Science education reform standards have shifted focus from exploration and experimentation to evidence-based explanation and argumentation to prepare students with knowledge for a changing workforce and critical thinking skills to evaluate issues requiring increasing scientific literacy. However, in urban schools serving poor, diverse populations, where the priority is on students’ assessment results in reading and math, students may not receive reform-based science. The rationale for this qualitative study was to examine how two elementary teachers from high-poverty urban schools planned for reform-based science in response to a quality state science assessment in conjunction with their training and resources. Their state assessment included an inquiry task requiring students to construct responses to questions based on their investigation data. From evaluating evidence using Zembal-Saul’s continuum for teaching science as argument, the findings indicated that both teachers adopted an investigation-based and evidence-based approach to science teaching to prepare students for the inquiry task. However, one teacher provided argument-based science teaching from her explicit training in that approach. The results suggested that the teachers’ training and resources informed their interpretation of the focus areas on the science assessment inquiry task and influenced the extent to which they offered students an equitable opportunity to develop higher-order thinking from reform-based science.
References
[1]
National Research Council. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
[2]
National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; The National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
[3]
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 8 January 2002. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 (accessed on 4 October 2008).
[4]
National Science Foundation. NST at a Glance, Available online: http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp (accessed on 10 June 2013).
[5]
Lazerson, M. American Education in the Twentieth Century; Teachers college Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
[6]
Atkin, J.M.; Karplus, R. Discovery of invention? The Sc. Teach. 1962, 29, 45–51.
[7]
BSCS. Science for Life and Living; Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1988.
[8]
National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
[9]
National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[10]
NGSS. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; Achieve Inc. on behalf of the 26 states and partners: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Available online: http://nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards (accessed on 10 June 2013).
[11]
Diamond, J.B.; Spillane, J.P. High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2004, 106, 1145–1176.
[12]
Spillane, J.P.; Diamond, J.B.; Walker, L.J.; Halverson, R.; Jita, L. Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 918–940, doi:10.1002/tea.1039.
[13]
Ravitch, D. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[14]
Darling-Hammond, L. Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race. Ethn. Educ. 2007, 10, 245–260, doi:10.1080/13613320701503207.
[15]
Haertel, E.; Herman, J. A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for Accountability Testing. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 654); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005.
[16]
Hursh, D. Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race Ethn. Educ. 2007, 10, 295–308, doi:10.1080/13613320701503264.
[17]
Johnson, C.C. Effective science teaching, professional development and No Child Left Behind: Barriers, dilemmas, and reality. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2007, 18, 133–136, doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9037-0.
[18]
Lee, O.; Krajcik, J. Large-scale interventions in science education for diverse student groups in varied educational settings. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2012, 49, 271–280.
[19]
Darling-Hammond, L. Performance Counts: Assessment Systems that Support High-Quality Learning; Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[20]
Kuhn, D. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ. Res. 1999, 28, 16–26, 46.
[21]
Kuhn, D.; Weinstock, M. What Is Epistemological Thinking and Why does It Matter? In Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing; Hofer, B., Pintrich, P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 121–144.
[22]
Brown, A.L. Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-regulation, and Other More Mysterious Mechanisms. In Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding; Weinert, F.E., Kluwe, R.H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 65–116.
[23]
Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Boujaoude, S.; Duschl, R.; Lederman, N.G.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Hofstein, A.; Niaz, M.; Treagust, D.; Tuan, H. Inquiry in science education: International perspective. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 397–419, doi:10.1002/sce.10118.
[24]
Bryan, L.A. Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 835–868, doi:10.1002/tea.10113.
[25]
King, K.; Shumow, L.; Lietz, S. Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Sci. Educ. 2001, 85, 89–110, doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200103)85:2<89::AID-SCE10>3.0.CO;2-H.
[26]
Lee, O.; Hart, J.E.; Cuevas, P.; Enders, C. Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 1021–1043, doi:10.1002/tea.20037.
[27]
Yerrick, R.K.; Hoving, T.J. One foot on the dock and one foot on the boat: Differences among preservice science teachers’ interpretations of field-based science methods in culturally diverse contexts. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 390–418, doi:10.1002/sce.10057.
[28]
Anyon, J. What Should Count as Educational Research: Notes toward a New Paradigm. In Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy; Ladson-Billings, G., Tate, W.F., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 17–26.
[29]
Delpit, L. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom; The New Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[30]
Duschl, R.A. Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
[31]
McNeil, K.L.; Lizotte, D.J.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R.W. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolding in instructional materials. J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15, 153–191, doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.
[32]
Sandoval, W.A.; Reiser, B.J. Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 345–372, doi:10.1002/sce.10130.
[33]
Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 287–312, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.
[34]
Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 994–1020, doi:10.1002/tea.20035.
[35]
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for All Americans: Education for a Changing Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
[36]
Barrow, L.H. A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2006, 17, 265–278, doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5.
[37]
Minner, D.D.; Levy, A.J.; Century, J. Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47, 474–496, doi:10.1002/tea.20347.
[38]
Zembal-Saul, C. Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 687–719, doi:10.1002/sce.20325.
[39]
Linn, M.C. Designing the knowledge integration environment. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 781–796, doi:10.1080/095006900412275.
[40]
Thadani, V.; Cook, M.S.; Griffis, K.; Wise, J.A.; Blakey, A. The possibilities and limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of poverty”. Eq. Excell. Educ. 2010, 43, 21–37, doi:10.1080/10665680903408908.
[41]
Schibeci, R.A.; Hickey, R. Is it natural or processed? Elementary school teachers and conceptions about materials. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 1154–1170, doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1154::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-6.
[42]
Bartholomew, H.; Osborne, J.; Ratcliffe, M. Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 655–682, doi:10.1002/sce.10136.
[43]
Varelas, M.; Pappas, C.C.; Kane, J.M.; Arsenault, A. Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 65–95, doi:10.1002/sce.20232.
[44]
Flynn, N. What do effective teachers of literacy do? Subject knowledge and pedagogical choices for literacy. Literacy 2007, 41, 137–146, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00452.x.
[45]
Amaral, O.M.; Garrison, L. Missing the forest for the trees. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 155–169, doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9026-2.
[46]
Carlone, H.B.; Haun-Frank, J.; Webb, A. Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 459–485, doi:10.1002/tea.20413.
[47]
Upadhyay, B.R. Practicing reform-based science curriculum in an urban classroom: A Hispanic elementary schools teacher’s thinking and decisions. School Sci. Math. 2005, 105, 343–351, doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18053.x.
[48]
Berube, C.T. Are standards preventing good teaching? Clear. House 2004, 77, 264–267, doi:10.3200/TCHS.77.6.264-268.
[49]
Herman, J.L. Accountability and Assessment in the Service of Learning: Is Public Interest in K-12 Education Being Served? In The Future of Test-Based Accountability; Ryan, K.E., Shepard, L.A., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 211–232.
[50]
Herman, J.L. Moving to the Next Generation of Standards for Science: Building on Recent Practices. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 762); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009.
[51]
Herman, J. Making Accountability Work to Improve Student Learning. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 649); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005.
[52]
Polikoff, M.S. Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. Am. J. Educ. 2012, 118, 341–368, doi:10.1086/664773.
[53]
Au, W. High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educ. Res. 2007, 36, 258–267.
[54]
Marx, R.W.; Harris, C.J. No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elem. School J. 2006, 106, 467–478, doi:10.1086/505441.
[55]
Raudenbush, S.W. What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2004, 29, 121–129, doi:10.3102/10769986029001121.
[56]
Bryan, L.A.; Atwater, M.M. Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 821–839, doi:10.1002/sce.10043.
[57]
Goldston, D. Elementary science: Left behind? J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2005, 16, 185–187, doi:10.1007/s10972-005-4859-8.
[58]
Geier, R.; Blumenfeld, P.; Marx, R.; Krajcik, J.; Fishman, B.; Soloway, E. Standardized Test Outcomes of Urban Students Participating in Standards- and Project-based Science Curricula. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Science; Kafai, Y., Sandoval, W., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A., Herrera, F., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 310–317.
[59]
Songer, N.B.; Lee, H.S.; Kam, R. Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 128–150, doi:10.1002/tea.10013.
[60]
Abrams, L.M.; Pedulla, J.J.; Madaus, G.F. Views from the classroom: Teacher’s opinion of statewide testing programs. Theor. Prac. 2003, 42, 18–29, doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4201_4.
[61]
Pedulla, J.; Abrams, L.; Madaus, G.; Russell, M.; Ramos, M.; Miao, J. Perceived Effects of State Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning; National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy: Boston, MA, USA, 2003.
[62]
Liu, O.L.; Lee, H.-S.; Hofsetter, C.; Linn, M.C. Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educ. Assess. 2008, 13, 33–55, doi:10.1080/10627190801968224.
[63]
Yeh, S.S. Test worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educ. Res. 2001, 30, 12–17.
[64]
Songer, N.B.; Wenk Gotwals, A. Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 141–165, doi:10.1002/tea.20454.
[65]
Erlandson, D.A.; Harris, E.L.; Skipper, B.L.; Allen, S.D. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods; Sage: London, England, 1993.
[66]
Guba, E.G.; Lincoln, Y.S. Effective Evaluation; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1981.
[67]
Merriam, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998.
[68]
Kid’s Count Data Center. Data by State, Available online: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Default.aspx (accessed on 10 June 2011).
[69]
Duncan-Andrade, J. Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools. Int. J. Qual.Stud. Educ. 2007, 20, 617–638, doi:10.1080/09518390701630767.
[70]
Ladson-Billings, G. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994.
[71]
Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002.
[72]
Farr, S. Teaching as Leadership: The Highly Effective Teacher’s Guide to Closing the Achievement Gap; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010.
[73]
Lazar, A. Literacy teachers making a difference in urban schools: A context-specific look at effective literacy teaching. J. Read. Educ. 2006, 32, 13–21.
[74]
Peterson, K.D.; Bennet, B.; Sherman, D.F. Themes of uncommonly successful teachers of at-risk students. Urban Educ. 1991, 26, 176–194, doi:10.1177/0042085991026002003.
[75]
Clark, C.M.; Peterson, P.L. Teachers’ thought Processes. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed.; Wittrock, M.C., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 255–296.
[76]
Joyce, B. Toward a theory of information processing in teaching. Educ. Res. Quart. 1978–79, 3, 66–77.
[77]
Erickson, F. Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed.; Wittrock, M.C., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 119–161.
[78]
Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009.
[79]
Freeman, M.; deMarrais, K.; Preissle, J.; Roulston, K.; St. Pierre, E.A. Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educ. Res. 2007, 36, 25–32.
[80]
NECAP. Guide to Using the 2011 NECAP Science Reports, 2011. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/Assessment-Schedule-Workshops/Guide-to-Using-the-2011-NECAP-Science-Reports.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[81]
NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2011: Grade 4 Science. 2011. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2011-Gr4-Science-Released-Items.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[82]
NECAP. NECAP Assessment of Inquiry, Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Science/NECAP-InquirySchema.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[83]
NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2008: Grade 4 Science, 2008. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2008-Gr4-ScienceReleasedItems-SupportMaterials.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[84]
NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2009: Grade 4 Science. 2009. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/2009-Grade-4-Science-Released-Items-Support-Materials.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[85]
NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2010: Grade 4 Science. 2010. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2010-Gr4-Science-Released-Items-V2.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[86]
NECAP. Task Booklet 2008 Grade 4 Released Science Inquiry Task: Bird Beaks and Survival. 2008. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2008-Gr4-ScienceReleased-TaskBooklet.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
[87]
Michaels, S.; O’Connor, M.C.; Hall, M.W.; Resnick, L.B. Accountable Talk？ Sourcebook: For Classroom Conversation That Works; University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010.
[88]
Institute for Inquiry. Fundamentals of Inquiry, Available online: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/workshops/fundamentals/ (accessed on 10 June 2011).
[89]
Full Option Science System (FOSS). Magnetism and Electricity: Teacher Guide; Delta Education: Nashua, NH, USA, 2005.
[90]
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Electric Circuits: Teacher’s Guide; Carolina Biological Supply Company: Burlington, NC, USA, 2004.
[91]
Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2005.
[92]
Keys, C.W.; Kennedy, V. Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 1999, 10, 315–333, doi:10.1023/A:1009406511999.
[93]
Kuhn, D.; Pease, M. What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cogn. Instruct. 2008, 26, 512–559, doi:10.1080/07370000802391745.
[94]
Metz, K.E. On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Rev. Educ. Res. 1997, 67, 151–163, doi:10.3102/00346543067001151.
[95]
Metz, K.E. Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cogn. Instruct. 2004, 22, 219–290, doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3.
[96]
Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Stanne, M.B. Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis, 2000. Available online: http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%20Research%20.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2012).
[97]
Mercer, N.; Dawes, L.; Wegerif, R.; Sams, C. Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2004, 30, 359–377, doi:10.1080/01411920410001689689.
