Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Middle school science teachers' reaction and pedagogical response to high stakes accountability: a multiple case study
(USC Thesis Other)
Middle school science teachers' reaction and pedagogical response to high stakes accountability: a multiple case study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ REACTION AND
PEDAGOGICAL RESPONSE TO HIGH STAKES ACCOUNTABILITY:
A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY
by
Kenneth Tse
___________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
EDUCATION
December 2007
Copyright 2007 Kenneth Tse
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife, Stacy. Without your
patience, your sacrifices, your support and encouragement, I would not have been
able to get through the coursework, the research or the writing. I will always be
appreciative to what you have given to me and to our family. I love you always.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have supported
and helped me along the path to the discovery of the science education program as
well as all the steps required to complete it. This journey, though culminated in a
single event, was an extensive progression that was undertaken and completed with
the help of many unrecognized people.
In particular, I would like to thank Dr. William McComas for introducing
me to the area of science education and helping to foster an interest that has
developed into a passion. I would also like to thank Dr. Tom Cummings and Dr.
Nelly Stromquist for being a part of my committee and providing your help and
guidance during the dissertation process. To Michelle Priest, my fellow Charger
alum, I really feel lucky for having someone to work with and who held the same
goals so that we could finally get through and be done. Also, I would like to
express a special thanks to Dr. David Marsh for serving as my chairperson, in
particular after losing my original chair, and helping me make the dissertation a
manageable and successful process.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my children, Audrey
and KJ, for being there to love me even when I did not have an abundance of time
to spend with you while you were so little. When I am finally done, I will try my
best to make up for the lost time.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 19
Purpose of the Study 21
Research Questions 22
Importance of the Study 23
Assumptions 25
Delimitations 25
Limitations 26
Definition of Terms 26
Organization of the Study 30
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 32
Introduction 32
STAR Testing 34
Norm Referenced Test (NRT) 35
California Standards Test (CST) 35
Accountability 37
Types of accountability 37
Types of Classroom Instruction 41
Teacher-centered classrooms 41
Student-centered classrooms 42
Rationale for the Science Laboratory 45
Types of Laboratory Activities 48
Inquiry Science 51
Issues with Classroom Implementation of Curricular Projects 58
Variables related to the program characteristics 59
The issue of time 61
Teacher’s role 62
v
Teacher confidence and motivation 64
School factors 67
The change process 67
Administrative Support and Leadership 68
Capacity 69
Using data 69
Organizational structure 70
District design 71
Leadership 71
Conclusion 72
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 79
Sample 82
Selected District Profile -
Coastline Unified School District and
Sierra View Unified School District 86
Selected Schools Profile 88
Beach Hills Middle School 89
Mission Hills Middle School 90
Ocean Ranch Middle School 91
Hillside Intermediate School 92
Lake View Intermediate School 93
East View Intermediate School 94
School Participants – Classroom Science Teachers 95
School Participants – Department Chairperson 96
School Participants – Principals/Assistant Principals 97
Pilot Study 98
Preliminary Findings 99
Instrumentation 100
Data Collection Instruments 100
Instrument 1: Case Study Guide 103
Instrument 2: School District Information Profile 103
Instrument 3: Instrumentation Chart 104
Instrument 4: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide 104
Instrument 5: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide -
Administrative Perspective 105
Instrument 6: Teacher Interview Guide 105
Instrument 7: Administrator Interview Guide 106
Instrument 8: Interview Development Chart 108
Instrument 9: Concerns Questionnaire About High
Stakes Accountability 108
vi
Conceptual Framework for Instrument Design 113
Framework for the First Research Question 114
Framework for the Second Research Question 114
Framework for the Third Research Question 114
Framework for the Fourth Research Question 115
Data Collection 115
Data Analysis 116
Summary 117
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSION 119
Data Findings 121
Research Question 1: Teacher reaction to standards and
accountability 124
Analysis by School Site 125
HIS 125
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 125
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 129
EVIS 134
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 134
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 137
LVIS 139
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 139
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 142
BHMS 144
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 144
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 148
MHMS 149
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 149
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 153
ORMS 155
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 155
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 158
Overall Analysis 159
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability 159
Teacher’s Views and SoC Responses 162
Research Question 2: Pedagogical skills of science teachers 171
Analysis by School Site 172
HIS 172
Professional Environment 172
Instructional Style 174
vii
EVIS 179
Professional Environment 179
Instructional Style 180
LVIS 184
Professional Environment 184
Instructional Style 185
BHMS 189
Professional Environment 189
Instructional Style 190
MHMS 194
Professional Environment 194
Instructional Style 195
ORMS 198
Professional Environment 198
Instructional Style 199
Overall Analysis 202
Professional Environment 202
Instructional Style 206
Research Question 3: Administrative Support 211
Analysis by School 212
HIS 212
Training and Assistance 212
Use of Student Performance/Data 213
EVIS 214
Training and Assistance 214
Use of Student Performance/Data 215
LVIS 216
Training and Assistance 216
Use of Student Performance/Data 217
BHMS 218
Training and Assistance 218
Use of Student Performance/Data 220
MHMS 221
Training and Assistance 221
Use of Student Performance/Data 222
ORMS 223
Training and Assistance 223
Use of Student Performance/Data 224
Overall Analysis 225
Research Question 4: Teacher Training 228
Gaining Pedagogical Knowledge 229
Analysis by School 232
viii
HIS 232
External Teacher Training 232
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 233
EVIS 235
External Teacher Training 235
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 236
LVIS 238
External Teacher Training 238
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 239
BHMS 241
External Teacher Training 241
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 242
MHMS 243
External Teacher Training 243
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 244
ORMS 246
External Teacher Training 246
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 247
Overall Analysis 249
External Teacher Training 249
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support 251
Analysis and Discussion 254
Research Question 1 255
Research Question 2 261
Research Question 3 268
Research Question 4 271
Summary 274
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS 276
Summary of the Background 276
Purpose of the Study 279
Methodology 280
Sample 281
Data Collection and Analysis 283
Summary of Findings 285
Research Question 1 286
Research Question 2 287
Research Question 3 288
Research Question 4 289
Conclusions 290
Implications and Recommendations 293
ix
Professional Educational Organizations 294
State and National Level Policymakers 295
District and School Site Leaders 296
Teachers 296
REFERENCES 298
APPENDICES 321
Appendix A: Conceptual Framework A 322
Appendix B: Conceptual Framework B 323
Appendix C: Case Study Guide 324
Appendix D: Informational Sheet 326
Appendix E: School District Information Profile 329
Appendix F: Participant Group Information 332
Appendix G: Instrumentation Chart 334
Appendix H: Interview Development Chart 336
Appendix I: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide 340
Appendix J: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide
–Administrative Perspective 341
Appendix K: Teacher Interview Guide 342
Appendix L: Administrator Interview Guide 345
Appendix M: Concerns Questionnaire About High Stakes
Accountability 347
Appendix N: California State Science Standards – Grade Eight 350
Appendix O: Coastline Unified School District
Core Standards for 8
th
Grade Science (Physical Science) 353
Appendix P: California Standards for the Teaching Profession 355
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Schwab/Herron levels of openness for classifying laboratory
activities. 56
2. Relationship between the data collection instruments and the
research questions 113
3. Comparison of the major topics for the California State Science
Standards and the CUSD Science Standards 123
4. Average SoC score for HIS science teachers 132
5. Average SoC score for EVIS science teachers 138
6. Average SoC score for LVIS science teachers 143
7. Average SoC score for BHMS science teachers 148
8. Average SoC score for MHMS science teachers 154
9. Average SoC score for ORMS science teachers 158
10. SVUSD teachers’ familiarity and training with STAR test, state
and national standards 159
11. CUSD teachers’ familiarity and training with STAR test, state
and national standards 160
12. List of various teacher concerns 164
13. Various teacher concerns with CSS and/or STAR test for SVUSD
teachers 164
14. Various teacher concerns with CSS and/or STAR test for CUSD
teachers 165
15. Significant concerns (over 3.5 on SoC) for SVUSD science
teachers 167
xi
16. Significant concerns (over 3.5 on SoC) for CUSD science
teachers 169
17. Highest SoC stages for science teachers and years of teaching
experience 170
18. A summary of pedagogical activities done by teachers outside
the classroom 203
19. Self-reported pedagogical activities done by SVUSD teachers 207
20. Self-reported pedagogical activities done by CUSD teachers 208
21. Self-reported teacher attendance at professional development
workshops/classes offered internally through the school
site or district 226
22. The status of schools analyzing and using student work to
impact instruction 227
23. Self-reported teacher attendance at professional development
workshops/classes offered by different external organizations 250
24. District comparison by type of school 329
25. Student population within the district by ethnicity 329
26. Percentage of student population by ethnicity 330
27. The API scores and student populations for the 2004-05,
2003-04 and 2002-03 academic school years 330
28. Teaching staff experience for 2005-06 331
29. Years of experience for School Site administrators 332
30. Years of experience for Science Department chairpersons 332
31. Years of experience for participating 8
th
grade science teachers
by school site 333
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Conceptual Framework A: Factors influencing Teacher’s Views
and Response to Accountability 322
2. Conceptual Framework B: Reform Policy impact on Student
performance 323
xiii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to understand how science teachers reacted to
the high stakes accountability and standardized testing in California. In a multiple
case study of middle and intermediate schools in Southern California, four research
questions focused on the perceptions of secondary science teachers and how they
responded to the changes in the accountability specifically geared towards science
as a content area, the pedagogical skills teachers were using both outside and inside
of the classroom that impact instruction, the pedagogical training received that
related specifically to the content standards, the tools or impediments that existed
for teachers to successfully utilize these pedagogical methods and types of support
and assistance the school site administration and/or school district offered in
learning about the California Science Standards and the STAR test. Interviews
were conducted with multiple middle/intermediate school teachers, science
department chairpersons and school site administrators to gather information about
what the classroom teachers were doing pedagogically to improve student
performance on the STAR tests. Moreover, the study described the issues that
supported the professional development of the teacher and what schools and
districts were doing to support them.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In 1957, the former Soviet Union changed human history through the
successful launch of Sputnik. The worldwide reaction to this event was largely
one of awe yet the United States saw this as a signal that Americans,
specifically in terms of science and technology, were falling behind and no
longer leading this race on the world stage. In the drive to reclaim the
leadership within these fields, the national emphasis on science and technology
was amplified to support projects and programs such as the NASA. This
support for science and technology research also impacted education where,
during 1956 and 1975, the National Science Foundation (NSF) appropriated
more than $130 million dollars in efforts to improve the science course content
through various educational programs (Slobodin, 1977; Welch, 1979).
Educationally speaking, this type of financial support for a particular content
area was unique, in that other content areas did not receive this same type of
benefit, and was perhaps the largest national concentration on education.
Primarily spearheaded by the NSF, but also supported by other
organizations, this national strategy maintained a central focus on science
literacy. This strategy included major funding within colleges and universities
2
for research and development of successful pedagogical methods relating to
science teaching and included a curricular emphasis away from the sole
emphasis on science content alone and towards the understanding of the work
conducted by real scientists and the process of how science, as a discipline, is
performed. The result produced a wide range of curriculum projects funded by
the NSF and other private founda`tions that emphasized this methodology and
how science was taught nonetheless the most radical educational changes were
in the facilities and laboratory equipment made available to students and
teachers in the classroom to help instruction.
Part of the rationale for focusing on curriculum projects may have been
that, during this reform and the era of the 1960’s, there was little emphasis on
teacher training. At that time, a person could graduate with the credentials to
teach elementary school without having taken a single science course in four
years of college (Marcuccio, 1987). Hence, this emphasis might have been
designed to compensate for the lack of teacher training for those classroom
teachers who either did not like to teach science or did not know enough
science to feel comfortable teaching it. In addition, the supply of qualified
science teachers at that time was limited, therefore the National Science
Foundation Summer Institutes for Secondary Science teachers was established
where teachers were brought in and trained at local colleges and universities to
use and implement these new curricular projects (Lacy, 1966; DeBoer, 1991).
3
One key feature of these curricular programs, which also made them
similar to each other, included the fact that teams of individuals including
scientists, educators, psychologists and teachers developed them. In addition,
philosophically the programs advocated the use of inquiry-based science that
promoted and encouraged students learning in the classroom by being active,
placed an emphasis on higher cognitive skills, understanding the nature of
science and the frequent use of the laboratory as an integral part or the learning
experience for the students (Kyle, 1991; Kyle, Shymansky & Alport, 1982).
These programs were developed with a concerted effort to use more of a team
teaching approach, a more deliberate use of the psychological findings on
learning to improve science education and a shift away from the teaching of
just scientific concepts through the use of laboratory activities. In addition, an
articulation between elementary and secondary science was established as well
as advanced placement science in secondary schools (Lacy, 1966; DeBoer,
2000).
As an example, the Outdoor Biology Instructional Strategies (OBIS)
curricular program sought to provide thought-provoking activities that
encourage students to investigate the interrelationship of plants, animals, and
the physical environment. In this way, students would have a scientifically
based understanding of environmental issues that related to local, national and
international problems. This followed the Science Technology and Society
4
(STS) approach to science education. The theme of OBIS revolves around
ecosystems where the biological topics of natural selection, food chains,
interactions of organisms with their environment and population structure are
woven into activities. These activities are conducted in outdoor settings where
interactions occur and employ a variety of strategies, such as games,
simulations, craft activities, role-playing and data analysis. No previous
experience with science is necessary for students or teachers and the activities
are designed to be "leader proof" where the instructor does not need to be an
expert in the field in order to conduct the lessons.
The focus for OBIS was to be on 10- to 15-year-old students with most
activities being geared towards that age mentality however the program was
also designed for children and adults of other ages to be able to participate and
benefit. The OBIS program consists of 97 separate activities, which are
grouped into 27 modules and can be taught as a single lesson or as a theme-
based unit. Themes can focus on any of the Module topics (such as
Adaptations, Animal Behavior, or Backyard). Each individual lesson is
scheduled to take a little less than an hour and can be used separately or in a
sequence. The group size for the activities is flexible. Each unit contains
cards that are four-sided which provide an overview of the activity. There are
pictures of the activity, an overview paragraph that provides the goal or intent
of the activity and a background paragraph that provides some history intended
5
for the student. Inside the card there is a list of materials that will be needed, a
challenge statement that is intended to be the goal of the activity and a
preparation section for the instructor that tells the intended group size, the
expected time needed, the site requirements and other special conditions. The
equipment needed is mostly of the simple homemade variety. There is also an
action section that describes step-by-step instructions for completing the
activity. Students are informally assessed by their performance of the
activities and their participation in the discussion questions but there is no
formal type of assessment (Donovan & Richmond, 1981; Laetsch & Knott,
1981; Lavine, 1985; McCormack, 1974; Murtha, 1977).
Many of these curriculum projects were referred to by acronyms,
commonly referred to as the alphabet soup projects, and included elementary
science curricula such as the Elementary Science Study (ESS), Science
Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), and Science – A Process Approach (S-
APA); junior high curricula included Earth Science Curriculum Project
(ESCP), Individualized Science Instructional System (ISIS), Interaction
Science Curriculum Project (ISCP), Intermediate Science Curriculum Study
(ISCS), and Introductory Physical Science (IPS); and high school curricula
included Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), Chemical Bond
Approach (CBA), Chemical Educational Materials Study (CHEM Study),
6
Harvard Project Physics (HPP), and the Physical Science Study Committee
(PSSC).
The majority of these curriculum programs, primarily produced in the
1960’s and early 1970’s, were repeatedly shown to be effective in terms of
science instruction (Kyle et al., 1988; Bredderman, 1982). In addition,
contrary to some concerns about the use of the curriculum programs, the
overwhelming results indicated that science content was not abandoned but
rather an interdependence of content and process was taught. Students that
experienced more inquiry were found to be better at science process-skills,
liked science more and were more willing to take additional science courses
(Kyle et al., 1988).
This NSF strategy created exemplary curriculum materials that
produced dramatic student achievement when implemented properly, but
typically had little impact on classroom practice or student achievement
beyond the selected teacher that implemented the program. Bredderman
(1983), in a meta-analysis of multiple studies examining the effectiveness of
three of the major activity-based elementary science programs (ESS, SAPA
and SCIS), confirmed that the use of the activity-based programs promoted
student achievement in multiple areas such as science process, intelligence,
and creativity. The initial stages of the national strategy focusing on the inputs
of education were successful through the research and development that
7
created successful curricular programs, but the next step was to create a new
environment of teacher in-service training.
Teachers were selected to participate in training sessions to learn about
and become experts at using a particular curriculum project. The intent of this
aspect of the reform was to impact teacher pedagogy as a means of improving
student understanding and performance in science using inquiry and hands-on
science as the method on a wider scale. This professional development
training was typically conducted at colleges and universities. In most
instances, teachers were selected to participate and travel during the summer to
attend these institutes where they would be instructed both on these exemplary
teaching methods and how to successfully implement the curriculum project.
This environment of teacher training also provided a certain degree of
professionalism in the teaching profession (Lacy, 1966).
Yet for these inquiry programs to be successful on a wide scale, there
would need to be extensive support. Teachers were successful at learning the
methodology but it was difficult to maintain or propagate this teaching style
once the teacher returned to their school site perhaps due to the lack of support
for the innovation or funding for the in-service training necessary to provide
other teachers at the school site with a clear understanding of the nature of
inquiry-based science and teaching the process approach (Kyle et al., 1988).
Bredderman (1983) found that, after almost a decade after the financial support
8
ended, only 20 to 30% of teachers were actively using these science programs
during the 1976-77 school year perhaps due to the nontraditional nature of the
programs or lack of administrative support. As a result, the large-scale impact
and long-lasting effects that might have been originally envisioned by the
national strategy was substantially less.
This unprecedented emphasis on and support for science education
began to slow by the early 1970’s as the NSF steadily reduced their funding
and the United States, in part due to the success of the space program, seemed
to feel the primary objectives of the 1960’s had been met. Persistent use of the
curriculum projects became increasingly difficult when it came without the
proper support from the school district and administration or when there was a
lack of collaboration with other teachers. Other critics cited problems with the
curriculum projects including the high expense of the laboratory materials and
the extensive preparation time required for many of the activities but despite
these complains, students consistently showed an increase in performance,
achievement, attitude towards science, science-process skills and basic-related
skills (Shymansky et al., 1982).
In 1998, the National Research Center reported the results from the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), comparing the
performance for 4
th
grade, 8
th
grade and 12
th
grade students from twenty-one
countries around the world. A brief summary of the results found the scores
9
for students from the United States ranked above the international average in
science for 4
th
grade students, scores were at the international average for 8
th
grade students and scores were below the international average for 12
th
grade
students (U.S. National Research Center, 1998). In 1999, a follow-up study to
the TIMSS was conducted, the TIMSS-R study, to allow for a comparison
between the two cohorts of American students. The second cohort of eighth
graders performed similarly in both content areas just as they scored four years
earlier as fourth graders and comparisons between eighth graders from 1995
and 1999 did not reveal any significant changes in mathematics or science
scores (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000, 2001). A new
growing concern developed within education however this trigger differed
from the Sputnik incident, as this concern was not focused solely on science as
a content area but rather applied to all areas of education.
Additional research studies and national reports launched a new cycle
of reform for education in American schools. Among the research that
documented this crisis or advocated the reform of science education were the
goals for Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989), the National Science Education
Standards (National Research Council, 1996), the Glenn report: Before It's
Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21
st
Century (U.S. Department of
Education, 2001) and Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and
10
employing America for a brighter economic future (National Academy of the
Sciences, 2006). Much of the distress about science education stemmed from
national concerns about the economic future of the United States and the
ability to educate a workforce that is able to both sustain and excel in science
related fields.
This poor performance in science may be attributed to science teaching
practice. In his meta-analysis, Yager (1983) discovered nearly all science
teachers (90%) emphasize only preparing students for the academic level
rather than further formal study of science, over 90% of all science teachers
used a textbook 95% of the time, virtually no direct experience learning was
being done by students, and nearly all science teachers presented science as
lectures or question and answer based on information from the textbook. The
impact of the alphabet soup curriculum projects appeared to have run its
course. More recently, within both elementary and secondary Los Angeles
Unified School District schools, Hoffer and Cantrell’s (2003) study of science
and math classes revealed that science teaching was scarce; 60% of the
classrooms observed did not teach science during the observation and only
10percent taught science on two or more days. Teachers also expressed feeling
pressure to cover content and moving on despite knowing there was little
student comprehension. The demands and expectations on language arts and
mathematics were cited as reasons there was not enough time for science
11
instruction. In addition, the majority of elementary teachers used traditional
instructional practices and while there was some evidence of inquiry-based
science, it was typically of a low quality. The majority of questions asked by
teachers were of basic recall of information and students did most work
individually solving computational or procedural problems. Good examples of
inquiry were seen where there were more discussions, more open ended
questions, and more hands-on activities. Yet overall it was found that the
instructional quality was considered to be low and class discussions in
secondary classrooms rarely involved higher-level thinking.
The new strategy for reforming not just science but all of education has
focused on the use of standards for student learning and is quite different from
the previous NSF strategy. Rather than concentrate on the educational inputs
such as teacher pedagogy, the new emphasis instead shifted towards
educational outputs and student performance. The first step began with the
establishment of educational standards. National educational frameworks have
been written or updated for multiple subject content knowledge including the
Arts in 1994, Science in 1996, English/Language Arts in 1996, Mathematics in
2000, Physical Education in 1995, and Social Studies/History in 1994
(Minnesota State University, 2001). In California, state educational standards
have also been written for all subject areas including English/Language arts
(1998), English/Language Development (2002), History/Social Science (2000),
12
Mathematics (1999), Science (2000), and Visual and Performing Arts (2001)
with a recurring adoption schedule planned for future years (EdSource, 2006).
A closer examination of the California State Content Standards for
science uncovers an emphasis on students knowing a variety of facts. In the
elementary grades, specific content topics are listed in the physical, life and
earth sciences (California Department of Education, 2006d). In comparison
the National Science Educational Standards, focus more on having students
develop an understanding to where students are able to make informed
decisions as citizens. It is in the National standards that misconceptions are
mentioned and stated that they should be addressed. The National standards
are more focused on the idea of presenting and investigating in a depth over
breadth manner and the use of data collection and analysis to produce
understandable evidence. The National standards emphasize the use of inquiry
and promote scientific inquiry as a model of instruction while the California
State Standards list of facts to know suggest the use of more rote learning and
didactic instruction. There are also some topics that are included in the
National standards that are not covered by the California state standards
(National Research Council, 1996; California Department of Education,
2006f).
In reflecting on the TIMSS and TIMSS-R studies, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) investigated math and science and found that, in
13
comparison with countries that performed well, the American schools had a
less rigorous curriculum in areas such as math that focused on procedural
knowledge rather than understanding mathematical concepts (NCES, 1999).
As a result, a major goal for science education has been to stimulate student
interest and performance in science by advocating inquiry-oriented instruction
(National Research Council, 2000). The popular use of explicit instruction in
the classroom is suitable for the factual aspects of science and teaching specific
skills however it is less suitable for problem solving and development of
creative products or responses. Inquiry instruction tends to emphasize the
problem-solving and creativity aspects of science and requires teachers to be
highly skilled in methods that promote active participation of students (Flick,
1995). This constructivist model allows students to learn using conceptual
change and has a fundamental aspect being student-centered rather than
teacher-centered learning (Duschl, 1991).
By having content standards, schools can be held accountable for
teaching the standards through the student performance on the standardized
assessments. The standards-based, also called performance-based, method of
accountability is not the only technique available to hold schools accountable.
Other approaches exist and can be used simultaneously including: bureaucratic
accountability, professional accountability, and market-based accountability.
Each of the accountability models are defined by the way they address the
14
questions of who is held accountable, for what are they held accountable, to
whom are they accountable, and the consequences of failing to meet the goals
that are set for them (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Adams & Kirst, 1998; Stecher
& Kirby, 2004).
This new strategy for reforming science education focuses on
assessment and school-level accountability linked to the student performance
standards. For California, the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of
1999 established a system of accountability and sanctions utilizing high stakes
testing in the Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) system. In 2006,
the STAR program consisted of two main sections: the California Standards
Test (CST) and the Norm-Referenced Test (NRT). The CST consisted of up to
four subject area assessments (English-Language arts, Mathematics, History-
Social Science and Science) depending on the grade level. Students in grades
two through eleven take the English-Language arts and Mathematics
assessment while those in grades eight, ten and eleven take the History-Social
Science assessment and grades five, eight, ten and eleven take the Science
assessment. The NRT uses the California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition
Survey (CAT/6) in reading, language, spelling and mathematics (California
Department of Education, 2006a).
Through performance-based accountability, the rationale is for students
to take standardized tests to measure their performance in various subject
15
areas. Placing high stakes on the outcome of the tests provide incentives for
students and teachers to do a better job. Although there is an appealing logic
to the idea that high-stakes testing has significant power to shape educators’
behavior and to improve student learning, there is mixed evidence about their
effectiveness. In some research, teachers and students seem to respond to the
incentives created by accountability systems as scores rise on state tests after
the system is introduced. There is also evidence that scores rise on some
external tests, such as the NAEP, when states implement accountability
systems (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). Within different studies, research indicates
that higher test scores do not necessarily reflect actual gains in the student
mastery of content standards but rather other factors such as the students’
learning of particular test content or formats. Other gains on NAEP tend to be
many times smaller than the gains on the state test of the same subject matter
(Linn, 2000; Koretz and Barron, 1998; Stecher, Hamilton & Gonzalez, 2003).
The accountability for student performance on the STAR tests arises
from the student’s test results being used to calculate the Academic
Performance Index (API) for an individual school which, in turn serves as an
indicator of that school’s performance level. The intent of the API is to
measure the academic performance and growth of a school and is a numeric
index ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with all schools having a
goal of 800. The API is calculated using the weighted average of all student
16
scores across all content areas and assessments. Individual student scores from
each section are combined into a single number, the API, to represent the
performance of a school. Each student’s performance level has a weighting
factor which is multiplied and summed for all content areas for the school
(California Department of Education, 2006a).
API data are used for both state and federal requirements. If a school
meets participation and growth criteria, it may be eligible to receive monetary
awards if funding is available, or it may be eligible to become a California
Distinguished School or National Blue Ribbon School. If a school does not
meet its growth targets, it may be identified for participation in an intervention
program and sanctions may be imposed. The school site principal,
intentionally or not, commonly receives either the credit or blame for the
school’s performance and API score even though the score is more reflective
of students and teachers. In December 2001, the U.S. Congress approved a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and
renamed it the “No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB) which created a national
emphasis on accountability based on student test results (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). NCLB requires that, by 2014, all students must be
proficient in reading and mathematics based on state-adopted tests and also
establishes minimum standards for teacher quality. Under federal NCLB
17
requirements, a school must meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
requirements, which include meeting additional API requirements.
This accountability is now being applied specifically to science as a
content area. Prior to the 2006-2007 school year, the CST’s were restricted to
English-language arts and mathematics and as a result schools placed an
emphasis on these areas in order to improve their API scores. Now California
is modifying their STAR tests to now include science and history-social
science to go along with English-language arts and mathematics, which will be
used to calculate the school’s API (California Department of Education,
2006d).
The success of the standards/assessment/accountability strategy for
improving student performance in science will depend on what happens to
teaching and learning in classrooms. The California State Commission on
Teacher Credential (CSCTC) and NCLB have separately taken steps to certify
that the individuals in the classroom leading our children are qualified to do so
primarily focusing on subject matter qualifications and exams (CSCTC, 2006).
Under NCLB, teachers must be “highly qualified” to remain in the classroom
however that definition only applies to the content knowledge of teacher as
demonstrated by obtaining relevant degrees or passage of the appropriate exam
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In the current educational climate, the
attainment of content knowledge for a classroom teacher is required but the
18
pedagogical knowledge of how to use that content knowledge is not. Greater
challenges exist at the elementary levels where science has been a particularly
tenuous subject for many primary school teachers. It has been reported that
many elementary teachers felt less confident teaching and explaining science,
felt less confident in teaching science, relied more heavily on books,
minimized questions and spent more time discussing facts and less time
discussing causes and reasons (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Newton & Newton,
2000).
The shift away from the professional development and teacher training
from the 1960’s reform has, to a certain extent, deprioritized teacher pedagogy
within standards-based accountability. In order for schools to continue to
perform well or show improvement through high API scores, students need to
perform well on the standardized assessments within all the subject areas.
Darling-Hammond (1999) asserted that the most significant factor in
determining the quality of instruction was the teacher. Marzano, Pickering and
Pollock (2001) concurred that the teacher could have powerful effects on
students even if the school did not. Williams (2003) suggested the same
message by stating that the individual teacher had a significant and crucial
influence on the effectiveness of student performance. The recommendations
from the TIMSS results and the National Research Council (NCES, 2001;
NCES, 2000; NRC, 2000) cite the use of inquiry as an effective pedagogical
19
skill that teachers should use as a method to teach the content yet it remains to
be seen if science teachers in the classroom are following this advice.
Statement of the Problem
In terms of specific content areas, science has suddenly become more
significant on the educational landscape, particularly in California, as it is now
included within the STAR test and will impact the API scores for schools.
Current attempts to address the concerns about science education illustrated in
various research and reform policies focus on standards-based accountability
which is designed to remedy this situation by addressing two aspects of the
curriculum: what is taught and how it is assessed. What is not currently being
addressed is the method in how these science standards are being taught.
Extensive research exists on how inquiry methods and approaches to teaching
can impact and improve student performance. A problematic issue is whether
these strategies are being used effectively in the classroom to enhance student
performance as it relates directly to the current standards-based accountability.
Teachers not using these methods will need to make a conceptual change in
their attitudes and teaching practice to successfully adapt to using this teaching
style. The degree to which their pedagogy changes will also be impacted by
the school or district policy levers that guide and support conceptual change or
perhaps stifle it. Four issues need to be addressed concerning science
instruction in this standards-based environment.
20
The first issue involves how science teachers view what their role is
within the current educational reform. Teachers are an integral component to
the student learning. It is unknown what concerns exist regarding what
teachers are doing outside of the classroom in terms of using student data and
analyzing student work to make decisions as they impact instruction in the
classroom. Teachers’ reaction towards the current science standards and
mandatory accountability also has an impact on instruction. As proponents
against performance-based accountability attest, just because the test scores are
high does not mean students master a subject. The discrepancies between the
California State Science Standards and National Science Standards may also
create tension. What needs to be known is how teachers are responding to the
current educational environment and what they feel their role is or should be.
The second issue focuses on what science teachers are currently doing
in the classroom. Current instructional methods may vary but standards-based
accountability in education will have an impact on how teachers react
pedagogically in their classrooms, as they need to focus more on the student
outcomes. What needs to be known are the pedagogical methods teachers
currently use in their science classes to build a deeper understanding among all
teachers to make substantial strides in the implementation of accountability
reform and the focus on student performance.
21
The third issue involves the potential tools or impediments that exist
for teachers to successfully utilize these pedagogical methods. Potential or
existing roadblocks to effective instruction need to be identified. The support
that teachers feel they need in order to be successful should also be
documented.
The fourth issue involves the actual support being given to the
classroom teachers. Schools and districts create regulations as policy levers
that are intended to guide and support the conceptual change that is critical for
the successful educational reform. In turn, teachers need to respond to those
policy levers and determine if they feel there is adequate support in order to be
successful in producing strong learning for students. What is not known is the
specific nature of these policy levers or their level of effectiveness. It is
important to develop specific staff development strategies and insure effective
implementation rather than one that is just compliance-based.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study is to describe the pedagogical methods being
used by middle school science teachers in the classroom and document their
reaction to the current accountability and changes in their science pedagogy in
reaction to the current standards-based environment. In particular, the study
will uncover the current pedagogical methods being used and any instructional
improvement efforts specifically related to the new educational environment,
22
where science is a content area that will be emphasized and assessed within the
California STAR tests. Moreover, the study describes the policies that support
the professional development of the teacher and what schools and districts are
doing to support them.
The study attempts to determine the environment and role teachers
have in the current standards-based environment as well as the extent
pedagogical content knowledge has been formed and influenced as it relates
both to activities inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, the study
aims to identify the training and education of the teachers by the school site
and/or district with regard to the new science standards. The researcher sought
to analyze data both between schools and between districts.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this study are:
1) How are science teachers responding to the new accountability for
science? How do teachers view their role in a standards-based
environment?
2) What pedagogical skills are teachers using outside of the classroom
(using student data, analyzing student work)? What pedagogical skills
are teachers using inside the classroom (such as inquiry)?
23
3) How are the school site administration and/or school district offering
teachers assistance in learning about the new science standards? How
has the school site been using previous student performance to make
decisions regarding curriculum and instruction?
4) How are teachers obtaining these pedagogical skills? What tools or
impediments exist for teachers to successfully utilize these pedagogical
methods? What type of support do teachers feel they need to properly
teach the new science standards?
Importance of the Study
The findings of this study will have relevance to professional
organizations, district administrators, site administrators and teachers.
Professional organizations are designed to provide support and guidance to
schools and districts in efforts to improve instruction particularly during this
era of high states accountability. New information regarding current classroom
practices and successful pedagogy requires professional organizations to
provide audiences with examples of research based procedures and strategies
to implement and sustain reforms.
There will also be relevance for state and national level policy makers.
Those individuals and groups in charge of creating and modifying content
standards as well as standardized assessments. Through this research, the final
24
impact of those decisions can be seen not just by school ratings but also on
actual classroom instruction. If improvements to the system, the content
standards or the standardized assessments are to be made, those who are in
charge of making these decisions should realize the full impact of the current
design the standards have on the education for student beyond just the content.
The district office provides guidance when implementing reforms and
this information may be used as a guide to model and meet their own particular
district or school goals that support quality teaching and learning. Districts can
anticipate and attempt to reduce implementation barriers and use strategies that
ensure sustainability.
School site administrators directly oversee reforms and relate the
district’s vision to the teachers; they need to transmit the message while still
allowing teachers to feel empowered and relate the teacher’s role in the
process. Administrators also need to be aware of successful pedagogical
methods to recognize what is going on in the classroom as well as help
advocate its use in other classrooms.
Teachers are responsible for the actual implementation of any reform
and need to understand the reform and the role they play. The information also
provides insight into the current practice of secondary science teachers that
will also allow fellow teachers to begin to establish a benchmark for
25
comparison and reinforce the environment of building professional learning
communities.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the case studies used
in this investigation:
1) All interview subjects gave accurate information.
2) Valid and accurate data was collected during the interviews.
3) The sample of teachers selected represented the districts as a whole.
4) The descriptions of classroom and laboratory activities match the
actual experience of the students.
Delimitations
This is a qualitative case study of six middle/intermediate schools.
Purposeful sampling was used in selecting the districts and schools.
Generalizability is not the goal of this qualitative study and any application
will be how the reader interprets and applies case similarities to their own
situation due to depth of coverage in this study.
The schools were selected based on the following criteria:
1) District serves between 30,000 and 60,000 students.
2) District ethnicity and socioeconomic status was diverse.
3) Similar ethnic and socioeconomic proportions for the districts.
4) Similar ethnic and socioeconomic proportions for the schools.
26
5) Each school site achieved its AYP for the last 3 years.
6) Each school site achieved a minimum API score of 800 for the last 3
years.
Twenty-seven interviews were conducted and interviewees consisted of
middle or intermediate school principals, assistant principals, science
department chairpersons and classroom science teachers.
Limitations
The data for this study was collected from two unified school districts
in Southern California. This limitation restricts making generalizations of the
findings for all schools and all districts. The researcher was confined to
interviewing volunteering school site administrators, science department
chairpersons and science teachers. The most significant limitation of an
interview is that the quality of the information is largely dependent on the
interviewer. Information cannot be known if the interviewer does not disclose
it; this may be intentional or unintentional and come in the form of giving
misinformation, evasion, or lies. Information is also limited by distortion due
to personal bias, emotion, lack of awareness, or a subject’s recall error. The
data analysis and findings may be subject to researcher bias and interpretation.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally
defined as specified below:
27
API - Academic Performance Index - an indicator to measure the academic
performance and growth of a school and is a numeric index ranging from a low
of 200 to a high of 1000 with all schools having a goal of 800. The API is
calculated using the weighted average of all student scores across all content
areas and assessments.
Accountability – A designed effort or system that holds districts, schools
and/or students responsible for student performance. Accountability systems
typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results and rewards or
sanctions based upon student performance over time (Elmore, 2002).
Assessment – A measurement of a student’s skill or knowledge that may be
written, oral or performance in nature. Standardized assessments that are
designed to measure specific skills and knowledge are administered and scored
in exactly the same way for all students.
Behaviorism – The learning theory that describes learning as a response to an
environmental stimulus and advocates that children learn through a change of
behavior using reward and punishments.
Benchmark – An articulated expectation of student performance at specific
grades, ages or developmental levels.
Capacity – The ability to respond to external demands in order to translate
high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance.
28
Conceptual framework – A consistent and comprehensive integration of
research literature, theories and other pertinent information that was the basis
for the collection of data and analysis of findings within the study.
Constructivism – The learning theory that describes children as constructing
new information themselves based on a foundation of preexisting beliefs.
Student ideas become more complex and are verified via a social content. This
theory advocates that students create their own knowledge and it cannot be
transferred to them through listening or lectures.
Content standards – Describes what content knowledge and skills a student
must master.
Data-driven decision-making – The process of making decisions about
curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and
standardized test data. Data-driven decision-making uses data on operational
functions, the quality and quantity of inputs and how students learn to suggest
educational solutions (Massell, 2000).
Implementation – The translation of an idea into action in order to accomplish
the specified goal.
Inquiry – “A multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing
questions; examining books and other resources of information to see what is
already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in
light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret
29
data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the
results. Inquiry requires the identification of assumptions, use of critical and
logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.” (NRC, 1996,
p. 23).
Innovation – An effort or strategy whose goal is to improve instruction by
changing what currently exists.
Professional development – Opportunities for teaching staff to develop new
knowledge or skill that will improve their teaching ability. Also referred to as
“staff development.”
Professional Learning Community (PLC) – A collegial group of
administrators and school staff who are united in their commitment to student
learning, share a vision, work and learn collaboratively, visit and review other
classrooms, and participate in decision making (Hord, 1997).
Reform – A change effort that is undertaken to improve the educational
system.
Sanctions – The consequences imposed for not meeting expected performance
outcomes in some accountability systems.
Standards-based accountability – The change to an educational system that
uses subject-matter benchmarks to measure student achievement, assessments
aligned with standards to measure student performance and accountability
systems that provide rewards or sanctions to districts, schools and students
30
based on student performance. Also referred to as “standards-based reform” or
“performance-based accountability.”
Student-centered instruction – Students take an active role in creating new
knowledge for him or herself and utilizes past experiences and social
interactions and often uses cooperative learning groups and authentic
assessments. The role of the teacher is more of a facilitator of dialog and
asking questions, presenting perspectives and modeling reflection.
Teacher-centered instruction – The role of the teacher is as a disseminator of
knowledge and the dominant mode of instruction typically emphasize order
and control of the material to be covered (Gallagher & Tobin, 1987).
Teaching and learning – The premise that effective instruction results in
strong student performance.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction to the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be
answered, importance of the study, limitations, delimitations and the
operational definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature
including the current teaching environment including the California STAR test
and accountability, how teachers are responding and what teachers are doing
(types of classroom instruction, rationale for the science laboratory, type of
laboratory activities and inquiry science), current issues with classroom
31
implementation of curricular projects, and administrative support and
leadership. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology used in the study,
including the relevant background; the selection process; rationale;
instrumentation; conceptual framework, data collection procedures; and
methods used to analyze the data. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study,
followed by analysis and discussion on each of the research questions. Chapter
5 presents the summary of background, purpose of study, methodology,
summary of findings, conclusions, implications for practice, as well as
recommendations for future research.
32
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Since the alphabet soup projects of the 1960’s and 1970’s, classroom
instruction, and science instruction in particular, has been a focal point of
research to improve and impact student performance and achievement. The
implementation of various curricular projects has used numerous strategies yet
inquiry has repeatedly been advocated. After the National Science Education
Standards (NRC, 1996) were published, the National Research Council
released Inquiry and the National Standards (NRC, 2000) which specifically
defined inquiry as involving curiosity to allow students to define questions
from current knowledge, propose preliminary explanation, plan and conduct
investigation, gather evidence, explain based on evidence, consider other
explanations, communicate explanations, test explanation and it should be
similar to real science. Inquiry was seen as a vital instructional method to be
used in the science classroom.
The central issue of this study was on how accountability and testing
has impacted teaching in the classroom. Research has shown that since student
performance and learning is still dependent on what teachers do in the
classroom. Therefore, in order to improve schools and student performance,
understanding the pedagogy - how teachers teach – is a vital tool. The
33
conceptual frameworks for this study showed that in the curriculum model the
impact of the reform was directed specifically at teachers with the intent of
impacting teacher pedagogy. It was through the vehicle of teacher pedagogy
that student performance was directly impacted.
After the curriculum model, student-centered teaching and inquiry
methods were shown through the research on various alphabet soup curriculum
projects to be effective in teaching content and had a positive affect on
students. Using inquiry as a teaching method is a specific example of student-
centered teaching. However with the introduction of accountability, it is
possible that instruction in the classroom will be less student-centered
teaching, and thus utilizes less inquiry, with teachers more focused on teaching
the standards and perhaps “teaching to the test.”
Through the current accountability model, the impact of the reform was
instead directed specifically at the school site with the intent of impacting
student performance. Yet teacher pedagogy will still influence student
performance; the focus of this study will be on the influence of this
accountability model and the impact on teacher pedagogy. The relationship of
teacher pedagogy on student performance or the impact of the school site on
student performance will not be a direct focus of this study.
A key issue will be on the impact the current accountability reform has
had to encourage more or less student-centered teaching as compared to
34
teacher-centered teaching in part relative to what was done prior to the
introduction of accountability. Of course with the potential for hybrid
instructional styles that incorporate a combination of both teacher-centered and
student-centered instruction, it is expected that teachers and classrooms will
demonstrate a greater tendency toward one or the other.
The focus of this study involves teachers and their actions inside and
outside the classroom as it relates to the current environment of high-stakes
testing. The major conceptual framework for this study includes a discussion
of the current teaching environment including the California STAR test and
accountability. Subsequently, there is a review of the types of classroom
instruction, the rationale for the science laboratory, types of laboratory
activities and inquiry science that discuss how teachers are responding and
what teachers are doing in the classroom. Finally, there is a discussion of the
current issues with classroom implementation of curricular projects as well as
types of administrative support and leadership.
STAR Testing
The current form of educational accountability being used in California
is the Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) system (CDE, 2000d).
STAR testing began in 1999 for grades two through eleven and is composed of
two main sections: the Norm Referenced Test (NRT) and the California
Standards Test (CST).
35
Norm Referenced Test. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT) is based on a
norm-referenced group that is national in scope and allows scoring
interpretations that are generalized across the nation. Student scores at the 50
th
percentile are considered to be at grade level. Currently California uses the
CAT 6 as the NRT; originally the SAT 9 was used but was changed in 2003 as
the CAT 6 was a more recently norm referenced. At this time, the NRT
portion of the test is only used in grades 3 and 7 and addresses only the
academic areas of reading, language, spelling, and mathematics. For the NRT,
the national percentile rank (NPR) for each student tested is used to make the
calculation.
California Standards Test. The California Standards Test (CST) is
established by California, for California and is based exclusively on the
California academic standards. The CST has cut points that determine the
student proficiency levels that are arbitrary but are based on state experience
with student test results. In California, students need a score of 350 to be
Proficient within a continuum of Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, or
Far Below Basic. California’s definition of Proficient describes those students
who are college bound and should be successful at that level.
The Academic Performance Index (API) is calculated by multiplying
the number of valid scores in each of the performance areas by the test
weights. The state also requires a minimum number or percentage of students
36
to take the test at a given school site in order for the scores to be considered
valid. Therefore, since the test weights are multiplied by the number of
students taking the test and each school site will have a different number of
students taking the test, the total percentage that each portion of the STAR test
will count towards the final API score will vary from school to school.
Different test weights also exist for different grade levels. For the 2006 API
scores, the 8
th
grade test weight for science was 0.20 which was the same as
History/Social Science with only Mathematics (0.32) and English-Language
Arts (0.48) having higher test weights. API points are assigned as a product of
the number of students that achieve at each of the performance levels
(advanced, proficient, basic, below basic and far below basic) by the number of
points assigned to each of those performance levels. In the 2005-2006
academic school year a new addition was made to the CST with science and
social science/history as content area tests for grade eight students and science
as a content area test for grade five students. Science is required by NCLB and
science is tested in grades five and eight (CDE, 2006d). In 2005-06, the
science portion was administered as a pilot where the students were tested but
the scores were not used to calculate the final API but will be starting the
following academic year.
37
Accountability
As the expectations of educational reforms moved away from what
behaviors teachers were doing and shifted towards what students should be
able to demonstrate at the end of a lesson, more accountability was created for
students and teachers. Rubrics were used to clearly inform students what was
being assessed and how the assessments would be scored. In an attempt to
make a coherent system, performance-based assessments were aligned with
standards and instruction designed to focus on the standards (Darling-
Hammond, 2003). State accountability systems have included the public
reporting of school performance as well as consequences or sanctions for
schools that exhibit poor performance. Policy makers believed that schools,
teachers and students would improve only if they were held accountable
(Diamond & Spillane, 2002).
Types of accountability. The current standards-based method of
accountability is not the only technique available to hold schools accountable.
Other approaches exist and can be used simultaneously. For example, Adams
and Kirst (1998) describe different types of educational accountability
including: performance-based accountability, bureaucratic accountability,
professional accountability, and market-based accountability. Each of the
accountability models are defined by the way they address the questions of
who is held accountable, for what are they held accountable, to whom are they
38
accountable, and what are the consequences of failing to meet the goals that
are set for them (O’Day et al., 2002; Adams & Kirst, 1998; Stecher & Kirby,
2004).
In performance-based accountability, schools and districts are the units
that are held accountable. The federal government monitors the state; in turn
individual states are responsible for monitoring each school district while the
district are responsible for monitoring the performance of each school site.
Based on student performance on standards-based assessment scores, schools
must meet targets for student proficiency and if the school fails to meet their
targets, they face severe sanctions.
In contrast, bureaucratic accountability involves compliance with rules
and regulations. At the state or federal level, these rules may become laws
which will hold schools and districts accountable to the state or federal
government when they are in volition resulting in potential sanctions that may
impact the loss of administrators or accreditation. Within bureaucratic
accountability, through the creation of rules and regulations, it is assumed that
both policy and practice in the educational environment can be standardized.
Professional accountability involves professional teacher organizations
that establish standards so that a certain level of quality is ensured through the
accreditation of teacher preparation schools, certification and licensure of
teachers, and requirements for continuous professional development. Failure
39
to meet professional standards by individuals may result in loss of certification.
Common behaviors that are practiced within the profession are viewed as the
norm that is used to identify individuals with actions outside the expected
parameters.
Market accountability uses the interaction between consumers, in this
case parents, and providers, in this case schools, to regulate the educational
practice and ensure quality instruction at the school. In a market system,
parents are allowed to select the particular school their children attend rather
than having their children being assigned to schools based on where they live.
A variety of market-related approaches, including vouchers and charter
schools, currently exist within education.
According to Stecher and Kirby (2004), accountability in education
refers to the “practice of holding educational systems responsible for the
quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors” (p.1).
Through performance-based accountability, the rationale is for students to take
standardized tests to measure their performance in various subject areas.
Placing high stakes on the outcome of the tests provide incentives for students
and teachers to do a better job however it also expands the role of the teacher
beyond pedagogy and content knowledge by making teachers responsible for
learning how to implement research-based instructional methods as well as
analyzing student data (Wayne, 1997; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
40
Although there is an appealing logic to the idea that high-stakes testing
has significant power to shape educators’ behavior and to improve student
learning, there is mixed evidence about its effectiveness. In some research,
teachers and students seem to respond to the incentives created by
accountability systems as scores rise on state tests after the system is
introduced. There is also evidence that scores rise on some external tests, such
as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), when states
implement accountability systems (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). Another advantage
is that it would provide all students with a similar learning experience when
compared between teachers (Reeves, 2001). Schmoker (1999) describes the
power of using student data to identify patterns within instructional programs
and address strengths and weaknesses and allows the teacher to increase the
number of student that can be impacted by quality instruction.
Critics of standards-based instruction and high stakes testing argue that
it narrows the focus of instruction and limits the breath and depth of instruction
(Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Teachers complained that there were too many
standards to be covered in such a short time and felt they could not check for
understanding (Marzano & Kendall, 1998). Other research indicates that
higher test scores do not necessarily reflect actual gains in the student mastery
of content standards but rather other factors such as the students’ learning of
particular test content or formats; gains on NAEP tend to be many times
41
smaller than the gains on the state test of the same subject matter (Linn, 2000;
Koretz & Barron, 1998; Stecher, Hamilton & Gonzalez, 2003).
Types of Classroom Instruction
Teacher-centered classrooms. Based in part on the work of B.F.
Skinner and the behaviorist learning theory, student’s behavior was seen as
being molded by positive and negative rewards that led to a teacher-centered
environment (Woolfolk, 2001). As cognitive psychology became more
prevalent, the focus on classroom instruction changed from the external student
behavior towards the internal mental processes of student. Learning research
was focused on the acquisition of schema or mental cognitive structures and
instruction was centered on using advanced organizers and mnemonic devices
to help chunk large concepts into more manageable sizes for students. The
role of the teacher, however, was still as a disseminator of knowledge. When
observing classrooms today, even ones that are considered to be effective, the
dominant mode of instruction is typically one that emphasizes order and
control of the material to be covered (Gallagher & Tobin, 1987). Good and
Brophy describe a classic example of a teacher-centered classroom.
Teacher-centered classroom-
Effective teachers accept personal responsibility for
teaching their students. They believe that the students are
capable of learning and that they (the teachers) are capable
of teaching them successfully…These teachers actively instruct-
demonstrating skills, explaining concepts and assignments,
conducting participatory activities and reviewing when necessary.
42
They teach their students rather than expecting them to (learn)
… from interacting with curriculum material on their own.
Following active instruction on new content, these teachers
provide opportunities for students to practice and apply it.
They monitor each student’s progress and provide feedback
and remedial instruction as needed, making sure that the
student achieves mastery. (pp. 376-377, Good & Brophy, 1994)
There has been extensive research on the requirements for a successful
classroom that is teacher-centered. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) offered a
list of nine principles for effective teaching that supports explicit or teacher-
centered teaching. These include: review previous and prerequisite learning,
clearly state learning goals, present new material in small steps, give clear and
detailed instructions and explanations, provide high levels of active practice for
all students, ask a large numbers of questions and obtain responses from all
students, guide students during initial practice, provide systematic feedback,
provide explicit instruction for independent practice and continually check for
understanding.
Student-centered classrooms. In the 1990’s, constructivism became
more prominent theory of teaching and learning. Constructivist learning is
based on the idea that the learner takes an active role in creating new
knowledge for him or herself and utilizes past experiences and social
interactions (Bloom, Perlmutter & Burell, 1999). Instruction was centered on
cooperative learning groups and authentic assessments and the role of the
teacher changed to becoming more of a facilitator of dialog and asking
43
questions, presenting perspectives and modeling reflection (Anderson &
Armbuser, 1990; Kagan, 1992). The internal motivation of the student and the
social interaction of students within a classroom became new factors to
consider in educational settings (Woolfolk, 2001). In contrast to Good and
Brophy, Tobin et al., describe a more student-centered classroom.
Student-centered classroom–
Our vision of problem-centered learning begins with
students who are motivated to learn and teachers who see their
roles in terms of facilitating learning. It begins with teachers
understanding the rationale for implementing the curriculum as
they do and reflecting as they implement the curriculum.
Teachers negotiate with students, asking questions to elicit
thinking about the viability of knowledge representations,
arranging students together so that they can argue toward a
consensus. To the students, the teacher is a mediator, guide
and co-learner. (p. 47, Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1984).
A major question for science education is how to stimulate the growth
of a knowledge base that is derived from and supported by inquiry-oriented
instruction. Explicit instruction is more suitable for factual aspects of science
and teaching specific skills but is less suitable for application to problem
solving and development of creative products or responses. Inquiry research
tends to emphasize the problem-solving and creativity aspects of science.
For teachers to be highly skilled in inquiry methods, they also need to
be able to promote active participation of students (Flick, 1995). A
fundamental aspect of an inquiry-based laboratory is that it is student-centered
44
rather than teacher-centered. This constructivist model allows students to learn
using conceptual change and in an inquiry-based environment to increase
student learning (Duschl, 1991).
Historically, there have been basically two methods of instruction:
teacher-centered and student-centered. These are not dichotomous groups and
hybrids of the two methods exist. Research has failed to provide irrefutable
proof of the superiority of one over the other perhaps due to the many variables
that influence student achievement, when measured by standardized tests, such
as the setting, type of students, subject matter family background, teacher
experience, peers, school safety and other factors. Teacher behavior is more
clustered at the middle rather than at the extremes but teacher-centered
pedagogy still dominate secondary classrooms (Cuban, 2007).
Research over the last 100 years has shown the social organization of
the classroom has become more informal in terms of teacher behavior, teacher
appearance, and reaction to student behavior. In addition, more elementary
schools and a lesser number of secondary schools have incorporated a hybrid
of student-centered and teacher-centered classroom practices. Having students
work in groups is more student-centered, harder to do and typically done less
in secondary schools (Grossman & Stodolosky, 1995; Stodolosky &
Grossman, 1995). Utilizing learning centers is another student-centered
technique that entails students working in smaller numbers or assigning groups
45
different tasks, however learning centers rarely appear in secondary schools.
Projects lasing a few weeks that are interdisciplinary are also student-centered.
More hybrids exist but teacher-centered pedagogy still dominates classroom
life, particularly in high school and secondary schools.
Rationale for the Science Laboratory
Since the late 1800’s, science has been seen as a method of thinking
and has been incorporated in public education for its ability to help understand
the world we live in, provide knowledge about our bodies in order to maintain
good health, and provide mental training through the use of induction and
deduction. The science laboratory became a unique change from the
traditional method of studying via textbooks by providing students with the
opportunity to develop observational and inductive reasoning skills due to
direct contact with the physical world as well as engaging in investigation and
inquiry (DeBoer, 1991; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). John Dewey placed
inquiry at the center of his educational philosophy where learning is best
demonstrated when students are engaged in the doing (Lederman from Abd-el-
Khalick et al, 2004). Laboratory work has also been seen as a vital step in the
socialization of students into professional science (Hegarty-Hazel, 1990).
In terms of a Vygotskyian perspective, instruction in the classroom
enables the learner to participate in the activities similar to the expert. This
model presents learning as enculturation or an apprenticeship through guided
46
and modeled participation to impart the knowledge, practices, values and style
of discourse of a community of practitioners (Hodson, 1999). Use of scientific
instruments in the science laboratory helps familiarize students with the
scientific community. Other learning theories such as the learning cycle or
constructivism portray the laboratory setting as an opportunity to use
misconceptions to create cognitive dissonance and conflict within the student
to help spur on the desire to investigate a phenomena (Festinger, 1957).
Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) reviewed research concerning laboratory
instruction and suggested that students usually enjoy practical work when it is
meaningful, become motivated and interested in studying science and that
science laboratory work promotes cognitive abilities. In addition, Singer et al.
(2005) reported that the science laboratory could be used to allow students to
master subject matter, develop scientific reasoning, understand complex
empirical work, develop practical skills, understand the Nature of Science,
cultivate an interest in science and learning science and develop teamwork
abilities.
Gott and Duggan (1996) discuss the role of the lab and doing practical
work as it first became a part of science education in the mid 1850’s. By the
end of the century, practical work was seen as a means to allow students to
“find out things for themselves” while it encourages motivation aspects,
application of knowledge, and development of skills. Science is useful in that
47
it allows society to understand content, research methods, and provides a basis
for testing theories but it requires knowledge of what makes a valid and fair
test. Nott (1996) also examined the role of the laboratory in science education.
When students conduct labs that “go wrong” and the expected result is not
what actually happens, most teachers do not know what to do or try to dismiss
the event. However this is actually an excellent teachable moment that can
help foster learning. Teachers could use these instances to show the real
function of laboratory experiments and also discuss issues concerning the real
way in which science works also called the Nature of Science (NOS).
Anderson (1968) also agrees that the laboratory can be used to teach NOS
issues. With the opportunity to address so many issues through the science
laboratory, the rationale for its use within science education seems
uncontested. However, the last 20 years has seen a shift in what is expected
from students by the science education community where some educators
began to question the effectiveness and the role of laboratory work (Hofstein &
Lunetta, 2004). Clearly the effectiveness of the science laboratory depends on
the manner in which it is utilized within the classroom. An additional factor
influencing the effectiveness of the science laboratory would be the total
amount of instructional time or the percentage of time students spend on
laboratory activities relative to other instructional activities. The literature
does not clearly address this specific issue nor is there a consensus as to an
48
appropriate percentage of time that should be spent on laboratory activities.
Within the proper scenarios, the science laboratory can be a place where there
is great exploration and discovery or it could be a place of mundane repetition
and frustration. Factors that determine which scenario will unfold include the
classroom teacher and the type of instruction.
Types of Laboratory Activities
Even though the science laboratory is a significant part of science
education, there is variation in how the laboratory is defined. Many hands-on
activities and simulations are performed but not all would necessarily have the
same educational value in a science laboratory. Millar and Driver (1987)
recommended utilizing the laboratory to provide extended and reflective
investigations that promote the construction of more meaningful understanding
of scientific concepts by individual learners. Hegarty-Hazel (1990) defines
laboratory work as a form of practical work taking place in a specific
environment where students will engage in and interact with materials to
observe and understand phenomena.
Once an activity can be classified as a true laboratory activity, further
differentiation is required in the distinction between types of labs. Baird
(1990) observed that utilizing the laboratory environment effectively shifted
the classroom from a teacher-directed to one that is more student-directed
where students could interact with materials and/or models to observe the
49
natural world. In reviewing the literature, there is more variation and
disagreement as to how different types of science laboratory activities should
be classified. Perhaps as a result, many authors have created their own
definition and classification of laboratory types. For example, Domin (1999)
argues for four laboratory instruction styles: expository, inquiry (or open-
inquiry), discovery and problem-based. These styles are differentiated based
on the laboratory’s outcome (if it is predetermined or undetermined), the
approach (deductive versus inductive) and the procedure (if it is given or
student generated). Tien and Stacy (1996) argue for three laboratory types:
traditional, guided inquiry and critical reasoning. Traditional labs typically
have procedures given to students and conducting the lab may be more of a
confirmation of known information rather than a discovery of unknown
information. Guided inquiry would have students creating their own procedure
but be focused on a goal given to them by the instructor. Critical reasoning
would apply these research and laboratory skills to everyday problems but this
is not typically done in the classroom. Herron (as cited from Shimizu, 1997)
describes three levels of laboratory experiences where the laboratory manual
poses problem and describes method (level 1), the manual leaves the method
open and answers open (level 2) and the manual leaves problem open as well
as method and answers (level 3).
50
A basic distinction that appears to consistently exist in these
classifications is between laboratory experiments that are teacher-centered or
student-centered. In the case of teacher-centered laboratories, the procedure
and laboratory equipment are given to the student and in some cases, the
outcome may also be known prior to completion of the experiment. These
types of activities are sometimes referred to as confirmation or “cookbook”
laboratories since students are simply following a set of given procedures
similar to a recipe to yield a conclusion that they know prior to completing the
experiment. In contrast, student-centered laboratories allow the student to
have input or control over the procedure and laboratory equipment and rarely
does the student know the outcome in advance. Many of these student-
centered activities are labeled as inquiry yet the accurate classification of these
types of science laboratory experiences is confounded by the issue of what
qualifies as inquiry. In some cases, inquiry is referred to directly, while in
others inquiry is compounded with other terms (such as guided-inquiry or
project-based inquiry) and in yet in other cases inquiry is not referred to
directly but instead is implied through the issue of the laboratory’s level of
openness both for the procedures and the outcome experiences.
51
Inquiry Science
Throughout the literature, inquiry has become a popular term that
seems to be associated with what is seen as good science teaching. In some
cases, it appears the term is being used to describe almost every type of
classroom activity.
The lowest levels of “inquiry” are confirmation experiences,
often referred to as “cookbook labs,” in which students verify
known scientific principles by following a given procedure.
The next level is referred to as structured inquiry in which
the teacher presents a question for which the students do not
know the answer, and students are given a procedure to follow
in order to complete the inquiry. In guided inquiry, teachers
provide students with a problem to investigate but the methods
for resolving the problem are left to the student. In open or
independent inquiry teachers allow students to develop their
own questions and design their own investigations. (p.123,
Windschitl, 2003)
In another case, Farrell et al. (1999) include as part of an inquiry
laboratory for students to do “guided inquiry worksheets.” To this point,
inquiry has implied an association with a hands-on laboratory with students
manipulating equipment. The association of inquiry and worksheets appears to
be inconsistent with the understanding of the term. A major limitation on
defining a concept such as inquiry requires an exclusion of the term specifying
when it does or does not apply to a particular type of laboratory activity.
One of the earlier definitions for inquiry came from Lucas (1971) who
differentiated four meanings for the term including scientific techniques and
procedures, scientific logic, teaching techniques involving probing and
52
designing experiments and combinations of each. More current and widely
published uses of the term inquiry come from national science education
reform documents. In the Benchmarks for Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989),
inquiry is not specifically defined however there is great discussion of the
scientific methods of inquiry that involve making observations and organizing
them. Inquiry is inferred to be different from the traditional “scientific
method” and is more than just doing experiments. It involves logic and
imagination as well as inventiveness and incorporates teaching the Nature of
Science. This is also a time to introduce stories of scientists of very different
backgrounds, ages, cultures, places, and times making discoveries, not just the
world-famous scientists. One current issue within the Nature of Science is the
idea that there is no one “scientific method” as it is often portrayed in
textbooks that scientists follow as they do investigations but rather multiple
pathways that scientists follow towards scientific discovery. Combining issues
of the Nature of Science and History of Science in with the concept of inquiry
complicates the process of deriving a clear definition; this is a problem not
found in most other conceptions of inquiry.
Project 2061 offers more detail by describing inquiry as having fewer
labs, more time (up to weeks or months) to complete experiments,
opportunities for students to probe questions deeper, and a chance to frame a
research question, design the experiment, estimate the time and costs involved,
53
manipulate instruments, conduct trial runs, write a report, and finally, respond
to criticism. To contrast, inquiry should not include recipes or “cookbook”
style labs where the question to be investigated is decided by the teacher rather
than the students; be the type of laboratory experiment that predetermines, by
either the teacher or the lab manual, what equipment to use, what data to
collect, and how to organize the data; not allow time for repeated trails or,
when things are not working out, for revising the experiment; or have the
students know the correct answer prior to completing the experiment (AAAS,
1989).
In the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (National
Research Council, 1996), inquiry is described as the way scientists study the
natural world as well as the activities students conduct to develop knowledge
and understanding of scientific ideas. Inquiry involves making observations,
posing questions, examining what is already known, planning observations,
proposing answers, and communicating results. In this document, vignettes are
offered to illustrate how an inquiry approach to teaching and learning would
play out in a science classroom. There is no specific reference to the Nature of
Science, but the emphasis again appears to be moving away from the notion of
the traditional “scientific method” terminology.
A significant problem with the NSES and their use of the term inquiry
is that it is used in two ways: first, inquiry is content that allows students to
54
understand what scientists do and how they do it; it is similar to a body of
knowledge and again is related to Nature of Science issues. Second, inquiry is
a skill or a process that includes identifying questions, designing and
conducting scientific investigations, formulating and revising scientific
explanations, recognizing and analyzing alternative explanations, and
communicating and defending scientific arguments. By not making a clear
distinction between the two implied meanings, successful interpretation and
achievement of inquiry in terms of the NSES becomes even more challenging.
Beyond these major science reform documents, individual researchers
have also attempted to define inquiry either directly or indirectly. Many
authors see inquiry as a situation where students need to find solutions to real
problems by asking and refining questions; designing and conducting
investigations where questions and methods are not predetermined; gathering
and analyzing information and data; making interpretations, creating
explanations, and drawing conclusions; and reporting findings. In other cases,
collaboration with peers and relating science content to their lives inside and
outside school is also an added feature (Marx et al., 2004). The literature is
full of many different researchers that have attempted to define inquiry.
In the literature, some researchers focus on just a few aspects of inquiry
presumably placing these as the core aspect. DeMeo (2001) discussed an
actual inquiry-laboratory using the concept of density that involves students
55
using prior knowledge, giving students a chance to test relationships, control
variables, analyze data and find relationships while Klopfer (from Hegarty-
Hazel, 1990) describes inquiry as skills to gather scientific information, ability
to ask and recognize important factors in laboratory experiments, organize and
communicate the data, and draw conclusions from the data. Hofstein et al.
(2001) describe the components to, and presumably making these criteria for,
inquiry-type experiments, which includes asking questions, hypothesizing,
planning and conducting an experiment, analyzing the results, asking further
questions and presenting them in a scientific manner.
Gerber et al. (2001) describe the inquiry learning cycle that is taught in
their professional development as having three phases: an exploration phase
which might include the laboratory experiment to provide data, a concept
invention phase where students are guided by teacher to construct the scientific
concept and an expansion phase where there is further application for the new
science concept which might include a new laboratory experiment and
additional reading. The amount and degree of student and teacher involvement
during the construction of the concept portion is vague.
In some conceptions of inquiry, single characteristics are emphasized
such as the hypothesis-testing, guided practice and application, practical
problem solving or deeper coverage of fewer concepts (Shimizu, 1997;
Windschitl, 2003; Hodson, 1999). In other cases, the key aspect of inquiry
56
involves students being active participants in their own learning as the teacher
spends minimal time lecturing and a maximum amount of time facilitating
discussions and small group activities. Teachers ask questions to prompt and
guide student’s critical thinking and understanding. Students also contribute to
the decision making process and communicate their findings (Jegede & Taylor,
1995; Jarrett, 1999) or pose questions and develop methods (Tien & Stacy,
1996) or produce knowledge rather than memorize it (Cartier & Stewart,
2000).
Table 1. Schwab/Herron levels of openness for classifying laboratory
activities.
Level Problem Investigative Methods Answers
0 Given Given Given
1 Given Given Open
2 Given Open Open
3 Open Open Open
A more widely used interpretation of the science laboratory comes
from Schwab and Herron. Herron adapted the original Schwab taxonomy to
include a zero-level to yield the Schwab/Herron classification scheme is shown
in Table 1 that is based on the theoretical levels of openness of science
laboratory activities (McComas, 1994). This classification of laboratory
activities is comprised of four levels where each level is based on the dynamics
57
of activity and the level of autonomy the student has in the investigation. In
the first level, a “0” level laboratory, the problem that the student is asked to
answer is given by either the instructor or a laboratory manual. Either the
instructor or laboratory manual also disseminates the methods or procedure as
to how the student should conduct the investigation. The answers to the
original question may also be considered given in that the student begins the
investigation with enough prior knowledge from either the textbook or a class
lecture to deduce what the outcome should be. Often this type of laboratory
activity is referred to as a confirmation or cookbook laboratory as students are
not given the opportunity to make any choices about any aspect of the
investigation. The second level or type “1” laboratory, also called structured
inquiry, would only differ from a type “0” in that the answer to the original
problem would be unknown to the student. The resulting outcome of the
laboratory may be unique and unknown to the student, but authentic choices
are still not available. The third level or type “2” laboratory, also called guided
inquiry, expands even further where students are permitted the choice in the
investigative methods they wish to use to answer the question. Different
groups of students in the same class may utilize different methods to try and
yield their answer that is again not known prior to the investigation. This is an
example of an authentic choice that the student is allowed to make that would
impact the investigation. The final level would be a type “3” investigation
58
which is also referred to as open inquiry. In this case, all aspects of the
investigation would be open to the student which requires the question, the
methodology to answer the question and a rationale for what would be
considered acceptable evidence as an answer all be determined prior to any
experimentation. This type of inquiry laboratory offers the student the highest
level of authentic choices within their investigation (Herron, 1971; McComas,
1994). Through this use of inquiry, both in the typical classroom setting as
well as the science laboratory, students experience a more student-centered
learning experience.
Regardless of how inquiry has been conceptualized during the past 50
years, it seems clear that the conceptions of inquiry have demonstrated great
variance during this period. A potential implication of this lack of uniformity
with the concept of inquiry is seen in the research that indicates confusion
among teachers about the meaning of inquiry (Tamir, 1983) leading to the
conclusion that what has been performed in classrooms is inconsistent with the
visions of inquiry both from the past (Rutherford, 1964; Welch et al., 1981)
and present (e.g., Anderson, 2002; NRC, 1996). Yet despite this variance, it
appears that most interpretations of inquiry so have some similarities.
Issues with Classroom Implementation of Curricular Projects
When instituting a reform project, particularly one that is science and
laboratory based as is suggested by the national standards, there are many
59
issues to be considered that will impact whether or not the program is
successful. Fundamental issues include the availability of the proper
equipment and facilities necessary to be provided to teachers as well as
sufficient training for teachers to properly address the topic of laboratory
safety. At the core of any science or laboratory-based curricular project, basic
equipment and training are relevant issues when examining the success with
the implementation of curricular projects (Wisconsin State Department of
Public Instruction, 2002). Other issues found in the literature that impact the
implementation of curricular reform projects at the classroom level include
variables related to the program characteristics, the issue of time, the teacher’s
perspective and role, school factors, and the change process.
Variables related to the program characteristics. As part of the RAND
organization, McLaughlin (1990) examined how the particular characteristics
of various reform projects affected the outcomes of innovations. One
significant conclusion was that the particular features of the project mattered
less than how the project was carried out. In addition, the magnitude of the
project resources did not predict outcome yet the project’s scope was more
significant in that the more ambitious projects were more likely to stimulate
teacher change. Another vital component was an active commitment from the
district leadership that was essential for project success and long-term stability.
In the review of the various reforms, the locally selected implementation
60
strategies were more dominant and particular aspects, including the use of
outside consultants, packaged management approaches, one-shot
implementation programs, pay for training programs, and comprehensive
system wide projects were seen to be ineffective because they failed to provide
on-going support and created a mechanistic role for teachers (McLaughlin,
1990).
Knapp (1997), in a review of NSF-sponsored reforms in both
mathematics and science, found two major problem areas with reforms that
impacted their effectiveness. First, a lack of alignment between key elements
of the system created limitations for the reform success. Second, effective
reforms need to have specific aspects to directly impact the classroom in terms
of what is taught, how it is taught, how learning is assessed, how teachers are
prepared and supported, and how teachers are held accountable so there is a
coordination with standards and the reform. Programs with high complexity
and a low-level of explicitness typically have a low degree of successful
implementation (Waugh & Punch, 1987).
Hord and Huling-Austin (1986) documented key issues that need to be
addressed regarding the reform which include:
1) Developing supportive organizational arrangements (planning,
managing, providing materials, resources, space),
2) Training (teaching skills, reviewing, clarifying),
61
3) Providing consultation and reinforcement (promote innovation use,
problem-solving),
4) Monitoring and evaluation (data collection, analysis, reporting and
transferring data),
5) External communication (informing outsiders),
6) Dissemination (gaining support of outsiders, promote use of the
innovation by outsiders)
7) Impeding (discouraging or interrupting use),
8) Expressing and responding to concerns (complimenting, praising,
acknowledging, complaining, reprimanding) and
9) Allotting the proper amount of time.
The issue of time. A dominant issue within the literature is the subject
of time and designating a proper amount to allow for the success of a reform.
The issue of time impacts the teacher’s need to learn and figure out what the
reform means for their school. Most educators will need time to obtain the
knowledge to understand the reform and how it will impact their day-to-day
practice, time for administrators and teachers to learn about the ideas, and time
for educators to reflect on their attempts at carrying out the reforms (Spillane et
al., 1995; Lappan, 1997). With reforms that advocate a program change from
didactic instruction to more inquiry-based instruction, teachers will also need
time for professional development opportunities to learn these new
62
instructional strategies and become comfortable with new supplies and
materials so they may properly align the new curricular material with their
instructional practice (Henningsen & Stein, 1997).
Time is also needed for teachers to reflect about their attempts to carry
out the reform and build a new classroom environment that matches this vision
as well as time to build support among administrators and the community for
the reform (Hord & Huling-Austin, 1986). At the beginning of a reform, it
should be expected for teachers to take a long time to plan and adapt; the
expected learning curve for doing something new should not be steep as
teachers to learn by trial and error and to persist over time (Hange, 1994).
There should also be time to share and disseminate information with others,
time to collaborate and time for data collection and analysis. Hord and Huling-
Austin (1986) also emphasize that the time for change is extensive often
measured in years rather than weeks or months.
Teacher’s role. When a reform is designed as a problem-centered or
student-centered curriculum, it is important that the pedagogy matches the
curriculum reform. If the current social environment at the school reinforces a
traditional view about the role of the teacher and student, the reform will not be
successful (Lappan, 1997). Many reforms have a vision that often asks
teachers to reach all students, to turn some classroom authority over to
students, to monitor students working in groups, to rethink the nature and
63
purpose of assessment and to teach literacy along side the content area.
Teachers are being asked to shift the focus to active investigation as learning
goals often include reasoning, problem-solving, communicating, using
evidence and constructing arguments to make predictions that support
conclusions (Smith, 1996). When incorporating a reform that expects students
to perform more cognitively demanding activities, it is vital to allow for the
appropriate amount of time for teachers to learn and understand their new roles
so that classroom instruction will include appropriate scaffolding or instruction
will typically evolve into less demanding activities (Doyle, 1983, 1986, 1988;
Anderson, 1989). To address these issues, reforms should address factors that
enable practice, productive collegial relations, open communication and
feedback, have a shared mission and supportive leadership to enhance
classroom practice, provide regular feedback about teacher’s performances,
allow teachers to voice input regarding curriculum decisions and allow
informants to help guide the policy (McLaughlin, 1990).
The aspect of teacher learning is essential to reform and is an active
process as students develop a deep understanding of science concepts
(Templin, 2005). When implementing a reform, teachers need to be
knowledge in what they are doing, have experience doing it and see how it
works. When appropriate, teachers may also need to know how to evaluate the
64
innovation/project, perhaps with clear rubrics, especially the student work
(Hange, 1994).
Many successful interventions build on teacher’s existing beliefs and
knowledge, offer support for teachers that take into account the realities of
teachers’ school situation and offer instruction and support that goes beyond
the one-day or one-week workshop and extend to two or three years (Cohen et
al., 1990; Schifter & Fosnot, 1993). The RAND study found effective
strategies promoted mutual adaptation between the project and the teacher,
provided timely feedback and identification of errors. Particular aspects that
were effective included concrete, teacher-specific and extended training,
classroom assistance, teacher observation of similar projects, regular project
meetings focusing on practical issues, teacher participation in project
decisions, local development of project materials, and principal’s participation
in training. Local implementation reflected local capacity, local expertise,
motivation and management style (McLaughlin, 1990; Hord & Huling-Austin,
1986).
Teacher confidence and motivation. When trying to implement a new
reform, teachers need to have the confidence and motivation to be persistent in
their effort and complete the task. Teachers need to develop a new sense of
self-worth, something Aston (1985) calls teacher-efficacy. Teachers with a
high sense of self-efficacy produce higher performing students, are more
65
responsive to students and persist longer with struggling students (Aston &
Webb, 1986; Woolfolk et al., 1990). Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as
"the belief in oneself that he or she is capable of doing the actions needed to
reach certain goals." Therefore, the greater the level of self-efficacy, the
greater the level of effort put forth in persistence of the goal. Alternative
interpretations of self-efficacy include that attitudes are influenced by a
person’s beliefs as well as the perception of how those actions are viewed by
other influential parties (Ajzen, 1985) and that behavior is dependent on the
expectancy and value of that reinforcement (Rotter, 1975).
In any learning environment, there will always be a certain amount of
success and failure. Based on Bandura’s work, success will lead to mastery
experiences and raise one' s level of self-efficacy. However, if self-efficacy is
low, failure can cause a person to avoid the task or give up completely.
Extreme cases can lead to pessimistic attitudes and learned helplessness in
which a person believes the events and outcomes in their lives are not within
their control. Clearly, within a learning environment such as the K-12 public
school, self-efficacy can have a profound effect on student learning from the
perspective of the teacher or the student and the relationship between self-
efficacy and student achievement has been extensively research. However a
major limitation within this area research is that there is the lack of one
consistent instrument to assess the student’s self-efficacy or student
66
achievement (Carter, Sottile & Carter, 2001; Czerniak & Haney, 1998;
Schwartz & Gredler, 1997).
The concept of self-efficacy is also distinct from other concepts such as
self-esteem, self-worth and self-concept. Self-esteem is more equivalent with
how much an individual likes himself. Self-worth relates to an individual' s
self-evaluation and could be influenced by this idea of self-liking. Self-
concept is a more global concept concerned with the general beliefs about
one' s self. It deals less with particular traits or abilities and more with the
overall person. In contrast, self-efficacy has more to do with the self-
perception of the level of competence and ability in regards to a specific task
rather than the actual level of competence.
Teachers also need to be motivated to implement the reform therefore
the reform needs to have value in an instructional capacity and be relevant to
the classroom. The reform should also have value and be rewarding personally
to the teacher. It is also helpful if the reform can be an adaptation to the
existing curriculum (Hange & Rolfe, 1994). Results from the RAND study
(McLaughlin, 1990) found that implementation of local responses dominate
the project rather than policy inputs. Local choice of how to put a policy into
practice impacts the level of technology, program design, funding, and
governance. Policy cannot mandate what is important and the local variability
is impacted by teachers’ initial motivation which in turn predicts outcomes, the
67
role of external consultants, and the available resources that support teacher’s
growth are all key.
School factors. Baldridge and Deal (1975) found organizations have a
deep root in history; teachers are likely to be in conflict with programs that
clash with traditional values of the school or a school system in general.
Berman and McLaughlin (1976) found active support of principals and
teachers increased successful change implementation. Paul (1977) found
leadership that promotes and supports the change would influence the level of
satisfaction among the staff.
The change process. Efforts to improve education have occurred at the
school, district, state and national level. Reform areas that have been targeted
in the past include: curriculum (Welch, 1979), instruction (Cohen & Barnes,
1993), teacher preparation and professional development (Fox, 1978; Stake &
Easely, 1978), assessment (Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Popham, 1987), graduation
requirements (Clune, 1989) and school governance such as school-based
management (Malen, Ogawa & Kranz, 1989). These early approaches to
school improvement focused on the creation and the delivery of new programs
to schools. Over time, evidence began to come in that these new programs did
not produce the desired outcome. As a result, more emphasis was placed
towards studying the change process (Hord & Hall, 1987).
68
A part of the implementation process itself are the strategies used to
implement the change, the characteristics of the teachers who implement the
change, the school environment and the outside environment that encroaches
on school decisions (Waugh, 1987; Berman, 1978, Brown & McIntyre, 1978,
Crofton, 1981). Crofton (1981) cites five important issues that impact the
change process. First, meaningful changes occur as a process and not as an
event. Next, the process of change is complex and occurs over a long period of
time, typically over the course of years. There is also personal involvement
that may be necessary and administrative involvement, support and enthusiasm
are required to begin the process. Finally, proper materials are needed. Fullan
and Pomfret (1977) describe four general factors that influence the change
process: characteristics of the innovation; the strategies of training, support,
feedback and participation; characteristics of the adoption process
(organizational climate, environmental support, demographics) and macro-
sociopolitical characteristics such as the overall design, incentives, evaluation,
and political complexity of the program.
Administrative Support and Leadership
As learning organizations, districts intentionally create and implement
policies that are designed to improve instruction (Bertani, Fullan & Quinn,
2004). However factors such as capacity, organizational structure, and
leadership will directly impact the effectiveness of any policy (Marsh, 2002).
69
Capacity. The capacity for a district is expressed through human
capital, social capital, or physical capital (Cohen & Lowenberg-Ball, 2000;
Marsh, 2002) and may also be impacted by the culture within the district.
Human capital utilizes the knowledge and skill of the individual members
within the districts to implement state and federal policy and is often
developed during professional development (Marsh, 2000). Social capital is
built from trust and collaboration between individuals while physical capital
involves issues such as time, funding or materials. Districts that invest
resources into teacher learning have produced improvement in teaching and
learning (Massell, 2000). The development of learning organizations requires
a manipulation of both human and social capital through the personal mastery,
team learning and the development of a shared vision (Senge, 1990). Creation
of a strong culture with shared values that include a desire for instructional
improvement was found to impact the extent of implementation, the
effectiveness of the initiative as well as the sustainability of the instructional
improvement (Conley, 1993; DuFour, 1999; Fullan, 1998, Lieberman, 1995;
Morrissey, 2000).
Using data. Massell identified interpreting and using data as one of
four primary capacity-building strategies used by districts. Data was used to
plan professional development activities, identify achievement gaps, align
curriculum and instruction, assign and evaluate personnel, and identify
70
students for remedial programs. Challenges included understanding of how to
use data to improve performance, managing and understanding the
overwhelming amount of data, and having teachers use data as a self-analysis
of their own instructional strategies (Massell, 2000).
Organizational structure. District leaders must have a knowledge and
understanding of instructional innovation as well as the resources and
allocation needed (Bodilly, 1999) and the creation and implementation of
relevant professional development (Elmore, 1993). The knowledge of any
reform will be reflected through subsequent leadership and those messages
from leadership impact both the extent of implementation and sustainability of
a reform agenda (Hord, 1992). The organizational structure, whether it is
centralized district control or school autonomy, will also impact the districts’
success in implementing reform. School empowerment is typically a key
strategy utilized for improving teaching and learning (Goertz & Massell, 1999;
Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996) yet in some cases schools do not have
the ability to utilize that freedom effectively (Bodilly, 1998). Leadership tasks
include not only actions taken by the superintendent or the principal but also
by informal leaders. School and district leadership is often a function of the
actions and knowledge of the formal leader and its impact on the actions of
other informal leaders. This interdependency may create a joint knowledge
and expertise that results in collective leading.
71
District design. Systemic reform typically requires districts to
orchestrate multiple policies at once and provide incentives for change in order
to increase the capacity of the entire system that in turn will improve the
teaching and learning (Massell, 2000). A theory of instruction provides the
framework for curriculum and pedagogy, while the theory of change provides
the strategies to transform the culture within the organization so that the theory
of instruction is realized (Fullan, 1996). Designs typically reflect one of two
broad-based conceptions of learning: provide teachers with specific knowledge
and a set of skills or assist teachers in becoming agents of instructional
improvement. Teachers that are agents learn to develop resources for
improvement through the construction of knowledge in and from their own
practice (Cohen & Lowenberg-Ball, 2000).
Leadership. A key factor in leveraging and sustaining change through
all of the domains is leadership (Gilbert et al., 2002). Human behavior within
modern organizations is so complex and surprising that ambiguous
environments are created that lead to problems with learning (Bolman & Deal,
1997). One difficulty with changing any organization involves the culture of
that organization. Leaders that are not aware of the cultural aspects or possess
a limited repertoire of ideas to respond are hindered in their effectiveness.
Successful leaders required a more comprehensive stance that allowed them to
72
look at old problems in a new light, thus confronting challenges with different
tools and reactions.
Bolman and Deal (1997) proposed four frames that provided leaders
with a cognitive lens for viewing organizational culture: structural frame,
human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame. Each frame
advocated a different method for achieving organizational goals. The
structural frame approaches issues on a rational level and considers the roles of
authority for groups and individuals. Responses are often logical
consequences to factual evidence. The human resource considers the needs of
the individual or group by using participation and education to develop
solutions or challenges. The political frame views organizational life as a
contest for power and limited resources and uses negotiation, coalitions,
sanctions and coercion as means to achieve their goal. The symbolic frame
stresses the cultural aspects of organizational life and uses rituals and
ceremonies to create meaning and unity within a group. Within any school
district, all four frames are visible and change efforts often fail because not all
perspectives were considered resulting in unanticipated consequences.
Conclusion
Science education has long been a concern of American policymakers.
In California, the STAR test is based on California academic standards that
determine proficiency levels, creates accountability for students, teachers and
73
schools. In previous years, the content of the STAR test focused solely on
mathematics and language arts however current versions of the STAR tests
will now include new content areas (social studies and science). This type of
accountability is performance-based in that the performance of the students on
the standardized tests will reflect and impact both teachers and their schools,
which are ultimately held accountable for the students’ scores. The intent of
the standards and accountability is an effort to impact the classroom and have
instruction focused on the standards. This accountability also includes public
reporting of test scores for schools and sanctions for schools performing below
expected levels that are monitored by the federal and state governments.
Performance-based accountability is not the only type of accountability
available or currently in action within California; an example of bureaucratic
accountability can be found in the federal legislation of NCLB, there is
professional accountability with the creation of requirements and prerequisites
for teachers to be eligible to be in the classroom, and market accountability is
demonstrated in the opportunity for parents, acting as consumers, to choose the
school their child attends and is magnified with the introduction of a voucher-
system. Research has found mixed results in terms of the effectiveness of
performance-based accountability.
Instructional styles in the classroom typically fall into one of two
categories. The first is the traditional teacher-centered classrooms based on a
74
behaviorist philosophy that views student’s behavior as being molded by
positive and negative rewards and typically disregards any internal or mental
process of the student. The role of the teacher in this scenario is a disseminator
of knowledge that commonly leads to didactic instructional methods. The
second is the student-centered classroom that is based on constructivism that
sees the learner as taking a more active role in creating knowledge for him or
herself. Instruction is more centered on cooperative learning groups,
facilitating discussions from questions and utilizing the internal motivation of
the student and their knowledge they bring to the classroom impact student
learning. These student-centered classrooms allow students to discuss and
form a consensus and the teacher takes on the role of a mediator or guide to the
learning.
Science, as a content area, has also incorporated the laboratory as a
change from the traditional method of studying via textbooks by providing
students with an opportunity to have direct contact with the physical world and
engage in investigations. Experience in the science laboratory has also been a
method for induction into the sciences as a profession. Other rationales for the
science laboratory include helping students master the subject matter, develop
scientific reasoning, develop skills and conduct practical work, understand the
Nature of Science and cultivate an interest in science.
75
Within the science laboratory, there have been many definitions of
inquiry science. The Schwab/Herron classification describe different types of
laboratory activities comprised of four levels where each level is based on the
dynamics of activity and the level of autonomy the student has in the
investigation. Levels range from a “0,” where the laboratory has the problem
that the student is asked to answer and the method to find the answer being
given by either the instructor or a laboratory manual to a type “3,” also referred
to as open inquiry and all aspects of the investigation would be open to the
student including the original research question, the methodology to answer the
question and a rationale for what would be considered acceptable evidence as
an answer all be determined prior to any experimentation (Herron, 1971). This
type of inquiry laboratory offers the student the highest level of authentic
choices within their investigation. This type of classification implies the type
of instruction in the classroom with a “0” being more associated with a
teacher-centered environment and a “3” being associated with a student-
centered environment. It is this type of Inquiry science, what is typically
portrayed as a level “3” laboratory activity, that has been advocated by the
Benchmarks for Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989) and the National Science
Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council, 1996) to be utilized
in science classrooms.
76
Implementation of any classroom curricular project, such as inquiry-
based science, will face challenges. The most basic issue is having the proper
equipment, training with the laboratory equipment and safety training to
conduct any laboratory activity. Variables with the particular program
characteristics, such as the scope of the project, the type and level of
commitment and support, the source of expertise and training, the method of
accountability, the coordination with standards, reinforcement, monitoring and
evaluation, and communication all will influence the potential success of the
reform.
Time is another key issue in the implementation of a reform. Issues
such as allotting sufficient time for the various aspects, time to learn the
knowledge to enact the reform, time for local reformers to understand the
reform ideas and what it means for their practice, time for administrators and
teachers to learn about the ideas, time for teachers to grapple with the ideas and
reshape their practice around these ideas and time for educators to reflect on
their attempts at carrying out the reforms all are concerns that require an
adequate amount of time to be addressed.
Additional issues that impact the implementation of reforms include the
teachers’ role in terms of training, classroom assistance, teacher observation of
similar projects, meetings to focus on practical issues and the development of
project materials. Prior to implementation, the determination of the pedagogy
77
of the reform, whether it is student-centered or teacher-centered is crucial.
There is also the issue of teacher confidence and self-efficacy. Teachers with a
higher level of self-efficacy are more likely to persist with the reform and work
longer with struggling students. Teacher learning and training is needed so
they know what they are doing and have experience doing it. Teachers need to
have motivation to implement the reform so it needs to have value in an
instructional capacity. School factors include the culture and history of the
school and if the reform coincides with those values. The change process is a
focus on the characteristics of those who implement the change, the school
environment and outside factors that impact school decisions. The major issue
with the change process is that meaningful change occurs as a process rather
than as an event and that change is complex and occurs over a long period of
time.
The final section reviewed the administrative support and leadership
that is needed for successful implementation. Schools and districts create and
implement policies that are designed to improve instruction. Factors such as
capacity, organizational structure, and leadership will impact the effectiveness
of any policy. Three types of capacity include human capital, social capital, or
physical capital. Human capacity utilizes the knowledge and skill of the
individuals, social capacity is built from the collaboration between individual
and physical capacity includes time and funding. Organizational structure
78
reflects the centralized or decentralized makeup of the district and level of
school autonomy. The district design reflects different conceptions of learning
where teachers are provided with specific knowledge and a set of skills or the
district assists teachers in becoming agents of instructional improvement. Data
can be used to plan professional development activities, identify achievement
gaps, align curriculum and instruction, assign and evaluate personnel, and
identify students for remedial programs. Successful leaders required a more
comprehensive stance that allowed them to look at old problems in a new light,
thus confronting challenges with different tools and reactions. Bolman and
Deal (1997) proposed four frames that provided leaders with a cognitive lens
for viewing organizational culture: structural frame, human resource frame,
political frame, and symbolic frame.
The methodology for this study will be discussed in Chapter 3 while
the analysis and discussion of the findings will be presented in Chapter 4.
79
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research methodology used in the study
along with a description and rationale for the sample, sample size and
population. The data collection techniques, instrumentation tools and data
analysis are also included. A case study approach was used as the most
appropriate method to address the research questions through a qualitative
inquiry. This purpose of this study was to examine how middle/intermediate
school science teachers are adapting their teaching methods and gaining
knowledge in response to the new educational environment that emphasizes
science as a content area that will be assessed within the California STAR
tests.
Specifically, this study examined how teachers are learning and
responding to the new accountability through high-stakes testing in the specific
content area of science; what methods and in particular inquiry methods,
teachers are using to propagate understanding both science content and process
as well as finding ways to motivate them to stay in science; and how the school
site is training or educating teachers on the new science standards.
The study was guided by four sets of research questions:
80
1) How are science teachers responding to the new accountability for
science? How do teachers view their role in a standards-based
environment?
2) What pedagogical skills are teachers using outside of the classroom?
What pedagogical skills are teachers using inside the classroom?
3) How are the school site administration and/or school district offering
teachers assistance in learning about the new science standards?
How has the school site been using previous student performance to
make decisions regarding curriculum and instruction?
4) How are teachers obtaining these pedagogical skills? What tools or
impediments exist for teachers to successfully utilize these
pedagogical methods? What type of support do teachers feel they
need to properly teach the new science standards?
A comparative research methodology using a case study approach
coupled with an interview was selected for this study. Case studies allow for
more depth, detail and individual meaning. The use of a qualitative research
methodology was preferred in order to build a more complex and holistic view
of the words and accounts of the informants. Interviews were designed to
81
gather information about a person’s perspective regarding a situation and
assume that the perspective was meaningful, knowable and able to be made
explicit. A limitation of an interview was the potential for the information to
be distorted by personal bias, emotion, or a lack of awareness. Further
limitations included possible recall error by the individual, however interviews
also allowed the researcher to gain information about issues that could not be
directly observed such as feelings, thoughts, intentions, or past behaviors
(Patton, 2002).
Various interview techniques are available to a researcher that in turn
would influence the type and quality of information that is gathered. For the
purpose of this study, a general interview guide was utilized that outlined a set
of issues to be discussed, yet still permitted flexibility during the interview in
order to explore and probe other topics of interest that may have arisen. In
contrast, an informal conversational interview does not contain predetermined
questions and allows for more spontaneous generation of topics to be
discussed. This allows the interviewer to follow where the interviewee leads.
As a result, between various subjects, the interview questions will change over
time and more time will often be needed to conduct follow-up interviews that
will allow the interviewer to revisit topics as needed. A major limitation of
this method involves the challenge during the data analysis since not all
subjects were asked the same questions. Another technique includes the more
82
standard open-ended interview that includes a predetermined set of questions
that are carefully worded and arranged. In this case, there is limited or
possibly no flexibility during the interview for extended probing so that each
subject is given the exact same stimuli. This type of data tends to be highly
focused with minimal variation, which allows for easier analysis yet it does not
permit the pursuit of unanticipated topics.
The intent for these qualitative inquiries was to search for meaning
within the views expressed by the teachers, department chairpersons and
administrators through their insights and personal experiences. The general
interview guide was selected to permit the subject to expand and discuss issues
that were relevant to them individually. This study will enable any future
readers to gain in-depth understanding of the instructional practices and
concerns revealed by the study participants.
Sample
The design strategy used purposeful sampling that provided
information and understanding of the topic through the chosen sample. The
sampling for this study was designed to select similar schools to in order to
generalize what is currently or can be done. A comparative case study was
done to examine pedagogical patterns that exist. There was a replication of a
single methodology at multiple sites. This will predict similar results (a literal
replication) or contrasting results (a theoretical replication). This will allow
83
the prediction of conditions where the same phenomenon will be found or not
found. High performing schools were selected in the expectation that
successful schools and students would be most likely to participate in
pedagogical activities specifically designed to improve student performance as
it relates to the STAR test. It would be expected that schools that do not
perform well would be less likely to have successful examples of this type of
pedagogical activity. All schools in the study have ethnic diversity. Data will
be collected from multiple sources including teachers, administrators,
observations from classrooms (pictures illustrating the physical features of how
the rooms were organized), and collected data (copies of labs or lesson plans of
the activities students are engaged in). Through this purposeful sampling, two
school districts were chosen for the study with the objective of gaining a
comprehensive understanding of the practices and instructional methods of
teachers at exemplary middle/intermediate schools.
The selection criteria for the district included a student population
between thirty and sixty thousand students. The researcher sought to study a
district comprised of students coming from a diverse background and
socioeconomic status. In addition, the ethnic and socioeconomic proportions
for the selected districts were similar to other selected districts. The selection
criteria for the schools that participated in the study included evidence that the
school met its Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) for the last three academic
84
school years as well as achieved an Academic Performance Index (API) rating
of at least 800 for the last three academic school years. Additionally, the
researcher sought to study and compare schools with a similar demographic
makeup to other schools within the research study.
The selection criteria for the district included:
1) Student population between 30,000 and 60,000 students.
2) Students coming from a diverse background and socioeconomic
status.
3) Similar ethnic and socioeconomic proportions for the districts.
The selection criteria for the schools included:
1) Similar ethnic and socioeconomic proportions for the schools.
2) Intermediate or middle school met its Academic Yearly Progress
(AYP) for the last three years.
3) Intermediate or middle school achieved an Academic Performance
Index (API) rating of at least 800 for the last three years.
Districts with the qualifying criteria were examined for schools with
the qualifying criteria. Two districts with qualifying middle or intermediate
schools were contacted and invited to participate in the research study.
Principals at the multiple schools sites were then contacted and invited to
participate in the research study. Current eighth grade science teachers within
85
the department were randomly selected and contacted by the principals and
invited to participate. In addition to the classroom science teachers that were
interviewed, the science department chairperson and the school site
administrator in charge of managing the science department were also invited
to participate in the study. The final population of subjects included the
intermediate or middle school classroom science teachers, the science
department chairperson and the school site administrator in charge of science,
typically the principal of the school. Pseudo names were used to identify all
participant names, school site names and district names.
Purposeful sampling is aimed at gaining insight into a phenomenon
(Patton, 2002). The administrator and department chairperson were considered
to be important liaisons transferring information and policy from the school
district to the classroom teacher. Classroom science teachers are responsible
for implementation of the policy as well as the primary decision makers of
what activities will go on within the classroom.
A stratified sampling was utilized in selecting two or three classroom
teachers to interview at each school site. Stratified sampling reveals subgroups
and facilitates comparisons (Huberman & Miles, 1994). The science teachers
currently teaching in the classroom were interviewed with the Teacher
Interview Guide while the department chairperson and school site
administrators were interviewed with the Administrator Interview Guide. The
86
goal of an interview was to allow for more personal contact to better
understand, capture the context of a person’s experience or gain another
person’s perspective (Patton, 2002). This allows the inquirer to be open and
discovery oriented, to see things that may routinely escape awareness, or pay
attention to something no one else has paid attention to. While activities such
as direct observation allow a researcher to learn about something people would
be unwilling to talk about in an interview, an interview allows the researcher to
find out directly things that you can not observe such as feelings, thoughts,
intentions, or past behaviors. Conducting interviews assumes that that
perspective of others is meaningful, knowable and can be made explicit. One
interview was scheduled with each participant with each interview taking
approximately 45-60 minutes. All interviews took place at the school site of
the respective teacher or administrator unless an alternative location was
requested. For all classroom science teachers, the Concerns Questionnaire
about High Stakes Accountability was also administered. The researcher
utilizes a tape recorder during all interviews, when permitted, as well as
written notes.
Selected District Profile
Coastline Unified School District and Sierra View Unified School District
The Coastline and Sierra View Unified School Districts are both
located in Orange County, which is approximately 50 miles south of Los
87
Angeles. Orange County is home to approximately three million people and
families living in the county have a projected median income of approximately
$84,000 per year (CDR, 2006). The demographics for public school teachers
in the county consists of Caucasian (72.1%), Hispanic (14.5%), Asian (4.5%),
African-American (4.5%), and Multiple/decline to state (2.3%) while student
demographics in the county include Caucasian (31.1%), Hispanic (46.8%),
Asian (8.1%), African-American (8.0%), and Multiple/decline to state (1.7%)
(CDE, 2006g).
The Coastline Unified School District (CUSD) encompasses
approximately 195 square miles in seven cities within Southern Orange
County. Over 50,000 students attend CUSD schools that include thirty-seven
elementary (grades K-5), ten middle (6-8) and five high schools (9-12). The
district superintendent that had served in that position for the past fifteen years
submitted his resignation in the fall of 2006. An interim superintendent served
until March 2007 when the successor was formally introduced as the next
superintendent. For the district, the ethnic makeup consists of Caucasian
(67.7%), Hispanic (18.2%), Asian (5.3%), Multiple/decline to state (5.4%),
Filipino (1.4%), African-American (1.3%), American Indian/Alaska Native
(0.3%) and Pacific Islander (0.2%) students (CUSD, 2006b). The school
organization within the Coastline Unified School District is comprised of
either elementary (grades K-5) schools with separate middle schools (grades 6-
88
8), combination elementary and middle schools (grades K-8) as well as high
schools (grades 9-12).
The Sierra View Unified School District (SVUSD) is Orange County’s
fourth largest school district and encompasses over 95 square miles in five
cities. Over 35,000 students attend SVUSD schools that include 26 elementary
(grades K-6), four intermediate (7-8) and four high schools (9-12). The current
district superintendent had served in that position since 2005. Prior to that, the
previous superintendent served for four years while his predecessor served in
that capacity for the previous eighteen years. For the district, the ethnic
makeup of the students includes Caucasian (65.7%), Hispanic (21.2%), Asian
(7.8%), Filipino (2.5%), and African-American (2.2%). Both CUSD and
SVUSD have a similar student population and in comparison, the entire state
of California has an ethnic makeup that includes Caucasian (31.3%), Hispanic
(46.8%), Asian (8.1%), Filipino (2.6%), and African-American (8.0%)
(SVUSD, 2006).
Selected Schools Profile
Within the Coastline Unified School District, the participating schools
included Beach Hills Middle School, Mission Hills Middle School and Ocean
Ranch Middle School.
89
Beach Hills Middle School (BHMS)
BHMS is a 6-8 middle school located in Aliso Viejo and has been
recognized as a California Distinguished School and National Blue Ribbon
School. The school is approximately 10 years old. There is one science
classroom that was specifically designed for science instruction with lab tables,
water and gas outlets. The other eighth grade science classrooms are portables
that also have water and gas outlets. All the science classrooms are not located
in one general area. One unique feature about BHMS compared to the other
schools in this study is the bell schedule. The bell schedule is a modified block
schedule where there are two days a week where students have 108-minute
block periods and attend only three of their six classes on each of those days.
Two other days a week, the students are on a traditional bell schedule where
students attend all six of their classes in one day with each period being 52-
minutes. This is the only school among those in this study that is on a block
schedule. The final day each week is a modified late start where students have
a shortened day with a traditional bell schedule and classes are 45-minutes.
The late start is due to a predetermined and yearlong schedule of time for
teachers and administration to meet.
Among the programs offered at BHMS is the AVID (Advancement Via
Individual Determination) program. Based on the 2005-06 California Basic
Educational Data System (CBEDS) information from the CDE and API
90
results, the student population is approximately 1137 and relatively stable. In
terms of the faculty, there are 46 full time teachers with an average of 12 years
teaching experience, 96% of the faculty are fully credentialed, 9% of the
teachers have only one or two years of teaching experience, 46% of the faculty
has at least a Bachelor’s degree and 52% have at least a Master’s Degree.
Mission Hills Middle School (MHMS)
MHMS is a 6-8 middle school located in Mission Viejo and honored as
a National Blue Ribbon School and a California Distinguished School. The
school is approximately 20 years old. Some science classrooms are in one
building with portable classrooms located near by. There are classrooms that
were specifically designed for science instruction with counters, water and gas
outlets. At MHMS, the bell schedule is a traditional bell schedule where
students attend all six of their classes in one day with each period being 53-
minutes. One day each week is a modified late start where students have a
shortened day with a traditional bell schedule and classes are 46-minutes. The
late start is due to a predetermined and yearlong schedule of time for teachers
and administration to meet.
Based on the 2005-06 California Basic Educational Data System
(CBEDS) information from the CDE and API results, the student population is
approximately 1638 and has been slowly decreasing. In terms of the faculty,
there are 72 full time teachers with an average of 10 years teaching experience,
91
94% of the faculty are fully credentialed, 29% of the teachers have only one or
two years of teaching experience, 49.3% of the faculty has at least a Bachelor’s
degree and 50.8% have at least a Master’s Degree.
Ocean Ranch Middle School (ORMS)
ORMS is a 6-8 middle school located in Laguna Niguel and has been
recognized as a California Distinguished School. The school is approximately
thirty years old. The science classrooms were specifically designed for science
instruction with counters, water and gas outlets. All the science classrooms are
located in one general area within the same building and are connected so that
teachers can pass through other classrooms. At ORMS, the bell schedule is a
traditional bell schedule where students attend all six of their classes in one day
with each period being 52 minutes. One day each week is a modified late start
where students have a shortened day with a traditional bell schedule and
classes are 45 minutes. The late start is due to a predetermined and yearlong
schedule of time for teachers and administration to meet.
Among the programs offered at ORMS are the AVID (Advancement
Via Individual Determination) and PAL (Peer Assisted Leadership) program.
Based on the 2005-06 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
information from the CDE and API results, the student population is
approximately 1431 and has been slowly decreasing over the past few years.
In terms of the faculty, there are 61 full time teachers with an average of 12
92
years teaching experience, 97% of the faculty are fully credentialed, 13% of
the teachers have only one or two years of teaching experience, 35.4% of the
faculty has at least a Bachelor’s degree and 64.6% have at least a Master’s
Degree.
Within the Sierra View Unified School District, the participating
schools included Hillside Intermediate School, Lake View Intermediate School
and East View Intermediate School.
Hillside Intermediate School (HIS)
HIS is a 7-8 intermediate school located in Mission Viejo and has been
recognized as a California Distinguished School and Blue Ribbon School. The
school is approximately thirty years old. The science classrooms are clustered
together in one building which was renovated within the last ten years. The
renovations provided one classroom with lab facilities that included lab tables,
water and gas outlets. Other classrooms also had counters, water and gas
outlets but did not have the equivalent level of facilities. Although gas valves
were installed, teachers claimed that they did not utilize them do to
safety/ventilation issues. At HIS, the bell schedule is a traditional bell
schedule where students attend all six of their classes in one day with each
period being 53 minutes. One day each month is a modified late start where
students have a shortened day with a traditional bell schedule and classes are
93
40 minutes. The late start is due to a predetermined and yearlong schedule of
time for teachers and administration to meet.
Among the programs offered at HIS is the AVID (Advancement Via
Individual Determination). Based on the 2005-06 California Basic Educational
Data System (CBEDS) information from the CDE and API results, the student
population is approximately 1279 and has been stable. In terms of the faculty,
there are 55 full time teachers with an average of 12 years of teaching
experience, 98% of the faculty are fully credentialed, 13% of the teachers have
only one or two years of teaching experience, 58% of the faculty has at least a
Bachelor’s degree and 42% have at least a Master’s Degree.
Lake View Intermediate School (LVIS)
LVIS is a 7-8 intermediate school located in Lake Forest and has been
recognized as a California Distinguished School. The school is over thirty
years old with the science classrooms are clustered together as part of one
larger building. Most of the science classrooms have direct access to a central
workroom and are connected to allow easy access to other science classrooms.
The science classrooms had counters, water and gas outlets. At LVIS, the bell
schedule is a traditional bell schedule where students attend all six of their
classes in one day with each period being 54 minutes. However there is a
rotating schedule within each week. Each class period is rotated to occur at
different time periods each day of the week. Two times each month are
94
modified late start where students have a shortened day with a traditional bell
schedule and classes are 35 minutes. The late start is due to a predetermined
and yearlong schedule of time for teachers and administration to meet.
Among the programs offered at LVIS is the AVID (Advancement Via
Individual Determination) and PAL (Peer Assisted Leadership) program.
Based on the 2005-06 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
information from the CDE and API results, the student population is
approximately 1484 and has been stable. In terms of the faculty, there are 61
full time teachers with an average of 17 years teaching experience, 96.7% of
the faculty are fully credentialed, 6% of the teachers have only one or two
years of teaching experience, 43% of the faculty has at least a Bachelor’s
degree and 57% have at least a Master’s Degree.
East View Intermediate School (EVIS)
EVIS is a 7-8 intermediate school located in Rancho Santa Margarita
and has been recognized as a California Distinguished School and National
Blue Ribbon School. The school is approximately 10 years old. The science
classrooms are primarily clustered together in one building. Additional
renovations to the school provided one additional science classroom with lab
facilities that included lab tables, water and gas outlets however this classroom
is not located near the other science classrooms. Most of the original
classrooms had counters with water and gas outlets but one science classroom
95
did not have the equivalent level of facilities. At EVIS, the bell schedule is a
traditional bell schedule where students attend all six of their classes in one day
with each period being 52 minutes. However there is a rotating schedule
within each week. Each class period is rotated to occur at different time
periods each day of the week. Approximately one day each month is a
modified late start where students have a shortened day with a traditional bell
schedule and classes are 36 minutes. The late start is due to a predetermined
and yearlong schedule of time for teachers and administration to meet.
Based on the 2005-06 California Basic Educational Data System
(CBEDS) information from the CDE and API results, the student population is
approximately 1677 and has been slowly growing. In terms of the faculty,
there are 69 full time teachers with an average of 16 years teaching experience,
98.6% of the faculty are fully credentialed, 6% of the teachers have only one or
two years of teaching experience, 49% of the faculty has at least a Bachelor’s
degree and 51% have at least a Master’s Degree.
School Participants - Classroom Science Teachers
In most cases, the number of eighth grade science teachers interviewed
at one school site did not necessarily reflect all of the eighth grade science
teachers at that school site and were clearly just a portion of the entire science
department. Among the eighth grade science teachers interviewed, the range
of classroom teaching experience was vast. Overall, there were first year
96
teachers and others that had over 35 years of experience teaching
intermediate/middle school science. At HIS, one teacher was in his first year,
another was in her fourth and the third teacher interviewed has been at the
school for the past thirty-seven years. At EVIS, only two teachers were
interviewed with one teacher was in his third year while the other was in her
thirteenth. At SIS, the teachers were in their second, third and fourth years of
teaching. At BHMS, there was one teacher that had 20 years of experience,
another teacher with 12 years of experience and the last teacher was in her first
full year. At MHMS, there were two teachers with one in his tenth year and
another in her sixth year of teaching. Finally at ORMS, there was one teacher
in his fourth year of teaching science and another in her twentieth (Appendix
F). Similar to their teaching experience, these science teachers as a whole
possessed a wide range of additional leadership experience. There were some
teachers with no leadership experience and others who have been department
chair, on district level science and curriculum committees, school site level
committees, or in charge of other organizations/activities such as AVID or the
science fair or academic pentathlon.
School Participants - Department Chairperson
For the department chairpersons that were interviewed, most of the
individuals had very few years of experience and only two had more than three
years of experience in that position. This may be due to the fact that some
97
schools will rotate the position of department chairperson between teachers
which would limit the length of tenure. In contrast, with respect to their
amount of classroom teaching experience, all but one had at least seven years
of experience in the classroom. For the department chairpersons, there was
one in his first year in that position, two in their second year, one in her third
year, one in her fifth year and one in her sixth year as department chair
(Appendix F).
An interesting observation was that all of the department chairpersons
at the middle schools (which are sixth, seventh, and eighth grade) were sixth
grade teachers while at the intermediate schools (which are seventh and eighth
grade) were all eighth grade teachers. At the intermediate schools, even
though the department chairpersons also taught eighth grade science, they were
all interviewed from just the administrative perspective although their insight
might have included their eighth grade teaching perspective. It is not clear if
some department chairpersons, that also teach eight grade science, might have
more information or interest in the STAR test as it currently only impacts
eighth grade teachers and students directly.
School Participants – Principals/Assistant Principals
Among the school site administrators that were interviewed, 5 were
principals and one was an assistant principal. The principals ranged in tenure
at their current school from 3 to 11 years. The assistant principal lacked the
98
same level of experience; she has only been at her current school for one year
and an assistant principal for two years. For the principals, one was in her
third year, one in his sixth, one in his seventh, one in her eighth and one in his
eleventh. Another observation was that among all the administrators
interviewed for this study, in their previous teaching experience before going
into administration, none had experience teaching science. Their areas of their
teaching experience did include secondary instruction in social studies/history,
English, drama, math and elementary instruction. Documentation on the
participants was listed in the Participant Group Information (Appendix F).
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted at Oso Middle School (OMS), which was
a 6-8 middle school and has been honored as a National Blue Ribbon School
and a California Distinguished School. Based on the 2005-06 California Basic
Educational Data System (CBEDS) information from the CDE and API
results, the student population was approximately 1519 and had been slowly
decreasing. In terms of the faculty, there were 60 full time teachers with an
average of 11 years teaching experience, 96% of the faculty were fully
credentialed, 8% of the teachers had only one or two years of teaching
experience, 48.3% of the faculty had at least a Bachelor’s degree and 50.0%
had at least a Master’s Degree.
99
The school was 10 years old with three science classrooms located
within one building. Other science classrooms are located in other parts of the
school. Those science classrooms that were located together were specifically
designed for science and are fitted with both water and gas outlets. The other
classrooms were not specifically designed for science instruction. The bell
schedule was a standard fixed schedule with each class period being 54
minutes.
The assistant principal has been in that position for the past three years
which is also the same length of time he has been at the school. This was his
first tenure as an assistant principal. The department chairperson has been in
that capacity for the past three years and has been at the school teaching
science for the past 10 years. The current eighth grade science teacher has
been at the school for only two years and has been teaching primarily seventh
grade science prior to moving to eighth grade science for this current school
year.
Preliminary Findings
Within the pilot study, the assistant principal, department chairperson
and one eighth grade science teacher was interviewed. The purpose of
conducting the pilot test was to practice using the instruments as well as
allowing the researcher to consider the type of results that would be obtained
during the interviews. As a result of the pilot test, the wording of some
100
questions were modified and shortened. This also served as practice to work
on interview skills and gave the researcher a chance to modify the questions if
needed.
The pilot study was conducted prior to the data collection of the actual
study. OMS was chosen because it was a school that also met the same criteria
as the other schools chosen for this study. Oso Middle School is within the
CUSD. In this case, the assistant principal was interviewed as he is in charge
of the science department and also manages the meetings at the district level
for all middle school department chairs. This also served as another level of
verification and triangulation of the data that was provided from the other
department chairpersons.
Instrumentation
Data Collection Instruments
The data collection instruments were based on the conceptual
frameworks in order to determine characteristics of the teacher behavior. The
first instrument consisted of the Case Study Guide (Appendix C) that described
the general data collection process and itinerary for each school site visitation,
a general description of the teacher and administrative interviews, a guide for
gathering documents and artifacts from the school site, a guide for constructing
a school and district profile, an overview of the Instrumentation Chart, and an
overview of the Instructional Analysis Guides for teachers and administrators.
101
The second instrument consisted of a School District Information
Profile (Appendix E) that illustrated the comparison between the Coastline and
Sierra View Unified School Districts based on the type of schools and the
demographic student population within each district based on ethnicity as well
as a comparison of the particular school sites for the selected schools
participating in the study. School information included the API scores, student
enrollment and demographic information for each school, faculty information
about each school including the number of teachers, average years of teaching
experience, the percentage of teachers with one or two years of teaching
experience and the percentage of teachers with a full credential.
The third instrument was the Instrumentation Chart (Appendix G) that
guided the research by describing the data that would be needed to answer the
research questions, the sources that data would come from and the methods
that data would be collected during the study. The fourth instrument was the
Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide (Appendix I) used to help classify
teachers in their use of inquiry. This guide served to help assess the
instructional situation for each teacher relative to their knowledge of the STAR
tests, science standards and pedagogical methods. The fifth instrument was the
Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide – Administrative Perspective (Appendix
J) used to help classify the level of administrative assistance offered to teachers
regarding the STAR tests, science standards and pedagogical methods.
102
The sixth and seventh instruments were the Teacher Interview Guide
(Appendix K) and the Administrator Interview Guide (Appendix L) that
consisted of the interview guide questions used during the interviews with the
subjects. The Teacher Interview Guide was an interview designed specifically
for teachers and the second instrument while the Administrator Interview
Guide was an interview questionnaire designed specifically for the
administrators and the science department chairperson. Both instruments were
semi-structured interview guides that were designed to take approximately
forty-five to sixty minutes to administer. The researcher performed the
instrumentation construction for both Interview Guides.
The next instrument was the Interview Development Chart (Appendix
H) that correlated the specific research questions and the interview questions.
This chart correlated the research questions with the primary and secondary
interview questions. The final instrument (Appendix M) was the Concerns
Questionnaire about High Stakes Accountability. This was an adapted version
of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire and was administered to all classroom
science teachers to determine their level of concern regarding high stakes
accountability however two science teachers did not complete the
questionnaire.
103
Instrument 1: Case Study Guide
The Case Study Guide provided an overview of the data collection
phases, timelines, and instruments; desired participants to interview; the
purpose and location of the interviews, and identification of other sources of
needed data. This guide also provided a framework for collecting alternative
data through observation and artifacts. The Case Study Guide assisted the
analysis of the findings in Chapter 4. Interviews were conducted in
approximately 45-60 minute sessions using the Teacher Interview Guide or
Administrator Interview Guide. Evidence confirming the interview data was
collected through other interviews, documents, artifacts, observations and
published reports on the website operated by the California Department of
Education (CDE).
Instrument 2: School District Profile
Data from the CDE website and district documents was complied to
create the School District Profile. The summary of the district data was
organized to compare the districts based on the type of schools, and the
demographic student population within each district based on ethnicity. Data
regarding school site/student characteristics included the demographic student
population within each selected school based on ethnicity. For the academic
school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005, the API scores for each
selected school and the student enrollment for each selected school was listed.
104
Teaching staff information was also collected for each selected school site that
included the number of teachers on staff, the average number of years of
teaching experience by the staff, the percentage of teachers with only one or
two years of teaching experience and the percentage of teachers that possess a
full teaching credential. The summary data in the school district profile was
used to provide contextual information and validated data collected from other
sources.
Instrument 3: Instrumentation Chart
Based on the conceptual framework, an analysis of the research
questions helped develop the Instrumentation Chart that described the data that
would be needed to answer the research questions, the sources that data would
emerge from and the instrumentation needed to collect that data.
Instrument 4: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide
The primary goal of the this rubric is to assess the extent the science
teachers have adapted their teaching in response to the accountability of the
STAR tests and identification of implementing specific methodologies, such as
inquiry methods as a part of their laboratory or instructional activities, to
enhance instruction in general or specifically student performance on the
STAR tests. This rubric was designed to assess different instructional styles
used by the teacher and to help classify the interviewee’s responses with regard
to their reaction to the new STAR tests. Three levels of descriptors, ranging
105
from “No or Beginning Level” to “Partial or Moderate Level” to “Full or High
Level,” helped classify teachers and was constructed by the researcher. The
directional scale of the Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide was based on the
Case Study Guide and was completed after each interview. The emphasis on
inquiry was based on the National Science Education Standards and research
that promotes inquiry as a valuable and desirable pedagogical method for
teaching science.
Instrument 5: Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide – Administrative
Perspective
This rubric was designed to assess different aspects of administrative
assistance offered to teachers regarding the STAR tests, science standards and
pedagogical methods. Three levels of descriptors, ranging from “No or
Beginning Level” to “Partial or Moderate Level” to “Full or High Level,”
helped classify the level of administrative assistance by the school site and/or
the district and was constructed by the researcher. The directional scale of the
rubric was based on the Case Study Guide and was completed after each
interview.
Instrument 6: Teacher Interview Guide
The Teacher Interview Guide consisted of semi-structured questions
developed as probes for each research question. Teacher interviews were
designed to take approximately 45-60 minutes and took place at the school site
106
to help facilitate any requests for documents that might support verbal
responses of activities being conducted in the classroom. The interview guide
was broken down into subgroups that represented different general themes to
be addressed with possible primary and secondary questions that served as
interview probes designed to provide answers for the primary research
questions. During and after the interview, the Teacher Instructional Analysis
Guide was completed to assess interviewee’s responses with regard to their
reaction to the new STAR tests and instructional methods. When permitted,
the researcher also utilized a tape recorder during the interviews. Observations
of the classrooms and gathering of additional evidence were conducted during
the interviews and afterwards as needed.
Instrument 7: Administrator Interview Guide
The Administrator Interview Guide consisted of semi-structured
questions developed as probes for each research question. Administrator
interviews were designed to take approximately 45-60 minutes and took place
at the school site to help facilitate any requests for documents that might
support verbal responses of activities being conducted in the classroom. The
interview guide was broken down into subgroups that represented different
general themes to be addressed with possible primary and secondary questions
that served as interview probes designed to provide answers for the primary
research questions. During and after the interview, the Teacher Instructional
107
Analysis Guide – Administrative Perspective was completed to assess
interviewee’s responses with regard to the training for teacher with regards to
the new STAR tests and the science teachers’ instructional methods. When
permitted, the researcher also utilized a tape recorder during the interviews.
Observations of the school site and gathering of additional evidence were
conducted during the interviews and afterwards as needed.
In all cases, the science department chairperson was also a current
classroom science teacher but not necessarily an eighth grade science teacher.
The rationale for having the department chairperson take the Administrator
Interview Guide rather than the Teacher Interview Guide was that, as
chairperson, if the teacher did not teach eighth grade science, they would not
have the perspective being investigated. Secondly, a level of consistency as to
what instruments were used with which subjects was desired. Finally, the
department chairperson is typically a part of administrative level meetings both
at the school site level and at the district level that regular classroom teachers
normally do not directly have access too. Being in this position, administrative
or district planning may be made clearer. As the chairperson, similar to the
principal, one function of that position is to disseminate information to the rest
of the science department. The contrast is between the administrators and how
information and directives are being transferred from the district level to the
108
teachers and how teachers are interpreting this information and how it impacts
their classroom instruction.
Instrument 8: Interview Development Chart
The Interview Development Chart was designed to help create possible
interview questions that would serve as probes during the interviews. In
correlation with the research questions, primary and secondary questions were
created. The location of the questions within the Interview Guides is also
provided.
Instrument 9: Concerns Questionnaire About High Stakes Accountability
The final instrument was the Concerns Questionnaire about High
Stakes Accountability and was an adaptation of the Stages of Concern
questionnaire from the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). Research
on the CBAM focused on understanding the change process and viewed
change as a long-term process rather than a discrete event with the key to
successful implementation involving not just the features of the program but
the participants within the school, specifically the classroom teachers,
resources teachers, principals, assistant principals, staff developers and others.
A major assumption with the CBAM is that the change process comes down to
a change in the individual and how they view and act in the classroom. The
CBAM demonstrated key dimensions for facilitating innovation
109
implementation in the classroom and uses diagnostic instruments such as the
Stages of Concern, Levels of Use and Innovation Configurations.
The Stages of Concern (SoC) assesses teacher’s concerns as they
change during the course of implementing an innovation. At the beginning of
the change effort, teachers have more intense concerns about the innovation
will impact them personally. Later, these concern shift to focus on the task of
using the innovation. Finally the concerns involve the impact of the
innovation. The SoC Questionnaire consisted of 35 Likert scale items
designed to assess these stages. The measure yields percentile scores and a
profile of concerns for individuals (Hall, George & Rutherford, 1977).
The teacher’s Levels of Use (LoU) can be assessed through a focused
interview with prescribed questions designed to describe performance changes
as a teacher becomes more familiar with an innovation and gains more skill in
using it. In the beginning, individuals orient themselves to the innovation and
early use is typically mechanical and disjointed. With experience, teachers
develop a routine and begin to refine their use.
The Innovation Configuration (IC) describes the operational form of an
innovation as a teacher uses it. A checklist is used to determine the operational
components and possible variations and includes a checklist of what they
innovation should look like in practice (Hord & Hall, 1987).
110
During the implementation of any new program, there are typically a
number of concerns as to the rationale for the program or how this will impact
them personally. Teacher concerns can be addressed using the SoC that
believes change and innovation is a highly personal process made by
individuals and entails the development and growth of an individual’s feelings
and skills (Hall & Hord, 1987). Foremost in any intervention, there needs to
be a consideration of the people it will impact; their concerns will be at various
levels, each of which should be addressed if the program is to be successful.
The SoC is used as a diagnostic tool when considering any type of
change. There are seven stages of concern about the innovation and each level
is not mutually exclusive nor do individuals necessarily start at the bottom and
work their way up. The first stage (0) is awareness where there is little
concern about or involvement with the innovation by the individual. The
second stage (1) is informational where the individual has a general awareness
of the innovation and interesting learning more details about it. The person
seems to be unworried about him or herself in relation to the innovation but
instead he is interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless
manner such as general characteristics, effects and requirements for use. The
third stage (2) is personal where the individual is uncertain about the demands
of the innovation, his adequacy to meet those demands and his role with the
innovation. This includes analysis of his role in relation to the reward structure
111
of the organization, decision-making and consideration of potential conflicts
with existing structures or personal commitments. Financial or status
implications of the program for self and colleagues may also be reflected. The
fourth stage (3) is management where the attention is focused on the process
and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information and
resources. Issues related to efficiency, organization, managing, scheduling,
and time demands are a priority. The fifth stage (4) is consequence where
attention focuses on the impact of the innovation on students and his
immediate sphere of influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for
students, evaluation of student outcomes, including performance and
competencies, and changes needed to increase student outcomes. The sixth
stage (5) is collaboration where the focus is on coordination with others
regarding the use of the innovation. The seventh stage (6) is refocusing where
the focus is on exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation,
including the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more
powerful alternative. The individual has definite ideas about alternatives to be
proposed or existing forms of the innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987).
Individuals can be at multiple stages at once, but it is typical that one
stage is dominant. It is important to realize that, even though there is a
numerical value associated with the stages, the categories are not nominal but
rather ordinal. This ordinal designation implies that the various stages are
112
simply different and that one stage is not better than another stage, the
categories are simply different. The ordinal rating also implies that the
distance from one category to the next is not equidistant. The goal of the
questionnaire was to find out which stage or stages were most dominant. The
ordinal nature of the instrument will not allow an average score to be
determined during the data analysis but instead only a frequency measurement
was be calculated. The original SoC questionnaire contained 35 items but for
the instrument used during the study, 36 items were included where one item
was duplicated. The rationale for this was to establish and measure the level of
consistency from each subject.
The SoC questionnaire has 35 items with five questions pertaining to
each of the seven stages. This instrument has been highly standardized and
used repeatedly in health and business to help and track how people are doing
reforms to see how they are doing. For this study, the instrument will be used
with only eighth grade science teachers.
The SoC questionnaire is not the only method to assess an individual’s
Stage of Concern. Alternative methods include conducting a short interview or
having the subject write a paragraph that describes their concerns. The
interview was effective for determining what the precise concerns were for the
individual however for this research, the questionnaire was utilized as it gave
113
the most precise measure of what stage the individual was in but is less precise
on identifying their individual concerns.
Conceptual Framework for Instrument Design
Table 2. Relationship between the data collection instruments and the research
questions
RQ 1 RQ2 RQ 3 RQ 4
Teacher Interview Guide x x x x
Administrator Interview Guide x x
After a review of the current literature, the conceptual framework for
the data collection instruments was developed. A matrix demonstrating the
relationship between the data collection instruments and the research questions
is listed on Table 2.
The first conceptual framework (Appendix A) illustrated the factors
that might influence the classroom teacher’s views and subsequent response to
accountability. The second conceptual framework (Appendix B) illustrated the
organization for the two major reform policies and how they were designed to
impact student performance. The frameworks provided the foundation for the
data collection in this study and were developed based on the current research.
114
Framework for the First Research Question
The first research question examined how are science teachers
responding to the new accountability for science, specifically the new science
component on the California STAR test. It also seeks to examine the teachers’
perception relative to their role in a standards-based environment.
Framework for the Second Research Question
The second research question examined the pedagogical skills teachers’
use both outside of the classroom and inside the classroom. Activities outside
the classroom include areas such as using student data or analyzing student
work to help make decisions regarding instruction. Pedagogy inside the
classroom was examined specifically focusing on the student-centered
activities and teacher-centered activities. Based on the NSES, an emphasis on
using inquiry as a pedagogical method was examined.
Framework for the Third Research Question
The third research question examined how the school site or district has
assisted teachers in learning about the new science standards. In addition, it
examined what methods have been encouraged for teachers to take regarding
decisions about curriculum and instruction as well as the type of support do
teachers feel they need to properly teach the new science standards.
115
Framework for the Fourth Research Question
The fourth research question examined the issues that may be
encouraging or impeding teachers’ use of effective pedagogical methods.
These included, but were not limited to, the organizational structure of the
school or science department, the culture of the school or department and
external training relating to the STAR test or science standards.
Data Collection
The school data for this study was collected over a 3-month period
between February 2007 and April 2007. After each interview, preliminary
analysis of the data was performed to ensure that the words and actions were
correctly captured. Multiple sources of data were triangulated in order to
increase the credibility of the results through the convergence of information.
Prior to the data collection period, the researcher completed the
requisite approval process of the study by the university’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB). This process was designed to ensure the protection, both
physical and emotional, of the study participants. Data collection was not
allowed to begin until approval had been obtained from the IRB. In order to
approve the study, IRB required information regarding the purpose of the
study, the population to be studied and the methodology to be used. This
included details regarding the recruitment of the study participants, the
116
procedures to ensure anonymity for voluntary participants as well as storage
and access to data after the study was completed.
All subjects were aware of their right to voluntarily end the interview
and participation at any time. A copy of the Information Sheet provided to the
research participants is in Appendix D. The information obtained from this
research about the districts, schools and interviewees was factual but subjects
were assigned pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. All participation in this
study by the subjects was voluntary and all subjects were assured that every
effort would be taken to assure their anonymity.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine how middle/intermediate
schools and specifically the eighth grade science teachers are adapting their
teaching methods and gaining knowledge in response to the new educational
environment that emphasizes science as a content area that will be assessed
within the California STAR tests. In particular, the methods teachers are using
to propagate understanding both science content and process as well as finding
ways to motivate them to stay in science as well as how the school site is
training or educating teachers on the new science standards.
The 27 interviews were coded according to the four sets of research
questions. The data from the research notes were reviewed to find common
themes or patterns. The Teacher Interview Guide and the Teacher
117
Instructional Analysis Guide were used with the classroom teachers to
determine the extent each participant utilizes teacher-centered or student-
centered activities as well as their individual reaction towards the current
accountability and high-stakes testing. Classroom teachers were also
administered the Concerns Questionnaire about High Stakes Accountability to
determine the dominant stage of concern relative to high stakes accountability.
School site administrators and science department chairpersons were
interviewed with the Administrative Interview Guide and the Teacher
Instructional Analysis Guide for Administrators to provide an alternative
perspective of the activities eighth grade science teachers are performing.
When appropriate, supplemental documentation that supported claims made
during the interviews was incorporated in the analysis. In an effort to increase
internal validity, triangulation of multiple sources of data was used to confirm
and validate results.
Summary
This chapter discussed the research methodology used for this study.
This discussion included a description of the sample and population, data
collection instruments, data collection process, and data analysis. Procedures
for this study included receiving permission from the participating districts,
receiving permission from the participating schools via the principals,
118
conducting interviews, and gathering documents. Data findings, analysis, and
interpretations of each research question are presented in the next chapter.
119
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSION
This chapter presented the findings from a multiple case study of
teachers and their reactions to high stakes accountability. Triangulation was
made from interviewing classroom science teachers, the science department
chairperson and an administrator at each school site to determine the
information provided about and the response to the California Science
Standards and the California STAR test with specific focus on the science
segment of that test. The instructional styles of the teachers were also
examined based on the type of activities teachers perform in the classroom.
The case study methodology was utilized in the data collection that took place
over a three-month period.
The findings were explained in terms of the four sets of research
questions and the accompanying case study guide, which included the
conceptual frameworks, interview guides, and other instrumentations. This
chapter presented and discussed the findings of the study in reference to the
following research questions:
1) How are science teachers responding to the new accountability for
science? How do teachers view their role in a standards-based
environment?
120
2) What pedagogical skills are teachers using outside of the classroom?
What pedagogical skills are teachers using inside the classroom?
3) How are the school site administration and/or school district offering
teachers assistance in learning about the new science standards?
How has the school site been using previous student performance to
make decisions regarding curriculum and instruction?
4) How are teachers obtaining these pedagogical skills? What tools or
impediments exist for teachers to successfully utilize these
pedagogical methods? What type of support do teachers feel they
need to properly teach the new science standards?
This study examined the current forms of teacher instruction in the
classroom as a response to the current standards-based accountability present
in California. Six instruments, described in Chapter 3, were used in the
collection of the data: (1) Case Study Guide (Appendix C); Teacher
Instructional Analysis Guide (Appendix I); Teacher Instructional Analysis
Guide – Administrative Perspective (Appendix J); Teacher Interview Guide
(Appendix K); Administrator Interview Guide (Appendix L); and the Concerns
Questionnaire about High Stakes Accountability (Appendix M). The data
121
collected for this study consisted of interviews with eighth grade science
teachers, science department chairpersons, and school site administrators as
well as a collection of school documents, observations of classrooms, and
reports from the California state and District Websites.
Data Findings
The data findings from the research study were broken down by each
individual research question. Overall, the study consisted of a total of twenty-
seven interviews of school personnel from six different school sites. Pseudo
names were used to identify the names of individual participants, school sites
and districts. The subjects included five school principals, one assistant
principal, six science department chairpersons and two to three eighth grade
science teachers from each school site. At three schools, Mission Hills Middle
School, Ocean Ranch Middle School and East View Intermediate School, only
two eighth grade science teachers agreed to participate in the research. In
addition, two science teachers that did agree to participate in the interview did
not complete the Stages of Concern Questionnaire. At Ocean Ranch Middle
School, the principal was unavailable to participate so the interview was
conducted with the assistant principal. At Beach Hills Middle School, the
department chairperson was out on maternity leave for a portion of the school
year so an additional interview was conducted with both the current and
interim department chairpersons. No additional information was collected
122
from the interim department chairperson therefore the data for the research was
only compiled from the current department chairperson. Interviews were
typically conducted at the respective school site for the participant unless the
interviewee requested an alternative location.
One significant difference between these two districts was that CUSD
had their own district content standards for all subject areas, not just science,
while SVUSD did not. As a result, teachers in SVUSD focused solely on the
California state standards while teachers in CUSD primarily followed their
district standards often to the exclusion of the state standards. Specifically, the
CUSD district standards required different topics to be covered at different
grade levels as compared to the state.
Within the CUSD standards for eighth grade science, the major topic
areas included science fundamentals, chemistry – atomic and molecular,
energy, motion and mechanics, electricity and magnetism, light, sound and
Science, Technology and Society (STS). The specific subtopics for the district
standards were listed in Appendix O. In contrast, the California Science
Standards for eighth grade included the topics of motion, forces, structure of
matter, Earth and the Solar system, chemical reactions, chemistry in living
systems, the Periodic Table, density and buoyancy, and investigation and
experimentation. The specific subtopics for the state standards were listed in
Appendix N. A comparison of the two standards was made in Table 3.
123
Clearly many of the topics do not overlap either in the major categories or even
the subcategories. Essentially only chemistry, which is greatly expanded in the
California standards, the motion and forces section as well as the scientific
experimentation sections are only major areas of overlap.
Table 3. Comparison of the major topics for the California State Science
Standards and the CUSD Science Standards.
Topics California State Standards CUSD Science Standards
Science experimentation X X
Chemistry X X
Energy X
Motion and Forces X X
Electricity and Magnetism X
Light X
Sound X
Science, Technology and
Society
X
Earth Science/Astronomy X
Density and Buoyancy X
For most of the CUSD teachers, a primary area of concern was the
Earth Science/Astronomy portion of the state standards. This particular topic
was included in the sixth grade curriculum within the district standards. As a
result, individual school sites may have addressed this by having sixth grade
124
teachers give the eighth grade teachers a review of astronomy material.
Recognizing this conflict, CUSD was also in the process of changing their
district curriculum to become more aligned with the California State Standards,
however the final draft of those new district standards were not complete at the
completion of this study. By continuing to maintain a separate set of
standards, CUSD will likely propagate the teachers within their district to
focus on the district standards more than the state or national standards.
Research Question 1: Teacher reaction to standards and accountability
The first research question asked, “How are science teachers
responding to the new accountability for science? How do teachers view their
role in a standards-based environment?“ To answer this question of how
teachers are responding to the current accountability, the data was examined to
uncover how familiar teachers were with the California Science Standards and
the STAR test, the science teacher’s reaction to California Science Standards
and statewide accountability, and what teachers have done to directly address
the California Science Standards and the science portion of the STAR test. To
reveal how the teachers view their role within the standards-based
environment, a direct response from teachers were expressed within the
interviews regarding their positions and teachers also took a Stages of
Concerns questionnaire with the results describing their areas of concerns as it
relates to the standards and high-stakes accountability. The analysis for this
125
research question was broken down by each individual school site as well as
having an overall analysis.
Analysis by School Site
HIS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
The familiarity with the California Science Standards and the STAR
test would first require science teachers having access to that information.
According to the principal and department chairperson, the science teachers at
Hillside were each given a copy of the California Science Standards. This was
typically done at the beginning of the school year. Additional information
about the content standards was made available through the California
Department of Education website. The specific web address was provided,
however, there was no specific guidance as to how to maneuver through the
website or what other information could be accessed. In addition, the
California Science Standards were also listed within the course textbooks
making them available to both the students and teachers. Through the
individual interviews, the participating teachers were all aware of and familiar
with the major topic areas of the California Science Standards. All of the
teachers made a passing reference to some subtopic of the standards during the
course of the interview. Two teachers felt the California Science Standards
provided a good, clear focus on what content to cover. Ryan was the only
126
person who was more concerned with the low level, relative to Bloom’s
taxonomy, of expectation for the state standards. As a whole, the eighth grade
science staff at HIS was not familiar with the National Science Education
Standards. However, one teacher was familiar with the NSES and expressed a
personal desire that the state standards were more aligned with the national
standards.
We do a disservice to students when there are so many state-
to-state differences [in terms of concepts for a particular grade].
There should be more discussion to standardize and have more
unification. Then each state can expand and add to it [to
address geographical/regional differences].
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
Regarding the science portion of the STAR test, no additional
information was provided from the school or district beyond the information
available through the state websites that discussed the general topic areas.
Each teacher was familiar with these general topics of the science portion of
the STAR test and felt familiar with the areas being assessed. The teachers
declared that their information for the science portion of the STAR test
primarily came from staff and department meetings through the school site.
With regard to the teachers’ reaction to the science standards and
standards-based accountability, all the teachers were very accepting of the
general concept of accountability however there were concerns with how
students were not being held directly accountable or the other variables,
besides the classroom teacher, that impact student performance.
127
Accountability is great; for the teacher teaching what needs
to be taught to holding students accountable. It is essential.
Do I like the idea of everyone being tested? No, but it needs
to be done and it should validate what you are doing.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
There are so many variables. It is really a team effort: it is
how much the teacher does, how much the student does, how
much support the parents give, how much support the school
gives. I don’t think you can hold one individual responsible
in the process because the teacher can do everything, the
parents can do everything, the school can have every resource
available and if the child simply does not care or does not
want to, the child is not going to achieve and that is their
failure. Sometimes it is a group failure as well. There are
too many variables to have that kind of accountability and
have that much at stake.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
There was also concern in general about the overall accountability system.
Overall I have a problem with the STAR test or in general
accountability to the school or to teachers because the
students are not held accountable for anything they do.
Until the students are held accountable for their answers,
you will have students that do not try because they know
it (the test) will have no effect on them.
-Ryan, HIS science teacher
I think that with science, where it is not tested every year
[for the students]. You are testing an accumulation of
knowledge over several years. It is very difficult to hold
one person accountable at a certain [grade] level if the
students don’t achieve at a certain level. You have to
make sure the students have the prerequisite knowledge
so you can teach them what they need to learn that year
and if they don’t have that knowledge coming in to you,
and you have to spend that time because someone before
you didn’t do their job adequately, then you aren’t going
128
to be able to spend enough time teaching them the things
you are supposed to hit that year and if you don’t they
won’t be successful learning it either. It is a complicated
issue.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
Questions also arose on the validity of the test questions as it directly
applies to science as a content area. The differences between the standards and
the framework also led to confusion as to what specifically to cover and to
what depth as well as concerns related to the nature of science.
The standards were so specific in some areas that it did not
really test for a real knowledge of the subject matter. It was
too focused on fact and we deal with process a lot. For
example, with the periodic table, the use of it versus the
specific facts of it.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
That is the main failure for the STAR test, especially for
science; it does a great job of assessing knowledge retention
but it really misses what science is – it is a process of discovery.
The logical processing skills and the scientific method - that
is what you really want the students to learn. You want them
to think, inquiry and that is immeasurable.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
Even with the standards-based accountability system now in place and
the general agreement that there was a need for common standards, teachers
were surprising vague in the specific actions taken that have changed their
classroom instruction or planning to address the California Science Standards
or the science portion of the STAR test. The only emphasis was to make sure
129
the appropriate content from the California Science Standards were specifically
addressed and helped teachers focus on what to teach and what not to teach in
the classroom. Some teachers even portrayed an attitude of not wanting to
change their instruction at all and resisted the idea of “teaching to a test.”
I just structure [my lessons] so the bulk is covered before
the [STAR] test.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
I hope not. I disliked changing for the [STAR] test. I have
looked at the test and make sure I cover the material on the test.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
Specifically [have I changed anything] for the STAR test? No.
-Ryan, HIS science teacher
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
During the interview, teachers were asked to describe the role they felt
they had within the current standards-based accountability system that exists in
public education. The role teachers saw themselves in within this environment
was typically generic as an educator but in some cases with more concentrated
focus on the content.
My role is to teach the appropriate material so students feel
they are successful and prepared but in a way that the test is
not emphasized but rather the process and learning they need
to have. I do not like the idea of teaching to the test; I teach
the subject matter and a whole lot more.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
130
My role is to build life long learners, not just teach content
knowledge. It is to get them excited about learning.
-Ryan, HIS science teacher
The final teacher took a slightly different perspective and considered
the question more from the standpoint of accountability and the role of the
STAR test as it impacts the classroom instruction.
I try to not think about the STAR test. I believe it is just one
measure and it does not give you a complete view of what the
child has learned. For me, I appreciate the feedback that it does
give and the information because I think it is important and
it does have value but I don’t stress out about it. I know what
I have to teach and I teach it in the best manner that I can and
I try to improve upon that every year as I grow as a teacher.
I get feedback from my students and try to make it better for
them, so they get more out of it. I think that is how you
measure [what a student has learned] not through a test.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
The SoC questionnaire was used as a diagnostic tool to determine
which stage(s) of concern the individual was most concerned about. The
questionnaire focused on teacher’s reaction to the current high stakes
accountability system and allowed the researcher to understand how they
viewed their role within this system as measured by their different types of
concern. The SoC stages are not mutually exclusive nor do individuals
necessarily progress sequentially from the first to last stage. In this case, the
innovation would refer to the high stakes accountability, the presence of
content standards and standardized testing.
131
The first stage (0) is awareness where there is little concern about or
involvement with the innovation by the individual. The second stage (1) is
informational where the individual has a general awareness of the innovation
and interesting learning more about the innovation regarding general
characteristics, effects or requirements for use. The third stage (2) is personal
where the individual considers the demands of the innovation, the reward
structure, or consideration of potential conflicts. The fourth stage (3) is
management where the attention is focused on the process and tasks of using
the innovation and the best use of information and resources. The fifth stage
(4) is consequence where attention focuses on the impact of the innovation on
students, evaluation of student outcomes, and changes needed to increase
student outcomes. The sixth stage (5) is collaboration where the focus is on
coordination with others regarding the use of the innovation. The seventh
stage (6) is refocusing where there is the possibility of making modifications or
major changes to improve the innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987).
Individuals can be at multiple stages at once, but it is typical that one
stage is dominant. It is important to realize that, even though there is a
numerical value associated with the stages, the categories are not nominal but
rather ordinal. This ordinal designation implies that the various stages are
simply different and that one stage is not better than another stage, the
categories are simply different. The ordinal rating also implies that the
132
distance from one category to the next is not equidistant. The goal of the
questionnaire was to find out which stage or stages were most dominant. The
original SoC questionnaire contained 35 items but for the instrument used
during the study 36 items were included where one item was duplicated. The
rationale for including this duplicate question within the questionnaire was to
establish and measure the level of consistency from each subject in terms of his
or her responses. Subjects that report similar answers on the duplicate question
would demonstrate a high level of consistency while those that reported
dissimilar answers on an identical question would demonstrate a low level of
consistency. This low consistency may reflect a low level of attention paid to
the questionnaire during the administration.
Table 4 was a summary of the average score from the SoC
questionnaire for HIS teachers. Scores were between a range of 1-7 and were
averaged from the five questions for each stage of concern on the
questionnaire.
Table 4. Average SoC score for HIS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Laurie-
HIS 2.6 6.6 3.4 6.8 5.4 1 3
Keith-
HIS 4 3.8 3.5 3.2 4.6 4 3.2
Ryan-
HIS 2.2 6.2 2.8 4.2 4.6 6 5.4
133
The scores were ordinal data, which indicated they were rankings rather than
actual values and indicated frequency. The analysis primarily focused on the
first five SoC levels: awareness, informational, personal, management and
consequence. The last two SoC levels, collaboration and refocusing, were
analyzed separately. The major area of concern was that stage that had the
highest overall score while other areas of concern were those stages that had a
score of over 3.5. For Laurie, the major area of concern was the management
stage with other concern areas being the informational and consequence stages.
For Keith, the major area of concern was the consequence stage with additional
concern areas being the awareness, informational and personal stages. For
Ryan, the major area of concern was the informational stage with other
concern areas being the management and consequence stages. For the
collaboration and refocusing stages, only Keith, with collaboration, and Ryan,
with both collaboration and refocusing, had a concern level over 3.5. As a
group, both Keith and Ryan had five of the seven categories as a concern with
a score over 3.5 and all three teachers held concerns specifically with the
informational and consequence stages.
It may be significant to note that Keith, however, demonstrated a low
level of consistency with his responses on the SoC questionnaire. For the
duplicate question, Keith rated it once as consequence and the second time as
refocusing which are two stages apart. This may indicate that he did not
134
carefully, consistently or accurately respond to the questionnaire. Laurie
demonstrated higher consistency by responding with the same stage while
Ryan also had high consistency by responding with collaboration and
refocusing, which are only one stage apart.
EVIS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
At East View, to allow familiarity with the standards, the
administration also provided their science teachers with a copy of the
California Science Standards but it was primarily the department chair’s
responsibility to help educate and inform teachers as well as ensure that all the
standards were being taught in the classroom. Teachers were given copies of
the standards at the beginning of the school year in department meetings.
Information about the California Department of Education website was also
made available. Supplemental material that accompanied the textbook also
provided information about the standards. Both teachers interviewed cited
specific topics from the standards to demonstrate their familiarity. This
discussion went beyond just topics to a critique of the standards, how the
standards were organized and questioned the depths to which topics should be
covered. Both teachers approved of the idea of having content standards. Nick
spent additional time outside of the science department or school meetings to
135
become more familiar with the California Science Standards and the California
Science Framework and found areas that led to confusion.
I like the idea of standards, I like the fact that it gets or
attempts to get everyone on the same page. I don’t like how
the standards are organized; they are disjointed and out of
order the topics jump around there is no clarity of what they
are looking for, it leaves a lot of grey. You have to go to the
framework and that turns into a month’s worth of teaching.
I am a newer teacher; I have to really interact with those
standards and ask how much do I expand this sentence in the
framework and what depths do we go?
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
Gabby also had issues with California Science Standards but for different
reasons, however she did feel the standards provided more of a focus for her
teaching.
I just don’t think they are specific enough across the grade
level. I think there is not a continuum [going year to year].
I think they should do fewer content standards and higher
complexity as you go up in grade level. We just teach to
the standards. We look and if something is not part of the
standards, we are not teaching it.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
These teachers were not familiar with the NSES; they stated that they
were aware the NSES existed but were not familiar with them and did not use
them. For the STAR test, the blueprint provided by the state allowed teachers
to know the area of emphasis that their instruction should cover and the
knowledge of the curriculum permitted the proper emphasis and time was
136
spent on that content. The teachers were familiar with the topics on the STAR
test since they correlated with the California Science Standards.
With regard to the standards-based accountability, their reaction was
positive but with limitations; primarily their concerns were with the
accountability system as a whole, details about the standards and how to hold
parents accountable.
I would like to know how the standards are translated into
specific test questions the wording is also difficult, in reading
through the test, it was not the type of test we would give our
kids in school. I just don’t think they are specific enough across
the grade level. I think there is not a continuum [going year
to year]. I think they should do fewer content standards and
higher complexity as you go up in grade level.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
On the surface, I love the idea of accountability. What is
difficult for me, and it will never happen, how do we hold
the parents accountable? There is a great example in reading.
Look at how many hours kids spend with teachers versus the
hours they spend with their parents. Where is the true education
need to come from? It is part a reflection of our society, with so
many parents working, teachers are the easy one to hold
accountable. They are the easy target. I want to see more of a
partnership. The PLC needs to include parents and all aspects
of the student there is only so much a teacher can do with the time
they are given. Once that student leaves the classroom, something
has to happen when they get home.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
There were also concerns expressed about different classes of students with
different needs and how the testing system took that into consideration as well
as the nature of the STAR test itself.
137
I am not in favor of [standardized testing] because we all have
different classes, it is not necessarily how we teach that comes
through. I have SDC classes and honors classes, it is night and
day, you teach them the same way and the same content but you
will not have the same result.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
I learned earlier, this year’s class, they don’t do things at
home. I have to go slower and do it with them. The problem
is pacing; when [there are common standards and people]
expect the regular class to pace with an honors class.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
With standards-based accountability in place, very little was done to
specifically address the science portion of the STAR test in the classroom. The
California Science Standards were the focus of the classroom instruction but
only one teacher designed test questions to be similar to STAR exam
questions. No other changes in instruction, specifically for the STAR test,
were done.
I will ask questions that I know are similar [in both content and
format] to what is on the STAR test.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
I used to just teach what was in the book; now I teach what
is in the standards.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
The role teachers saw themselves in within this standards-based
environment was strikingly similar with a distinct focus on the standards.
138
My role is that I am responsible for carrying out the standards.
I am willing to do that and hope that everyone else is willing to
do the same thing.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
My role is to interpret the standards and be the facilitator of the
learning to get the kids to the understanding of those standards.
I have to orchestrate the whole learning process for science for
kids, making sure I am constantly looking back at the standards
and that my lessons, labs, everything is aimed at getting them to
the understanding. You master the standards first; if you have
time, you can get to other content and ideas.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
Table 5 was a summary of the average score from the SoC
questionnaire for EVIS teachers.
Table 5. Average SoC score for EVIS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Nick-
EVIS 3.2 6 3.2 3.4 4.8 3.6 4.2
Gabby-
EVIS 2.4 3.4 2.8 5.8 5.6 6.4 3
The major area of concern was that stage that had the highest overall score
while other areas of concern were those stages that had a score of over 3.5.
For Nick, the major area of concern was the informational stage with other
concern area being the consequence stage. For Gabby, the major area of
concern was the management stage with other concern area also being the
139
consequence stage. For the collaboration and refocusing stages, Nick had a
concern level over 3.5 for collaboration and refocusing but Gabby only had a
concern level over 3.5 for collaboration. For the duplicate question, both Nick
and Gabby had high consistency with Nick having the exact same response
while Gabby selected stages that were next to each other, collaboration and
refocusing. As a group, both Nick and Gabby had the consequence stage as a
significant concern in common.
LVIS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
At Lake View, the administration provided a copy of the California
Science Standards for only new teachers with the assumption that veteran
teachers were already familiar with them and had a copy. There was also a
copy within the science workroom that all the science teachers had access too.
Other information was made available to the science teachers by the
department chair regarding the CDE website. The supplemental textbook
material was also available to provide assistance. During the interviews, the
classroom teachers at Lake View demonstrated a deep familiarity with the
California State Science Standards as they expressed their concerns arising
from their internal discussions about the standards.
It seems like we have to teach a little bit of everything rather
than getting deep into any real learning. It is [also] hard if the
kids don’t test well and everything is determined on the test.
There is talk about using the results and ranking teachers; that
140
is going to make teachers teach to the test more and not focus
on “real learning.” This accountability is taking away from the
learning environment when so much value and emphasis is
placed on one test.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
I think the standards are a little too advanced for the kid’s
understanding. They are not well defined – we pour through
the framework trying to figure out exactly what to cover and
what to whittle out.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
The lab procedure standards could be more imbedded in the
curriculum standards…..You have to set standards, it is a
necessary evil. I do have issue with how the standards are
tested. They are tested largely using multiple-choice tests
but that does not necessarily indicate they can connect the
dots and make the connections. They know a lot of facts
but they don’t know how they work together as well as
they could.
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
However, despite any concerns they may have, the teachers seemed to
be used to using the standards. An excellent example of how the teachers used
and accessed the standards came when, during the interview, Andrew took out
his copy of the standards to specifically cite one subsection. The teachers at
LVIS were not familiar with the NSES. Only the department chair was
familiar with them despite the fact there was an accessible copy in their science
workroom.
In terms of the science portion of the STAR test, there was additional
information provided aside from the published information that was accessible
on the Internet from the state documenting general areas of the test and
141
percentages of questions. All of the teachers expressed a feeling of familiarity
with the general topics on the STAR test but would like to have more training.
I want to better translate the standards into the STAR test
questions so I can teach my kids what is on the test.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
There were also concerns expressed about the quality of the STAR test and
how the science portion relates to how real science is done.
I do not feel a multiple choice test does not reach all
learners and some questions are written at a language
level that is difficult but if they are going to tell me
what to teach and test that, I am cool with it.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
In real science, they can guess and get close to the right
answer without really knowing. A multiple-choice test
does not necessary indicate [students] can connect the
dots and make the connections. [Doing well on a
multiple-choice test means] they know a lot of facts
but they don’t [necessarily] know how they work together
as well as they could.
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
Other issues involved the impact of the accountability on the students. The
teachers’ reaction to accountability included positive reactions but there were
also concerns that it was taking away from the learning environment.
We all love science, but I … know what is on the standards.
I like the cut and dry; these are the topics, this is what you
are going to teach.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
142
That is going to make teachers teach to the test more and not
focus on ‘real learning’.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
With the standards-based accountability in place, teachers described the
California Science Standards more as a focus of their instruction but aside
from a review prior to the testing, there was nothing significant being done in
the classroom to specifically address the science portion of the STAR test.
The only thing that was changed for the test was to make
a review for the test a few days before and focus more on
reviewing what was done earlier in the year and on the
astronomy this year she also posts learning goals on the
board for students.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
The role teachers saw themselves in within this standards-based
environment was typically generic as an educator with a desire to maintain the
student’s interest in science.
I do not want to teach to the test. I do follow the standards.
My goal is to help kids understand the main ideas of the
standards and hopefully do well on the state test but I want
them to enjoy and explore science. It is also just eighth
grade so I want them to leave with an interest in science
in general and hopefully will remember some of the standards.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
I still want the kids to have that “ohh and ahh” experience.
That is what is going to keep them interested in science. I
have seen a shift; we are more building vocabulary and a
framework that they need for high school and further studies
but if we bore them to tears they are not going to take those
143
lessons. The standards gives us a list of topics and we have
to work our magic within that list.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
My role is to help students make those connections and
connect the dots try to get them to create their own learning.
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
Table 6 was a summary of the average score from the SoC
questionnaire for LVIS teachers.
Table 6. Average SoC score for LVIS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Anne-
LVIS 2.4 5 4.2 4.6 2.8 2.2 3.8
Andrew-
LVIS 3.2 2.4 1.6 2.2 2.4 2 2.4
For Anne, the major area of concern was the informational stage with other
concern areas being the personal and management stages. For Andrew, the
major area of concern was also the informational stage with no other concern
areas being over the 3.5 average. For the collaboration and refocusing stages,
only Anne had a concern level over 3.5 for the refocusing stage.
For the duplicate question, both Anne and Andrew did not have high
consistency as Anne reported the personal and collaboration stages which were
separated by two stages while Andrew selected the personal and consequence
144
stages which were separated by one stage. This indicated they might not have
carefully or accurately taken the survey. As stated previously, Maggie did not
complete the SoC questionnaire.
BHMS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
One major issue that arose during all the interviews, applying to not
just Beach Hills but also to Mission Hills, Ocean Ranch and all the other
schools in CUSD, was the existence of separate district eighth grade science
standards that did not correlate with the eighth grade California State Science
Standards. Most teachers were teaching more to the district standards rather
than the state standards, however conversations were being made at the time on
a district level to reorganize the district standards to more closely resemble the
state standards.
According to the principal and department chair at BHMS, to allow for
familiarity to the standards, a copy of the California State Standards was
provided to the science teachers. The science department also had specific
department meetings to review the differences between the state and the
district so that gaps could be identified. Multiple meetings were spent making
comparisons between the state standards and the individual teacher’s
curriculum maps typically based on the district standards, that outline what
content to cover. These differences were discussed within their departments to
145
reveal what areas teachers might need to focus their instruction on. These
individual differences were also used to make individual teacher performance
goals. The California Science Standards were also listed in the school
textbook however no teacher made mention of this. All of the science teachers
demonstrated familiarity with the standards during the interviews as they
referenced different topics. Teachers stated that they felt the California State
Standards were fair and balanced but were often not as familiar with the state
standards as they were with the district standards. There was also a bias
towards the district standards in feeling that the state standards were missing
topics that were covered in the district standards. Two teachers expressed that
they just use the district standards and not the state standards.
[State] standards are missing all sorts of subjects. In
eighth grade, they left out magnetism, light, and electricity.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
I feel they [state standards] are fair and balanced as can be.
I don’t feel that is appropriate. I feel some of the things they
are taking out are useful [such as Electricity & Magnetism]
outside of the classroom.
-Stacey, BHMS science teacher
Before the state testing, we just focused on our district
standards and ignored the state standards because, in my
opinion, our district standards are more well written than
the state standards. They are more specific.
-Tina, BHMS department chair
146
Overall, the teachers were not familiar with the NSES. Only one teacher was
familiar with the national standards and reacted by saying:
As far as the national standards, it is good we have them,
but it is too bad that there is no follow through and no
state follows them.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
For the STAR test, the science department looked at release test
questions and the blueprint outlining the topics and percentage of questions on
the test. With the encouragement of the administration, teachers also created
homework assignments and a small bank of questions that took a similar
format as the STAR test to help provide additional experience for students
seeing questions in that format. The BHMS science department also utilized
other student data such as the reading comprehension and writing test scores to
help make their individual teaching goals. Concerns about the STAR test
included the type of question asked and the limited or lack of higher level
thinking on the STAR test.
The one test a year is bad. It [also] does not look at Bloom’s
[taxonomy], multiple intelligences, or inquiry-based learning.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
The questions are often deceiving; they are written where
the child may know the answer but not be able to figure it
out. The questions are too round about and not straight
forward. It is more a reading test rather than a knowledge
test. It is also not a science deductive test.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
147
There was also concern with the punitive aspect of accountability and the
impact on different student populations as well as the practical implications
both for students and teachers.
I think teachers should be accountable but every school has
a different population and all students have to take it. It is
not fair if you have different populations [SES, languages,
GATE, etc.]. [Another] concern is with the kids going out
into the work force and are they prepared?
-Stacey, BHMS science teacher
One problem is that the test is only in eighth grade.
Someone might think I can just teach seventh because I
will not held accountable so then eighth grade teachers
will look bad if seventh grade teachers are not held
accountable [and so on]. You need it [testing] for every
grade.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
With standards-based accountability in place, BHMS as a school did
specific things to prepare students for the STAR test such as conducting school
wide test preparation review with students and quizzing the student body via
the morning announcements by asking a “question of the day.” The science
department chairperson and principal described how teachers also made STAR
related review test questions and created tests that were in the STAR test
format. An obvious focus was to have each teacher cover the appropriate
content as stated by the standards. However when asked individually teachers
did not mention any other instructional activities, beyond these school-wide or
148
department-wide activities, they did for the STAR test or to help cover the
standards.
What have I done for the STAR test? Nothing, they are
over prepared.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
The role teachers saw themselves in within this standards-based
environment was typically being responsible for implementing the curriculum.
My role is to cover the curriculum; make sure I teach what
I need to teach I always cover above and beyond what I need
to cover and I test where it is required.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
My role is to use the standards and help guide me in what I teach.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
Table 7. Average SoC score for BHMS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Stacey-
BHMS 3.4 3.4 3.6 2.4 6 2.8 5.4
Jared-
BHMS 1.8 4.6 3.8 4 6.2 5.6 5.6
Table 7 was a summary of the average score from the SoC
questionnaire for BHMS teachers. For Stacey, the major area of concern was
the consequence stage with the only other major concern area being the
149
personal stage. For Jared, the major area of concern was also the consequence
stage with other concern areas being the informational, personal and
management stages. As a group, both of the teachers had the consequence
stage as the area of highest concern. For the collaboration and refocusing
stages, Stacey had a concern level over 3.5 for the refocusing stage while Jared
had a concern level over 3.5 for the collaboration and refocusing stages. As a
group, both teachers also had the personal stage and the refocusing stage as
other areas of concern. For the duplicate question, both Stacey and Jared had
high consistency with Stacey having the exact same response while Jared
selected stages that were next to each other, collaboration and refocusing. Lisa
did not take the SoC questionnaire.
MHMS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
The administration at Mission Hills provided copies of the California
Science Standards to offer familiarity to their science teachers and also
discussed them during their yearly evaluation meetings with teachers. These
meetings typically occurred at the beginning of the school year. The
responsibility of getting additional information about the state standards was
primarily left to the teachers whereas providing copies of the district standards
was more emphasized by this administration. The classroom teachers at
Mission Hills were aware and familiar with the California State Science
150
Standards however the issue of the conflict between the district standards and
the state arose again. One teacher was very familiar with all three sets of
standards (district, state and national) and commented on each.
The best are the national standards. If California went
to the national, textbooks could be cheaper but since
California has their own standards, textbooks have to
be specially made for California. The differences are
mostly trivial and the order [of the topics] is better at
the national level.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
The other teacher was more focused on the district standards, she did
not like how the state standards did not match with the district standards and
was not familiar with the national standards. The impression was that prior to
this focus, she was probably not aware or familiar with the state standards prior
to mandatory testing.
I like the district standards when I get to organize it.
With the state, I have to rearrange the topics because
the STAR test. I want to teach E&M [electricity and
magnetism] and I do feel some of the concepts are
helpful in understanding.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
In terms of the STAR test, teachers were provided with the sample
release questions by the administration. Information from the state website
was discussed but not made an emphasis from the administration. In recent
history, the administration has not had a strong emphasis on the STAR test in
the past but there were indications that may change in the future.
151
[We are starting to] make tests look like the STAR test.
-James, MHMS department chair
What goes on outside the STAR test is still important.
Remember what goes on in the classroom and our own
assessments are also important. Now we focus on
common course objects/power standards – our
departments designed those. You can use that data just
as much as STAR data but recently, our test scores did
not grow so we may be trying to make a new push
focusing on the STAR again.
-Emmitt, MHMS principal
The teachers were also familiar with the STAR test. One did not have
that much experience as she had been out on a leave and only recently returned
to the classroom but the other was very familiar with the testing; a prior
position in a different district as the curriculum coordinator helped provide
specifics.
[The STAR test] is too early in the year. The test should
be in June – so I have enough time to cover everything.
I feel like I have to smash too much curriculum in by
April.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
Most of the concerns about the STAR test were more with regard to the
accountability system and concern for the students.
My fear is, even if we do well and reach a certain level,
are they [the state or district] going to leave us alone or
is it going to be that they always want growth? Is it fair
to the students to always want more even if they are
already meeting what they need?
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
152
My concern is – stop changing the test. They change the
emphasis so I don’t know if I am teaching what I should
[because they made changes and just added something].
I don’t agree to teaching to the test but I do want to teach
what is on it so the kids can have a chance.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
I like the idea of the STAR test but against how it is used.
I think making the schools accountable for students is
wrong. [If students do not try on the test it is the school]
that gets punished for it. I would prefer to have the test
be an individual assessment for kids, not for a grade but
for accountability – if you are at [a hypothetical score of]
690 one year, you should be improving the next. Also, if
you got results back early enough, you could use it for a
gauge going into high school and then kids would take it
more seriously and it would mean more to them.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
I should be held accountable for what I do but is not fair
to put all students at the same level students who have
only been here 12 months versus those who have been
here their whole lives. I don’t like comparing everyone
to everyone else and it is not really fair then to pass
judgment on my ability as a teacher [when the type of
students teachers get are different].
I don’t want kids to dislike science; I want to make sure
they like science, learn what they need to learn to be
successful, and do that though the science curriculum.
I give them engaging activities and let them grow.
Probably because of the ticky-tacky language – [the
STAR test] don’t test for the big picture, I see it more
book oriented, more written material rather than
experimentation.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
With the standards-based accountability in place, teachers discussed the
California Science Standards more as a focus of their instruction but there was
153
little being done in the classroom to specifically address the science portion of
the STAR test aside from concentrating on the content standards and trying to
make students more familiar with the testing format.
I have reorganized the curriculum and used more multiple
choice questions [like math problems]. They don’t do well
particularly with problems with the units [compared to when
they do problems and] they work it out by hand.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
Two changes in my instruction [in 10 years of teaching].
I used to pick and choose at the beginning [first 2 years]
where I could teach what I wanted to. Now I don’t with
standards. I have also reorganize the order of when topics
are covered [chemistry and physics were flipped semesters].
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
The role each of these teachers saw themselves in within this standards-
based environment was one where the teacher adapted to having specific
standards to teach.
My role is changing from a person who introduces science
and does hands on lab work to more of a facilitator of this is
the information. The STAR test has no lab components, it is
more “do you remember the facts and can you manipulate it.”
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
My role is to teach what the district asks and have the
students learn the science skills so they can go on and
do what they want in science in high school [for college
prep or the minimum and be successful]. I don’t want
154
kids to dislike science – I want to make sure they like
science, learn what they need to learn to be successful,
and do that though the science curriculum. Give them
engaging activities and let them grow, have them do
problem-solving.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
Table 8. Average SoC score for MHMS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Joseph-
MHMS 3 5.6 4.2 5.2 5.6 6.2 5.6
Danielle-
MHMS 3 6 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.6 2.8
Table 8 was a summary of the average score from the SoC
questionnaire for MHMS teachers. For Joseph, the major areas of concern
were the informational and consequence stages which both had an average of
5.6 with other concern areas being the personal and management stages. For
Danielle, the major area of concern was the informational stage with other
concern areas also being the personal and management stages. As a group,
they both held the informational stage as their highest area of concern as well
as having significant concern for the personal and management stages as well.
For the collaboration and refocusing stages, Joseph had a concern level over
3.5 for the collaboration and refocusing stages while Danielle had a concern
level over 3.5 for the collaboration stage. As a group, they both held high
155
concern for the collaboration stage. For the duplicate question, both Joseph
and Danielle demonstrated high consistency with both Joseph and Danielle
recording the exact same response.
ORMS
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
At Ocean Ranch, the administration gave copies of the California
Science Standards to the department chair to distribute to the rest of the science
staff. This was done once at the beginning of the school year, primarily to new
teachers. Additional information was available through the state website or
supplemental textbook materials but neither the teachers nor the administration
made reference to this. The classroom teachers were aware and familiar with
the California State Science Standards however one teacher was much less
familiar as he was just coming back to teaching science after five years.
It has been 5 years since he has taught science so I am rusty.
I am relearning the standards as we go along. Regarding the
content, I know it [the STAR test] will cover the standards.
I teach social studies as well and a concern that I have for
science [and he already has for social studies] is there going
to be stuff that is on the test that has not been covered yet
[there has not been time in the school year to cover it].
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
Again, the issue of the conflict between the state standards and the district
standards arose and both teachers were much more familiar with the district
156
compared to the state. Both teachers were vaguely aware the national
standards existed.
Information about the STAR test, such as release questions and content
area topics, came from the district and were passed on through to the
department chair. Teachers should have received this information in a science
department meeting. No other information was provided beyond the topics
and the sample questions. Both teachers felt familiar with the science content
of the STAR test and looked at release questions. One teacher also mentioned
participating in a laboratory training that was specifically related to the
standards however the other teacher did not mention attending this training.
Their reaction to standards and accountability was tempered with other
concerns with the implication of accountability system.
I understand why we do it [have accountability]; it serves a
purpose. You have to have some type of mandate to show
the progress of schools and I have no problem with that.
Schools need to be accountable; when there are subject areas
that are lacking, something needs to be addressed. But it
does not have to be punitive; [the test results] provides data
for the administration, this is what you are doing right and
this is what you are not. Now we can channel our energy
into making improvements where we need be. My concern,
in terms of an authentic assessment, there are whole portions
[of the STAR test] that are not [authentic]. The social
studies section is a joke, most of it is rote and my fear is
that science is going to be the same. The majority of the
questions, of what I have seen in the past and it might
change, are rote memory based questions that do not test
the students’ skills they develop in social studies. The idea
of seeing and identifying long-term trends, the importance
of various topics [is not on the test] – this is a classic
157
criticism. This is the first year I will have administered it
[the science STAR] so I really don’t know.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
The purpose of the standards is good; the goal is for students
to achieve but I feel like the standards take the teachers’ focus
away from the student. The focus is so involved in the
instruction so that every child can get it, you cannot pace it
towards the individual kid. It is so focused on the test, the
results of the test, how they are going to do, or how to teach
the kids how to take the test that the actual learning of the
material is an afterthought.
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
With the standards-based accountability in place, teachers discussed the
California Science Standards more as a focus of their instruction but within the
science classes there was nothing unique being done in the classroom to
specifically address the science portion of the STAR test. However, on a
school wide level, Ocean Ranch Middle School conducted a school wide test
review for the STAR test.
At ORMS, we have a full one-day review; we give the
students a copy of the standards, and have them turn them
into essential questions. There are no other real changes
in the classroom instruction.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
No one made a big deal about the science part [of the
STAR test]. Teachers are more vested in it than the
administration. The only thing has mainly been aligning
the standards.
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
158
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
The role teachers saw themselves in within this standards-based
environment was typically generic as an educator with less emphasis on the
standards.
Do my best to make sure the kids are prepared to move
up to the next grade and if a byproduct is that they do
well on the STAR test, great.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
We still use labs – corresponds to the standards, allow
the students to actively use science, take the material
and show them how the [content] can be used in a
variety of ways.
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
Table 9 was a summary of the average score from the SoC questionnaire
for ORMS teachers.
Table 9. Average SoC score for ORMS science teachers.
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Kalika-
ORMS 2 6.2 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.8 5.8
Troy-
ORMS 1 3.2 5 4 3.6 4.6 5.4
For Kalika, the major area of concern was the informational stage with other
concern areas being the personal, management and consequence stages. For
Troy, the major area of concern was the personal stage with other concern
159
areas being the management and consequence stages. As a group, both
teachers had concerns in the personal, management and consequence stages.
For both the collaboration and refocusing stages, Kalika and Troy had a
concern level over 3.5 and overall the teachers expressed a high concern in
almost every category. For the duplicate question, both Troy and Kalika had
high consistency. Troy responded with stages that were next to each other,
collaboration and consequence, while Kalika selected stages that were also
next to each other, collaboration and refocusing.
Overall Analysis
Reaction to Science Content Standards and Accountability
Tables 10 and 11 summarize the teachers’ familiarity and training with
STAR test, state and national standards within their respective districts.
Table 10. SVUSD teachers’ familiarity and training with STAR test, state and
national standards.
Familiar
with CSS
School/District
training on CSS
Familiar with
NSES
School/District training on science
portion of the STAR test
Laurie-HIS Y N Y N
Keith-HIS Y N N N
Ryan-HIS Y N N N
Nick-EVIS Y N N N
Gabby-EVIS Y N N N
Anne-LVIS Y N N N
Andrew-LVIS Y N N N
160
Table 11. CUSD teachers’ familiarity and training with STAR test, state and
national standards.
Familiar
with CSS
School/District
training on CSS
Familiar with
NSES
School/District training on science
portion of the STAR test
Stacey-BHMS Y Y Y Y
Jared-BHMS Y Y N Y
Lisa-BHMS Y Y N Y
Joseph-MHMS Y N Y N
Danielle-MHMS Y N N N
Kalika-ORMS Y Y N N
Troy-ORMS Y N N N
As a group, all the teachers were familiar with the CSS but with the exception
of BHMS, there were no schools that offered additional training for teachers to
work with and better understand those standards and how to relate them to
classroom instruction. Overall, most teachers were also not familiar with the
NSES. Again, with the exception of BHMS, there were also no schools that
structured specific training for teachers on the STAR test specifically geared
towards the science portion.
From the perspective of the analyzing the reactions of all of the science
teachers as one group, a few findings come to light. The reaction of science
teachers to high stakes accountability would clearly be impacted by their
familiarity with the different aspects of the accountability system. As
described in Framework A (Appendix A), multiple factors influence both the
teacher’s views on as well as the teacher’s response to high stakes
161
accountability. In this case, some of those aspects include being familiar with
the different science standards and the science portion of the STAR test as well
as what support they are given from their administration.
In a review of some of the findings in no particular order, in general,
science teachers were given a copy of the California State Science Standards
but the action by the school or district was typically passive in that little direct
instruction or assistance was provided to teachers that would allow them to
interpret the standards or convert the standards into specific classroom lessons.
Normally it was left to the individual teacher, perhaps to work with others
within their department, to create the connection between identifying a specific
content standard and teaching an effective lesson to students that would convey
that content standard.
Second, teachers were overwhelmingly unfamiliar with the Nationals
Science Educational Standards and did not use them to help guide their
instruction. Teachers were more familiar with the California standards,
however teachers within the CUSD were also following their district standards.
This attention to and familiarity with the California Science Standards
appeared to be recent and likely in correlation with the accountability for
science on the STAR test. It is clear that the accountability through the STAR
test has had an impact on what content is covered in the classroom.
162
Third, the teachers also expressed a familiarity with the topics on the
science portion of the STAR test but there was little to indicate there was either
any training or classroom instruction performed by classroom teachers to
prepare students specifically for the science portion of the STAR test, with the
exception of the teachers at BHMS. There was also nothing to indicate that
any training existed to have teachers translate the standards into sample test
questions.
Teachers’ Views and SoC Responses
As classroom teachers, different issues can be taken into consideration
simultaneously and should be addressed when considering the type of
instruction on a given topic. Most obviously there is the content to consider or
what is taught. There would also be pedagogical considerations or how the
content is taught. Another issue would be who will learn the content or the
student population as well as how the students understanding will be measured
or the assessment instrument. Each of these individual issues would ultimately
influence the other issues as well.
There are similar issues to consider as they directly apply to high stakes
accountability and specifically the STAR test and the California Science
Standards. Many of the concerns that the science teachers expressed dealt with
these issues. In terms of content, teachers often questioned the specific content
within the state standards, the arrangement of topics or the depths to which
163
those topics should be taught. There were also concerns with the student
population and the equity of assessing students with the same instrument
despite the inequity of the background students come to the classroom with in
regards to their language and cultural differences or personal academic history.
Many teachers expressed concerns with the actual assessment tool, in this case
the STAR test itself, and the validity of the instrument as a multiple-choice test
or the type of questions utilized. Primarily these would all be external, relative
to the teacher, concerns about the standards-based accountability. With the
exception of the teachers from EVIS, there were no pedagogical concerns,
which would be more an internal concern, from teachers and how their
decisions regarding classroom instruction would impact this dynamic of how
the content is taught and how students perform on the STAR test. Other areas
of concerns centered on the accountability system as a whole with regard to
issues such as what the results of the STAR test are used for or the lack of
direct accountability placed on the students.
In the discussions with teachers, each expressed concerns with the
standards or the STAR test. The list of various teacher concerns, detailed in
Table 12, only is reflective of specific concerns expressed by the teachers
during the interviews. Clearly the teachers may also possess more than one
concern at a time.
164
Table 12. List of various teacher concerns.
Number
assignment
Teacher Concern
1. Students not held directly accountable for the results
2. Unfair to hold schools or teachers accountable
3. Unequal student populations (language, background)
4. Neglects the real process of science
5. Science is not tested every year (for all grades)
6. Too many other variables to place responsibility on just teachers
7. Not familiar with how the test questions are made
8. How the standards are organized, depth to cover, wording
9. Too many standards, too difficult
10. Takes away from the learning environment
11. Multiple choice test does not reach all learners
12. Language of the test is difficult
13. How to translate standards and teach it to the students so they do well on
the STAR
14. Lacks quality use of labs
15. STAR test is too early, not enough time to cover the material
16. Expectations to always have growth as a school
17. Too many changes in content, format of the STAR test
18. Test results are punitive
19. Test is rote and not authentic
Table 13. Various teacher concerns with CSS and/or STAR test for SVUSD
teachers.
Content Pedagogical
Student
population
Assessment
tool
Use of the
assessment
Laurie-HIS 4,5
2,6
Keith-HIS 4,7
Ryan-HIS 3
1,2
Nick-EVIS 8 13 3
1,2
Gabby-EVIS 8 3 7
Anne-LVIS 8,9
1,2,10
Andrew-LVIS 8,14 4,11
Maggie-LVIS 8,9 13 11,12
165
Table 14. Various teacher concerns with CSS and/or STAR test for CUSD
teachers.
Content Pedagogical
Student
population
Assessment
tool
Use of the
assessment
Stacey-BHMS 8 3 7
2
Jared-BHMS 8 1,3 4,12
18
Lisa-BHMS 4,11
1,2,5
Joseph-MHMS 17,14
Danielle-MHMS 8 10 3 4,12
2,15,16
Kalika-ORMS 10 7
Troy-ORMS 19
15,18
Different issues were not posed to the teachers; all of the concerns were
unprompted. As a result, the teachers may have additional concerns that
simply were not expressed during the interview.
Incorporating the concerns listed in Table 12, for teachers in SVUSD,
Table 13 organizes the most frequent concerns that were expressed during the
course of the interviews. The most frequent concerns were with the content of
the standards, how the standards are organized, depth to cover, wording (8) as
well as the use of the STAR test as an assessment and how it is unfair to hold
schools or teachers accountable (2). The general categories of concerns that
were most prevalent involved issues related to the content or the California
166
Science Standards, the assessment tool or the STAR test itself and the use of
the assessment or how the accountability system is currently arranged.
In looking at the concerns for CUSD teachers, as listed in Table 14, the
most frequent concerns as listed from Table 12 that were expressed during the
course of the interviews also involved how the standards are organized, depth
to cover, wording (8) as well as the use of the STAR test as an assessment and
how it is unfair to hold schools or teachers accountable (2). The additional
concern involved how the STAR test, as an assessment tool, neglects the real
process of science issues (4). The general categories that had the most
concerns involved the STAR test as an assessment tool as well as the use of the
assessment or how the accountability system is designed.
In analyzing the results from the SoC questionnaire, Table 15 and 16
list the areas within the SoC questionnaire that are of highest concern for
teachers as rated by having a score of 3.5 or higher. For these teachers, the
informational, management and consequence areas are the categories of the
concern. Having high informational concerns may indicate that these teachers
do not have a solid understanding of the entire high stakes accountability
system and the details of how the standards were created, how the STAR test
was created, how it is scored and weighted to calculate the API score for the
school.
167
Table 15. Significant concerns (over 3.5 on SoC) for SVUSD science teachers
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Laurie-
HIS X X X
Keith-
HIS X X X X X
Ryan-
HIS X X X X X
Nick-
EVIS X X X X
Gabby-
EVIS X X X
Anne-
LVIS X X X X
Andrew-
LVIS
This conclusion may be supported by the lack of understanding or desire to
have more training expressed by some teachers in how the STAR test was
scored and used to calculate the API scores for the schools. Further research
may reveal if these are more informational questions or if the teachers possess
a solid understanding but may have expressed more philosophical differences
in the final decisions that were made.
The strong management concerns may indicate that teachers do not
understand how to accountability system is designed to function and how to
utilize the support that currently exists. At a district level, it is unknown if a
conscious decision was made to not inform classroom teachers about this
information or if lack of understanding reaches to those levels as well. What
was evident is a clearly passive and hands-off approach by the district and
168
school site in providing support and training specifically on the California
Science Standards and science portion of the STAR test.
The strong consequence concerns may indicate that teachers do not
completely understand the impact of the accountability system on students,
teachers and schools or it may be that teachers do have a solid understanding
but have philosophical disagreements with how the consequences are designed.
From the data collected, it would appear that there are some teachers that could
be designated in each group but the majority appears to be more in the latter.
In this case, despite not having a clear understanding of the entire
accountability system, the teachers still have concern for the students and the
impact it would have on them.
The only teacher that failed to have at least one concern area over a 3.5
was Andrew. His personal results indicated that awareness was his largest area
of concern. This may indicate that he was not aware or familiar with any
aspect of the high stakes accountability system. This may be explained by
Andrew’s lack of teaching experience; he was only in his third year of teaching
and self-reported to be in “survival mode.” In addition, during the interview,
his attention may not have been entirely on the SoC questionnaire as evidenced
by the inconsistency of the duplicate question.
For the science teachers in the CUSD, the significant SoC concerns are
listed in Table 16. For these teachers, all of them held a significant concern in
169
the personal area with topics of management, consequence, collaboration and
refocusing categories also having a high level of the concern.
Table 16. Significant concerns (over 3.5 on SoC) for CUSD science teachers
Awareness Informational Personal Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusing
Stacey-
BHMS X X X
Jared-
BHMS X X X X X X
Joseph-
MHMS X X X X X X
Danielle-
MHMS X X X X
Kalika-
ORMS X X X X X X
Troy-
ORMS X X X X X
The high concern within the personal category would indicate an
uncertainty about the demands this accountability will have on them as
individual teachers and their role or their instruction may need to change. This
may be a larger concern for teachers within the CUSD as the science teachers
have predominantly been focused on just their district standards and now must
change their focus to both the state standards and the STAR test. There may
be high levels of concern with the presence of content standards and a
statewide common assessment will continue to change their classroom
environment. The concerns with management, consequence, collaboration and
170
refocusing may also be reflective of more long-term concerns of issues that
may arise further in the future.
Examining all of the teachers within the study as one group,
approximately two-thirds of all the stages for all the teachers had a concern
level of at least 3.5 indicating high levels of concern in multiple areas.
Although this accountability system, specifically the STAR test, is not new, it
is new to science as a content area and those teachers that exclusively teach
science. As this is a new level of accountability that these teachers are facing,
this finding does not seem surprising.
Table 17 Highest SoC stages for science teachers and years of teaching
experience.
School/Teacher Highest SoC Stage (excluding
Collaboration/Refocusing)
Years of teaching
experience
HIS – Laurie Management 4
th
HIS – Keith Consequence 37
th
HIS – Ryan Informational 1
st
EVIS – Nick Informational 3
rd
EVIS – Gabby Management 13
th
LVIS – Anne Informational 4
th
LVIS – Andrew Awareness 3
rd
BHMS –Stacey Consequence 12
th
BHMS – Jared Consequence 12
th
MHMS – Joseph Informational/Consequence 10
th
MHMS – Danielle Informational 6
th
ORMS – Kalika Informational 20
th
ORMS – Troy Personal 5
th
171
Although the progression through the Stages of Concern do not have to
be linear from awareness to refocusing, concerns that progress in that manner
do seem to follow a rational progression. An interesting relationship is
revealed, in Table 17, when the highest area of concern for teachers as rated by
the SoC questionnaire are compared with the years of teaching experience.
Although it is not required for a person to progress linearly through the stages
of concern, teachers that had less than five years of classroom experience were
focused in one of the first three stages (awareness, informational or personal)
as their primary or highest stage of concern. Conversely, teachers that had at
least twelve years of classroom experience were typically in the fifth stage
(consequence). Only two teachers with more than 12 years of experience were
not in this stage.
Research Question 2: Pedagogical skills of science teachers
The second research question asked, “What pedagogical skills are
teachers using outside of the classroom (using student data, analyzing student
work)? What pedagogical skills are teachers using inside the classroom (such
as inquiry)?” In exploring this question each school site was examined for the
type of professional environment that would allow teachers to interact with
other professionals to learn and develop pedagogical skills that would use
student data to make pedagogical decisions, which would influence classroom
instruction. Additionally, the instructional activities directed by teachers were
172
examined to determine the tendency towards more of a student-centered or a
teacher-centered learning environment. The extent the particular instructional
methods utilized in the classroom were linked to instructional goals was not
examined as part of this research question. The analysis for this research
question was broken down by each individual school site as well as having an
overall analysis.
Analysis by School Site
All of the participating schools have begun to form Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) where all the members of the department, and
typically by grade level, meet on regular basis to try and work collaboratively.
The intent is to help reduce the isolation of teachers, allow teachers to work
together and learn from each other as well as develop a more unified learning
experience for students taking a particular course from different teachers.
Each school was at a different stage of developing their PLC with different
levels of success.
HIS
Professional Environment
The teachers at Hillside worked as a PLC that allowed all of the eighth
grade science teachers to work as a group to discuss their instruction. Within
SVUSD, the intermediate schools in the district recently included prearranged
late start days for students to allow teachers to meet in their PLC. These late
173
start days occurred about twice a month for the entire school year but it was
not clear if any of this time was also used for administrative meetings or other
activities that would take away time from the teachers. Unfortunately, it could
not be clearly determined how structured this time was for teachers and how
productive, within one day or over the course of the entire school year, the
PLC meetings were. In addition to the late start days, the science teachers
were also given release time where substitutes were provided to allow the
teachers to meet during the normal school day. This release time was only
granted twice during that school year.
During the release time and PLC meetings, teachers spent time trying
to collaborate and work together. When prompted during the interviews, all of
the teachers indicated a positive culture and environment where the teachers
within this department work together. Another expectation that developed
within their PLC was that all the teachers should stay together in terms of
pacing which presented a challenge for those teachers that wished to
personalize instruction particularly if students are having difficulty.
As a PLC, we try to stay lock step but we have a
little leeway.
-Ryan, HIS science teacher
One particular department goal put forth by the administration was to
create a common assessment that all eighth grade science teachers would use
in the class instruction. Much of this meeting time was spent working creating
174
these common assessment questions, incorporating them into an exam and
coming together to analyze the student results. In this case, the exam was a
common final exam that all students took at the end of their trimester. At the
time of the study, the teachers were just compiling the data at the conclusion of
the semester final. It was unclear as to what type of discussion this student
data initiated or the impact these results would have on their classroom
instruction. Presumably, since the common assessment was a final exam, the
summative nature would likely indicate any conclusions from their
examination of the data would only be applied to their instruction during the
following school year.
Instructional Style
During the interviews, all the teachers at Hillside offered a variety of
strategies that were used in their individual classroom over the course of
teaching one particular unit and often over the course of one instructional
period. The variety of instructional methods included the use of lecture, class
discussion, reading the textbook, vocabulary activities, videos and united
streaming, demonstrations, use of multimedia and the Internet,
discussions/question and answer, journals, as well as hands-on activities and
labs. All of the classes appeared to have a definite interactive and hands-on
component. One teacher emphasized her personal focus on teaching science
process skills.
175
That is the main failure for the STAR test, especially
for science; it does a great job of assessing knowledge
retention but it really misses what science is – it is a
process of discovery. The logical processing skills,
the scientific method – that is what you really want
the students to learn. You want them to think,
inquiry and that is immeasurable.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
Classes were heterogeneous with no advanced or remedial levels and
assignments typically were differentiated with different levels of questioning.
Typically, labs were done about once or twice a week.
Much of the classroom experiences were teacher-centered. Each
teacher was able to cite one or two examples each of more student-centered
activities but commented that the frequency was typically limited to about
three or four of these types of activities per school year. One example of a
student-centered activity was an Egg-drop lab where students created a
structure to allow an egg to survive a fall. Although the students all had a
common goal, each student was allowed to proceed and create their structure in
an individualized manner. Differentiated instruction on assignments allowed
students to decide what questions they wish to address. Within a Buoyancy
lab, students were given materials to independently discover the factors that
caused an object to float or sink. Cross-curricular projects were also done
where students designed a recycling business proposal. All of the science
classes were intentionally structured to give students an active and hands-on
experience in their science class.
176
Individually, within the variation of instruction, each teacher also had a
tendency towards a particular methodology of instruction.
I use a lot of gallery walks and I also have the kids “teach” a
unit. I draw on their knowledge [where he allowed a student to
share his experience with his father being a boat builder].
-Ryan, HIS science teacher
If I do a standard lecture, I usually incorporate a lot of
multimedia [video and demos], mini activities that they
can do that are dynamic and interactive and then there
is a lab component. I think the lab is the most
important part; that is where they learn the idea. They
may not remember the term but the lab is where they
get something from it.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
I incorporate computers a lot [for example a flight
science web site], more than any other teacher.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
Laboratory investigations that the students did were mainly of a
verification type. Clearly written procedures were given to student to follow
with their manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the data, and
analysis of the results being their primary responsibility. The analysis
typically consisted of questions for the students to answer; some relating
directly to the experiment while others were more reinforcement of the main
concepts related to the lab experience. Most of the labs were shared between
science teachers, often with the entire set of equipment being carted from class
177
to class, to allow for more of a common learning experience for all the
students. However, teachers typically modified the labs to fit their own
personal preferences. Inquiry labs, where students had more choice and
discovery, were very limited or non-existent. One teacher expressed specific
concerns and described her rationale for the lack of inquiry.
Normally they [labs] have a procedure because of time, but
that is not my preference. We have so many standards to
cover and you have to make a choice. You also have so
many students, it is hard to manage group dynamics, ability
level and so many variables, it depends, some years you
can do more inquiry but others they need more structure
so you need to be flexible year to year. I would like to do
it more but you have to do what is best for them.
-Laurie, HIS science teacher
Most class assessments were teacher-made. Between teachers, aside
from their common final exam, there did not appear to be any common use of
formal assessments. Teachers typically created their own unit tests or
assessments in the format they felt most comfortable using. Due to a limited
amount of time, it could not be confirmed to what degree the assessments
focused on the California Science Standards.
Observations were also made of the classrooms. In this case, with one
exception, all of the classrooms were organized where students would sit in
rows. The lone exception was a laboratory classroom where lab tables were
built specifically to have students sit in small groups and face each other. In
178
addition to the lab tables, this lab classroom also had student desks organized
in rows.
Teachers were also asked about possible limitations from their room
organization, school facilities or equipment that might impact their ability to
conduct labs. Recently, within the past five years, Hillside had undergone a
renovation to update many of the science classrooms. Within the science
department, there was no fume hood which presented a problem with
ventilation and conducting certain chemical reactions and labs. Classrooms
were fitted with gas and water; however, there were teachers that felt there
were too few outlets. One teacher also mentioned he did not use gas even
though the room was equipped for it.
The classrooms were also visually inspected as to the general
orientation and facilities available. One classroom was physically distinct
from the others as it was constructed as a laboratory classroom with large lab
tables permanently fixed along the side of the room to allow and encourage
students to work in groups. In addition, desks were aligned in rows within the
middle of the room. The remaining science classrooms were equipped with a
counter that ran along the side of a portion of the classroom wall; the gas and
water access was along this counter space and presumably the students
conducted their lab investigations in this area. There were also lab tables
aligned in rows within the center of the classroom.
179
EVIS
Professional Environment
The teachers at East View also worked as a PLC that allowed the eighth
grade science teachers to come together as a group and discuss issues within
their department. East View also had prearranged late start days for students to
allow teachers to meet in their PLC. These late start days occurred about twice
a month for the entire school year but it was not clear how much of this time
was also used for administrative meetings or other activities that would take
away time from the teachers but other meetings were scheduled during this
period of time. Unfortunately, it could not be clearly determined how
structured this PLC time was for teachers and how productive, over the course
of the school year, it was.
During this time, a significant amount of the PLC time was dedicated to
developing common assessment questions but they were only in a preliminary
stage. At the time of the research, they had only developed a select group of
questions to represent their common assessment which would eventually be a
final exam that would be taken at the end of the trimester. This was their first
time using common testing questions and had not yet administered them to
their students. Surprisingly, the teachers within the department did not feel
that there was much collaboration between teachers during this time.
180
[How much] collaboration with others? Zero. During the
PLC, we do get together but there has been focus just on
common assessments
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
Very minimal – we do not have the same prep time so it is
difficult to collaborate late start gives us some time but it is
used to do the common assessments but that is once a month.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
Another expectation that developed within their PLC was that all the teachers
should stay together in terms of pacing which presented a challenge for those
teachers that wished to personalize instruction particularly if students are
having difficulty.
There is a certain amount of pressure to keep pace.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
Instructional Style
In both cases, the teachers at East View offered a variety of strategies
that were used in the classroom over the course of a unit and often over the
course of one instructional period. Examples of instructional methods included
lecture, the use of technology and the Internet to provide visual references,
videos and united streaming, vocabulary activities, discussions/question and
answer, journals, reading the textbook, taking notes, breaking into groups for
activities, hands-on activities, use of individual white boards for formative
assessment, demonstrations and labs.
181
In teaching a unit, I normally start with vocabulary. I
break kids into groups, use white boards, divide up a
chapter into sections and have each group read, make
a white board poster and report out to everyone. I use
graphic organizers with them. I don’t lecture too much
and try to do lots of hands-on stuff just getting them up
and moving.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
We do reading, note taking/Cornell notes, lots of group
activities, jig-sawing, and not lots of lecturing. But then
I have my SDC class and it is very directed. We do notes
but I write everything on the board and they copy it.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
The administration supported the view that the science classes were very
hands-on and more activity-based. Many of the activities or projects were
common throughout the department where students build bottle rockets or
roller coasters.
Normally, laboratory activities were done about once or twice a week
and many teachers were using the same labs so that students received a
common lab experience. For one teacher, the labs that the students did were
mainly of a verification type. Clearly written procedures were given to student
to follow with their manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the
data, and analysis of the results being their primary responsibility. The
analysis typically consisted of questions for the students to answer; some
relating directly to the experiment while others were more reinforcement of the
main concepts related to the lab experience. Most of the labs were passed
182
down from the department chair with encouragement to use them. This teacher
was more inclined to use inquiry but did not feel it was appropriate as he felt
he was restricted by the culture of the department.
They are scripted labs – I would love to do inquiry but it is
not in the plan right now his decision not to is more because
of the environment he is in rather than what he would like
to do. Absolutely would I like to do more inquiry. More
discovery for science, to me, that what middle school is
all about. If that is not there, kids are not going to be
interested in math and science as they go on and so giving
us a scripted lab gets us from point A to point B, I think
we are missing getting that spark from the kids, more of
that discovery. But it takes a lot of planning to do that
and make sure the kids are getting the knowledge that
the standards require and so that is where assessment
becomes really important – how do you know what the
kids have learned.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
Another teacher made a clear distinction in terms of the type of
instruction that she did based on the type of class she was teaching.
I have the honors kids, so I do higher level thinking
things a lot – inquiry learning labs. I give them a question
and they design the investigation.
But then I have my SDC [special education] class and it is
very directed, we do notes but I write everything on the
board and they copy it; I hold them accountable for the
vocabulary but it is simplified. As far as labs, we do the
labs together, maybe as a demo, sometimes they are too
clumsy and cannot do it; sometimes they work together,
I only have 10, in groups of 2 or 3 or we are all around
a table and we do it together.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
183
Many of the classroom experiences were teacher-centered but others
were more group-oriented and both teachers were able to cite some examples
of more student-centered activities. Most of the activities were teacher-
centered; however, each of the teachers was able to cite a few examples of
more student-centered activities. An example of an inquiry lab in Gabby’s
class was one on pH. Students learned about different indicators and then were
given other chemicals and the indicators and asked to make a pH scale based
on the results. Long-term projects were also offered where students were
allowed to choose a particular area of study however these particular activities
did not appear to be reflective of all the science teachers at the school.
Most class assessments were teacher-made. Between teachers, there
did not appear to be any common use of formal assessments. Teachers
typically created their own assessments in the format they felt most
comfortable using. Due to a limited amount of time, it could not be confirmed
to what degree the assessments focused on the California Science Standards.
Observations were also made of the classrooms; all but one of the
classrooms was organized in where students sat in rows. Teachers were also
asked as to possible limitations from their room organization, school facilities
or equipment that might impact their ability to conduct labs. Within the
science department, the main concern was not having the desired amount of
space for students to conduct labs. The school was relatively new and the
184
teachers stated no other equipment needs and while all the science classrooms
were fitted with gas and water, one classroom was significantly smaller in size
and was recently “renovated” from a general classroom to one for science.
The classrooms were also visually inspected as to the general
orientation and facilities available. The science classrooms all were equipped
with a counter that ran along the side of a portion of the classroom; the gas and
water access was along the counter space and presumably the students
conducted their lab investigations in this area. There were also lab tables
aligned in rows within the center of the classroom.
LVIS
Professional Environment
The teachers at Lake View also worked in a PLC that allowed the
eighth grade science teachers met and worked as a group to discuss their
instruction. These prearranged late start days allow time for the teachers to
meet and occurred about twice a month for the entire school year. Some of
this time was also used for administrative meetings or other activities that
would take away time from the teachers to meet. Unfortunately it could not be
clearly determined how structured this time was for teachers and how
productive, over the course of the school year, it was.
Within their PLC, the majority of the teachers were using common
assignments such as labs. Their late start days allowed for them to spend more
185
time working together and the entire department expressed a great deal of pride
on how much they collaborate as a department.
We probably never collaborate with other schools but all the
science teachers, during the PLC time/every other Monday,
do meet and plan together.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
There was no mention of using common assessments such as test questions but
there was talk about of using the sample STAR test questions on their unit tests
to expose students to that style of question. The impression was that the
majority of the time allowed for collaboration was spent working on
understanding the California Science Standards better and coming up with
more labs and activities to use in their classrooms. However, one teacher did
have a very different view of the PLC.
The whole PLC is geared towards test results.
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
Instructional Style
The teachers at Lake View discussed a variety of strategies that were
used in the classroom over the course of a unit and over the course of one
instructional period. The vast majority of the classroom experiences were
teacher-centered. A clear emphasis during the classroom instruction, both
from the teachers and supported by the administration, was to have a very
active and hands-on environment with a variety of instructional activities for
186
the students. There was no dominant mode of instruction but a variation,
typically within the class period. Instructional activities included lecture,
notes, reading, worksheets and reinforcement, group work, activities and the
use of manipulatives, demonstrations and labs.
Every day I start with a warm-up activity, a journal.
Next, there are notes, a Power point where students
fill in the blanks. They may have video and there is
almost always a lab. Probably a worksheet to reinforce
and guided reading assigned as homework.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
I use hands-on learning and manipulatives. I draw
pictures for them and talk to them a lot. I lecture
probably more than any other teacher.
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
I follow a structure: lectures notes, maybe a demo, a
couple of labs, practice activities like worksheets and
a test review.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
Normally, laboratory activities were done about once or twice a week
and many teachers were using the same labs so that students received a
common lab experience. Labs that the students did were mainly of a
verification type. Clearly written procedures were given to student to follow
with their manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the data, and
analysis of the results being their primary responsibility. The analysis
typically consisted of questions for the students to answer; some relating
directly to the experiment while others were more reinforcement of the main
187
concepts related to the lab experience. Most of the labs were shared between
science teachers, often with the entire set of equipment being carted from class
to class. However teachers typically modified the labs to fit their own personal
preferences.
Are all the labs shared? [We] all do the same activities; each
person has their own twist on the same thing.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
Multiple teachers explained that inquiry labs were not done primarily for safety
reasons, logistics and lack of materials. Mainly the classroom instruction
appeared to be more teacher-centered and overall, no real inquiry was
conducted due to concerns about the process.
The goal is that the hands-on experience will allow them to
remember the concepts better than if they just read about it.
[It is] less appropriate to do inquiry based on logistics of the
lab, safety and chemicals. [You] need to be safe so [there is]
no inquiry. If there are lots of materials then there is no inquiry.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
What holds me back [from doing inquiry is that] it is a whole
lot of prep and it is not controlled. I know inquiry is a better
thought process but I think it is so limited with our time and
materials and it is a lot of extra work.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
Primarily the activities were teacher-centered. One example of a student-
centered lab would involve allowing the students to make a roller coaster to
study physics concepts.
Most class assessments were teacher-made. Between teachers, there
did not appear to be any common use of formal assessments. Teachers
188
typically created their own assessments in the format they felt most
comfortable using. Due to a limited amount of time, it could not be confirmed
to what degree the assessments focused on the California Science Standards.
In one case, a teacher expressed concern regarding the instruction and the
affective impact rather than just the content.
I do follow the standards. My goal is to help kids
understand the main ideas of the standards and hopefully
do well on the state test but I want them to enjoy and
explore science.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
Observations were also made of the classrooms with all but one of the
classrooms organized the student lab tables in rows. The remaining class had
the lab tables organized in small groups. Teachers were also asked as to
possible limitations from their room organization, school facilities or
equipment that might impact their ability to conduct labs. Within the science
department, one concern was not having the desired amount of space for
students to conduct labs. Other issues involved having enough equipment and
in particular gas outlets and electrical hook-ups. The school was scheduled to
undergo some renovations in the future however at the time of the study all the
science classrooms were fitted with gas and water.
The classrooms were also visually inspected as to the general
orientation and facilities available. The science classrooms all were equipped
with a counter that ran along the side of a portion of the classroom; the gas and
189
water access was along the counter space and presumably the students
conducted their lab investigations in this area. There were also lab tables
aligned in rows within the center of the classroom but in one classroom,
individual student desks and chairs were used instead.
BHMS
Professional Environment
The teachers at Beach Hills worked as a PLC that allowed the eighth
grade science teachers met as a group. Within CUSD, the middle schools in
the district recently included prearranged late start days for students to allow
teachers to meet in their PLC. These late start days once a week for the entire
school year but some of this time was also used for administrative meetings or
other activities that would take away time from the teachers. Unfortunately, it
could not be clearly determined how structured this time was for teachers and
how productive, over the course of the school year, it was. As a department,
their late start days and release time allowed them to spend more time
collaborating however the consensus appeared to be that not much
collaboration was done between the eighth grade teachers.
We spend time collaborating, but not enough.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
There is not enough time to collaborate.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
190
Some of the time was spent as a science department where they examined the
California State Standards and made their comparisons and analysis. Conflicts
were cited within the department that hindered the amount of collaboration.
There was no indication of a teacher made common assessment either being
created or already in use but they did cite the use of other standardized test
scores to impact their instruction.
Instructional Style
The teachers at Beach Hills offered a variety of strategies that were
used in the classroom over the course of a unit and over the course of one
instructional period. There was a distinct dichotomy for these particular
teachers. These science classrooms featured instruction that was mainly active
and hands-on but there was one classroom that was more dominant with
teacher-centered instruction while the other two classrooms demonstrated more
variation and hands-on activities. Instructional activities for all the classes
included lecture, notes, reading, the use of worksheets as reinforcement,
demonstrations and labs however there was a higher proportion of the use of
worksheets and teacher-directed note taking in the teacher-centered class. In
this case, these types of activities occurred almost on a daily basis. For another
teacher, the classroom experiences reflected both teacher-centered and student-
centered activities with specific and multiple references to the use inquiry
activities.
191
Inquiry is a lot of up front work. They may have questions
and frustration but then they go “Oh, I get it.”
We are reading the chapter, doing handouts, taking notes,
and talking about it. I tell them [the students] “I know it
is boring, I get it, but hang in there.” But there are units
within units where it is more student centered.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
There is a little bit of lecture, lots of hands on, some
discussion, and some things called RAFT [a writing
activity]. Labs are more dominant in terms of time.
-Stacey, BHMS science teacher
I use the materials provided by Prentice Hall [textbook
publisher]. I edit them and make worksheets [that is
homework]. I was doing multimedia presentations but
I don’t do that anymore. I also use the laser disk player
to key up video clips and pictures.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
Normally, labs were done about once or twice a week and were seen as
dominant in terms of instructional time perhaps due to the weekly block
schedule. An interesting range occurred with these teachers; only one teacher
consistently provided inquiry labs for her students, while the second conducted
a high number of hands-on activities and labs but not as many of the inquiry
type and the last teacher specifically did not do inquiry labs. One teacher
expressed a clear awareness of inquiry and cited having done it in the past but
had multiple reasons for why he no longer used inquiry or discovery.
I don’t do the discovery approach; it is a valid approach,
I just don’t do it. We have a curriculum that we can’t
cover in a year [Time is too limited to do inquiry].
There are [also] safety issues with all labs.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
192
The labs that Jared mainly utilized for his students were mainly of a
verification type. Clearly written procedures were given to student to follow
with their manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the data, and
analysis of the results being their primary responsibility. The analysis
typically consisted of questions for the students to answer; some relating
directly to the experiment while others were more reinforcement of the main
concepts related to the lab experience. The other eighth grade science teachers
did not use these labs.
Another teacher also cited multiple examples of both teacher-centered
and student-centered activities but was less student-centered and inquiry-
oriented than the first teacher. The interview for this particular teacher was
conducted during a normal class period and the students were engaged in an
inquiry activity.
[I also give] projects where I give them parameters and
a rubric they get to design the playground and equipment
[the outcome].
-an activity done by her students doing during the interview
-Stacey, BHMS science teacher
All teachers offered students the opportunity to do student-centered
labs that would involve the students to make decisions such as the creation of a
Rube Goldberg type machine, the creation of playground equipment that
demonstrated Newton’s Laws or the use of food to help make analogies with
193
chemistry concepts. One teacher was also using exit cards as formative
assessments.
The class assessments were teacher-made and were not shared between
teachers. There also did not appear to be any common use of formal
assessments. As a department, science teachers did create ten questions for a
homework assignment that simulated the STAR test format. These questions
were shared within the department so that all teachers had a larger quantity of
questions to use. However it was unclear to what extent, if any, teachers
actually used the assignment. Due to a limited amount of time, it could not be
confirmed to what degree the assessments focused on the California Science
Standards.
Observations were also made of the classrooms; two classrooms were
modified portables that included fixed lab tables that allowed students to sit in
small groups. The remaining classroom was part of the original school
structure and had lab tables that were also arranged in small groups. Teachers
were also asked as to possible limitations from their room organization, school
facilities or equipment that might impact their ability to conduct labs. One
issue was the classrooms structure; two eighth grade science classrooms were
portable classrooms that were recently renovated for science. Lab tables and
gas outlets were installed but a preference for a laboratory facility associated
with the main building was desired. There was also a concern with the number
194
of sinks in the classroom and the amount of storage for equipment.
Maintenance of equipment was another concern. The classrooms were also
visually inspected as to the general orientation and facilities available. The
science classrooms all were equipped with permanent lab tables that require
students to sit in a group; the gas and water access was located at each table.
MHMS
Professional Environment
The teachers at Mission Hills worked as a PLC that allowed the eighth
grade science teachers met as a group. The prearranged late start days
occurred once a week for the entire school year but some of this time was also
used for administrative meetings or other activities that would take away time
from the teachers. Unfortunately it could not be clearly determined how
structured this time was for teachers and how productive, over the course of
the school year, it was.
Within their PLC, some teachers were using and discussing common
assignments such as labs. As a department, they were also beginning to create
and use common assessments, primarily a common bank of questions that each
teacher would add to each unit test. Teachers were just in the beginning stages
of using common assessments and little analysis was done with the data aside
from the basic comparison between teachers. It was unclear if there was any
impact on classroom instruction as a result of analyzing the student data. Their
195
late start days and release time allowed for them to spend more time
collaborating, working on the common assessment questions and modifying
test questions to resemble the STAR test however some teachers expressed a
different version of collaboration. Rather than having a conversation between
professionals as to the current assignment and what modifications might be
made to better reach the educational goal, much of the discussion appeared to
be more trading assignments.
In the past, as a group we would try to look at the
entire unit together, but as time has gone on, now
one person looks at a unit, makes modifications and
sends it to the other team.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
Collaborating is often asking “What do you have?”
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
Instructional Style
Teachers at Mission Hills offered a variety of strategies that were used
in the classroom over the course of a unit and sometimes over the course of
one instructional period. Many of the classroom experiences were teacher-
centered but both teachers were able to cite some examples of more student-
centered activities. A significant emphasis on classroom instruction was to be
active and hands-on. The dominant mode of instruction appeared to be
teacher-centered but included hands-on activities and labs. Instructional
activities included the use of lecture, notes, reading, worksheets, Power Points
196
and visuals, use of multimedia, demonstrations and labs however no or little
inquiry was used.
I give information two primary ways – lectures and
Power points [where student fill in]. There are worksheets;
some are where the class does it together or as small groups.
We also do labs.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
Students have independent notes, student led notes, and
Power points. You try to use as many manipulatives as
you can, show pictures, and do labs.
[There is] no real inquiry. Not in a 50-minute period; I
see the merit but not with the time constraint.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
A major impact on their instruction has been the introduction of high stakes
accountability and standards.
I used to pick and choose [what I taught] and I could teach
what I wanted to. Now I don’t with standards.
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
I have reorganized the curriculum and used more
multiple choice questions on my tests. We also use
common test questions [10 per test] throughout the
department.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
Normally, laboratory activities were done about once or twice a week
and some teachers with the department were using the same labs so that
students get a common lab experience. Both teachers explained that inquiry
labs were not done primarily for safety reasons, the nature of the curriculum
197
and a lack of time. Labs that the students did were mainly of a verification
type. Clearly written procedures were given to student to follow with their
manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the data, and analysis of the
results being their primary responsibility. The analysis typically consisted of
questions for the students to answer; some relating directly to the experiment
while others were more reinforcement of the main concepts related to the lab
experience. Most of the labs were shared between science teachers, often with
the entire set of equipment being carted from class to class. However, teachers
typically modified the labs to fit their own personal preferences. In contrast,
two examples of a student-centered lab involved allowing the students to make
a roller coaster to study physics concepts and a mixture separation lab for
chemistry. An additional form of differentiation was a “tic-tac-toe” activity
where students would choose three of nine assignments that were all designed
to assess different levels of understanding.
The majority of student assessments were teacher-made. Between
teachers, there was the beginning use of common assessments but this entailed
approximately 10 common questions on unit tests that all teachers would use.
Each individual teacher would generate the remaining questions on the exam.
Teachers typically created the rest of their assessments in the format they felt
most comfortable using. Due to a limited amount of time, it could not be
confirmed to what degree the assessments focused on the California Science
198
Standards. Observations were also made of the classrooms with both classes
organized in rows that suggested there was limited interaction for students as
groups. As a department, they were beginning to use common questions on a
unit test as a common assessment.
Teachers were also asked as to possible limitations from their room
organization, school facilities or equipment that might impact their ability to
conduct labs. The major concern was not having the desired amount of space
for students to conduct labs. The classrooms were equipped with sinks,
counters, gas and electrical hook-ups but were not originally designed for labs.
The counter space was along the back or sidewalls. There was also no general
stock room for the science department which created a difficulty in storing and
sharing lab equipment. The orientation of the classroom found the lab tables
aligned in rows or a semi-circle within the center of the classroom.
ORMS
Professional Environment
The teachers at Ocean Ranch worked as a PLC that allowed the eighth
grade science teachers met and worked as a group to discuss their instruction.
These prearranged late start days occurred once a week for the entire school
year but some of this time was also used for administrative meetings or other
activities that would take away time from the teachers. Unfortunately it could
199
not be clearly determined how structured this time was for teachers and how
productive, over the course of the school year, it was.
Within their PLC, some teachers were using common assignments such
as labs. As a department, they are also beginning to create common
assessments, primarily common questions on each unit test. Their late start
days allow for them to spend more time collaborating and creating the
common assessment questions.
Collaborate during ACE [late start] time and look at
common assessments. Usually in teams, sometimes
cross discipline or vertical.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
Use ACE time to formally work on a specific
assignments. Informally you talk about how things
work as you pass by [each other].
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
At the time of the study, the teachers at Ocean Ranch had not yet administered
their common assessment questions and did not yet begin to discuss what to do
when they tried to analyze their results.
Instructional Style
Teachers at Ocean Ranch offered a variety of strategies that were used
in the classroom over the course of a unit and sometimes over the course of
one instructional period. Mainly the classroom experiences were active and
hands-on yet most activities were teacher-centered however both teachers were
200
able to cite some examples of more student-centered activities. Typical
instructional activities included the use of lecture and notes, use of PowerPoint,
journals, reading, worksheets, books, videos, simulations and labs.
We do about 3 activities per week: simulations, labs,
small investigations. We use video material to introduce
the material and introduce vocabulary. We also use the
book and the study guide/workbook. There is also one
large investigation or lab.
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
There are maybe two days of instruction, with
worksheets, PowerPoint notes, and reinforcements
like journals. We reserve one day a week for a fun
day – maybe a video or an activity.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
The administration was only vaguely familiar of the types of activities that
went on within the science classrooms but focused on the labs and activities
done by students. Normally, labs were done about once or twice a week where
the students were mainly conducting a verification of material they had
covered. Clearly written procedures were given to student to follow with their
manipulation of the lab materials, the collection of the data, and analysis of the
results being their primary responsibility. The analysis typically consisted of
questions for the students to answer; some relating directly to the experiment
while others were more reinforcement of the main concepts related to the lab
experience. Most of the labs were shared between science teachers often with
the entire set of equipment being carted from class to class allowing for
201
students to experience a most common lab experience. However, teachers
typically modified the labs to fit their own personal preferences. Both teachers
explained that inquiry labs were not done primarily for safety reasons and lack
of time.
I demo the labs and they are typically highly structured
because they are eighth graders. There is not much room
for them to be open-ended. They are very predictable, for
liability.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
Most class assessments were teacher-made. Between teachers, there
did not appear to be any common use of formal assessments. Teachers
typically created their own assessments in the format they felt most
comfortable using. Due to a limited amount of time, it could not be confirmed
to what degree the assessments focused on the California Science Standards.
Observations were also made of the classrooms; one class had lab
tables organized in groups and the other class was organized in rows but the
class in rows; however, for that class the teacher said she recently changed
them from groups. Teachers were also asked as to possible limitations from
their room organization, school facilities or equipment that might impact their
ability to conduct labs. The major concern was not having the desired amount
of space for students to conduct labs. There was also a desire for more
equipment to reduce sharing.
202
The classrooms were also visually inspected as to the general
orientation and facilities available. The science classrooms all were equipped
with a counter that ran along the side of a portion of the classroom; the gas and
water access was along the counter space and presumably the students
conducted their lab investigations in this area. There were also lab tables
aligned in groups for one class and rows for the other, however the teacher
commented that the seating arrangement was changed just prior to the
interview.
Overall Analysis
Professional Environment
All of the participating schools had recently begun to follow the PLC
format and provided release time for teachers to work in groups to collaborate.
Normally this release time was structured in the form of a late start school day
for students which allowed teachers to meet.
Many of the pedagogical activities done by teachers outside the
classroom occurred during this time. Table 18 summarized the pedagogical
activities done by teachers outside the classroom. Although the schools had
begun to follow the PLC format, they were all relatively new to the process.
Having teachers meet and discuss curricular issues on a regular basis was not
something they were accustomed to doing.
203
Table 18. A summary of pedagogical activities done by teachers outside the
classroom.
Working
in PLC
Created
common
assessments
Implemented
common
assessments
Analyzing
student work
Using student
work to impact
instruction
HIS
Yes Common final
exam
Yes In progress
Unknown
EVIS
Yes Common final
exam
No N/A
Unknown
LVIS
Yes Common labs,
common test
questions
Yes No
Unknown
BHMS
Yes No N/A Standardized
test scores
Yes – planning
goals
MHMS
Yes Common labs
and common test
questions
Yes In progress
Unknown
ORMS
Yes Common labs
and common test
questions
Yes for labs
No for test
questions
No
Unknown
Most science departments had begun to create common assessments with the
intent to be used in all the similar classes at that school site; primarily the
common assessment were test questions used on end of the chapter unit tests or
final exams. For the common test questions, teachers remarked that they
subsequently did an item analysis on common test questions that detailed how
students performed. From this data, teachers could look to see what questions
students did well on and which ones they did not. The impression was that the
data, in particular when a large portion of students missed a particular item,
was used to assess the quality of the test questions or to allow the teachers to
reflect on their particular method of instruction that covered that content. This
204
appeared to be a vehicle for discussion with the potential of impacting class
instruction but it was unclear the extent of the conversation, the depth of
internal reflection by the teacher or how much the actual impact on classroom
instruction would be.
In some schools common laboratory activities were also being used.
Common labs, in the strictest sense, were not true common assessments as they
were typically modified by each teacher to meet their individual needs. As a
result, the students may have been allowed to perform a similar activity with
the same materials but the actual process that each teacher had students follow
or the type and content of the assessment were different for each teacher. In
addition, the overall student performance on labs was not typically used for
analysis. Teachers typically commented that the conversations regarding labs
often centered on logistical issues on classroom management during the
activity.
An interesting finding regarding the collaboration between teachers
was the manner in which they interacted. Despite the intent of providing time
to have a conversation between professionals regarding an assignment and
what modifications might be made to better reach the educational goal, much
of the discussion appeared to be more trading assignments.
Collaborating is often asking “What do you have?”
-Danielle, MHMS science teacher
205
In the past, as a group we would try to look at the
entire unit together, but as time has gone on, now one
person looks at a unit, makes modifications and sends
it to the other team.
-Joseph, MHMS science teacher
In addition, it was surprising that, even with the time allotted through the PLC,
teachers did not feel they were able to collaborate. This may be a reflection of
how effective the time was utilized.
We spend time collaborating, but not enough.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
There is not enough time to collaborate.
-Jared, BHMS science teacher
For the teachers in the CUSD, there has also been the creation of
curricular roadmaps or power standards to help guide classroom instruction
based on the CUSD Science Standards. Two administrators made reference to
the district requiring teachers to create either their own or a common one for
the department. Within the district, every school may have had a different
process in which teachers created their curricular guide. In addition, the
practical use of these curricular guides likely varied not only from school site
to school site but from teacher to teacher. Surprisingly, only two teachers made
reference to using such a curricular guide.
Aside from the PLC meetings, these science teachers had the
opportunity to participate in other training that would enhance their
pedagogical knowledge. Typically individual schools sites offer two or three
206
professional development opportunities on their campus during the course of
an academic school year. Additional professional development courses may
also be offered through the district specifically designed for teachers in that
district. Teachers may also be participating in an advanced or graduate degree
program. The courses within such a program may also offer additional
pedagogical training.
Instructional Style
In examining what type of pedagogical activities teachers are utilizing
within the classroom, Tables 19 and 20 list the self-reported activities teachers
claim to use. A major limitation with this data would clearly be that, despite
the teacher’s self-report, the list might not include every activity that is done in
the classroom nor does it account for the frequency of each activity.
The distinction between creating a more teacher-centered learning
environment versus a more student-centered one did not seem to be an issue
for most teachers. Typical teacher-centered types of activity were used such as
the use of lecture, reading and the use of worksheets as reinforcements. All of
the classrooms had access to technology and the Internet however the reported
use of technology was not frequent. Instead the emphasis for all the teachers
appeared to be creating an interactive and hands-on science class.
207
Table 19. Self-reported pedagogical activities done by SVUSD teachers.
Laurie-
HIS
Keith-
HIS
Ryan-
HIS
Nick-
EVIS
Gabby-
EVIS
Anne-
LVIS
Andrew-
LVIS
Maggie-
LVIS
Lecture X X X X X X X X
Journals X X
Reading X X X X X
Textbook X X X X
Worksheets X X X X X
PowerPoint X X
Video clips X X
Internet X X
Simulations
Demos
X X X X X X X X
Hands-On
Activities
X X X X X X X X
Teacher-
Centered
labs
X X X X X X X X
Student-
Centered
labs
1x mo 1x mo 1-2x yr No 1x mo No 2x yr 6x yr
Common
assessments
Similar
labs,
final
Similar
labs,
final
Similar
labs,
final
Final Final Similar
labs, Test
questions
Similar
labs, Test
questions
Similar
labs, Test
questions
Room
orientation
208
Table 20. Self-reported pedagogical activities done by CUSD teachers.
Stacey-
BHMS
Jared-
BHMS
Lisa-
BHMS
Joseph-
MHMS
Danielle-
MHMS
Kalika-
ORMS
Troy-
ORMS
Lecture X X X X X X X
Journals X
Reading X X X X X X
Textbook X X X X X X
Worksheets X X X X X X X
PowerPoint X X X
Video clips X X X
Internet
Simulations
Demos
X X X X X X X
Hands-On
Activities
X X X X X X X
Teacher-
Centered labs
X X X X X X X
Student-
Centered labs
1x mo No 2x mo 1-2x mo 3-4x yr No No
Common
assessments
No No No Similar
labs, Test
questions
Similar
labs, Test
questions
Similar
labs,
Test
questions
Similar
labs,
Test
questions
Room
orientation
Group Group Group
All of the teachers reported utilizing hands-on activities and conducting
labs. Yet within this aspect of the class, the emphasis still appeared to be more
teacher-centered. Simulations and demonstrations would typically be more
passive activities from the student perspective. The majority of the labs
described during the interviews were of the verification style; only two
teachers clearly expressed a consistent use of inquiry labs. For most schools,
209
teachers collaborated and shared materials, including laboratory activities.
With the necessity of sharing materials due to limited equipment, many
teachers utilized the same or similar labs to where the necessary equipment
would be placed on a cart for one teacher to use and a few days later passed on
to another teacher. Despite this sharing, most labs were modified to the
preferences of the individual teacher which reduced the amount of common
assessments that were available across different teachers at one school site.
The labs were also more commonly teacher-centered where a strict
procedure would be given to the students to follow. The majority of the
teachers typically offered only a handful of student-centered labs during the
course of the school year. The most common concern for conducting more
discovery or inquiry-based labs involved the time and safety. There appeared
to be little or no direct push for more student-centered or inquiry instruction
from the administration and that this style was only done if the individual
teacher desired to do it.
In terms of the physical classrooms, they were equipped with gas and
water facilities but the extent of the availability may have varied from
classroom to classroom. The teacher concerns regarding the facilities typically
did not correspond to reasons that might prevent a teacher from conducting
labs in their class. The general orientation of the seating was typically in rows.
Through their decisions, teachers arrange classroom furniture in the space
210
allotted to reflect beliefs in how to best teach, maintain order and get students
to learn. “A teacher’s room tells us something about who he is, and a great
deal about what he is doing” (Kohl, cited in Cutler, 1989, p. 36; Weinstein,
1991; Hutchinson, 2004).
In a traditional format, classrooms have a “front” with seats in rows
signaling a front where teachers give directions, make assignments, leads
discussions and determines the degree of student movement and interaction
with an implied message that the teacher-to-student interaction is more
important than student-to-student interaction. Lecture, demonstration and
discussion are common pedagogical methods. In a more non-traditional
format, there is no obvious front. Teachers may try to promote student
interaction and student movement where seating is arranged in clusters or
groups (Doyle, 1986; Slavin, 1995). Further research would be needed to
confirm the actual amount of student-to-student interaction within a given
classroom.
Most school sites were at the beginning stages of developing more
common assessments that would be used across all science classes. In some
cases, schools developed a common final exam while in other schools only a
few common questions were used. These common questions would be used to
compare how students are performing for different teachers, presumably as a
reflection of the teacher’s instruction. Analysis of the results was also
211
beginning at some schools however the discussion was not clearly linked to
future changes in classroom instruction. This dialog potentially opened up
more communication between teachers but it was unclear as to the eventual
impact.
All of the teachers were aware of the of the California Science
Standards as well as the science portion of the STAR test and made a
conscious effort to incorporate those content standards as part of their
classroom instruction. The focus for most teachers appeared to be on
understanding the details of the standards to understand what topics to include
and which ones were not necessary. Specific instruction geared towards
preparing students for the STAR test and the science portion in particular was
limited to, at most, a review just prior to the testing period.
Research Question 3: Administrative Support
The third research question asked, “How are the school site
administration and/or school district offering teachers assistance in learning
about the new science standards? How has the school site been using previous
student performance to make decisions regarding curriculum and instruction?”
In exploring this question each school site was examine for the type of training
and assistance offered, internally from the school site or district, to teachers in
educating them on the California Science Content Standards and the STAR test
as well as the use of student data to help make instructional decisions. The
212
analysis for this research question was broken down by each individual school
site as well as having an overall analysis.
Analysis by School Site
HIS
Training and Assistance
At Hillside, there was no specific training designed to directly help
educate teachers about the California Science Content Standards however the
administration did offer teachers the material provided by the state including a
copy of the standards, the blueprint and the framework. There was also no
formal training for teachers to help understand how to translate the California
Science Standards into effective classroom lessons or how it should impact
instruction. For the STAR test, specifically the science portion of the test,
teachers received a copy of the release questions through their science
department meeting and had discussions about the assessment but the only
support was provided by the state through the Department of Education
website. With regards to questions on the test, the format or any other issues,
it was up to individual teachers to search for specific answers and download
the appropriate material. There was no other training or support provided by
either the school or the district; SVUSD had no science curriculum leader at
the district level, which made the school rely on the information provided by
the state.
213
The most consistent source of internal training available to the science
teachers was through their PLC common planning time. The late start days
provided time for teachers to talk and collaborate. The administration at
Hillside also provided additional release time for the science teachers. This
release time was during the normal school day where substitutes were provided
to allow teachers time to work together however this opportunity only was
provided once or twice per school year. The PLC time allowed the science
teachers to discuss questions regarding the standards or the STAR test amongst
the group. Internal programs such as peer coaching was also utilized to assist
teachers with pedagogical issues.
[Teacher learn] Mostly through interaction with each
other, collegiality and peer coaching.
-Michael, HIS Principal
Use of Student Performance/Data
Within the science department, teachers were just beginning the
process of formal collection and analysis of data. The department recently
completed the construction and administration of a common assessment, their
semester final on chemistry. At the time of the interviews, the teachers were in
the midst of compiling the student results from the semester final. There was
no indication that teachers received any type of formal training on how to
construct a common assessment or analyze the data once it was collected. As a
school, departments were beginning training on how to use EduSoft, an
214
educational software program to help analyze student data, but the school was
in the preliminary stages and had just started becoming familiar with the
program and therefore no formal analysis had been done.
With regard to other common assessments, both the administration and
teachers gave no indication that the STAR test results from the previous pilot
year were made available to teachers. There was informal discussion among
the teachers as to the strengths and weaknesses of common activities and labs
but no formal data collection or analysis was typically made. In addition, there
was no indication that any information collected was used to directly impact or
direct student instruction but rather the data was just used to initiate personal
reflection by the teacher or prompt a discussion between the department
members.
EVIS
Training and Assistance
At East View, there was no real training designed to directly help educate
teachers about the California Science Content Standards however the
administration did provide teachers with a copy of the California Science
Standards, the blueprint and the framework. There was also no formal training
for teachers to help understand how to translate the California Science
Standards into effective classroom lessons or how it should impact instruction.
The department chairperson was designated as a key resource for teachers with
215
questions about the content standards. For the STAR test, specifically the
science portion of the test, the teachers also received a copy of the release
questions but no other support, aside from the Department of Education
website, was given. Individual teachers with concerns regarding the standards
or the state assessment would be on their own to search for specific answers
and download the appropriate material. There was no other training or support
provided by the district, as there was no science curriculum leader. The most
consistent source of training for teachers was through their PLC common
planning time through the late start days. The administration at East View also
provided release time, once or twice a school year, for the science teachers to
allow them time to work as groups.
Use of Student Performance/Data
Within this science department, they were at the beginning stages of
administering a common assessment, a semester final on chemistry, to students
and subsequently collection and analyzing the results. There was no indication
that teachers received any type of formal training on how to construct a
common assessment or analyze the data once it was collected. The school as a
whole was also receiving training on how to use EduSoft, an educational
software program to help analyze student data, but the school was in the
preliminary stages and had just started becoming familiar with the program and
therefore no formal analysis had been done. This program is intended to
216
provide analysis of test scores to allow teachers to improve classroom
instruction.
Other common assessments that could be analyzed, such as the STAR
test pilot results from the previous year, were made available to teachers. Both
administrators and teachers discussed the areas of the science STAR test that
their students performed well on or poorly on. However there was no
indication as to how this information was used; presumably it was discussed
during their PLC meetings and could have influenced classroom instruction,
although no specific indication was made that this occurred. There was also
some informal discussion among some of the teachers as to the strengths and
weaknesses of particular assignments and more frequently labs but no formal
data collection or analysis was typically indicated. In addition, there was no
suggestion that any information collected was used to directly impact or direct
student instruction but rather was just used to initiate personal reflection by the
teacher or prompt a discussion between the department members.
LVIS
Training and Assistance
At Lake View, there was again no real training designed to directly
help educate teachers about the California Science Content Standards however
copies of the standards, the blueprint and the framework were provided.
Copies of these documents were also made available to all the members of the
217
department by being centrally located and stored the science workroom. In
spite of the lack of formal training for teachers regarding the standards and
how they may be translated into effective classroom lessons, this science
department appeared to spend an extensive amount of time working together as
a group discussing this amongst themselves. For the STAR test, specifically
the science portion of the test, teachers only received a copy of the release
questions. Questions related to the STAR test were typically discussed within
their department in search for a resolution. Again, with no district level
science coordinator, there was no other training or support provided by either
the school or the district.
The most consistent source of training for teachers was through their
PLC common planning time during the late start days. One or two additional
release days were also provided by the administration at Lake View. Much of
the internal conversations and assistance within the science department
occurred during the PLC time.
We trade off ideas/collaboration within the department.
-Carolyn, LVIS Department chair
Use of Student Performance/Data
At Lake View, the teachers did not indicate they were conducting any
formal collection or analysis of data. There was also no suggestion that
teachers received any type of formal training on how to construct a common
218
assessment or analyze the data. The only common assessments were similar
laboratory activities that different teachers incorporated within their
instruction; there was no sign that any formal data collection or analysis was
typically made using the labs. Both the administration and teachers did not
assert that the STAR test results from the previous pilot year were made
available to teachers. In addition, there was no indication that any information
collected was used to directly impact or direct student instruction but rather
was just used to initiate personal reflection by the teacher or prompt a
discussion between the department members.
BHMS
Training and Assistance
The science teachers at Beach Hills had the opportunity to attend
district sponsored Professional Development Academy classes, however it
could not be confirmed that there were any specific ones that dealt with the
topic of standards or the STAR test.
Teachers gain additional knowledge through the Internet
and they have grade level team planning. They have their
roadmaps that follow the standards. They can ask to go to
a conference or a PDA [professional development academy]
but most of it is done during ACE time.
-Sabra, BHMS Principal
Primarily within their science department meetings, teachers received specific
training designed to directly help educate teachers about the California Science
219
Content Standards. Activities were designed to allow teachers to compare,
using their individual curricular maps and the state standards, what they as
teachers are doing in the classroom and what content should be covered. It did
not appear that these meetings offered teachers specific training for teachers to
translate the California Science Standards into effective classroom lessons.
For the STAR test, specifically the science portion of the test, teachers
received a copy of the release questions. Within their department meetings or
PLC time, issues related to the science portion of the STAR test, as well as
other portions of the test, were discussed. Results from previous years were
also made available to teachers and used to help impact individual teacher
goals. Time was also spent working on activities reviewing the standardized
testing format in general and how to create classroom activities and instruction
to deliver this information to the students.
We have also looked at the data and then started writing
homework assignments in the format that is similar to
the standardized test [multiple choice answers with
ABCD/EFGH] so they get used to seeing that format.
We also worked on a [creating a] common rubric for the
research paper [to assist with the writing portion of the
STAR test].
- Tina, BHMS Department chair
Another activity that science teachers at BHMS participated in was the
construction of curriculum maps or road maps. Teachers were asked to look at
the district standards as well as the state standards and create a document that
220
describes what type of instructional activities are used to teach each standard.
Teachers also compared the district and state standards to identify differences
and gaps between their personal road maps.
I also asked teachers to look at the power standards.
Teachers were given the standards and curriculum maps
[based on the district] and asked to align the two and
identify gaps.
-Sabra, principal
Use of Student Performance/Data
Within the science department, teachers were using and analyzing
student data, most commonly from district standardized test results. Data from
the STAR pilot test were also made available. Time during their department
meetings and PLC meetings were spent reviewing the results and making
teacher goals that would presumably make an instructional impact.
We always go through it [District test scores and STAR
test results] and use it to make SMART goals and
individual [teacher] goals.
-Tina, BHMS Department chair
However, there was no indication that teachers received any type of formal
training on how to construct a common assessment or analyze the data. Unlike
other schools participating in the study, there was no indication that this
department was constructing or planning to use a teacher made common
assessment. There was informal discussion among the teachers as to the
221
strengths and weaknesses of particular assignments and labs but no formal data
collection or analysis was typically made.
MHMS
Training and Assistance
At Mission Hills, no formal training designed to directly help educate
teachers about the California Science Content Standards existed however the
administration did provide teachers with a copy of the standards, the blueprint
and the framework. The department chairperson was designated as a key
resource for teachers with questions about the content standards. There was
also no formal training for teachers to help understand how to translate the
California Science Standards into effective classroom lessons or how it should
impact instruction. With regards to the STAR test, specifically the science
portion of the test, teachers only received a copy of the release questions and it
was left to individual teachers to search for specific answers about the test.
There was no other training or support provided by either the school or the
district. The teachers did have extensive PLC common planning time offered
during the late start days that would allow a discussion between science
teachers. Issues regarding the standards or the assessment could be discussed
but it did not seem as if this was a formal topic of discussion. Any
conversation on this topic would appear to be more informal. There was no
222
other training from the school or district on the California Science Standards or
the science content within the STAR test.
Another activity that science teachers at MHMS participated in was the
construction of curriculum maps or road maps. These maps were used to help
identify specific classroom activities with the content standards they were
intended to explain. In this case, the teachers created maps that corresponded
to the district standards rather than the state standards.
We now focus on common course objects/power
standards. All departments designed those and you
can use that just as much as STAR data.
-Emmitt, MHMS principal
Use of Student Performance/Data
Within the science department, teachers were just beginning the
process of formal collection and analysis of data. A goal for this department
was to create and incorporate common test questions in all end-of-the-unit
exams. Approximately 10 questions were included on each individual
teacher’s unit exam. After the administration of the exam, the results would be
collected and discussed within their department. At the time of the study, the
teachers had only administered a few exams with common questions. There
was no indication that teachers received any type of formal training on how to
construct a common assessment or analyze the data once it was collected. It
was also unknown how the teachers analyzed the results or how those results
223
might have impacted their classroom instruction. During their department
meetings and PLC time, there was informal discussion among the teachers as
to the strengths and weaknesses of particular assignments and labs, in
particular those similar assignments that were administered in multiple
classrooms. The impression was that this discussion would initiate informal
conversations between teachers but it was unknown if there was any personal
reflection by the teacher or objective analysis of the student performance.
Both the administration and teachers also gave no indication that the STAR
test results from the previous pilot year were made available to teachers.
ORMS
Training and Assistance
At Ocean Ranch, there was again no formal training designed to
directly help educate teachers about the California Science Content Standards
or help to understand how to translate the California Science Standards into
effective classroom lessons. The administration did provide teachers with a
copy of the standards, the blueprint and the framework. For the STAR test,
specifically the science portion of the test, teachers also received a copy of the
release questions. There was no other training or support provided by either
the school or the district. Teachers did have the opportunity to discuss issues
within their department during their PLC common planning time during the
224
late start days, yet there was no indication this was a formal topic of
discussion.
The science teachers at ORMS also constructed curriculum maps to
help correlate specific classroom activities with the content standards they
were intended to explain. In this case, the teachers created maps that
corresponded to the district standards rather than the state standards.
We go with the state standards and try to [focus on] the
power standards.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
We try to emphasize the power standards through the
PLC and create common assessments.
-Becky, ORMS Assistant Principal
Use of Student Performance/Data
The science teachers at Ocean Ranch had not begun the process of
formal collection or analysis of data. The teachers, department chair and the
administrator did not indicate there was any current movement towards the
creation of a common assessment to be used among all the member of the
department. There was also no indication that teachers received any type of
formal training on how to construct a common assessment or analyze the data
once it was collected. Both the administration and teachers also gave no
indication that the STAR test results from the previous pilot year were made
available to teachers. There was informal discussion among the teachers as to
225
the strengths and weaknesses of particular common assignments and labs but
no sign of formal data collection or analysis.
Overall Analysis
Overall, as illustrated in Table 21, there were no formal classes or
training at any school within either district, with the exception of BHMS, that
were directly applicable to the STAR test or the content standards. Most
administrators expressed a large dependence on PLC time to give teachers the
opportunity for working together and discussing curricular issues such as the
California Science Standards yet this was never made a formal topic of
discussion. Beach Hills was the only participating school that conducted
specific activities for teachers to discuss and review the content standards as
well as the science content and format of the STAR test.
The schools in CUSD were also the only ones where teachers or
administrators made reference to teachers having curriculum maps. It would
appear that the creation of these maps was a district-wide initiative that did not
occur in SVUSD. Yet even though these teachers spent the time to create such
a document, the overall impression was that the majority of the teachers do not
regularly refer to this document when considering pedagogical issues.
226
Table 21. Self-reported teacher attendance at professional development
workshops/classes offered internally through the school site or district.
Formal training by the
District
Formal training by the
school
Laurie – HIS
Keith – HIS
Ryan – HIS
Nick – EVIS
Gabby – EVIS
Anne – LVIS
Andrew – LVIS
Maggie – LVIS
Stacey – BHMS Y
Jared – BHMS Y
Lisa – BHMS Y
Joseph – MHMS
Danielle – MHMS
Kalika – ORMS
Troy – ORMS
Clearly in both CUSD and SVUSD, the districts maintained a very
‘hands-off’ approach with very minimal effort put forth by either the district or
school site to educate teachers on the California Science Standards aside from
what occurred at BHMS. There was also no district or school site training for
teachers on how to translate the standards into classroom instruction or training
for the STAR test. The activities performed at BHMS appear to be solely the
result of the leadership, both in the principal and the department chair, at the
school.
227
Table 22. The status of schools analyzing and using student work to impact
instruction.
Analyzing student work Using student work to impact
instruction
HIS
In progress
Unknown
EVIS
N/A
Unknown
LVIS
No
Unknown
BHMS
Standardized test scores
Yes; planning goals
MHMS
In progress
Unknown
ORMS
No
Unknown
Most schools were at a very preliminary stage of creating and utilizing
common assessments, as seen in Table 22. Primarily common assessments
were in the form of common test questions, however some schools had not
reached the stage of even creating common assessments. The creation of the
common assessment, specifically the common test questions or final exam,
was left to the science teachers. There was no indication that any of the
teachers had received any formal training on the creation of standardized
assessments. The analysis of the common assessment, for those schools that
had reached this level, also appeared to be simply discussion and comparison
of how different groups of students performed. Unfortunately, the status of the
various departments makes it difficult to determine what, if any, impact these
common assessments have on classroom instruction. Clearly a department that
has not created a common assessment, administered the common assessment,
228
or collected and analyzed the results is unlikely to have any direct impact on
student instruction. In addition, there appeared to be no formal training as to
how to dissect and interpret the data or how to allow those results to directly
impact classroom instruction. Potentially these discussions could lead to
teachers comparing specific instructional techniques but it would also be
possible that the results of the data would have no influence on classroom
instruction.
BHMS was unmistakably an outlier. This science department was the
only participating school that had specific training designed for the standards
and the STAR test as well as currently used student data to make instructional
plans. Interestingly, this was also the only school that did not use teacher
made common assessments. It is unknown if this was a conscious decision on
the part of the administration and department chair.
Research Question 4: Teacher Training
The fourth research question asked, “How are teachers obtaining these
pedagogical skills? What tools or impediments exist for teachers to
successfully utilize these pedagogical methods? What type of support do
teachers feel they need to properly teach the new science standards?“ It is
assumed that a teacher could gain additional pedagogical skill and knowledge
through the participation in professional development. In exploring this
question each school site was examined for the training or the professional
229
development available to classroom teachers, externally to the school or
district, as well as the tools or limitations that would impact their ability to
gain additional pedagogical knowledge. The general organization and
structure of the school and culture of the science department in particular were
examined to uncover some of these tools and limitations. The support or
information requested by teachers, with regards to the California Science
Standards and the STAR test, was also documented. The analysis for this
research question was broken down by each individual school site as well as
having an overall analysis.
Gaining Pedagogical Knowledge
Participating in professional development courses is one way for
teachers to learn and gain more pedagogical knowledge in addition to being a
requirement for teachers to sustain their teaching credential. The majority of
professional development training takes place outside of a school or district
and would be voluntary. However there is a minimum number of hours of
participation in professional development that is currently required by the state
of California and participating in professional development is a part of the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). All of the
professional standards are listed in Appendix P.
Normally all teachers would have the opportunity to participate in the
various programs that are operated outside of their particular school or district.
230
These programs typically would have a registration or participation fee
associated with it and could last from a few hours on one day or be spread over
the course of multiple months. Due to the voluntary nature of these
professional development opportunities, along with the associated fees, it is
common that teachers only participate in programs they are personally very
motivated to attend. Schools and districts may assist in making the
participation in these professional development opportunities more attractive
by offering funding and release time from the normal school day, in order to
attend.
The total number of professional development opportunities available
to each school site and each individual teacher were unknown. The total of all
of the professional development workshops, run through private organizations
or the county Department of Education, would have a variety of topics. This
study focused on specific programs designed for training teachers on the
California Science Standards or the science portion of the STAR test. If
teachers reported not participating in any such programs, it may be that they
were unaware of the program, unable to participate in the program, unwilling
to participate or there were no programs on this specific topic available.
Beyond the attendance at such a program, teachers may also have the
opportunity to participate and attend a professional conference. Multiple
professional organizations related to classroom science teachers exist, such as
231
the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) or the California Science
Teachers Association (CSTA), and may or may not have hosted a conference
that offered workshops specifically addressed this issue of standards and
accountability. Similar to the professional development programs, the topics
of workshops presented at the conference will vary often according to the
theme or mission of the professional organization or the current conference.
Similar limitations exist for most teachers regarding their attendance at
conferences that includes obtaining release time from the classroom, funding
for conference registration fees, required travel and personal interest in
attending the conference.
Another source of professional development for teachers would be
through their participation in an advanced degree program. Minimum
educational requirements for most districts require one year of course work
beyond a Bachelor’s degree. Teachers may extend their educational
background and obtain a Master’s degree or higher. Often the increase in
education would correspond to advancement in the salary structure as well.
Participation in these degree programs would normally require a longer time
commitment to take all the required coursework with the topics of the course
content depending on the particular degree. The specific courses or
assignments within a given course may have addressed this issue of
understanding the California Science Standards or the STAR test. Specific
232
questions addressing the science standards or accountability as well as any
exploration into the courses within a given degree program were not part of the
scope of this research. Teachers that had already completed a degree program
were also not identified.
Analysis by School Site
HIS
External Teacher Training
Science teachers at Hillside had opportunities to learn new skills and
develop professionally through some external programs and the participation at
professional conferences.
Teachers have taken classes outside the school or the
district. When there are conferences relevant to what
we cover in the classroom [such as NSTA], we try to
send everyone.
-Ervin, HIS Department chair
These science teachers were given the opportunity to attend the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) conference the previous school year.
This opportunity often varies depending on the location and proximity of the
conference. The school and district were unwilling or unable to provide
funding for teachers to attend the conference when the financial burden rose.
Science teachers also attended other conferences or workshops that were not
directly related to the science discipline they were teaching. For example, one
teacher mentioned a technology-related conference and a leadership
233
conference, as he was also in administration, that he attended in the past.
Although there appeared to be the opportunity to attend, no other teacher or
administrator indicated the attendance or participation in any other professional
development workshop. There was also no indication that any of the teachers
were involved in a graduate school program.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
In their PLC, the teachers had the opportunity to meet and talk about
their instruction and what they did in the classroom. This appeared to be the
most conducive environment to allow teachers to discuss pedagogical issues
and gain insight or knowledge from other teachers, but when this occurred, it
was unclear as to how focused or specific those conversations were. The
impression from the teachers and administrators was that the topics for those
PLC meetings were to discuss the California Science Standards, how to
translate the standards into successful classroom instruction and to work on
developing their common assessment. It was also unclear how focused those
discussions were or if other topics were also presented during those times.
There was no formal accountability in place for the teachers for the outcome of
these meetings.
A clear advantage of the PLC, for the teachers, was to provide a regular
and reoccurring opportunity to meet with other teachers during the normal
school day. Similar to traditional secondary schools, not all science teachers
234
would have the same prep period as other science teachers which leaves fewer
opportunities for teachers to meet and talk. Prior to having the PLC time,
teachers would have to meet before or after the normal school day to have the
same opportunity.
The physical arrangement of the science department at Hillside found
the science classes all part of one building. Classrooms were typically located
no further than down a hallway from each other. Telephones and email were
also available for correspondence during the school day. Teachers were also
asked about possible limitations with regards to the facilities at the school site
or within their particular classroom that might impact their ability to conduct
lessons and labs in particular. Concerns were not that facilities or equipment
was lacking but rather the quantity; for example, additional gas valves and
counter space was desired to increase the safety during the lab and reduce the
number of students per group.
In terms of the school culture, it seemed to be very collaborative and
open. The teachers seemed to work together well and expressed a desire to
spent time helping others. The science department was similar to the
traditional secondary school department where teachers primarily taught one or
two subjects; the collaboration allowed for teachers to break free of the
traditional “isolated” teacher and discuss issues with other professionals that
teach the same subject areas.
235
The administration stated there was a high frequency of visitation to
classrooms. The principal, in part through another program where he
celebrates each student’s birthday, said he visits classrooms informally every
single day. The department chair also declared that he visits other classrooms
every single day. Formal observations would be less frequent and associated
with a formal review. During or after the informal visits, it was not known if
the administrators made comments or offered any type of assistance with
regards to the teacher’s pedagogy. From the opposite perspective, the teachers
did express a general desire for more assistance translating the standards into
classroom lessons and having more information on how the STAR test, in
particular the questions, was created.
I would like to know how they evaluate the test questions,
their reasoning why they chose to include/exclude and
the process of how they are changing.
-Keith, HIS science teacher
EVIS
External Teacher Training
Outside of the collaboration between staff members within the
department, teachers at East View had the opportunity to participate in
professional conferences.
They go to professional organizations [such as the Q
conference, NSTA, CSTA, etc.]. There is also a lot of
collaboration within the department.
-Jessica, EVIS Department chair
236
There is a blend of experienced and newer teachers [in our
department so there is] the collaboration between teachers.
They will also attend professional conferences [such as the
League of Middle School Conference].
-Steve, EVIS principal
Right now, I am getting my masters so I am thinking
more about formative and summative assessments.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
These science teachers were given the opportunity to attend the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) conference the previous school year.
Through the interviews, only one teacher indicated she was enrolled in an on-
line graduate program. There was no other indication that teachers attended or
participated in any other type of professional development course.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
The PLC time provided teachers with a regular opportunity to meet and
talk about what they did in the classroom however it was unclear as to how
focused or specific those conversations were. Presumably the topics for those
PLC meetings were to discuss the California Science Standards and work on
developing their common assessment but one indication was that the majority
of the time was spent solely working on the creation of the common
assessment.
How much collaboration? Zero. During the PLC, we do get
together but there has been focus just on common assessments.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
237
A clear advantage of the PLC time for the teachers was to provide the
opportunity to meet with other teachers rather than have to meet before or after
the normal school day to have the same opportunity. EVIS is similar to a
traditional secondary school where all the science teachers typically do not
share a common prep period making it difficult to spend time working
together.
The physical arrangement of the science classes at EVIS found that
most of the classrooms were located within the same section of one building.
Some of the classrooms were connected to each other or to a common
workroom. There was one classroom that was located in a completely separate
building in another part of the campus. Teachers did have access to phones
and email for potential communication during the school day. There were no
specific concerns or limitations expressed regarding the facilities. The only
possible desire was for there to be more space and equipment to allow the ratio
of students to be lower in each group.
The school culture was described cautiously. The other teachers
confirmed this sentiment; it appears that not all of the teachers worked together
well and the department functioned more as individuals.
The science department members were just beginning to
learn how to work collaboratively.
-Steve, EVIS principal
238
The principal at EVIS stated that he made informal observations in the
classroom about twice a week while the department chair only was able to visit
other classrooms twice a month. Formal observations would only be
performed with a formal review. During or after the informal visits, it was not
known if the administrators made comments or offered any type of assistance
with regards to the teacher’s pedagogy. With respect to the standards, the
support the teachers did express was a desire to have more assistance
translating the standards into classroom lessons.
I would like to have more clarity about the framework
and the standards. For example, spell out the vocabulary
that you need to know, explain the grey areas.
-Nick, EVIS science teacher
I would like to know how the standards are translated
into specific test questions.
-Gabby, EVIS science teacher
LVIS
External Teacher Training
Beyond what was offered through the district or at the school site,
teachers at LVIS participated in professional conferences.
We trade off ideas/collaboration within the department
and attend conferences. I also attended workshops at NSTA
on science being included in the standards in general but not
specifically California.
-Carolyn, LVIS Department chair
239
Similar to other local schools, NSTA was the conference most teachers
recalled attending. There was no indication that the science teachers
participated in any professional development workshops outside of the school
or district related to the California Science Standards or the STAR test but
there was one teacher that mentioned participating in a Master’s program.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
For LVIS, the PLC time was emphasized as the primary opportunity for
the teachers to meet and discuss what they did in the classroom but it was
unclear as to how focused or specific those conversations were. There was no
formal protocol to the PLC meetings although the topics for those meetings
clearly centered on the California Science Standards. The advantage of the
PLC, for the teachers, was to provide the opportunity to meet with other
teachers during the normal school day. Prior to this, teachers would have to
meet before or after the normal school day to have the same opportunity. The
school culture seemed to be very collaborative. Multiple individuals described
how the teachers in the science department work together well and spent time
helping others. One person even commented on how they spend time together
outside of school.
The physical arrangement of the science classrooms at LVIS found that
all the rooms were within one larger building. The science classrooms were all
located in the same general area with some rooms being physically connected.
240
Other classrooms were located no more than across a hallway. Teachers had
access to phones and email to allow for additional communication during the
school day. The facilities limitations were again not with the absence of
equipment; there was a desire for larger rooms and more space as well as more
equipment so that teachers would not have to share. During the interviews, the
sharing of equipment was never expressed as a potential reason not to conduct
a particular lab activity.
The principal at Lake View held a personal schedule with which she
used to assure she would informally visit all the teachers on her staff; however,
her classroom visits only occurred about twice a month. The department chair
stated that she was not able to visit any other teachers in their classrooms
during the school day. During or after the informal visits, it was not known if
the administrators made comments or offered any type of assistance with
regards to the teacher’s pedagogy. With the respect to the STAR test, teachers
also expressed a desire to have more assistance translating the standards into
classroom lessons.
What it really means and to what depth I should cover
it in; I would love examples. I want to know how to
determine what the STAR test writers are going to write
questions for.
-Maggie, LVIS science teacher
I want to know how they analyze the data [calculate
student scores and translate them into the API scores].
-Andrew, LVIS science teacher
241
I don’t feel we have been given enough information.
We have been given papers that list the number of
questions for a given area but those categories are so
broad and the standards are so specific so it is hard to
know exactly what the students need to know for the
test.
-Anne, LVIS science teacher
BHMS
External Teacher Training
Similar to other school sites, teachers were also able to participate in
district professional development programs, professional conferences and
advanced degree programs. In this case, the administration mentioned the
attendance at professional conferences but the teachers did not confirm this. It
was unknown if the participating teachers attended any of the conferences and
neglected to mention this or if they were not part of the group of teachers that
were allowed to attend.
We gain more knowledge through communication within
the department. Some people go to PDA’s, but there is not
much science offered. We have gone to a couple of
conferences [such as NSTA, CLMS] and some people
are in a Master’s program.
-Tina, BHMS department chair
Similar to other schools, NSTA was the conference referred to by the
department chair and principal. Neither the administration nor the science
teachers mentioned any other specific professional development workshops
related to the standards or the STAR test that teachers attended. There was
242
also no indication that any of the participating teachers were involved in a
graduate degree program.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
The topics during those PLC meetings at BHMS appeared to be very
focused on the California Science Standards and preparing for the STAR test.
The impact of this was not entirely evident during the teacher interviews. The
teachers made very limited references to the activities described by the
department chair and the principal. The school culture seemed to be very
collegial but a distinct amount of tension within the department clearly existed,
primarily focused towards one member. Limitations on the productivity during
the PLC time were indirectly directed at that one member. The remaining
teachers seemed to work together well and spent time helping others.
The physical arrangement of BHMS had the science classrooms spread
out in different parts of the campus. There were a couple of science
classrooms in one building, a few more classrooms in another separate
building on the opposite side of the campus and a few more portable science
classrooms located on another side of the campus. The proximity between
classrooms was very limited and doubtful that teacher physically visited other
classrooms on a regular basis. All of the teachers had access to email and
telephones for additional access during the school day. Facilities concerns
were very minimal. The teachers all commented on how fortunate to have
243
access to so much equipment. One minor issue was the maintenance of
equipment such as lab stools and the frequency in which they break.
The principal at BHMS was very proactive in her desire to make
informal visits to classrooms. She also created a checklist to assure she would
visit all the teachers on her staff as well as designate one day per week that she
would conduct those visitations. The department chair stated she was only
able to visit other teachers about twice a year. During or after the informal
visits, it was not known if the administrators made comments or offered any
type of assistance with regards to the teacher’s pedagogy. The concerns
regarding the STAR test from teachers included questions on content and on
the overall accountability system.
I do not know the criteria that they go by to determine
what should be included [or not on the STAR test].
-Stacey, BHMS science teacher
You need to change the system – have the standards, have
the common assessments, have the curriculum/labs, get it
out and give the support.
-Lisa, BHMS science teacher
MHMS
External Teacher Training
At Mission Hills, during the course of the interviews, there was only a
specific reference to teachers participating in professional development
programs operated by private organizations; both the teachers and
244
administrators did not reference the attendance at any professional
conferences.
The district offers workshops and there are programs from
the county or programs not affiliated with the district but
teachers need to be self-motivated since most are voluntary.
-James, MHMS department chair
There is BTSA for new teachers. ACE time is big for
teachers to share. If they are in other instructional classes,
participating in outside education or district offerings,
they can bring back new information and collaborate
between staff.
-Emmitt, MHMS principal
There was also no indication by the participants of enrollment within any
graduate level program.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
The PLC time was the most dominant resource cited for the teachers
talk about their instruction and pedagogical issues. It is assumed those PLC
meetings were to discuss the California Science Standards and work on
developing their common assessment. The school culture within the science
department seemed to be collaborative. The teachers seemed to interact, work
well with each other and were willing to help but overall remained in relative
isolation. One teacher mentioned she was currently teaching a part-time
schedule which increased her isolation since she was not physically on campus
to interact with the other department members as much. The science
department at MHMS was similar to the traditional secondary school
245
department where teachers primarily taught one or two subjects; the
collaboration allowed for teachers to break free of the traditional “isolated”
teacher and discuss issues with other professionals that teach the same subject
areas.
The physical orientation of the science classrooms at Mission Hills
found all of the science classrooms for seventh and eighth grade to be in one
general area. Science classrooms for sixth grade were located within another
building on the other side of campus. The classrooms were not all physically
connected. Some were portable classrooms while others were within a
permanent building however all the classrooms were in close proximity to each
other. The rooms were similar to being in adjacent buildings. One factor that
may have impacted the social interaction of the science department was the
lack of a central science workroom or stock room. Supplies for the department
were contained in various rooms; it was unclear how this unique factor
increased or decreased the interaction between staff members. The facilities
concern was also not about a lack of equipment but rather the amount; more
space and an increase the amount of equipment was desired to make the lab
groups smaller and the class environment safer. For example, the number of
electrical outlets, sinks and gas valves could be increased. Both teachers also
would like to see a central science stock room be created for the school.
246
The principal and department chair expressed they were both unable to
make regular visits to classrooms. Formal observations were conducted but
only with those teachers receiving a formal review. The principal did state that
informal visits were conducted but not on a regular basis. From the teachers’
perspective, the concerns about the standards and STAR test were mainly on
the details of the assessment.
ORMS
External Teacher Training
At Ocean Ranch, it was assumed that the science teachers had different
opportunities to advance their personal training and pedagogy through the
possible attendance of conferences or professional development workshops
offered in the district or at the county level. Although professional conferences
were available locally, neither the teachers nor the administration mentioned
that teachers attended these. It is unclear if failure to indicate their attendance
was due to a lack of attendance and if so, if that was primarily due to the
teacher’s lack of interest or the administration’s lack of support. One teacher
did mention attending a science related training as part of the science
department but the other science teacher did not confirm his participation in
this. The only other avenue mentioned was the participation in the PLC.
More training [is offered] through the district, teachers at
the school may offer a class to work on best practice.
Teachers are open to getting together.
-Oliva, ORMS department chair
247
Sign up for PDA offered by colleges or the district. Hopefully
during collaboration, the concept is to better your teaching style,
you get knowledge from others.
-Becky, Assistant Principal ORMS
There was also no indication that either science teacher was currently a part of
any graduate level program.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
Even with the emphasis on using the PLC as the primary vehicle for the
teachers to discuss pedagogical issues, it was not clear what the focus was
during those meetings. Presumably the topics for those PLC meetings were to
discuss the California Science Standards and work on developing their
common assessment, yet there was no common assessment complete at that
time. It was not clear if there was a clear focus and direction for what should
be accomplished during that meeting time. For Ocean Ranch, the school
culture seemed to be collaborative with the teachers appearing to work well
with each other and willing to help but overall the impression was that teachers
remained in relative isolation.
The physical orientation of the science classroom was that the majority
of the classrooms were located within one section of the building. Some of
these classrooms were physically connected and one classroom acted as a
gateway into the science stock room. Presumably this teacher would have
248
more contact and interaction with other department members due to the
necessity of passing through that room. Two other science classrooms were
located on the other side of the campus as portables. The teachers all had
access to telephones and email to allow for additional communication during
the school day. The only facilities concern was again just with the desire for
more space and the amount of equipment to create smaller lab groups.
The assistant principal stated that she made visitations and informal
observations of teachers twice a week. However, the impression was that the
majority of these visits occurred as a result of finding a particular student and
dealing with a discipline issue. It was unclear if, during these visits, she made
any observations or assessments to be in a position to give pedagogical
feedback to the teacher. The department chair expressed she was not able to
conduct classroom visitations. For the teachers, the concerns for the STAR
test were on the development of the STAR test questions and the approach to
the test taken by the school site administration.
I want to know more about the STAR test and how
questions are developed and by whom. It seems
disproportionate in how the actual questions are
emphasized compared to the actual standards.
-Kalika, ORMS science teacher
I would like to see [our school wide review for the
STAR test] more formalized and have the ability
for teachers to put together more organized study
sessions.
-Troy, ORMS science teacher
249
Overall Analysis
External Teacher Training
Table 23 lists the self-reported teacher attendance at professional
development workshops or classes offered by different organizations that
related directly to the California Science Standards or the STAR test. As the
range and variety of courses and workshops are so extensive at professional
conferences and within a graduate program, an unconfirmed assumption was
made that there was some course or workshop available that addressed these
issues. The opportunity to attend another professional development course that
was managed by an organization outside the district that relate directly to the
standards would appear to be, for the participating schools and teachers, an
event that rarely, if ever, occurred.
In only one other case did a teacher mention attending a conference
specifically related to science standards, in this case using the laboratory to
help teach the standards, but other teachers or administrators from that school
site did not corroborate this event. A separate occasion reported that a teacher
attended a county workshop related to the content standards but again other
teachers or administrators from the school site did not corroborate this event.
As a result, in both cases, the attendance would not appear to be department-
wide.
250
Table 23. Self-reported teacher attendance at professional development
workshops/classes offered by different external organizations.
Another unique discovery was the attendance at professional
conferences by teachers from SVUSD but not by teachers from CUSD.
Although there was one school from CUSD that stated their science teachers
attended professional conferences, during the interviews the teachers
Professional
conference
By the
County
By a Private
organization
Participation in a
Graduate program
Laurie – HIS Y Y
Keith – HIS Y
Ryan – HIS
Nick – EVIS Y
Gabby – EVIS Y Y
Anne – LVIS Y Y
Andrew – LVIS Y
Maggie – LVIS Y
Stacey – BHMS
Jared – BHMS
Lisa – BHMS
Joseph – MHMS
Danielle – MHMS
Kalika – ORMS Y
Troy – ORMS
251
themselves did not make reference to that fact. This may be a coincidence or a
reflection of school or district priorities and how educational time and
resources should be spent.
This overall picture illustrates that the school districts were very similar
in the training, or lack of training, for science teachers with respect to the
California Science Standards and the STAR test. Science teachers either do
not have the opportunity to attend external professional development
programs, perhaps due to school site financial decisions or the availability of
standards-oriented classes, or do not have the motivation to attend. The
opportunity for teachers to learn new pedagogical skills may exist but few
teachers are taking advantage of this opportunity.
Tools or Impediments and Desired Support
Both school districts recently made a commitment to designate specific
and reoccurring time dedicated to allow teachers to work together. These late
start days were organized differently within each district but were designed to
basically do the same thing. Prior to providing the late start days, if teachers
were to collaborate it would have to be on their own time, typically before or
after school and outside of their contractual obligations, unless teachers were
all given the same prep period. In both SVUSD and CUSD, a secondary
classroom teacher contracted to teach a full schedule would teach five classes
during a six period day with one of those periods being their prep period to
252
allow for organizing and lesson planning. Normally teachers within one
department do not have the same prep period due to requirements and
limitations within making a master schedule. In most cases, schools do not
have all the teachers in one content area department with the same prep period
as it would mean every student at the school would not be able to take that
content course at that period during the school day.
The time spent during the PLC meetings was presumably for working
on understanding the content standards or other related activities. It was
unknown whether there were other tasks set forth for the teachers beyond
working with the standards and the STAR test. Some schools clearly spent
time working on creating and analyzing a common assessment; for those
schools that did not, it was not clear what the time was actually spent doing.
There appeared to be little accountability for the departments to produce and
implement a common assessment as well as little, if any, formal training for
creating or analyzing a common assessment.
The general culture for most schools was one that was accepting of
collaboration. All of the departments appeared to want to work together and
only one department having a clearly fragmented group dynamic that would
prevent it. In some case, the individual teachers appeared to still lead a
primarily isolated professional existence even with a greater opportunity to
work in groups.
253
Pedagogical decisions, it would seem, were not limited by the lack of
any specific equipment or facilities. General requests, with regards to facilities
and equipment, only addressed the desire for more space or more equipment to
allow for smaller group sizes. The physical location of the classrooms
typically found the science rooms located in one central area. Access to other
science teachers, in most cases, would be available simply by walking to the
next room or across a hallway. When the physical proximity was greater than
this, teachers also had access to telephone and email if contact needed to be
made to another teacher.
In general, the number of times an administrator visited a classroom
was at most once or twice a week. Of course these informal visits would apply
to the entire teaching staff so it would but unlikely that any one teacher would
experience more than two or three visitations per school year. Through the
course of the interviews, it was difficult to determine if all the subjects
maintained the same concept of an informal visit. In some cases, walking
through a classroom or having an alternative reason, such as a discipline issue
with a student, would not necessarily allow the administrator to carefully
observe not just the activity the students are performing in the class but also
consider the pedagogical methods being used as it relates to the content
standards. It would seem that an administrator that visits the classroom
254
without this prior thought would not be able to offer feedback and constructive
commentary regarding the teacher’s pedagogy or help discuss concerns.
Through the interviews, most of the concerns and desires the teachers
had about the STAR test were focused on the content, primarily being more
specific and getting clarification on the standards, and questioned the format
and style of the test, such as the rationale for using particular questions or
wording for questions. These concerns are similar to those expressed through
the Stages of Concern Questionnaire as informational concerns.
Analysis and Discussion
The Case Study Guide (Appendix C) and the conceptual frameworks
facilitated the analysis of the data. Conceptual Framework A (Appendix A)
provided an analytical framework to examine the pedagogical practices of
teachers and other factors that influence teachers’ response to accountability.
Conceptual Framework B (Appendix B) provided a framework to understand
the dynamics of the current reform policy and the impact on student
performance and teacher pedagogy. Key elements in the data were analyzed
and expanded upon in relation to these analytical frameworks, allowing for a
deeper understanding of the dynamics between classroom instruction, the
California Science Content Standards and the standards-based accountability
as measured by the STAR tests. The analysis and discussion of the findings
were presented in relation to each of the four sets of research questions.
255
Research Question 1: Teacher reaction to standards and accountability
It is apparent that the establishment of standards and the accompanying
high stakes accountability system in California influenced the eighth grade
science teachers and what content was covered in the classroom. There was a
clear and conscious decision to be aware of the California Science Content
Standards and incorporate those topics within the course of the academic year
with the likely exclusion of other topics not apart of the standards.
However, since the establishment of the current version of the
California Science Standards occurred in 2000 and with the amount of teaching
experience for the majority of the participants of this study, the high
occurrence of teachers struggling with comprehension of the standards would
lead one to believe that, prior to the accountability through the STAR test, this
focus and emphasis on the standards was not at a comparable level. Similarly,
as there is no current formal accountability associated with the National
Science Education Standards, it seems logical that the lack of compliance and
familiarity with the national standards is the natural outcome. The reaction of
the majority of CUSD teachers, in terms of their historical emphasis on their
district standards rather than the state standards would also imply that without
the accountability of the STAR test, they may have been inclined to selectively
follow those standards set by their district to the exclusion the state standards.
256
The presence of an accountability system appears to be necessary to impact the
pedagogical decisions of classroom teachers.
Although all the teachers expressed and demonstrated a familiarity with
the California Science Standards, it is still unclear as to the level of
understanding each teacher possessed and how this understanding directly
impacted their instruction in the classroom. Additional research could more
accurately reveal both the level of understanding of the standards for individual
teachers as well as the specific pedagogical decisions made that would link
what activities are performed in the classroom and how it applies to a specific
content strand. The multiple requests for interpretation and clarification of the
standards would seem to indicate that more could be done to increase the level
of understanding for the teachers. The level of understanding for the standards
would likely influence the application of the standards to classroom
instruction.
A similar situation exists with respect to the STAR test and the science
portion in particular. The general testing format for the science portion of the
STAR test would be similar to other content areas of the exam. Again, as a
result of the extensive teaching experience of the subject group in general, it
might be expected that teachers already have extensive familiarity with this
format. Yet this familiarity was not reflected in their responses and did not
necessarily indicate an in-depth understanding of the questions, either in
257
content or in format that the students would be exposed to. It was only at
BHMS that more specific training for teachers was provided at the school site
level to connect the standards with test preparation for the STAR test and
classroom instruction. This lack of training for teachers, for the STAR test in
general and the science portion in particular, may have been a district-wide
decision made in each of the respective school districts; if so, the rationale for
this decision was unknown. Unless a particular school site possesses the
appropriate leadership to engage its staff in training, schools and subsequently
teachers and students may suffer from a lack of knowledge and training.
The results from the Stages of Concern questionnaire as well as those
voiced during the interviews revealed most teachers have significant concerns
about many aspects of the accountability system and high-stakes testing. The
majority of these concerns involved the general awareness of the
characteristics and effects of the accountability system, personal demands of
the innovation and their role within the system, the process and tasks involved
with using the particular aspects of the accountability system, such as the
STAR test and California State Science Standards, and the impact of the
innovation on students as well as what would be needed to increase student
outcomes. The majority of these concerns are reflective of the earlier Stages of
Concern as individuals gather more information and experience as it relates to
the innovation. Although the entire accountability system is not new, as it
258
specifically applies to science as a content area and science teachers, this
dynamic is new.
There are a few potential reasons as to why teachers are reacting the
way they currently are. First, there appears to be a shift in the role of the
classroom teacher. Traditionally, the role for the classroom teacher was one
similar to an independent contractor; a person hired to do a specific job. The
traditional classroom teacher had the autonomy in large part to decide both the
details of the content to teach and the manner in which to teach it with no real
accountability for what they did. Within their classrooms, almost like a
sanctuary, teachers often worked in isolation rarely aware of what occurred
outside of their door. Their knowledge and expertise were typically not
questioned as teacher pedagogy was seen as a significant factor in student
achievement.
Current educational reforms focus less on the behaviors of teachers.
The implementation of curricular roadmaps create the expectation that all
teachers are not only teaching the exact same content but doing it almost at the
same time. Performance-based assessments emphasize what students should
be able to exhibit at the end of a lesson as demonstrated by rubrics or common
assessments as their alignment with content standards help drive instruction
(Darling-Hammond, 2003). As a result, teachers are no longer given the
autonomy to make the same the same educational decisions as they did in the
259
past. Teachers are now expected to work more in conjunction with other
teachers and in accordance with external standards and assessments. As a
result, the expectations of what classroom teachers are to do are significantly
different.
It is unclear how aware and accepting teachers have been of this
change. Perhaps to reestablish their individual significance, many of the
unwritten roles associated with teaching, but not directly associated with
student performance on a standardized assessment, were cited from these
current science teachers as how they see their function. For example, more
authentic learning that may be measured beyond just test scores and teaching
information more applicable to functioning in the real world were commonly
cited. In addition, teaching more science specific goals such as the process of
how real science is conducted and the use of the laboratory experience were
also cited. It is unclear what the current role of the classroom teacher will
eventually evolve into, in particular from the perspective of educational leaders
that create standards and assessments.
A second potential reason could simply be that teachers just require
additional time and support. With the recent addition of the accountability,
teachers may be accepting and willing to make changes in their instruction but
will need the appropriate amount of time to completely understand the entire
scheme of the accountability system. Prior to this current educational reform,
260
it is unlikely most teachers had extensive experience with creating common
assessments, teaching specific content standards and collaborating with other
colleagues. Teachers are typically beginning to work and collaborate more,
develop common assessments and in time should have data that may be used to
impact their instruction. Time and support may allow the development of
multiple common assessments, as teachers are able to develop and refine their
skills. Additional time may also allow teachers to collect more information
and develop a higher understanding regarding the accountability system.
A third possible explanation may be that teachers either do not
completely understand the details regarding the accountability system or do not
philosophically agree with how the system is currently formatted. Repeated
comments indicated that many teachers were not aware of how the standards
were constructed or how the STAR test was constructed. More importantly,
understanding the rationale for what was done or how the process was
designed to work would be vital in potentially increasing the support for this
accountability system. For example, a common perception among teachers
was that multiple-choice exams were poor assessment tools unable to measure
higher-level thinking. Additional training on the creation and use of multiple
forms of assessments may alter that belief. Similarly, the idea of teaching to a
test may be more validated if the value of the test is understood. In many
cases, the information teachers were not aware of, such as how the individual
261
scores were used to create the school’s API, was typically available through
the state or the district testing coordinator. Additional time and information
may drastically impact these teachers’ perceptions.
Finally, another potential scenario may be that teachers, or even
schools and districts, are currently aware of and understand the currently
accountability system and are simply modifying their behavior to obtain the
maximum long-term benefits of the system. As it currently stands, the goal for
schools is to show student growth over time since schools that obtain high
scores will be expected to improve just as schools that obtain low scores.
Therefore, particularly since the science portion of the STAR test has just been
introduced, it does not work in a school’s interest to perform at the highest
possible level at the beginning. The first year scores are typically used as a
baseline to compare future scores. It may be easier for schools to achieve that
perception of growth if their initial baseline scores are low. If this is the case,
some teachers or schools may not be motivated to perform at their highest level
for this first year with the science portion. Introducing more interventions for
students and teachers in later years may help portray this desired image of
growth.
Research Question 2: Pedagogical skills of science teachers
In terms of the professional environment, these schools clearly
emphasized the use of the Professional Learning Community as an internal
262
vehicle to offer teachers the opportunity to develop and discuss pedagogical
issues. Providing this opportunity helped encourage and develop a culture and
environment at each school where teachers were less isolated and interacted
with each other more. Only the schools within CUSD could clearly be
identified as having teachers that created curriculum maps that were, in part,
based on standards.
As the PLC environment was recently introduced to these schools, it
would be expected that their level of productivity would eventually increase in
time. Most departments were at preliminary stages of construction or
administration of a single common assessment. Without a common
assessment, the use of student data to make instructional decisions was
extremely limited. The productivity of these departments might increase with
more specific training for teachers, by the school administration or the district,
on topics such as how to translate the content standards or use various types of
student data to influence and impact classroom instruction. The concept of
collaboration might also be addressed. The impression from most teachers was
that collaboration was typically described as sharing or trading copies of
assignments. Teachers may subsequently modify the assignment to their own
needs but there was little description of teachers working together and talking
about educational goals as they create or modify a particular assignment.
263
Within the classroom, teachers overwhelmingly used a variety of
instructional methods over the course of one class period and beyond. There
was a high frequency of science classes being active and hands-on yet the
instructional style emphasized a more teacher-centered environment. Research
has shown that in most classrooms there is more commonly a hybrid of
teacher-centered and student-centered classrooms rather than having just one
or the other, yet even within the hybrids, there would typically be a dominant
form. In this study, all of the teachers demonstrated a hybrid classroom but
overwhelmingly the dominant form of instruction was teacher-centered. The
tendency towards teacher-centered activities was even evident in the typical
seating orientation of the classrooms. The ensuing issue becomes how much is
enough. Most teachers, even when they personally claimed to not want to do
inquiry or student-centered activities, still mentioned a couple of activities or
labs that are more student-centered. Unfortunately there is no consensus in the
literature as to an appropriate amount of student-centered activities within a
hybrid classroom.
Other factors that may impact instructional style are included as part of
McComas’ discussion on issues with impacting laboratory instruction
(McComas, 1994). These include curricular and assessment issues, physical
factors of the classroom including available facilities and equipment, safety
concerns, time issues, student issues, and teacher issues. The opportunity to
264
conduct student-centered or teacher-centered activities did not appear to be
limited by physical buildings, facilities or access to equipment but rather was
dependent on the personal orientation of the teacher.
One concern with the presence of standards-based accountability would
be that pedagogically speaking, there would be an overemphasis on teacher-
centered instruction as opposed to student-centered instruction due to the need
to closely follow the content standards. This trend has already been found in
other places; Dillon (2006) found over 70 percent of 15,000 districts have cut
back on time spent in social studies, science, art, music and other subjects to
create more time for reading and math. Teachers say they use few student-
centered activities (small group work, discussions, learning centers, portfolios)
because such work takes away precious classroom time from standards-based
curriculum and test preparation (Pedulla, 2003; Hasiotis, 2006). Another
teacher offered this perspective.
The test is the total goal. We spend time every day
doing rote exercises. Forget ever doing hands-on…
science or math games, or creative writing…We do
one hour of sit and drill in each of the subjects of math,
reading and writing. We use a basal reader, math
workbook pages, and rote writing prompts…Every day
for on hour the whole school does the exact same direct
instruction lesson…The children sit and get drilled over
and over. (p.37, Jones, Jones & Hargrove, 2003)
A potential rationale for the current attitude held by teachers may be
due to a lack of knowledge of alternative pedagogical methods. With schools
265
so dependent on the PLC meetings and members of the science department
providing ideas and information for themselves, along with the minimal
participation in external professional development or opportunities for internal
professional development, it is likely that new pedagogical ideas are rarely
introduced or thoroughly explained. Training on how to conduct inquiry-type
activities do not appear to be existent. Teachers may be under the impression
that their current methods are acceptable and do not require a change. For a
process like inquiry to be completely implemented, teachers will need to have
time and slowly transition to more student-centered to make sure the students
are aware and able to adapt. Teachers that are not aware of the process or are
not thoroughly training on how to instruct in this method will likely not value
it, in particular if they currently think what is being done is already good. An
external motivator, such as administrative support or advocacy through the
standards, may also be needed to help propagate this transition.
Another limitation may come from the California State Science
Standards themselves; if inquiry and higher level thinking skills are desired,
they need to be more clearly identified within the standards. The specific
format of California Science Content Standards may have lead teachers to a
more didactic style since much of the content standards are phrased as “the
student will know….” The emphasis on knowing facts rather than
understanding concepts may allow for easier measurement on an assessment
266
however the classroom environment may also emphasize rote learning as well.
Other topics such as the explicit requirement of laboratory experiments and the
type and extent of lab work should also be clarified. The specific questions on
the STAR test that reflect rote knowledge will also reflect this unwritten
emphasis on knowing facts rather than understanding concepts. Without this
clarification, the emphasis on those topics may be lost.
There are many other factors that influence the final instructional style
within classroom. Student issues may cover a wide range of topics including
ability and previous experience. For a particular laboratory or activity, the
psychomotor skills of the student would have an impact on the final
performance of the student and the class as a whole. The attitude and
motivation of the students as well as the particular classroom dynamics such as
number of students in the class, the age and maturity of the students or
significant subgroup populations would also impact a teacher’s decision. The
student population, GATE or regular education or RSP, typically impacts the
type and number of a particular instructional style. School demographics, the
school culture and expectations of the teachers, administration, parents and
community will impact the expectations for education and science specifically.
Teacher issues would include the perceived teacher’s role within a class
as well as their psychological nature, such as the comfort level, enthusiasm, or
confidence, of various forms of instruction including the use of labs. Another
267
factor would be the experience and knowledge of the subject matter as well as
the pedagogical skill for the teacher. Another issue within topic of pedagogical
skills is the potential conflict in terminology. Individual teachers may conduct
the same classroom instruction yet one may classify it as an activity while
another as a lab and each has a clear and sensible rationale for doing so. When
having a conversation on instructional methods, teachers need to be clear on
the terminology and use the same terms with the same meaning. A
clarification of what constitutes a lab rather than an activity or what makes
something hands-on would increase the level of professionalism through the
increase of the quality of conversations. This would allow the conversations to
go beyond the use of the popular buzzwords often used in education.
For the teachers that participated in the study, the majority expressed
no significant facilities issues or concerns except for a desire for additional
space typically to reduce the number of students within a group. There were
no instances of classrooms that were not properly equipped with gas outlets,
water or counter space to conduct labs; the desire for more space and time
were the commonly citied limitations. Adequate facilities and safety concerns
are in part an administrative issue.
These trends only reflect the information gathered during the study.
All particular instances of various instructional methods may not have been
accounted for. Predominantly, all the teachers and all the schools perform very
268
similar activities. Perhaps it should not be surprising that all the schools in one
district carry out similar activities as teachers may share material with
colleagues or transfer between local schools. Similarly, these districts are in
close proximity of one another and this type of teacher communication may
also exist between schools of different districts. Exposure to new pedagogical
ideas may be limited.
Research Question 3: Administrative Support
Clearly in both CUSD and SVUSD, the districts maintained a very
“hands-off” approach with very minimal effort put forth by either the district
or school site to educate teachers on the California Science Standards. No
specific internal training was offered at a district level for teachers at these
particular school sites; it appears that responsibility fell to the leadership of
each individual school site. Even though the addition of the science portion of
the STAR test was a new feature, the state standards have been in place since
the year 2000. Perhaps because of this fact, the district and school sites felt
there was no need for additional training. There was also no district or school
site training for teachers on how to translate the standards into classroom
instruction. The rationale to maintain the hands-off approach from the district
standpoint may have been similar but there appears to be a clear desire for
additional assistance from these classroom teachers. Similarly for the STAR
test, outside of providing the information released by the state, the district or
269
school site offered minimal support and training. It was unclear if there were
plans at the district level to provide additional training or support for teachers
in the future. Obviously the district perspective would greatly impact the
support provided by the individual school site.
Other issues could also impact administrative support and leadership.
In particular to CUSD, the change in leadership, with a new superintendent and
other ancillary issues, offered the potential that changes, possibly for better or
worse, could soon be in place for the future regarding the STAR test or with
science as a content area. Administrative support could be training teachers in
using data and providing time for teachers to develop methods and allow the
data to directly impact instruction. The type and amount of leadership at each
school site will also impact the extent student data is employed by teachers.
The perspective that each district placed on the STAR test, and the
science portion specifically was unknown. The findings from this study could
indicate the development of true Professional Learning Communities of
teachers is a slow process. Some schools were beginning to institute school-
wide test-taking reviews for students as a preparation in general rather than for
any one content area specifically. The lack of consistency of what was
accomplished at each school site within one district may be reflective of a
more bottom-up philosophy at the district level that allowed each school to
270
develop in their own way rather than force a more unified vision in a top-down
method.
This study was conducting in the first year of STAR testing for science;
there may be plans to address these issues at some point in the future either at
the school site level or at the district level. It is also possible that science as a
content area will never get the same amount of support or emphasis on a
school or district level based on its perceived value relative to other content
areas. Currently, English/Language Arts and Mathematics have a higher
weighted value for their respective portions of the STAR test. As a result,
more interventions may exist for those specific content areas and schools that
do well in these content areas may yield a higher API score than those doing
well in science.
The social value of English/Language Arts and Mathematics that is not
determined by the STAR test also may have an impact. Unwritten priorities for
each content area are also seen through the sequence in which content area is
tested. Standardized testing typically occurs over the course of about a week;
those areas tested first may have higher scores when students are the most
energized for testing compared to the content areas on the last testing day.
Unless these values are redistributed to value science more, while unlikely and
arguably inappropriate to do so, the emphasis for science may not change. It is
also curious that, with the time that other content areas have been a part of the
271
accountability, lessons were not learned that could immediately be applied to
other content areas.
An outlier existed as it relates to the training and leadership provided
specifically geared towards the understanding of the STAR test and the
California Science Standards. The individual agency of the department
chairperson was primarily the source of this leadership. In addition, the
support and relationship between the department chairperson and the principal
over an extended period of time contributed to the creation of this dynamic.
Research Question 4: Teacher Training
Although the opportunity to attend professional development courses
might exist, the research indicated there was very little actual attendance by
science teachers at professional conferences, external professional
development workshops or graduate degree programs. The participation that
did occur primarily was self-initiated limiting the exposure of topics that all
teachers within one department received. School administrators emphasized
the dependence on the PLC to allow teachers to discuss and learn professional
and pedagogical techniques.
A major limitation exists when schools rely heavily on collaboration
between teachers within one school site. If a staff has one or more individuals
that are knowledgeable and skilled in multiple pedagogical techniques, other
teachers may benefit. However, if that is not the case, there is no one to teach
272
and lead the other members of the department. There is also the subsequent
limitation of the school or department culture to encourage that formal or
informal collaboration that goes beyond just a discussion between colleagues.
School culture and personalities may also help or hinder collaboration efforts.
The voluntary nature of professional development may contribute to the
low attendance by teachers. Despite the requirement of participation in
professional development as a part of maintaining a teaching credential, the
amount required is limited and may be fulfilled in a variety of methods.
Teachers and administrators may also have limited knowledge of the various
types of professional development programs available in the local areas. There
also may be a limited number of programs and courses being offered in a
particular geographical area. Limited resources from a school site perspective
create additional challenges when making the decision on supporting teacher’s
participation in a professional development program.
The tools and support that exist for teachers to develop pedagogical
skills are focused on the time dedicated to the PLC meetings. Time is a
tremendous asset that is provided; collaboration before or after school is no
longer the only method for teachers to meet and discuss issues. Unfortunately
the type of collaboration that existed within the PLC meetings was vague. The
culture of most schools appeared to be positive where the teachers often
expressed an openness and willingness to “share” lessons, labs or materials yet
273
this seemed to consist of giving or asking “what materials do you have on …?”
It appeared to be less common for teachers to sit down together and work on a
particular assignment whether it is constructing an original or modifying an
older one. Presumably, if given the direction and assistance, teachers may be
willing to collaborate in an alternative method.
The physical orientation of the schools typically did not appear to limit
any teacher interaction. Most commonly, science classrooms were centrally
located in one area that would allow teachers to easily contact other science
teachers; only in a few instances were classrooms isolated from other science
classes. As a department, there were rarely any significant aspects that were
lacking. Aside from not having a general science storeroom at Mission Hills,
schools typically had access to equipment and facilities that would enhance
their science instruction. There was no significant lack of facilities or
equipment mentioned.
The pedagogical support provided by the administration was unlikely to
be extensive. Although the majority of administrators did state they performed
regular informal visits, these visits did not appear to be focused on pedagogical
issues. Neither teachers nor administrators indicated that any pedagogical
issues were discussed in conversations afterwards.
The administrative leadership also did not address concerns expressed
by teachers regarding the format of the STAR test and the accountability
274
system. Many of these issues might easily be addressed through the
information available at the California Department of Education or their
respective district testing coordinator. The lack of initiative, on the teacher’s
behalf, to seek out this information may have been due to a lack of awareness
regarding the availability of the information or a lack of motivation as the
majority of the information would not have any direct impact their classroom
instruction.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings, analysis and interpretation of the
data collected for this study. The data collected were aligned with the
conceptual frameworks and provided answers to the four sets of research
questions. The discussion included a dialogue of the teachers’ reaction to
accountability and standards, a summary of the teachers’ Stages of Concern
responses, an examination of the instructional style at each school site, the
Professional Learning Communities of the teachers, training provided to
teachers regarding the STAR test and the California Science Content Standards
as well as tools or impediments towards that training, and the type of
administrative support provided to teachers regarding the STAR test and
California Science Content Standards. A summary of the background,
methodology, research findings, conclusions, implications and
275
recommendations for future research from this study were presented in the next
chapter.
276
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of the Background
Following Sputnik, the alphabet soup projects represented a national
strategy to focus on science literacy primarily using improved pedagogical
methods to teach science beyond just the content. Understanding of work
conducted by real scientists and the process of how science is conducted
through the use of laboratory equipment as well as advocating inquiry-based
science that promoted and encouraged students learning in the classroom by
being active and placed an emphasis on higher cognitive skills. The majority
of these curricular programs were repeatedly shown to be effective in terms of
science instruction and promoted student achievement in multiple areas such as
science process, intelligence, and creativity (Kyle et al., 1988; Bredderman,
1982). As a result, this national strategy of focusing on the inputs of education
was successful through the research and development that created these
curricular programs.
After funding and support for these programs waned, the 1998 TIMSS
and 1999 TIMSS-R results helped launch a new cycle of reform in science
education in America schools. Instructional practice in the classroom was
often considered to be low rarely involved higher-level thinking. The new
reform strategy focused on the use of standards for student learning and rather
277
than concentrate on the educational inputs such as teacher pedagogy, the new
emphasis instead shifted towards educational outputs and student performance.
National and state content standards were created for all subject areas. A
closer examination of the California State Content Standards for science
revealed an emphasis on students knowing a variety of facts. In comparison
the National Science Educational Standards, focused more on having students
develop an understanding of science concepts to where students were able to
make informed decisions as citizens. It is also in the National standards that
scientific misconceptions were addressed as well as advocating an
investigation of topics in a depth over breadth manner with the use of data
collection and analysis to produce understandable evidence. The National
standards emphasized the use of inquiry and promoted scientific inquiry while
the California State Standards emphasized facts to know which suggested the
use of more rote learning and didactic instruction.
By having content standards, schools can be held accountability for
teaching the standards through the use of on student performance on the
standardized assessments. For California, the Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA) of 1999 established a system of accountability and sanctions
utilizing high stakes testing in the Standardized Testing And Reporting
(STAR) system. In 2006, the STAR program consisted of the California
Standards Test (CST) and the Norm-Referenced Test (NRT). Through
278
performance-based accountability, the rationale was for students to take
standardized tests to measure their performance in various subject areas. The
accountability for student performance on the STAR tests arises from the
student’s test results being used to calculate the Academic Performance Index
(API) for an individual school which, in turn serves as an indicator of that
school’s performance level. API data are used for both state and federal
requirements. Under federal NCLB requirements, a school must meet
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements, which include meeting
additional API requirements.
This accountability is now being applied specifically to science as a
content area. Prior to the 2006-2007 school year, the CST’s were restricted to
English-Language Arts and Mathematics and as a result schools placed an
emphasis on these areas in order to improve their API scores. Now California
modified their STAR tests to now include science and history-social science to
go along with English-Language Arts and Mathematics, which will be used to
calculate the school’s API (California Department of Education, 2006d). The
success of the standards/assessment/accountability strategy for improving
student performance in science will depend on what happens to teaching and
learning in classrooms. The shift deprioritizes teacher pedagogy within
standards-based accountability.
279
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to understand and describe the
pedagogical methods being used by middle school science teachers in the
classroom and document changes in their science pedagogy in reaction to the
current standards-based environment. In particular, the study uncovered the
current pedagogical methods being used and any instructional improvement
efforts specifically related to the new educational environment, where science
as a content area was emphasized and assessed within the California STAR
tests. Moreover, the study described the policies that supported the
professional development of the science teacher and what schools and districts
were doing to support them.
The study attempted to determine the environment and role teachers
had in the current standards-based environment as well as the extent
pedagogical content knowledge had been formed and influenced as it related
both to activities inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, the study
aimed to identify the training and education of the teachers by the school site
and/or district with regard to the new science standards. The researcher sought
to analyze data both between schools and between districts.
The four sets of research questions that defined the areas of
investigation and the parameters for this study were:
280
1) How are science teachers responding to the new accountability for
science? How do teachers view their role in a standards-based
environment?
2) What pedagogical skills are teachers using outside of the classroom?
What pedagogical skills are teachers using inside the classroom?
3) How are the school site administration and/or school district offering
teachers assistance in learning about the new science standards?
How has the school site been using previous student performance to
make decisions regarding curriculum and instruction?
4) How are teachers obtaining these pedagogical skills? What tools or
impediments exist for teachers to successfully utilize these
pedagogical methods? What type of support do teachers feel they
need to properly teach the new science standards?
Methodology
A comparative research methodology using a case study approach
coupled with an interview was selected for this study. The use of a qualitative
research methodology was preferred in order to build a more complex and
holistic view of the words and accounts of the informants. Interviews were
281
designed to gather information about a person’s perspective regarding a
situation. A limitation of an interview was the potential for the information to
be distorted by personal bias, emotion, or a lack of awareness.
For the purpose of this study, a general interview guide was utilized
that outlined a set of issues to be discussed. The intent for these qualitative
inquiries was to search for meaning within the views expressed by the teachers,
department chairpersons and administrators through their insights and personal
experiences. The general interview guide was selected to permit the subject to
expand and discuss issues that were relevant to them individually. In an effort
to increase internal validity, triangulation of data collected from interviews,
school documents, and reports from State and District web sites strengthen the
validity of the findings.
Based on the conceptual framework, the six instruments used to collect
the data were designed to answer each of the four sets of research questions.
The primary researcher developed the research-based conceptual frameworks
as well as the instrumentation.
Sample
The study used purposeful sampling that provided information and
understanding of the topic through the chosen sample. The sampling for this
study was designed to select similar schools to in order to generalize what is
282
currently or can be done. Data was collected from multiple sources including
teachers, administrators, observations from classrooms, and collected data.
The selection criteria for the district included a student population
between thirty and sixty thousand students. The researcher sought to study a
district comprised of students coming from a diverse background and
socioeconomic status. In addition, the ethnic and socioeconomic proportions
for the selected districts were similar to other selected districts. The selection
criteria for the schools that participated in the study included evidence that the
school met its Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) for the last three academic
school years as well as achieved an Academic Performance Index (API) rating
of at least 800 for the last three academic school years. Additionally, the
researcher sought to study and compare schools with a similar demographic
makeup to other schools within the research study.
Districts with the qualifying criteria were examined for schools with
the qualifying criteria. Two districts with qualifying middle or intermediate
schools were contacted and invited to participate in the research study.
Principals at the multiple schools sites were then contacted and invited to
participate in the research study. Current eighth grade science teachers within
the department were randomly selected and contacted by the principals and
invited to participate. In addition to the classroom science teachers that were
interviewed, the science department chairperson and the school site
283
administrator in charge of managing the science department were also invited
to participate in the study. The final population of subjects included the
intermediate or middle school classroom science teachers, the science
department chairperson and the school site administrator in charge of science,
typically the principal of the school.
The science teachers currently teaching in the classroom were
interviewed with the Teacher Interview Guide while the department
chairperson and school site administrator were interviewed with the
Administrator Interview Guide. One interview was scheduled with each
participant with each interview taking approximately 45-60 minutes. All
interviews took place at the school site of the respective teacher or
administrator unless an alternative location was requested. For all classroom
science teachers, the Concerns Questionnaire about High Stakes
Accountability was also administered. The researcher will utilize a tape
recorder during all interviews, when permitted, as well as take written notes.
Data Collection and Analysis
The data for this study was collected from February 2007 and April
2007 using instrumentation developed by the primary researcher. Two
conceptual frameworks provided the foundation for the instrumentation;
Conceptual Framework A (Appendix A) provided an analytical framework to
examine the pedagogical practices of teachers and other factors that influence
284
teachers’ response to accountability and Conceptual Framework B (Appendix
B) provided a framework to understand the dynamics of the current reform
policy and the impact on student performance and teacher pedagogy. The data
collected from the study help reveal eighth grade science teachers’ reaction to
accountability and standards, a summary of the teachers’ Stages of Concern
responses, an examination of the instructional style at each school site, a closer
look at the Professional Learning Communities of the teachers, the training
provided to teachers regarding the STAR test and the California Science
Content Standards as well as tools or impediments towards that training, and
the type of administrative support provided to teachers regarding the STAR
test and California Science Content Standards.
Six instruments, described in Chapter 3, provided the foundation for the
collection and analysis of the data:
1) Case Study Guide (Appendix C) described the general data
collection process and itinerary for each school site visitation as well
as a general description of the teacher and administrative interviews
2) Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide (Appendix I) helped to
classify teachers in their use of inquiry
3) Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide – Administrative Perspective
(Appendix J) helped to classify the level of administrative assistance
285
offered to teachers regarding the STAR tests, science standards and
pedagogical methods
4) Teacher Interview Guide (Appendix K) was a semi-structured
interview guides specifically for science teachers
5) Administrator Interview Guide (Appendix L) was a semi-structured
interview guides specifically for administrators
6) Concerns Questionnaire about High Stakes Accountability
(Appendix M) was an adapted version of the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire and was administered to all classroom science
teachers to determine their level of concern regarding high stakes
accountability
The instrumentation, conceptual frameworks, and focal areas of inquiry were
presented by research questions in the next section via the selected findings for
each research question.
Summary of Findings
A summary of key findings based upon the four research questions
emerged through analysis of the data collected in this study. Included in this
section are the primary sources of data collected, instrumentation, and three
selected findings for each set of research questions.
286
Research Question 1: Teacher reaction to standards and accountability
Overall the participating teachers demonstrated a familiarity with the
major topic areas of the California Science Standards with an emphasis to
ensure the standards were integrated into their classroom instruction. A
detailed understanding and in-depth integration of the standards was not
confirmed. Information provided about the science portion of the STAR test
was typically limited and there was no significant emphasis to educate or train
teachers on this particular topic. Specific instruction for students in
preparation for the STAR test, in general or for science specifically, was not
typically conducted. Instead, schools emphasized other instructional areas of
focus, such as offering hands-on activities and labs, which were not a
significant part of the California Science Standards.
The concerns for teachers as rated by the Stages of Concern
questionnaire were often with dealing with informational issues, personal
demands, and management issues. The level of these concerns also correlated
with the years of teaching experience; teachers with less than five years of
classroom experience were focused in one of the first three stages (awareness,
informational or personal) as their primary or highest stage of concern while
teachers that had at least twelve years of classroom experience were typically
in the fifth stage (consequence). In addition, approximately two-thirds of all
287
the stages for all the teachers had a concern level of at least 3.5 indicating high
levels of concern in multiple areas.
Research Question 2: Pedagogical skills of science teachers
Both school districts emphasized the Professional Learning Community
format and provided release time for teachers to work together in groups. This
provided teachers the opportunity to discuss pedagogical issues and reduce
isolation. This time might also allow for collaboration where teachers worked
together to create or modify assignments yet the reactions appeared to indicate
it was at most just a vehicle for discussion. Most school sites were at the
beginning stages of developing more common assessments that would be used
across all science classes. These common assessments would be used to
compare how students are performing for different teachers, presumably as a
reflection of the teacher’s instruction but it was unclear the extent this
discussion directly impacted future changes in classroom instruction.
Within these eighth grade science classes, primarily there was a hybrid
of both teacher-centered and student-centered instruction with an emphasis on
teacher-centered. Classroom instruction featured a variety of strategies and
emphasized the active and hands-on aspect. Teachers were typically aware of
various student-centered activities and made a conscious effort to incorporate
one or two within their instruction for a school year. With regards to labs,
most were of the verification style; only two teachers clearly expressed a
288
consistent use of inquiry labs. For most schools, teachers collaborated and
shared materials, including laboratory activities however it was typical for
teachers to modify them to their individual preferences.
Research Question 3: Administrative support
Both districts maintained a very ‘hands-off’ approach with very
minimal effort put forth by either the district or school site to educate teachers
on the California Science Standards. There was also no district or school site
training for teachers on how to translate the standards into classroom
instruction. For the STAR test, the district or school site, outside of providing
the information released by the state, offered very little support.
Most schools were also at a very preliminary stage of creating and
utilizing common assessments. Primarily common assessments were in the
form of common test questions, however some schools had not reached the
stage of even creating common assessments. The analysis of the common
assessment also appeared to be simply discussion and comparison of how
different groups of students performed. There appeared to be no formal
training as to how to dissect and interpret the data or how to allow those results
to directly impact classroom instruction. Potentially these discussions could
lead to teachers comparing specific instructional techniques but it would also
be possible that the results of the data would have no influence on classroom
instruction.
289
An outlier existed as it relates to the training and leadership provided
specifically geared towards the understanding of the STAR test and the
California Science Standards. The individual agency of the department
chairperson was primarily the source of this leadership. In addition, the
support and relationship between the department chairperson and the principal
over an extended period of time contributed to the creation of this dynamic.
Research Question 4: Teacher training
For both school districts, there may have been the opportunity to attend
professional development courses external to the school or district, yet the
indication was that there was very little actual attendance by teachers.
Participation typically would require the self-initiation by an individual.
School administrators emphasized the dependence on the PLC to provide
teachers with new pedagogical skills.
Most science departments maintained a positive culture where teachers
were open and willing to share information and collaborate. Time was another
asset made available through the late start/PLC time. Yet teachers often
referred to collaboration as more of a trading of assignments rather than
teachers working together and discussing methods to improve an assignment.
The physical orientation of the schools did not appear to limit the ability for
teachers to communicate and work together. The facilities and equipment
made available to teachers also were adequate according to the teachers. The
290
administration typically conducted informal visitations and observations of
classroom teachers but there was no sign of a debriefing that discussed
pedagogical issues.
Conclusions
This study was concerned with the reactions and pedagogical response
from science teachers as a result of the high-stakes accountability in the STAR
tests. During the analysis of data, a few key themes emerged from the analysis
and triangulation of the data collected.
1. Based on the demographic information about the individual school sites
and their academic performance, these teachers worked at high
performing schools. Teachers also collaborated in a PLC and
developed common assessments and within their classrooms, utilized a
variety of pedagogical methods, including both student-centered and
teacher-centered activities. The frequent use of hands-on activities may
not indicate student-centered instruction when students are primarily
following a given set of procedural directions. Yet despite this, the
results indicated that the current STAR tests and accountability had
very little, if any, impact on classroom instruction. This may mean that
teachers really don’t support the test or the standards right now as
reflected by their pedagogical responses.
291
2. Even with the presence of standards-based accountability, teachers in
the classroom have a significant impact on student achievement
through their personal instructional style as reflected through various
methods. The type of pedagogical methodology used by the teacher,
the type of assignment given by the teacher and even method in which
the classroom is arranged will impact the student. The teacher’s role in
the classroom should be clearly defined in particular with the statewide
assessment.
3. The presence of standards alone will not dictate the learning
environment yet the type of standards may have an influence. Teachers
are reportedly spending more time on math and reading at the expense
of other subject areas and that lecturing and explaining has become
more pervasive in the classroom (Pedulla, 2003; Dillon, 2006).
Multiple educational standards, such as the California State Science
Standards (CDE, 2006), the National Science Educational Standards
(NRC, 1996), and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993),
may be ignored depending on the accountability for a given standard.
The standards and assessment should clearly reflect the value of the
scientific facts, science concepts, student participation in labs, and
inquiry investigations.
292
4. Teachers’ concerns regarding standards and accountability are
extensive. Fear and concern about instituting and following standards
may reflect a perceived lack of autonomy where daily pedagogical
decisions are removed from the teacher’s authority when all classes are
streamlined with regard to the content being taught and assessments
being used.
5. Development and administration of common assessments, supporting
teachers’ collaboration and participation in a PLC may encourage
instruction to be similar between teachers to allow the students to
experience a similar learning experience. Yet the clear support and
leadership of the administration should be provided for teachers to offer
guidance on how to develop these pedagogical skills such as analyzing
student data. The voluntary nature of most professional development
does not ensure teachers will develop these skills.
6. Individual agency has the potential to make a significant difference in
the leadership of a school or department. Individuals that have the
motivation and support are able to provide leadership that instigates
change.
293
Implications and Recommendations
There are numerous potential reasons why the science portion of the
STAR test has received the reaction that it has.
1. This is the first year of its implementation and more changes may occur in
the future.
2. Science as a content area is simply not a priority as compared to other
content areas.
3. Middle school is simply not a priority as compared to elementary or high
school.
4. These schools are high performing and do not feel the need to make
changes in their behavior.
5. These schools want to establish a baseline based on what is currently being
done to determine if and what type of intervention is necessary.
6. There may be a desire for additional training but may lack the personnel or
money to provide the support either at the district level or at the state level.
7. The expectation of teaching with a student-centered perspective and using
inquiry is not known or valued by those in authority at the district or state
level.
As different interest groups assume a more active role in the
improvement of teaching and learning, the findings and conclusions from this
294
study can provide insight and guidance to those involved with instructional
improvement. The implications are divided into specific areas of
responsibility, including implications for professional educational
organizations, state and national level policymakers, district and school site
leaders, and teachers.
Professional Educational Organizations
1. Professional organizations are designed to provide support and guidance to
teachers, schools and districts. New information regarding current
classroom practices and successful pedagogy as well as research involving
inquiry and student-centered learning should be disseminated more directly
to the classroom teacher. Professional conferences and organizations
should address this issue more directly and specifically offer training for
classroom teachers on a variety of pedagogical techniques as they relate to
the standards.
2. Additional research should be conducted to more closely examine the
actual classroom practices of science teachers. Actual classroom
observations, additional and repeated interviews, as well as an examination
of the impact of instructional pedagogy on student performance.
3. International comparisons of science content standards, in particular the
emphasis on fact versus concepts, and student performance on assessments
295
such as NAEP or TIMSS should be examined and brought to the local
level.
State and National Level Policymakers:
1. A 1997 survey of 900 randomly selected professors at schools of education
who prepare teachers and administrators for schools found that 86 percent
believe that is more important for students to figure out the process of
finding the right answer rather than knowing the right answer; that 82
percent believe that students should be active learners; and 60percent want
less emphasis on memorization in classrooms (Public Agenda, 1997). The
beliefs that dominate the thinking of the 40,000 faculty spread over the
1300 plus institutions awarding degrees and licenses to teachers,
administrators and other educators (Labaree, 2004). That value should be
reflected more clearly in the standards. The current NSES reflect this
vision more than the California State Science Standards. The realignment
of the California standards to more closely resemble the national standards
would clearly illustrate this value. The creation of standards and an
accountability system correlated with those standards should be maintained
but refined and updated.
2. Alternatives for the type of accountability should be considered. The
accountability system should assess the performance to ensure growth is
due to student improvement rather than coaching or test-taking preparation.
296
An assessment need not be punitive but could also be diagnostic. If the
assessment is valued, teachers will be more inclined to “teach to the test.”
3. The social value of science as a content area may be address indirectly
through the content described in the standards. Additional research should
explore this possibility.
District and School Site Leaders:
1. Time and resources placed towards the development of the PLC should be
maintained.
2. Specific training must implement a clear vision of how teachers are to
collaborate, jointly develop assessments, collect student data and use it to
identify achievement gaps, align curriculum and instruction, or identify
students for remedial programs.
3. School site administrators also need to be aware of what the standards are
and examples of successful pedagogical methods to recognize what is
going on in the classroom as well as help advocate its use in other
classrooms.
4. Additional funding should allow teachers to seek out additional
professional development opportunities specifically related to pedagogy
and the standards. Topics for training might include learning more about
inquiry, student-centered pedagogical methods, making common
assessments and assessments in general, how to collect and analyze data
297
beyond just an item analysis, and how to translate the standards into
classroom instruction.
5. Additional feedback from the STAR test results should be provided to
teachers.
Teachers:
1. Obtain more professional development training, specifically in regards to
the standards and assessments. Realign instruction to focus on the STAR
test or other assessment.
2. Clear distinctions should be made between different types of classroom
activities with specific emphasis on teacher-centered versus student-
centered instruction. The prevalent use of hands-on activities may still be
primarily teacher-centered when students are only given procedural
directions to follow and have no opportunity to take a more active role in
the instruction.
3. Utilize international research on the development of Lesson Study Groups,
where teachers are able to come together and discuss pedagogically the
best way to deliver classroom instruction whether it is through teacher-
centered or student-centered methods. Teachers may be able to model
what is done internationally where collaboration consists of creating and
working together on one lesson over an extensive period of time prior to
having students exposed to it.
298
REFERENCES
Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok
Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004).
Inquiry in Science Education: International Perspectives. Science
Education, 88, 397-419.
ACT (2006). Developing the STEM Education Pipeline – Policy Report.
Retrieved on October 26, 2006, from
http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/ACT_STEM_PolicyRpt.pdf
Adams, J.E., Jr., & Kirst, M.W. (1998). Handbook of Research in Educational
Administration. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Educational
Researchers.
Ajzen, L. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In
Kuhl & Beckmann (Eds), Springer series in Social Psychology. Action
Control; From Cognition to Behaviour (pp. 11-39). Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993).
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989).
Project 2061. Washington, D.C.: AAAS Publications.
Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002, March). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and
student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 18. Retrieved on
October 29, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
Ananda, S. & Rabinowitz, S. (2001). Building a Workable Accountability
System. WestEd. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/kn-01-03.pdf
Anderson, L.M. (1989). Classroom instruction. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed).
Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 101-115). Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Anderson, R.D. (1968). Using the laboratory to teach the Nature of Science.
American Biology Teacher, 30(8), 633-636.
299
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says
about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Anderson, R. & Armbuser, B. (1990, Spring). Some maxims for learning and
instruction. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 396-408.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-32.
Aston, P.T. (1985). Motivation and the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy. Research
on Motivation in Education, Vol. 2. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Aston, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teacher’s sense of
efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Baird, J.R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change.
In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.) The student laboratory and the science
curriculum (pp.183-200). New York: Routledge.
Baldridge, J.V. & Deal, T. (1975). Managing change in educational
organizations. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Press.
Begley, S. (1993). Scratch and sniff science. Newsweek Special Issue, 24-28.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro- and micro-implementation. Public
Policy, 26(2), 157-184.
Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1976). Implementation of educational
innovation. The Educational Forum, 40(3), 345-370.
Bertani, A., Fullan, M. & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide
reform. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42-46.
Bicak, L. J. (1982 March) Schoolyard Science. American Biology Teacher.
44(3), 153-56.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998, Oct). Inside the black box: Raising standards
through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148. Retrieved
on October 11, 2006 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/dbla9810.htm
300
Bloom, L., Perlmutter, J., & Burrell, L. (1999). The general educator:
Applying constructivism to inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 34, 132-136.
Bodily, S. (1999, April). District support needed to promote reform at scale.
Paper presented at the American Education Research Association,
Montreal.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2001). Leading with Soul. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Boylan, H. (1988). Making the case for developmental education. Research in
Developmental Education, 12(2), 1-4.
Braswell, J., Lutkus, A., Griggs, W., Santapau, S., Tay-Lim, B., & Johnson, M.
(2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics, NCES 2001-517.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Bredderman,T. (1982). Activity science – The evidence shows it matters.
Science and Children, September.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects activity-based elementary science on student
outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
Brown, S. & McIntyre, D. (1978). Factors influencing teachers’ responses to
curriculum innovations. British Educational Research Journal, 4(1), 19-23.
California Department of Education (1990). Science Framework for California
Public Schools: Kindergarten through Grade 12. Sacramento, CA: CDE
Press.
California Department of Education (2001a). Aiming High: High Schools for
the 21
st
Century. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
California Department of Education (2001b). Taking Center Stage: A
Commitment to Standards-Based Education for California's Middle Grade
Students. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
301
California Department of Education (2006a). API: Academic Performance
Index. Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education (2006b). API School Level Reports.
Retrieved on October 28, 2006, from
http://api.cde.gov/reports/page2.asp?subject=API&level=School&
submit1=submit
California Department of Education (2006c). California High School Exit
Exam. Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/index.asp
California Department of Education (2006d). California Star Test Home page.
Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/
California Department of Education. (2006e). Fact book 2006: Handbook of
Educational Information. Sacramento, CA: CDE publications.
California Department of Education. (2006f). State Science Standards by
Grade level. Retrieved on October 22, 2006 from
www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/scmain.asp
California Department of Education. (2006g). Teacher and staff data 2005-06.
Retrieved on December 16, 2006 from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest
California State Commission on Teacher Credential. (2006). I want to become
a teacher. Retrieved on October 22, 2006 from
www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/teach.html
California State Commission on Teacher Credential & California Department
of Education. (1997). California Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
Capistrano Unified School District. (2006a). 8
th
grade CORE standards:
Capistrano Objectives for Reaching Excellence. Retrieved on May 19, 2007
from http://www.capousd.org/core.htm#coreeng
Capistrano Unified School District. (2006b). Facts about Capistrano Unified
School District. Retrieved on October 28, 2006, from
http://www.capousd.org/about.htm
302
Carnoy, M. & Loeb, S. (2002). Does External Accountability Affect Student
Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 24, 305-331.
Carter, W., Sottile, J.M. & Carter, J. (2001). Science Achievement and Self-
Efficacy among Middle School Age Children as Related to Student
Development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern
Educational Research Association, Hilton Head.
Cartier, J.L. & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further
development in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education,
9, 247-267.
Center for Demographic Research. (2006, Sept). Orange County Facts and
Figures. Retrieved on December 20, 2006 from www.oc.ca.gov
Chen, B. Orr, J. & Their, H.D. (1979). Problems in the Adaptation of Non-
formal Study Programs to the Israeli Educational System. Science
Education, 63(5), 705-713.
Clune, W. (1989). The implementation and effects of high school graduation
requirements: First steps toward curricular reform. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
Coburn, C. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between
the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education,
77, 211–244.
Cohen, D.K. & Barns, C.A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D.K. Cohen,
M.W. McLaughlin & J.E. Talbert (Eds.) Teaching for understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D.K. & Lowenberg-Ball, D. (2000). Instructional Innovation:
Reconsidering the story. Retrieved on December 20, 2006 from
www.sii.soe.umich.edu/documents/InstructionalInnovation.pdf
303
Cohen, D.K., Peterson, P.L., Wilson, S., Ball, D.L., Putnum, R., Praw, R.,
Heaton, R., Remillard, J. & Weimers, N. (Eds). (1990). Effects of State
Level Reform of Elementary School Mathematics Curriculum on Classroom
Practice. East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Education
and the Center for Learning and Teaching of Elementary School Subjects,
College of Education, Michigan State University.
Conley, D. (1993, March). Managing change in restructuring schools: Culture,
leadership and readiness. OSSC Bulletin, 36(7).
Crofton, C. (1981). Planned change in the educational environment.
Unpublished report. Evanston, IL: Educational Testing Service.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2005). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can't be
businesses. Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L. (2007). Hugging the Middle: Teaching in an Era of Testing and
Accountability, 1980-2005. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(1).
Retrieved on January 30, 2007 from http://eppa.asu.edu/eppa/v15n1/.
Culbert, J (1979) A Proposal for a K-12 Sequence of Environmental Education
Competencies. (Report No. 180806) ERIC Document Reproduction
Services.
Cutler, W. (1989). The cathedral of culture: The schoolhouse in American
educational thought and practice since 1820. History of Education
Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40.
Czerniak, C.M. & Haney, J.J. (1998). The Effect of Collaborative Concept
Mapping on Elementary Preservice Teachers' Anxiety, Efficacy, and
Achievement in Physical Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
9(4), 303-320.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student
achievement: A review of state policy. Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy Working Paper #R-99-1. Retrieved on October 22, 2006, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH_1999.pdf
304
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003, February). Standards and assessments: Where
we are and what we need. Teachers College Record. Retrieved on October
29, 2006, from www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11109
DeBoer,G.E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education. Teachers
College Press.
DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another look at its historical and
contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Delisio, E.R. (2003). Pay for performance: What are the issues? Education
World. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues3741.shtml
DeMeo, S. (2001). Beyond Density: An inquiry-based activity involving
students searching for relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(2),
201-203.
Diamond, J. & Spillane, J. (2002). High stakes accountability in urban
elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Northwestern
University Institute for Policy Research Working Paper WP-02-22.
Retrieved on October 29, 2006, from
www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2002/WP-02-22.pdf
Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and
math. New York Times. Retrieved on January 18, 2007 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?
ex=1301029200&en=0c91b5bd32dabe2a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&
emc=rss
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of
Chemical Education, 76, 543–547.
Donahue, P., Finnegan, R., Lutkas, A., Allen, N., & Campbell, J. (2001). The
nation’s report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000, NCES 2001-499.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement the
acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System, 26, 223–234.
Donovan, E.P. & Richmond, R. F. (1981) OBIS Outdoor Biology Instructional
Strategies. ERIC Document 260 924.
305
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2),
159-199.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed). Handbook of research on teaching (3
rd
ed.; pp. 392-341). New York:
Macmillian.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of student’s
thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167-180.
DuFour, D. (1999, February). Help wanted: Principals who can lead
professional learning communities. NAESP Bulletin, 83(604), 12.
Duschl, R. A. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change:
Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 28(9), 839-858.
EdSource. (2001, January). Aligning California’s education reforms. Retrieved
on January 18, 2007 from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/align0101.pdf
EdSource. (2005, August). Holding Districts Accountable. Retrieved on
October 11, 2006 from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/districtqa_805.pdf
EdSource. (2006). California’s curriculum adoption schedule. Retrieved on
August 28, 2006 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/timeline05to08adoptions.asp
Elmore, R.F. (1993). The role of local school district in instructional
improvement. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.) Designing coherent education policy:
Improving the system (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P. & McCarthey, S. (1996). Restructuring in the
classroom: Teaching, learning and school organization. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., & Spenser, J.N. (1999). A guided inquiry general
chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 570-574.
306
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row and
Peterson.
Flick, L. B. (1995). Complex instruction in complex classrooms: A synthesis of
research on inquiry teaching methods and explicit teaching strategies.
Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. ERIC document 383
563.
Fox, G.T. (1978). Limitation of a standard perspective on program evaluation:
the example of ten years of Teacher Corps evaluations. In J.P. Steffensen,
G.T. Fox, R. Bush, & B. Joyce (Eds). Teachers Corps evaluations (pp. 11-
86). Omaha: University of Nebraska.
Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan,
77, 420-423.
Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21
st
century: Breaking the bonds of
dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7).
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction
implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 355-397.
Gallagher, J.J. & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student
engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71, 535-555.
Gerber, B.L., Brovey, A.J., & Price, C.B. (2001). Site-based professional
development: Learning cycle and technology integration. Paper presented at
the Annual meeting of the AETS, Costa Mesa. ERIC document 472 987.
Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J.
& Young, V. (2002, April). Districts as change agents: Levers for
systemwide instructional improvement. Retrieved on December 20, 2006
from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/AERA-
DistrictsAsChange.pdf
307
Gross, B. & Goertz, M.E. (Eds.) (2005, March). Holding high hopes: How
high schools respond to state accountability policies (CPRE Research
Report Series No. 56) (Chapters 3-4). Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr56.pdf
Grossman, P. & Stodolsky, S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school
subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–
11.
Goertz, M. & Massell, D. (1999). Local strategies for building capacity: The
district role in supporting instructional reform. CPRE: University of
Michigan and University of Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting for the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
Canada.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1994). Looking in classrooms, sixth edition. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of
evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7),
791-806.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in Schools. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Hange, J.E. & Rolfe, H.G. (1994). Creating and Implementing Alternative
Assessments: Moving toward a Moving target. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Harlen, W. & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts
of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of
Science Education, 19, 93–105.
Hasiotis, D. (2006). All in a day’s work. New York: Common Good.
Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum.
New York: Routledge.
308
Henningsen, M. & Stein, M.K. (1997). Mathematical Tasks and Student
Cognition: Classroom-Based Factors that Support and Inhibit High-Level
Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549.
Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171-
212.
Hodson, D. (1999). Building a case for a sociocultural and inquiry-oriented
view of science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
8(3), 241-249.
Hoffer, R. & Cantrell, S. (2003). Baseline Report for the Los Angeles Urban
Systemic Program in Science, Mathematics and Technology. Planning, and
Assessment. Los Angeles, CA: LAUSD Research Division Publication.
Hofstein, A., Hahum, T.L. & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning
environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry.
Learning Environments Research, 4, 193 - 207.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science
teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research,
52(2), 201-217.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education:
foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Hook, C. & Rosenshine, B. (1979). Accuracy of teacher reports of their
classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 1–12.
Hord, S. (1992). Leadership for restructuring or systemic change. SEDL
Facilitative leadership: The imperative for change. Retrieved on December
20, 2006 from www.sedl.org/change/facilitate/leadership.html
Hord, S. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: What Are They and Why
Are They Important? SEDL Issues about change: Retrieved on January 15,
2007 from http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html
Hord, S.M. & Hall, G.E. (1987). Three Images: What Principals Do in
Curriculum Implementation. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 55-89.
309
Hord, S.M. & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective Curriculum Implementation:
Some Promising New Insights. The Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 96-
115.
Hutchinson, D. (2004). A natural history of place in education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Jackson, P. (1968). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Jarrett, D. (1999). The inclusive classroom: Mathematics and science
instruction for student with learning disabilities. It’s just good teaching.
ERIC document 433 647.
Jegede, O.J. & Taylor, P.C. (1995). The role of negotiation in a constructivist-
oriented hands-on and minds-on science laboratory classroom. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of AERA, San Francisco. ERIC document
389 517.
Jones, G., Jones, B. & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of
high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Clemente: CA: Kagan
Cooperative Learning.
Knapp, M.S. (1997). Between Systemic Reforms and the Mathematics and
Science Classroom: The Dynamics of Innovation, Implementation, and
Professional Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.
Kolker, R. (2006, May 1). A is for apple, B is for brawl. New York Times.
Retrieved on January 18, 2007 from
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16775/
Koretz, D.M. & Barron, S.I. (1998). The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky
Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Kyle, W.C. (1991). What became of the curriculum development projects of
the 1960’s. Research within Research: Science Education. Washington,
D.C.: NSTA.
310
Kyle, W.C., Bonsetter, R.J., Gadsden, T. & Shymansky, J.A. (1988). What
research says about hands-on science. Science and Children, April.
Kyle, W.C., Shymansky, J.A., & Alport, J.M. (1982). Alphabet soup science:
A second look at the NSF-funded science curricula. The Science Teacher,
November, 49-53.
Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with Ed schools. Yale University Press.
Lacy, A.L. (1966). From the Guide to Science Teaching in Secondary Schools.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Laetsch, W. M. & Knott, R. C. (1981) Outdoor Biology Instructional
Strategies (OBIS): 1972-79. Final Project Report. ERIC Document 213
609.
Lappan, G. (1997). The Challenges of Implementation: Supporting Teachers.
American Journal of Education, 106(1), 207-239.
Lavine, C.S. (1985, Fall-Winter). OBIS. Outdoor Communication, 16(2), 40-
43.
Lawrence Hall of Science University of California at Berkeley. OBIS (Outdoor
Biology Instructional Strategies). Retrieved on October 26, 2006, from
http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/OBIS/OBISpubs.html
Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction
in science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.). Handbook on science teaching and learning
(pp. 94-128). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing
practice, structure, and culture. In A. Lieberman (Ed.) The work of
restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 1-17). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Linn, R. (2000) Assessments and Accountability. Educational Researcher,
29(2), 4-16.
Lucas, A.M. (1971). Creativity, discovery, and inquiry in science education.
Australian Journal of Education, 15, 184-196.
311
Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1989). What do we know about school-
based management? A case study of the literature – A call for research. In
W.H. Clune & J. Witte (Eds). Choice and control in American education
(Vol. 2, pp. 242-289). New York: Palmer Press.
Marcuccio, P.R. (1987). Forty-five years of elementary school science: A
guided tour. Science and Children, September.
Marsh, J. (2000, September). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A
review of literature on the relationship of districts with states, schools and
communities. Retrieved on December 20, 2006 from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/District_Lit.pdf
Marsh, J. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools and communities: A
review of emerging literature. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M.
McLaughlin (Eds.). School Districts and Instructional Renewal. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Marzano, R. & Kendall, J. (1998). A wash in a sea of standards. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier,
R., & Tal, R.T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades:
Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies
(Electronic version). Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Policy
Briefs, RB-32. Retrieved on December 20, 2006 from
www.cpre.org/Publications/rb32.pdf
Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust
survey data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
McComas, W.F. (1994). An ecological perspective of the laboratory teaching
environment. Science Education International, 8(2), 12-16.
312
McCormack, A. J. (1974). Outdoor Biology Instructional Strategies (OBIS).
Science and Children, 12(2), 9-12.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro
Perspectives and Micro Realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
Millar, R. & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond process. Studies in Science Education,
14, 33-62.
Minnesota State University. (2001, April). National Standards for Education.
Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from
http://www.mnstate.edu/cmc/Bibliographies/NationalStandardsEduc.htm
Morrissey, M. (2000). Year one and year two: What to do in comprehensive
school improvement. Issues…about change, 9(2).
Murtha, K.T. (1977, Oct). OBIS + Kids + Activity. American Biology Teacher.
39(7), 439-454.
National Academy of the Sciences. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm:
Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1989). Science Objectives:
1990 Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1992). International mathematics
and science assessments: What have we learned? U.S. Department of
Education NCES 1992-011. Retrieved on October 22, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/web/92011.asp
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1995). Teacher follow-up survey.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). The NAEP 1998 reading
report card for the nation. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education.
313
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). Highlights from TIMSS:
Overview and key findings across grade levels. Report NCES 1999-081
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved on October 22, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999081.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Highlights from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study. U.S. Department of
Education NCES 2001-027. Retrieved on October 22, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000094.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Highlights from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat. U.S. Department of
Education NCES 2001-027. Retrieved on October 22, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office.
National Commission on Teaching and America' s Future. (1997). Doing what
matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National
Commission on Teaching and America' s Future.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science
Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
National Science Board Commission on Pre-college Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for
the 21
st
Century. Washington, DC: National Science Board Commission.
Nehring, J. (2006, February 1). Progressive vs. traditional: Reframing an old
debate. Education Week, 32–33.
Newton, D., & Newton, L. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding
through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 26, 599–613.
314
Nott, M. (1996). When the black box springs open: Practical work in schools
and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education,
18(7), 807-818.
O’Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Camoy, M., Woody, E., Buttles, M., Fuller, B.,
& Ruenzel, D. (2004). Assessing California’s Accountability System:
Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for Improvement. PACE Policy
Brief, 4, 2. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://ww-gse.berkeley,edu/research/PACE/policy_brief.04-2.pdf
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paul, D.A. (1977). Change processes at the elementary, secondary and post
secondary levels of education. In N. Nash & J. Culbertson (Eds), Linking
processes in educational improvement: Concepts and applications (pp.7-
73). Columbus, OH: University Council for Educational Administration.
Pedulla, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on
teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers.
Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, School
of Education, Boston College. Retrieved on January 18, 2007 from
http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr2.pdf
Popham, W.J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta
Kappan, 68(9), 679-682.
Public Agenda. (1997). Professors of education: It’s how you learn, not what
you learn that is most important. New York.
Reeves, D. (2001). 101 questions and answers about standards, assessments
and accountability. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teacher behavior and student
achievement (pp.376-391). In M.C. Wittrock, (Ed.) Handbook of research
on teaching, 3
rd
Ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Rothman, R. (1992, November 4). Performance-based assessment gains
prominent place on research docket. Education Week. Retrieved on January
18, 2007 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1992/11/04/09perfor.h12.html
315
Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the
construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.
Saddleback Valley Unified School District. (2006). District Accountability
Report, 2004-2005. Retrieved on October 28, 2006, from
http://www.svusd.k12.ca.us/reportcards/Saddleback_DARC.pdf
Schifter, D. & Fosnot, C.T. (1993). Reconstructing Mathematics Education:
Stories of Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Reform. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J.J. Schwab & P.F.
Brandweine (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Schwartz, L. & Gredler, M. (1997). The Effects of Goal-Setting Instruction on
Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning in Undergraduate Classrooms.
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization. London: Random House.
Shaw, T. (1983, March) Curriculum Reviews: Learning by Playing. Science
and Children, 20(6), 56-57.
Shimizu, K. (1997). Teacher’s emphasis on inquiry science and prevailing
instructional method. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
NARST, Oak Brook. ERIC document 405 213.
316
Shwartz, D. G. (1987). Environmental Education and Its Effects on Student’
Attitudes toward the Curriculum. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Idaho State
University. Science Education Center. Professional Services. Selected
Workshop Areas and Topics Staff Development in Science K-8.
Assessment in Science K-8. Retrieved on October 26, 2006, from
http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfdjn/Services.html
Shymansky, J.A. et al. (1982). How effective were the hands-on programs of
yesterday. Science and Children, 20(3), 14-15.
Singer, S.R., Hilton, M.L. & Schweingruber, H.A. (2005). American’s Lab
Report: Investigations in High School Science. National Research Council.
National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
Slavin, R. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What
we know, what we need to know. Baltimore: Center of Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Slobodin, C. S. (1977). Sputnik and Its Aftermath: A Critical Look at the
Forum and the Substance of American Educational Thought and Practice
Since 1957. The Elementary School Journal, 77(4), 259-264.
Smith, J.P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge
for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 387-
402.
Spillane, J.P., Thompson, C.L., Lubienski, C., & Reimann, C.B. (1995). The
local government policy system affecting mathematics and science
education in Michigan: Lesson from Nine School Districts. Michigan
Statewide Systemic Initiative Policy and Program Review Component,
College of Education, Michigan State University.
Sprague, S., et al. (1995/6). The next step institute 1995. NSTA Reports.
December1995/January 1996.
Stake, R. & Easely, J.A. (1978). Case studies in science education (vol. 2).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working Smarter to Leave
No Child Behind. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138.pdf
317
Stecher, B. & Kirby, S.N. (2004). Organizational Improvement and
Accountability: Lessons for Education from Other Sectors. Santa Monica,
CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Stigler, J. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
best teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free
Press.
Stodolsky, S., & Grossman, P. (1995). The impact of subject matter on
curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227–249.
Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Education, 67, 657-
672.
Templin, M.A. & Bombaugh, R. (2005). An Innovation in the Evaluation of
Teacher Professional Development Serving Reform in Science. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 16(2), 141-158.
Tien, L.T., & Stacy, A.M. (1996). The effects of instruction on Undergraduate
student’s inquiry skills. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
AERA, New York. ERIC document 398 268.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher
efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2),
202-248.
Tucker, M. & Codding, J. (1998). Standards for our schools. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind Act Web
page. Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from
http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/
318
United States Department of Education. (2001). America Counts: National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21
st
Century/The
Glenn Report: Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21
st
Century. Retrieved on August 28, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/toc.html
United States Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act.
Retrieved on August 28, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
United States National Research Center. (1998). Welcome to US TIMSS: The
TIMSS Report. Retrieved on August 28, 2006, from http://ustimss.msu.edu/
Viadero, D. (2005, November 16). Teacher logs reveal how class time is really
spent. Education Week, p. 8.
Waugh, R.F. & Punch, K.F. (1987). Teacher Receptivity to System-wide
Change in the Implementation Stage. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 237-254.
Wayne, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A
framework for reconsidering research-practitioner cooperation. Educational
Researcher, 26(7), 13-22.
Weinstein, C. (1991). The classroom as a social context for learning. Annual
Review of Psychology, 42, 493–525.
Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty Years of Science Curriculum Development: A
Look Back. Review of Research in Education, 7, 282-306.
Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The
role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations.
Science Education, 65, 33–50.
Williams, B. (2003). Closing the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, Different
Results: Why do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California
elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/SimStu05.pdf
319
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom
culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 751-755.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual
classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112-143.
Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Planning
Curriculum in Science. WDPI Publication Sales. ERIC document 466 403.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology. New York: Allyn and Bacon
Publishing.
Woolfolk, A.E. & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Perspective teacher’s sense of efficacy
and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Woolfolk, A.E., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 6, 137-148.
Yager, R. E. (1981, Dec) Science Education Attuned to Social Issues:
Challenge for the 80’s. Science Teacher, 48(9), 12-14.
Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research – Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
320
APPENDICIES
321
APPENDIX A
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK A
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: Factors Influencing Teacher’s Views and
Response to Accountability
Standards and
Accountability
Influence
How pedagogical
skills are
obtained
Administration Influence
Type of district
support regarding
STAR tests
District Knowledge
and transfer to teachers
regarding STAR tests
Pedagogical
Skills
Creation of
State
standards
Information
taught in
the
classroom
Teacher’s
Views and
Response to
Accountability
Information
assessed in
the
classroom
Activities
done
outside the
classroom
Creation of
National
Science
Standards that
advocate the
use of inquiry
Impediments to
gaining
pedagogical
skills
Creation of
State
Assessment
(STAR
test)
Classroom instruction and
preparation
322
APENDIX B
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK B
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework: Reform PolicyImpact on Student
Performance
Reform Policy
Curriculum
Model - an
emphasis on the
curriculum being
used by the
teacher. Included
the creation and
implementation of
the “alphabet
soup projects”.
Indirect
Impact on
School site
Direct Impact
on Teachers
Teacher
Pedagogy
Student
performance
Reform Policy
Accountability
Model - an emphasis
on the standardized
assessment of
content standards.
Included the
creation of subject
specific and grade
level content
standards as well as
the California STAR
test.
Indirect
Impact on
Teachers
Direct
Impact on
School site
Student
performance
Teacher
Pedagogy
323
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY GUIDE
Overview of Data Collection
The data collection will need to take place over the course of approximately six
days. Each data collection day will consist of multiple interviews at one
school site.
School Site Visitation Itinerary:
· Interview the administrator in charge of the science department (school
site principal or assistant principal)
· Interview the science department chairperson
· Interview classroom teacher #1
· Interview classroom teacher #2
· Interview classroom teacher #3
· Collect data related to interview responses
· Complete the Instructional Analysis Guide
Teacher interviews:
The goal is to conduct 45-minute interviews with approximately 18 science
teachers currently teaching in the classroom. During the interview, the
researcher may also request copies of documents that support verbal responses
of activities being conducted in the classroom.
The Instructional Analysis Guide is to be completed after each interview to
provide an on-going check of perceptions. Observations and gathering of
additional evidence is to be conducted during the interviews and afterwards as
needed.
Administrative interviews:
The goal is to conduct 45-minute interviews with approximately 12
administrators and department chairpersons. During the interview, the
researcher may also request copies of documents that support verbal responses
of activities being conducted at the school site.
The Instructional Analysis Guide is to be completed after each interview to
provide an on-going check of perceptions. Observations and gathering of
additional evidence is to be conducted during the interviews and afterwards as
needed.
324
CASE STUDY GUIDE (CONTINUED)
Information/Documents needed:
· District information on the type and number of schools
· Student population by district by ethnicity
· Student population by school by ethnicity
· API scores for each selected school for the past three academic years
· Teacher staff information (number of full time teachers, average number of
years of experience, percentage of beginning teachers with one or two
years teaching experience, percentage of teachers with a full credential)
· Other documents that provide information regarding board policies, district
guidelines, or school structure and organization as it relates to classroom
instruction
· Interviews were conducted at the school site for each teacher or
administrator to allow them access to documents or evidence relevant to
the interview.
Compile a School and District Profile
Summarizes the data on school district’s enrollment, teachers, and schools
as complied from the CDE website, district web site and district documents.
Overview of the Instrumentation Chart
This instrument addresses the components of each research question and
guides
the researcher in the collection of the data. The Teacher Instructional Analysis
Guide was developed from a synthesis of the conceptual framework and
current educational research on teaching and inquiry.
Overview of the Teacher Instructional Analysis Guide and the Teacher
Instructional Analysis Guide for Administrators
Provides an organizing format to rate the data gathered during the
interviews relative to the purpose of the study from an etic perspective of the
researcher.
325
APPENDIX D
INFORMATIONAL SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL
RESPONSE TO HIGH STAKES ACCOUNTABILITY: A
MULTIPLE CASE STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kenneth Tse,
Ph.D. candidate, and David Marsh, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. The results of this research
study will be reported in Kenneth Tse’s doctoral dissertation. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are either a current
8
th
grade science teacher or middle/intermediate school administrator. A total
of 30 subjects will be selected from six different middle or intermediate
schools to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to
learn more about how science teachers are responding to the current
accountability in science.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in a one-on-one interview and complete a
questionnaire. The interview should take approximately 45-60 minutes and
will discuss the California Science Standards, the California STAR test and
pedagogical aspects of teaching science. You will be interviewed one at a time
in a location of your choice and convenience. Notes will be taken while you
talk and questions may be asked for clarification during the interview. You
may have a copy of the interview questions ahead of time if you would prefer.
326
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; the time it takes to answer
the questions may pose an inconvenience for you and it is possible that the
questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You may choose not to answer
any questions which may make you uncomfortable and still remain in the
study. You may also discontinue your participation at any time. There are no
other physical or psychological risks to participation in these interviews.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study
however the results from the study may benefit the research field of science
teacher education as it will be adding to the literature. All benefits are
contingent upon the results.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law. The information collected about you
will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for
example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with
this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer.
The data will be stored indefinitely after the study has been completed. All
audiotapes will be used for educational research purposes only and will be
stored for one year after the study has been completed and then destroyed. All
participants may continue with their participation in the study even if they
decline to be taped.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audiotape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.
327
ALTERNATIVE TO PARTICIPATION
The alternative to participating in this research is to not take part in the study.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and
still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori
Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact David Marsh, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor of the Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California at 213-740-3290. Kenneth Tse,
Principal Investigator of the Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California can be reached at 949-290-0672.
328
APPENDIX E
SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION PROFLIE
District Information/Comparison
Table 24. District comparison by type of school.
Number of
Elementary
Schools
(K-5)
Number of
Elementary
Schools
(K-6)
Number
of Middle
Schools
(6-8)
Number of
Intermediate
Schools
(7-8)
Number
of High
Schools
(9-12)
Coastline Unified
School District
(CUSD)
37 0 10 0 5
Sierra View
Unified School
District (SVUSD)
0 26 0 4 4
Data from CUSD (2006b) and SVUSD (2006)
Table 25. Student population within the district by ethnicity.
Total
student
population
%
Caucasian
%
Hispanic
%
Asian
% African-
American
Coastline Unified
School District
(CUSD)
50,000 67.7 18.2 5.3 1.3
Sierra View
Unified School
District (SVUSD)
35,000 65.7 21.2 7.8 2.2
Data from CUSD (2006b) and SVUSD (2006)
329
SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION PROFLIE (continued)
School Information/Comparison
Table 26. Percentage of student population by ethnicity.
ORMS BHMS MHMS HIS LVIS EVIS County
average
State
average
African-
American
1 2 1 2 2 3 2 8
Asian
5 12 8 10 11 12 15 11
Hispanic
13 13 10 15 20 12 42 45
White
80 70 77 73 67 73 42 36
API school level reports (CDE, 2006b)
Table 27. The API scores and student populations for the 2004-05, 2003-04
and 2002-03 academic school years.
2005 base
API
2005
student
population
2004 base
API
2004
student
population
2003 base
API
2003
student
population
BHMS 857 1137 816 1189 834 1100
ORMS 827 1431 812 1522 821 1553
MHMS 832 1638 831 1583 814 1737
HIS 856 1212 845 1250 835 1224
LVIS 808 1426 806 1421 806 1432
EVIS 854 1604 850 1670 845 1595
API school level reports (CDE, 2006b)
330
SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION PROFLIE (continued)
Table 28. Teaching staff experience for 2005-06.
ORMS MHMS BHMS HIS EVIS LVIS County
average
State
average
Number of
teachers (FTE)
61 72 46 55 69 61 42 31
Average years
of teaching
experience for
the staff
12.3 10.0 11.9 11.7 16.1 17.2 13.1 12.7
Percentage of
teachers with
one or two years
of teaching
experience
13.1% 29.2% 8.7% 12.7% 5.8% 6.6% 11.1% 12.4%
Percentage of
teachers with a
full credential
96.7% 94.4% 95.7% 98.2% 98.6% 96.7% 97.3% 94.2%
Teacher and staff data (CDE, 2006g)
331
APPENDIX F
PARTICIPANT GROUP INFORMATION
Participant Group Information – Principals
Table 29. Years of experience for School Site administrators.
Position Years in the position (as administrator) Years at the school
HIS 6 6
EVIS 11 11
LVIS 3 3
BHMS 8 8
MHMS 7 7
ORMS 2 1
Participant Group Information - Department chairperson
Table 30. Years of experience for Science Department chairpersons.
Location Years in the position (as dept chair) Years at the school
HIS 1 7
EVIS 6 14
LVIS 3 22
BHMS 5 10
MHMS 2 11
ORMS 2 4
332
PARTICIPANT GROUP INFORMATION (continued)
Participant Group Information – Teachers
Table 31. Years of experience for participating 8
th
grade science teachers by
school site.
Position/Location Years in the position (as teacher) Years at the
school
8
th
grade science teacher - HIS 1 1
8
th
grade science teacher - HIS 4 4
8
th
grade science teacher - HIS 37 37
8
th
grade science teacher - EVIS 3 3
8
th
grade science teacher - EVIS 13 8
8
th
grade science teacher – LVIS 4 5
8
th
grade science teacher – LVIS 2 2
8
th
grade science teacher – LVIS 3 3
8
th
grade science teacher - BHMS 2 2
8
th
grade science teacher - BHMS 12 12
8
th
grade science teacher - BHMS 20 12
8
th
grade science teacher –MHMS 10 3
8
th
grade science teacher – MHMS 6 6
8
th
grade science teacher –ORMS 4 10
8
th
grade science teacher – ORMS 20 16
333
APPENDIX G
INSTRUMENTATION CHART
Research question Data needs (what are the
answers to the research
questions)
Data sources (where
am I getting them
from)
Instrument (how
am I going to get
them)
RQ #1
How are science
teachers responding to
the new
accountability for
science?
How do teachers view
their role in a
standards-based
environment?
Information about what
teachers know about the
STAR test and their
reactions toward standards-
based accountability.
(what do you know)
Information about how
teachers are changing their
type of instruction (if at all)
in response to the current
accountability.
Information about what
teachers know about the
STAR test and their
reactions toward standards-
based accountability.
(how has your teaching
changed)
Teacher
Teachers
Teacher
Interview
Interview
Interview
RQ #2
What pedagogical
skills are teachers
using outside of the
classroom (using
student data,
analyzing student
work)?
What pedagogical
skills are teachers
using inside the
classroom (such as
inquiry)?
A description of the types of
activities teachers are using
in their lesson planning
(such as collaboration,
looking at student data, etc.)
(how to obtain the training to
use this; how do you spend
your prep time; prof
development time)
A description of the types of
activities being used in the
classroom including
examples of labs.
An estimate on the amount
of time each type of activity
(lecture, lab, bookwork, etc.)
is being used in class.
Teacher
Teacher
Teacher
Interview
Data: from teacher
(sample of
labs/activities done
in the classroom);
Sample lesson plan
Interview – 1
month interview
Data: from teacher
(sample of
labs/activities done
in the classroom);
Sample lesson plan
334
How are teachers
obtaining these
pedagogical skills?
Information on how teachers
are gaining their pedagogical
knowledge about how to
create lessons.
Teacher
Administration
Interview
335
INSTRUMENTATION CHART (continued)
Research question Data needs (what are the
answers to the research
questions)
Data sources (where
am I getting them
from)
Instrument (how
am I going to get
them)
RQ #3
How are the school
site administration
and/or school district
offering teachers
assistance in learning
about the new science
standards?
How has the school
site been using
previous student
performance to make
decisions regarding
curriculum and
instruction?
Information about the
training provided to educate
teachers about the STAR
test and the new science
standards.
(are you aware of district,
state and national standards)
Information about the
impact that training has had
on teachers
(how has it changed your
teaching)
Examples of how the
school/department/teacher
has used student data to
make decisions regarding
curriculum and instruction.
Administration
Department chair
Teacher
Administration
Department chair
Teacher
Interview
Interview
Interview
Data: examples
RQ #4
What tools or
impediments exist for
teachers to
successfully utilize
these pedagogical
methods?
What type of support
do teachers feel they
need to properly teach
the new science
standards?
Information about how the
school and/or science
department is structured
both organizationally and
culturally to assist or prevent
teacher collaboration, access
to information/student data,
or professional development.
(is there a culture to
collaborate and use data)
Examples from teachers of
support given or lack of
support by the school or
district regarding training
about STAR tests and the
science standards.
Teacher
Department chair
Administration
Teacher
Interview
Data: from
administration
about how the
school is organized
Interview
336
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW DEVELOPMENT CHART
Research question Primary Interview
questions
Secondary Interview
questions
Location of the
question
RQ #1
How are science
teachers responding
to the new
accountability for
science?
How do teachers
view their role in a
standards-based
environment?
What information do
you know about the
STAR test and the
changes that have been
made? What do you
know about the science
portion? Where did
you learn your
information?
If you consider your
current level of
knowledge and
understanding of the
STAR tests, are there
areas you feel you need
more information or
areas you feel you are
expert in? Explain and
expand on those
answers.
What have you, as a
teacher, done to change
their classroom
instruction in
preparation for the
changes in the STAR
test?
Do you have any
personal reactions
towards the current
standards-based
accountability that is
dominant within
California’s public
education system?
Describe the role of a
science teacher within
this standards-based
environment?
Can you describe the state
standards, how science is
going to be assessed?
What material will be on
the state assessment?
How do you, as a teacher,
feel about or what is your
reaction to the current
state science standards?
District standards?
National standards?
Are they covering all the
state standards?
Do you believe that your
district standards coincide
with state standards? Are
there conflicts that you are
aware of?
Teacher Interview
Guide
Teacher Interview
Guide
337
INTERVIEW DEVELOPMENT CHART (continued)
Research question Primary Interview
questions
Secondary Interview
questions
Location of the
question
RQ #2
What pedagogical
skills are teachers
using outside of the
classroom (using
student data,
analyzing student
work)?
What pedagogical
skills are teachers
using inside the
classroom (such as
inquiry)?
How are teachers
obtaining these
pedagogical skills?
Can you describe
examples of analyzing
student data or student
work?
How has your school
site, your science
department or you
personally made
decisions about your
teaching in response to
using student data?
In the last month, could
you describe what
content you covered and
the manner in which
you covered it?
When you are teaching
a unit, what type of
activities would you
typically include
(lecture, reading/book
work, labs, projects)?
Could you estimate the
time spent on each type
of activity? (for
example lecture, lab
activities, bookwork,
etc)
Describe the laboratory
activities are utilized
during instruction.
Define inquiry. Can
you give an example of
a lesson that would be
an example of inquiry?
How do you create or
modify assignments,
projects, activities or
assessments within a
unit? How often would
this occur?
How common is this?
How did you learn how to
do this?
How has this training
changed your classroom
teaching?
How common/typical are
these examples?
What are specific examples
of each? (get a copy or
samples of assignments to
confirm the type of
activity)
What would the purpose be
for each of those types of
assignments?
Are you aware of the
National Science
Education Standards?
During the labs, what did
you want your students to
learn?
What type of assessments
did you utilize?
What did you do, how did
you assess, what did your
students learn during the
last month?
During your preparation
time, approximately how
much time is spent
collaborating with other
teachers on lessons,
assessments or activities)
Teacher Interview
Guide
Teacher Interview
Guide
Teacher Interview
Guide
338
INTERVIEW DEVELOPMENT CHART (continued)
Research
question
Primary Interview
questions
Secondary Interview
questions
Location of the
question
RQ #3
How are the
school site
administration
and/or school
district offering
teachers
assistance in
learning about the
new science
standards?
How has the
school site been
using previous
student
performance to
make decisions
regarding
curriculum and
instruction?
How do teachers gain
pedagogical knowledge
and additional training to
improve their instruction?
What type of information
is provided to the teachers
about the STAR test and
the new science standards?
What are examples of
support provided to
teachers that specifically
relate to the STAR test or
science standards?
How has the
school/department/teachers
used student data to make
instructional decisions?
Are there examples of how
your department (or you)
uses student data to drive
and impact instruction?
Can you describe how
the school is organized
and how the science
department is
organized?
What is the culture of
the school/department?
Is there any type of
formal or informal
accountability, as a
teacher, at their school
for the student’s
performance on the
science assessment?
Administrator
Interview
Guide
Administrator
Interview
Guide
339
INTERVIEW DEVELOPMENT CHART (continued)
Research question Primary Interview
questions
Secondary Interview
questions
Location of the
question
RQ #4
What tools or
impediments exist
for teachers to
successfully utilize
these pedagogical
methods?
What type of
support do teachers
feel they need to
properly teach the
new science
standards?
Do you feel the
school or department
is organizationally set
up properly to allow
for teachers to
collaborate?
What information has
been provided to you
by your school site or
district about the
changes in the STAR
test?
Describe the type of
training (if any) the
school/district has
provided to educate
you, as a teacher,
about the STAR test
and/or the new
science standards.
What has your school
been doing to prepare
students or teachers
or provide support for
the changes in the
STAR test? What has
their district been
doing?
Do you feel the culture
of the school or
department is beneficial
or helpful towards your
collaboration with other
teachers?
Are there examples of
support your
school/district has
provided to help in your
understanding of the
STAR test and the
science standards?
Are there examples of a
lack of support your
school/district has
provided to help in your
understanding of the
STAR test and the
science standards?
Teacher
Interview Guide
Teacher
Interview Guide
340
APPENDIX I
TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS GUIDE
Component
No or Beginning
Level
Partial or Moderate
Level
Full or High Level
Knowledge of the
STAR test as a
classroom teacher
(what is on it, what it
is used for)
Minimal
understanding; not
aware of the content
test
Moderate level of
understanding; aware of
the exam but not
specific content area
topics
High level of
understanding; aware
of specific content area
topics
Teacher training for
STAR test
Minimal; no specific
examples
Moderate; some general
examples
Specific and detailed
examples of teaching
training
STAR test impact on
classroom
instruction
Minimal; no specific
examples
Moderate; some general
philosophical changes
and some classroom
assignments
Specific and detailed
examples of teaching
philosophy and
classroom assignments
Knowledge of the
California Science
Content Standards
Minimal
understanding; not
aware of the content
topics
Moderate level of
understanding; aware of
general topics but not
specific content area
topics
High level of
understanding; aware
of specific content area
topics
California Science
Content Standards
impact on classroom
instruction
Minimal; no specific
examples
Moderate; some general
philosophical changes
and some classroom
assignments
Specific and detailed
examples of teaching
philosophy and
classroom assignments
Classroom
instruction
(make more about
teacher vs student
centered)
No use of inquiry
style activities
Some mention of
inquiry but no specific
and accurate use of
inquiry
Specific identification
of inquiry style
activities
Rationale for using
inquiry
Inquiry is not used Inquiry is used because
it is recommended
within the standards
Inquiry is used and
describes student
benefits
Awareness of
Inquiry
Basic introduction to
inquiry
Identification of key
components of inquiry
activities
Able to list key
components of inquiry
activities
Distinguish
verification and
Inquiry lab activities
Identification and
differentiation of open
-ended and closed-
ended lab activities
Identification and
description of
characteristics from
verification labs
Identification and
description of
characteristics from
inquiry labs
341
APPENDIX J
TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS GUIDE – ADMINISTRATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
Component
No or Beginning
Level
Partial or Moderate
Level
Full or High Level
Knowledge of the
STAR test as an
administrator
Minimal
understanding; not
aware of the
content test
Moderate level of
understanding; aware
of the exam but not
specific content area
topics
High level of
understanding;
aware of specific
content area topics
School/District
transfer of
knowledge
regarding the
STAR test to
teachers
No examples of
training offered to
teachers
Speaks of training
and knowledge in
general terms
Can site specific
training provided to
teachers
Knowledge of the
California Science
Content
Standards
Minimal
understanding; not
aware of the
content topics
Moderate level of
understanding; aware
of general topics but
not specific content
area topics
High level of
understanding;
aware of specific
content area topics
School/District
transfer of
knowledge
regarding the
California Science
Content
Standards to
teachers
No examples of
training offered to
teachers
Speaks of training
and knowledge in
general terms
Can site specific
training provided to
teachers
School/District
support for
teachers for
teachers to learn
about the STAR
test
No specific
examples of
support for teachers
to learn about the
STAR test
Only one or two
examples of support
for teachers to learn
about the STAR test
Multiple examples
and specific
examples of support
for teachers to learn
about the STAR test
Instructional data
impacting
classroom
instruction
No specific
examples available
of data impacting
the classroom
Only one or two
examples of data
impacting the
classroom
Multiple examples
and specific
examples of data
impacting the
classroom
342
APPENDIX K
TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE
Opening statement/script:
Hello and thank you for volunteering to be interviewed. I am doing research
on science teaching and you are in a unique position to describe your teaching and
how it has been affected by the new statewide accountability. The questions I ask
will relate to the high stakes accountability present in public education where
students are taking high stakes tests, the new STAR test, which impacts how schools
are performing through the API. This will be the focus of this interview: your
thoughts and experiences teaching science.
The answers from all the people I interview, and I will be interviewing about
30 people, will be combined into my dissertation. Nothing you say will ever be
identified with you personally. As I go through the interview, if you have any
questions about why I am asking something, please feel free to ask. If there is
something you don’t want to answer, just say so. The purpose of the interview is to
get your insights into how you teach and factors that impact how you teach.
Now I’d like to tape record what you say so I don’t miss any of it. I don’t
want to take the chance of relying on my notes and maybe missing something that
you say or inadvertently change your words somehow. So, if you don’t mind, I’d
very much like to use the recorder. If at any time during the interview you would
like to turn the recorder off, all you have to do is press this button and it will stop.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
This interview will have questions grouped in various themes.
These first few questions deal specifically with the California STAR test and
the California State Science Standards. As I am sure you know, science as a content
area has recently been added to the material that will be assessed in the STAR test.
Probe questions dealing with the science content standards.
1. As a teacher, how do feel about the current CA state science standards?
a. How do you feel these standards compare to the National Science
Standards or your District standards?
b. Are there conflicts that you are aware of?
Probe questions dealing with the STAR test.
2. What information do you know about the STAR test and the changes that
have been made?
a. What do you know about the science portion?
b. Where did you learn your information?
3. Describe your current level of knowledge and understanding regarding the
STAR tests (in terms of what students need to be successful); are there areas you
feel you need more information or areas you feel you are expert in? Explain.
343
4. Is your school or district doing anything to prepare students or teachers for the
new portions of the STAR test?
a. What information or training for teachers has been provided to you by
your school site or district about the changes in the STAR test?
b. Are there examples of support your school/district has provided to
help in your understanding of the STAR test and the science
standards?
c. Are there examples of a lack of support your school/district has
provided to help in your understanding of the STAR test and the
science standards?
Probe questions dealing with their general reaction to accountability
5. Do you have any personal reactions towards the current standards-based
accountability that is dominant within California’s public education system?
6. Please describe what you see as the role of a science teacher within this
standards-based environment.
Probe questions dealing with your classroom instruction.
7. In the last month, could you describe what content you covered and the
manner in which you covered it?
a. What are specific examples of each?
b. Can I get a copy of the labs/projects?
(samples of assignments or activities to confirm the type of activity)
8. When you are teaching a unit, what type of activities would you typically
include?
a. What would the purpose be for each of those types of assignments?
b. Could you estimate the time spent on each type of activity?
(for example lecture, lab activities, bookwork, etc)
c. How common is this?
i. Lecture
ii. Reading/book work
iii. Assessment
1. What type of assessments did you utilize?
2. What did you do, how did you assess, what did your
students learn during the last month?
iv. Other/Projects
1. Describe other types of activities not included in
these categories.
9. If they mention labs - Describe the laboratory activities are utilized during
instruction.
a. Define inquiry. Can you give an example of a lesson that would be
an example of inquiry?
b. During the labs, what did you want your students to learn?
10. How do you typically introduce topics to your students?
344
11. What are examples of teacher centered activities that you do? How common
is this?
12. What are examples of student centered activities that you do? How common
is this?
13. (If applicable) Prior to the mandatory testing and accountability, what is
different in how you teach? How has this training changed your classroom
teaching?
14. What have you, as a teacher, done to change their classroom instruction in
preparation for the changes in the STAR test?
Probe questions dealing with teaching preparation.
15. Can you describe any examples where you, as a teacher, analyze student data
or student work that impacts your instruction?
16. How has your school site, your science department or you personally made
decisions about your teaching in response to using student data?
17. How do you create or modify assignments, projects, activities or assessments
within a unit? How often would this occur? How did you learn how to do this?
18. During your preparation time, approximately how much time is spent
collaborating with other teachers (whether or not they are at your school site) on
lessons, assessments or activities?
Final closing question
19. That covers the things I wanted to ask. Is there anything you would like to
add that might give me more insight into what you do?
The only other thing I have is to ask you some basic demographic information about
you as a teacher (to be asked at the end of the interview)
20. How many years have you been teaching?
21. How many years have you been teaching science?
22. Number of years at this current school?
23. Number of years in the district?
24. Have you been in any leadership positions within your school or district? If
so, could you describe them?
Request the interviewee take the Concerns Questionnaire about High Stakes
Accountability.
345
APPENDIX L
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW GUIDE
Opening statement/script:
Hello and thank you for volunteering to be interviewed. I am doing
research on science teaching and you are in a unique position to describe
your knowledge about the training science teachers receive as well as what
science teachers are doing in the classroom and how it has been affected by
the new statewide accountability. This will be the focus of this interview:
your thoughts and experiences as they relate to science teaching.
The answers from all the people I interview, and I will be interviewing
about 30 people, will be combined into my dissertation. Nothing you say
will ever be identified with you personally. As I go through the interview, if
you have any questions about why I am asking something, please feel free to
ask. If there is something you don’t want to answer, just say so. The
purpose of the interview is to get your insights into how your science
teachers teach and factors that impact their instruction.
Now I’d like to tape record what you say so I don’t miss any of it. I
don’t want to take the chance of relying on my notes and maybe missing
something that you say or inadvertently change your words somehow. So, if
you don’t mind, I’d very much like to use the recorder. If at any time during
the interview you would like to turn the recorder off, all you have to do is
press this button and it will stop.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Primarily these questions deal with the California STAR test and the
California State Science Standards. As I am sure you know, science as a
content area has recently been added to the material that will be assessed in
the STAR test.
Probe questions dealing with the Science Content Standards and STAR test.
1. Can you describe the type of information is provided to the teachers about
the California Science Content Standards?
2. Are there specific examples of support provided to teachers that
specifically relate to the California Science Content Standards?
3. Can you describe the type of information is provided to the teachers about
the STAR test (specifically the science portion)?
346
4. Are there specific examples of support provided to teachers that
specifically relate to the STAR test?
Probe questions dealing with science teachers.
5. Can you describe what you feel is the most common type of instructional
style for your science teachers?
6. Please describe specific examples of common type of activities to your
science teachers utilize. How frequent is this?
7. If they mention labs - Describe the laboratory activities are utilized during
instruction.
8. How often do observe science classrooms?
Probe questions dealing with teaching preparation.
9. How do teachers gain pedagogical knowledge and additional training to
improve their instruction?
10. How has the school/science department/science teachers used student data
to make instructional decisions?
11. Are there examples of how your science department uses student data to
drive and impact instruction?
12. Can you describe how the school is organized and how the science
department is organized?
13. Can you describe the culture (in terms of how well people work together)
of the school/science department?
14. Is there any type of formal or informal accountability, for the classroom
science teacher, at your school for the student’s performance on the science
assessment?
Final closing question
15. That covers the things I wanted to ask. Is there anything you would like to
add that might give me more insight into what you do?
The only other thing I have is to ask you some basic demographic information
about you as an administrator or department chairperson (to be asked at the
end of the interview)
16. How many years have you been in administration (department chair)?
17. How many years have you been in charge of the science department?
18. Number of years at this current school?
19. Number of years in the district?
20. Number of years teaching prior to going into administration?
21. During your teaching career, what subjects did you teach?
347
APPENDIX M
CONCERNS QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT HIGH STAKES
ACCOUNTABILITY
Name (optional)______________________________________________
In order to identify these data, please give us the last four digits of your Social
Security number:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine what people who are using
or thinking about using High Stakes Accountability are concerned about at various
times during the innovation adoption process. A good part of the items on this
questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or irrelevant to you at this time. For
the completely irrelevant items, please circle "O" on the scale. Other items will
represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of intensity, and should be
marked higher on the scale.
For example:
This statement is very true of me at this time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This statement is somewhat true of me now. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This statement is not al all true of me at this time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This statement seems irrelevant to me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel
about your involvement or potential involvement with High Stakes Accountability.
We do not hold to any one definition of this innovation, so please think of it in terms
of your own perception of what it involves. Remember to respond to each item in
terms of your present concerns about your involvement or potential involvement with
High Stakes Accountability.
Thank you for taking time to complete this task.
348
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrelevant Not true of me now Somewhat true of me now Very true of me now
I am concerned about student' s attitudes toward High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I now know of some other approaches that might work better
than High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I don' t even know what High Stakes Accountability is.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about not having enough time to organize
myself each day (in relation to High Stakes Accountability).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to help other faculty in their use of High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have a very limited knowledge about High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my
professional status.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my
responsibilities.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about revising my use of High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to develop working relationships with both our
faculty and outside faculty using High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about how High Stakes Accountability affects
students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am not concerned about High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know who will make the decisions in the new
system.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to discuss the possibility of using High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
349
I would like to know what resources are available if we decide
to adopt High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about my inability to manage all that High
Stakes Accountability requires.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know how my teaching or administration is
suppose to change.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with
the progress of this new approach.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students in
relation to High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to revise the High Stakes Accountability' s
instructional approach.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am completely occupied with other things besides High
Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to modify our use of High Stakes Accountability
based on the experiences of our students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Although I don' t know about High Stakes Accountability, I
am concerned about things in the area.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to excite my students about their part in High
Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic
problems related to High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know what the use of High Stakes
Accountability will require in the immediate future.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize
the effects of High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to have more information on time and energy
commitments required by High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At this time, I am not interested in learning about High Stakes
Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or
replace High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to use feedback from students to change the
program.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know how my role will change when I am
using High Stakes Accountability.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Coordination of tasks and people (in relation to High Stakes
Accountability) is taking too much of my time.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would like to know how High Stakes Accountability is better
than what we have now.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned about how High Stakes Accountability affects
students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
350
APPENDIX N
CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE CONTENT STANDARDS
GRADE EIGHT
Focus on Physical Science
Motion
1. The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position. As a basis for understanding
this concept:
a. Students know position is defined in relation to some choice of a standard reference point
and a set of reference directions.
b. Students know that average speed is the total distance traveled divided by the total time
elapsed and that the speed of an object along the path traveled can vary.
c. Students know how to solve problems involving distance, time, and average speed.
d. Students know the velocity of an object must be described by specifying both the direction
and the speed of the object.
e. Students know changes in velocity may be due to changes in speed, direction, or both.
f. Students know how to interpret graphs of position versus time and graphs of speed versus
time for motion in a single direction.
Forces
2. Unbalanced forces cause changes in velocity. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know a force has both direction and magnitude.
b. Students know when an object is subject to two or more forces at once, the result is the
cumulative effect of all the forces.
c. Students know when the forces on an object are balanced, the motion of the object does not
change.
d. Students know how to identify separately the two or more forces that are acting on a single
static object, including gravity, elastic forces due to tension or compression in matter, and
friction.
e. Students know that when the forces on an object are unbalanced, the object will change its
velocity (that is, it will speed up, slow down, or change direction).
f. Students know the greater the mass of an object, the more force is needed to achieve the
same rate of change in motion.
g. Students know the role of gravity in forming and maintaining the shapes of planets, stars,
and the solar system.
Structure of Matter
3. Each of the more than 100 elements of matter has distinct properties and a distinct atomic
structure. All forms of matter are composed of one or more of the elements. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
a. Students know the structure of the atom and know it is composed of protons, neutrons, and
electrons.
b. Students know that compounds are formed by combining two or more different elements
and that compounds have properties that are different from their constituent elements.
c. Students know atoms and molecules form solids by building up repeating patterns, such as
the crystal structure of NaCl or long-chain polymers.
d. Students know the states of matter (solid, liquid, gas) depend on molecular motion.
351
e. Students know that in solids the atoms are closely locked in position and can only vibrate; in
liquids the atoms and molecules are more loosely connected and can collide with and move
past one another; and in gases the atoms and molecules are free to move independently,
colliding frequently.
f. Students know how to use the periodic table to identify elements in simple compounds.
Earth in the Solar System (Earth Sciences)
4. The structure and composition of the universe can be learned from studying stars and
galaxies and their evolution. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know galaxies are clusters of billions of stars and may have different shapes.
b Students know that the Sun is one of many stars in the Milky Way galaxy and that stars may
differ in size, temperature, and color.
c. Students know how to use astronomical units and light years as measures of distances
between the Sun, stars, and Earth.
d. Students know that stars are the source of light for all bright objects in outer space and that
the Moon and planets shine by reflected sunlight, not by their own light.
e. Students know the appearance, general composition, relative position and size, and motion
of objects in the solar system, including planets, planetary satellites, comets, and asteroids.
Reactions
5. Chemical reactions are processes in which atoms are rearranged into different combinations
of molecules. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know reactant atoms and molecules interact to form products with different
chemical properties.
b. Students know the idea of atoms explains the conservation of matter: In chemical reactions
the number of atoms stays the same no matter how they are arranged, so their total mass stays
the same.
c. Students know chemical reactions usually liberate heat or absorb heat.
d. Students know physical processes include freezing and boiling, in which a material changes
form with no chemical reaction.
e. Students know how to determine whether a solution is acidic, basic, or neutral.
Chemistry of Living Systems (Life Sciences)
6. Principles of chemistry underlie the functioning of biological systems. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
a. Students know that carbon, because of its ability to combine in many ways with itself and
other elements, has a central role in the chemistry of living organisms.
b. Students know that living organisms are made of molecules consisting largely of carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur.
c. Students know that living organisms have many different kinds of molecules, including
small ones, such as water and salt, and very large ones, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins,
and DNA.
Periodic Table
7. The organization of the periodic table is based on the properties of the elements and reflects
the structure of atoms. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know how to identify regions corresponding to metals, nonmetals, and inert gases.
b. Students know each element has a specific number of protons in the nucleus (the atomic
number) and each isotope of the element has a different but specific number of neutrons in the
nucleus.
c. Students know substances can be classified by their properties, including their melting
temperature, density, hardness, and thermal and electrical conductivity.
Density and Buoyancy
8. All objects experience a buoyant force when immersed in a fluid. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
352
a. Students know density is mass per unit volume.
b. Students know how to calculate the density of substances (regular and irregular solids and
liquids) from measurements of mass and volume.
c. Students know the buoyant force on an object in a fluid is an upward force equal to the
weight of the fluid the object has displaced.
d. Students know how to predict whether an object will float or sink.
Investigation and Experimentation
9. Scientific progress is made by asking meaningful questions and conducting careful
investigations. As a basis for understanding this concept and addressing the content in the
other three strands, students should develop their own questions and perform investigations.
Students will:
a. Plan and conduct a scientific investigation to test a hypothesis.
b. Evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of data.
c. Distinguish between variable and controlled parameters in a test.
d. Recognize the slope of the linear graph as the constant in the relationship y=kx and apply
this principle in interpreting graphs constructed from data.
e. Construct appropriate graphs from data and develop quantitative statements about the
relationships between variables.
f. Apply simple mathematic relationships to determine a missing quantity in a mathematic
expression, given the two remaining terms (including speed = distance/time, density =
mass/volume, force = pressure × area, volume = area × height).
g. Distinguish between linear and nonlinear relationships on a graph of data.
California Department of Education (2006f)
353
APPENDIX O
COASTLINE/CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CORE STANDARDS FOR 8
TH
GRADE SCIENCE
(PHYSICAL SCIENCE)
Capistrano Objectives for Reaching Excellence
Physical Science
Science Fundamentals
The student will:
- Understand the characteristics of science (e.g., testable).
- Apply the scientific method in problem solving.
- Describe differences between fact and theory.
- Explain how and when theories need change.
- Select appropriate tools and technology (e.g., calculators, computers).
- Develop line and bar graphs and analyze data from experimentation.
- Use a spreadsheet program to display and analyze data.
- Use a variety of print and electronic resources.
- Differentiate between variable and controlled parameters in an experiment.
- Evaluate accuracy and reproducibility data.
Chemistry: Atomic and Molecular
- Identify differences among the four states of matter.
- Identify structure of the atom, including electron arrangement.
- Identify sub-atomic particles composing an atom (e.g., protons).
- Identify elements on the periodic table.
- Demonstrate how the properties of a molecule are determined.
- Determine atomic number and mass of an element on periodic table.
- Recognize isotopes.
- Use flotation, filtration and distillation to separate mixtures of elements and compounds.
- Conduct experiments with density.
- Participate in activities involving chemical reactions (e.g., acid/base).
- Participate in catalyst and enzyme reactions.
- Demonstrate that properties of molecules are determined by number and types of atoms.
- Recognize that molecules are held together by positive/negative charges.
Energy
- Understand the concept of conservation of energy.
- Observe that energy in chemical reactions is transferred to the environment in the form of heat.
- Know that during nuclear reactions, atomic mass is converted to energy.
- Define temperature as a measure of molecular motion.
- Recognize that a calorie is a unit of heat measurement.
- Understand potential and kinetic energy.
- Know that gravitational energy is proportional to an object’s mass.
Motion and Mechanics
- Demonstrate each of Newton’s three laws of motion.
- Participate in experiments involving velocity and acceleration.
- Experiment with the effects of different forces (e.g., gravity, friction).
354
- Observe that constant gravitational forces produce the acceleration of falling objects.
- Explain how levers confer mechanical advantage and how this applies to the musculoskeletal
system.
Electricity and Magnetism
- Recognize the relationship between magnetism and electric current.
- Conduct experiments to demonstrate the attractive and repulsive forces of charged particles.
- Understand conductors, and series and parallel circuits.
- Identify the common household voltage used in the United States.
- Distinguish between alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC).
- Understand magnetic fields.
Light
- Understand that light travels in a straight line except when it is reflected or refracted.
- Understand wave theory, including amplitude and frequency.
- Recognize a variety of electromagnetic waves.
- Recognize that electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light.
- Recognize that light travels in straight lines until it encounters media, at which point it can be
reflected, refracted, etc.
- Recognize how simple lenses are used in magnifying glasses, etc.
Sound
- Observe that sound travels in forms of waves created by object vibration.
- Observe that pitch is determined by sound wave frequency.
- Observe that intensity is determined by sound wave amplitude.
Science, Technology and Society
- Explore ways that science is applied to issues in everyday life.
CUSD (2006a)
355
APPENDIX P
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR THE TEACHING PROFESSION
STANDARD ONE:
ENGAGING & SUPPORTING ALL
STUDENTS IN LEARNING
1•1 Connecting students' prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning goals
1•2 Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students' diverse needs
1•3 Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice
1•4 Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make subject matter
meaningful
1•5 Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students
STANDARD TWO:
CREATING & MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR STUDENT LEARNING
2•1 Creating a physical environment that engages all students
2•2 Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect
2•3 Promoting social development and group responsibility
2•4 Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior
2•5 Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student learning
2•6 Using instructional time effectively
STANDARD THREE:
UNDERSTANDING & ORGANIZING SUBJECT MATTER FOR STUDENT LEARNING
3•1 Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development
3•2 Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter
3•3 Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas
3•4 Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate to the subject
matter
3•5 Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to students
STANDARD FOUR:
PLANNING INSTRUCTION & DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR ALL STUDENTS
4•1 Drawing on and valuing students' backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning needs
4•2 Establishing and articulating goals for student learning
4•3 Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student learning
4•4 Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning
4•5 Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student needs
STANDARD FIVE:
ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING
5•1 Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students
5•2 Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning
5•3 Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning
5•4 Using the results of assessments to guide instruction
5•5 Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student progress
356
STANDARD SIX:
DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR
6•1 Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development
6•2 Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally
6•3 Working with communities to improve professional practice
6•4 Working with families to improve professional practice
6•5 Working with colleagues to improve professional practice
6•6 Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation
CSCTC & CDE (1997)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand how science teachers reacted to the high stakes accountability and standardized testing in California. In a multiple case study of middle and intermediate schools in Southern California, four research questions focused on the perceptions of secondary science teachers and how they responded to the changes in the accountability specifically geared towards science as a content area, the pedagogical skills teachers were using both outside and inside of the classroom that impact instruction, the pedagogical training received that related specifically to the content standards, the tools or impediments that existed for teachers to successfully utilize these pedagogical methods and types of support and assistance the school site administration and/or school district offered in learning about the California Science Standards and the STAR test. Interviews were conducted with multiple middle/intermediate school teachers, science department chairpersons and school site administrators to gather information about what the classroom teachers were doing pedagogically to improve student performance on the STAR tests. Moreover, the study described the issues that supported the professional development of the teacher and what schools and districts were doing to support them.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
PDF
Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability
PDF
The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms
PDF
High school reform to improve mathematics achievement
PDF
Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study
PDF
Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom
PDF
Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school
PDF
Multiple perceptions of teachers who use data
PDF
A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness
PDF
A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to principal initiated efforts to cultivate a positive school culture
PDF
Cognitively guided instruction: A case study in two elementary schools
PDF
The middle college high school: a case study
PDF
Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs
PDF
Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study
PDF
Teacher identity and culturally Responsive pedagogy
PDF
Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area
PDF
In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tse, Kenneth
(author)
Core Title
Middle school science teachers' reaction and pedagogical response to high stakes accountability: a multiple case study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education (Curriculum
Publication Date
09/15/2007
Defense Date
08/29/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,Science
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Marsh, David D. (
committee chair
), Cummings, Thomas G. (
committee member
), Stromquist, Nelly (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ktse68@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m820
Unique identifier
UC1234063
Identifier
etd-Tse-20070915 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-555626 (legacy record id),usctheses-m820 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Tse-20070915.pdf
Dmrecord
555626
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tse, Kenneth
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
accountability