becomes a passing trend that teachers just have to outlast. But reform efforts that are guided by a vision that the community has helped to construct can be sustained because people know how the reform fits into the bigger plan of the community and their educational mission.

Cuban (1995) notes that reformers in the past were committed to creating a new vision of science education but could not alter the prevailing patterns that define school structures. Consequently, their vision was without effect. `Cultures, organizational structures, and individual teacher beliefs matter in understanding how classroom practices have come to be as they are' (9). Therefore, the success of any curriculum implementation effort is highly dependent on the coordination and communication among the various local stakeholders. When the stakeholders can operate within an interconnecting network, they can support and continue the change process. Any one factor operating in isolation, or worse yet, in opposition, will not help to set the stage for successful implementation of a standards-based curriculum.

This sense of working together is captured by Fullan's suggestion that the vision must include a `shared sense of purpose' that focuses on both the content and the process of change. This idea is echoed by Sarason (1996) as he describes the fate of past curriculum reform efforts that were chosen by university or district-level personnel. Because teachers, students, and parents were not involved in the decision-making processes at the local level, they had little to no investment in the reform effort being promoted. LeCompte (1996) notes that the process of implementing school reforms fails when it is based on an `apparent consensus' generated from vague goals that are too easy for people to agree to. This vagueness results in a vision that is not truly shared. The lack of unity becomes obvious when it comes time to implement the goals of the reform in a specific manner and people realize the reform does not look like what they envisioned.

Sarason (1996) also points out that vision building must not only include all stakeholders, but also must be shaped by `the way in which the change process is conceptualized' and this conceptualization `is far more fateful for success or failure than the educational method or content ... one seeks to implement' (78). It is essential that the adoption and implementation of a new curriculum programme be a process that is conceptualized in terms of what it is replacing, improving, and changing. All of these local factors, in addition to being connected to each other, also operate in a larger social context. Table 2 summarizes the roles local factors have in relationship to reform-oriented curriculum implementation efforts.

Sarason (1996), Fullan (1991), and Kyle (1991) all discuss the role of power in the change process. Sarason reminds us that any effort at significant change that is insensitive to the issue of power is likely to fail. Fullan looks at power issues through the lens of empowerment. And Kyle looks at the hegemonic structure of schools and asks who is left out - often the teacher. By combining these perspectives, it becomes clear that successful change is more likely if the stakeholders are empowered via `power-sharing' that results when school and district leaders stimulate initiative taking and establish cross-- hierarchical steering groups with authority and access to resources. Teachers can share in the power and vision building when they are given opportunities to collaborate and reflect. The curriculum implementation/professional development projects described earlier incorporated high levels of teacher collaboration and reflection. Anderson (1995) noted the powerful influence of collaborative working relationships among teachers in the case studies on curriculum reform. Mechanisms that allow for and encourage power sharing are essential for the successful implementation of standards-based curriculum materials.

TEACHER THINKING AND CHANGES IN PRACTICE

The approaches to inquiry, science content, and instruction that are integral to standards-based curriculum materials require changes in every aspect of traditional classroom practice including the roles of the teachers and the students. The teacher is no longer the major source of information in the classroom. S/he still orchestrates the learning experiences for the students, but the students should have leading roles in determining what questions are asked and when those questions are answered satisfactorily. For many teachers, these changes in roles do not align closely with their ideas about who is supposed to do what in the classroom. There are many shifts in practice suggested by the standards that challenge the guiding knowledge and beliefs teachers use to determine their practice. Because teachers' thinking is integral to the implementation of standards-based curriculum materials, it is essential to consider the research on teachers' knowledge and beliefs in relationship to reform efforts.

Table 2:

The Relationship Between the Implementation of Curriculum Materials and Teachers' Beliefs, Knowledge, and Practice

A few studies have focused on the implementation of innovative or reform-based curriculum materials and the affect of that implementation on teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and practice. In an examination of teacher beliefs in the context of the implementation of an innovative science curriculum, five ideas dominate the teachers' reaction and accommodation to the innovations in the curriculum: how students learn, the teacher's role in the classroom, what the students are capable of, what the students should know for the next level, and the nature of scientific content (Cronin-Jones, 1991; Mitchener & Anderson, 1989). The case study work of these researchers illuminates some dominating beliefs of science teachers in each of these areas. First, many of the teachers interviewed said that elementary and middle level students need a lot of direction in order to complete their work and learn anything important. The teachers also felt that it was important that this direction come from the teacher. Second, the teacher should be in control of discipline, discussion, and the content conveyed (and therefore learned). Third, the teachers did not often view the students as capable of independent work or thought. Fourth, science was viewed as a static body of facts that students needed to learn. Fifth, teachers were reluctant to spend time on innovative materials if they did not think it prepared the students for the next science course they would take. This perspective was especially strong among the teachers in Mitchener and Anderson's work (1989). Anderson et al. (1994) conducted case study research at nine schools that implemented a variety of curriculum reforms, three each in mathematics, science, and thinking across the disciplines. All but one of the schools chose to work with developed curriculum materials, rather than develop their own materials. One of the research questions in this study focused on how instruction changed during the implementation of the new materials. These findings indicated that knowledge, skills, values, and beliefs all had a role in the success or failure of the implementation of the reform- orient curriculum materials. In no case did any one teacher have all the skills and knowledge to fully implement the curriculum. `Even in the case of individual teachers who had a commitment to teaching for understanding and the development of critical thinking, there generally was lack of full understanding of how to do it' (author's emphasis, 43).

Teacher Thinking = Knowledge + Beliefs

The ideas teachers hold about teaching and learning are central to their ideas about practice (Pajares, 1992). Without changes in knowledge, changes in practices are likely to be superficial Subsequently, the use of standards-based curriculum materials is likely to be inconsequential if teachers' beliefs and knowledge are not aligned with those of the new materials. When considering the potential for changes in teacher practice in the light of curriculum reform recommendations it is important to consider the role of teachers' knowledge and beliefs. Sometimes teachers practice what they do not yet understand cognitively or believe in wholeheartedly; other times they have knowledge that is inconsistent with their beliefs; and sometimes their beliefs, knowledge, and practices are very consistent.

Teacher Knowledge

Shulman's work (1986, 1987) emphasizes the role of subject knowledge; a type of knowledge that he divides into three main categories: pedagogical content knowledge, subject matter content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is the information that enables a teacher to teach a particular subject area in an appropriate manner. This includes knowing which ideas build on each other and what prior conceptions students might bring to the classroom. Subject matter content knowledge is what teachers know about a particular subject and curricular knowledge is the knowledge teachers have about the materials available to teach a particular subject. Shulman (1987) argues that general reform (i.e. improvement) of teaching should be based on the notion that teaching includes comprehension, reasoning, and reflection. He stresses the concept of pedagogical content knowledge to capture the kinds of expertise teachers should have and be able to use at the intersection of content and pedagogy.

Schon's work (1983) on reflective practice is yet another way to look at teacher knowledge. He stresses that the knowledge teachers use `in action,' or while they are teaching, is the knowledge that shapes their practices. He suggests that teachers do not rely heavily on academic knowledge to make decisions, but rather, with experience, build a body of very specific craft knowledge over time. This type of knowledge builds over time for reflective practitioners. If craft knowledge plays heavily into a teacher's ability to be or feel successful in the classroom, it implies that more experienced teachers may have more difficulty enacting a new curriculum, unless their craft knowledge is transferable to the new materials.

Russell and Munby (1991) have used Schon's idea of `re-framing' to study how teachers learn to teach. These researchers used case studies of two experienced teachers to see how they re-framed situations to make decisions in the classroom. They identify re- framing as the process of perception that allows a teacher to use an observation in an interpretive manner. They saw evidence of re- framing by how teachers changed metaphors to describe their practice. In particular, they found that '[r]eframing of experience facilitates the use of pedagogical knowledge acquired in courses, workshops, and conferences' (166). In other words, reframing provides one type of link between academic knowledge and craft knowledge.

Teachers using a new curriculum that is research based may find that the curriculum developers have attempted to provide links between theory and practice, but that the links are not especially helpful until they can make the connections themselves. Therefore, reflective practice is likely to be an important component of the process of enacting a new curriculum. In fact Russell and Munby (1991) stress that `New actions and new frames for practice go hand in hand' (emphasis in original, 185). Cohen (1989) summarizes the role of knowledge in teacher change this way: `One way these systems [school systems] can influence practice is by affecting the transmission of knowledge about practice - including critiques of inherited views, ideas about reform, and examples of improved practice. This is particularly salient to any discussion of reform because many changes in practice require new knowledge' (45). It is clear that teachers will need knowledge in several areas as part of the process of changing practice.

Teacher Beliefs

Beliefs help teachers interpret classroom life and orient them when faced with a particular challenge, problem, or dilemma, such as the implementation of standards-based curriculum materials. Prawat (1992) indicates that for people to change their beliefs, several criteria must be met: they must be dissatisfied with their beliefs in some way; they need an alternative that they understand and find useful; and they need to find a way to connect their new beliefs to their earlier ideas. When considering research about teachers' beliefs and their use of an innovative curriculum, beliefs about the role of the teacher and the role of the learner immediately surface. For example, Berlin and Jensen (1989) indicate that teachers will change `only if they are convinced that the new way is good for them - if it will lead to greater student learning' (115). Prawat (1992) views this reluctance to change from a more fundamental perspective. He argues that the ideas advocated by reformers, especially those related to constructivist approaches to teaching and learning `are inconsistent with much of what teachers believe' (354). But he goes on to say that this problem may be overcome if teachers are willing to re-examine their views on issues such as a student-centered instructional approach, student-led inquiry, and alternative assessment strategies.

Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) point out that beliefs are the filters through which new learning takes place, new actions are considered, and practices are changed. In fact, they were able to predict teachers' motivation, intentions, and behaviours after identifying the teachers' beliefs using research tools based on the theory of planned behaviour (Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996). In this work beliefs are used to predict the likelihood that a tea

More News in this Category