Luận án: Giảng dạy Khoa học dựa trên Cải cách - Tiếp cận hỗn hợp để giải thích sự biến đổi

Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE May 2014 Reform-Based Science Teaching: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explaining Variation in Secondary Science Teacher Practice Lauren E. Jetty Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Jetty, Lauren E., "Reform-Based Science Teaching: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explaining Variation in Secondary Science Teacher Practice" (2014).edu/etd/104 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this two-phase, sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was to understand and explain the variation seen in secondary science teachers’ enactment of reform- based instructional practices. Utilizing teacher socialization theory, this mixed-methods analysis was conducted to determine the relative influence of secondary science teachers’ characteristics, backgrounds and experiences across their teacher development to explain the range of teaching practices exhibited by graduates from three reform-oriented teacher preparation programs. Data for this study were obtained from the Investigating the Meaningfulness of Preservice Programs Across the Continuum of Teaching (IMPPACT) Project, a multi-university, longitudinal study funded by NSF. In the first quantitative phase of the study, data for the sample (N=120) were collected from three surveys from the IMPPACT Project database.

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to examine the separate as well as the combined influence of factors such as teachers’ personal and professional background characteristics, beliefs about reform-based science teaching, feelings of preparedness to teach science, school context, school culture and climate of professional learning, and influences of the policy environment on the teachers’ use of reform- based instructional practices. Findings indicate three blocks of variables, professional background, beliefs/efficacy, and local school context added significant contribution to explaining nearly 38% of the variation in secondary science teachers’ use of reform-based instructional practices. The five variables that significantly contributed to explaining variation in teachers’ use of reform-based instructional practices in the full model were, university of teacher preparation, sense of preparation for teaching science, the quality of professional development, science content focused professional, and the perceived level of professional autonomy. Using the results from phase one, the second qualitative phase selected six case study teachers based on their levels of reform-based teaching practices to highlight teachers across the range of practices from low, average, to high levels of implementation.

Using multiple interview sources, phase two helped to further explain the variation in levels of reform-based practices. Themes related to teachers' backgrounds, local contexts, and state policy environments were developed as they related to teachers’ socialization experiences across these contexts. The results of the qualitative analysis identified the following factors differentiating teachers who enacted reform-based instructional practices from those who did not: 1) extensive science research experiences prior to their preservice teacher preparation; 2) the structure and quality of their field placements; 3) developing and valuing a research-based understanding of teaching and learning as a result of their preservice teacher preparation experiences; 4) the professional culture of their school context where there was support for a high degree of professional autonomy and receiving support from “educational companions” with a specific focus on teacher pedagogy to support student learning; and 5) a greater sense of agency to navigate their districts’ interpretation and implementation of state polices. Implications for key stakeholders as well as directions for future research are discussed.

REFORM-BASED SCIENCE TEACHING: A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH TO EXPLAINING VARIATION IN SECONDARY SCIENCE TEACHER PRACTICE By Lauren E. Pennsylvania State University, 2001 M.S SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry, 2006 M. Syracuse University, 2006 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science Education Syracuse University May 2014 Copyright © 2014 Lauren E. Jetty All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A popular saying states “it takes a village to raise a child” and I think the same could be said of a PhD candidate.

I could not have embarked on and completed this five year journey to PhD without a village behind me. I would like to acknowledge and show gratitude to my amazing family, friends, and colleagues whose encouragement and support throughout this process have been essential to my completion of this dissertation. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John Tillotson, who served as chair for this dissertation.

My work for him as a research associate on the IMPPACT project provided some of the strongest influences to my professional growth during my PhD program. I am grateful for opportunity to utilize this valuable dataset to pursue the research questions for my dissertation. John, you are an incredible mentor, providing advice and support freely, investing so much time in the professional development of your doctoral students. Your availability and willingness to help, whether through a simple chat, Skype calls, or lunches at the diner, helped to keep me focused on my goals.

All doctoral students should be so lucky to have an advisor like you. I would also like to thank my committee members whose support for this research project along with their knowledge and expertise helped me to more easily navigate this process and my dissertation is much richer due to their influence. Jeff Rozelle, I have always admired your intellect, and greatly value the mentorship you have provided to me as a science educator. Qiu Wang, your enthusiasm for this research, valuable feedback, and encouragement helped me greatly throughout this process.

I had the privilege to work and share an office with three fellow IMMPACT colleagues- our fearless director, Dr. Monica Young, and fellow associates Dr. Glenn Dolphin, and Dr. I am grateful for the friendships we have developed and the personal and professional support you have provided me.

Your shared enthusiasm for margaritas, and eagerness to celebrate each other’s milestones along the way made my experience in graduate school much more enjoyable. I would like to acknowledge that none of this would have been possible without the patience and endless support from my family. To my parents who have always supported my dreams and academic pursuits, I am so lucky to have had your guidance throughout life and your constant reassurance that I can do anything. To my wonderful in-laws, you not only provided me with an immeasurable amount of emotional support, but your willingness to provide countless hours of childcare so I could get more writing accomplished made the completion of this dissertation possible.

To my delightfully curious, funny, and loving son Ryder, being your mama has been my greatest accomplishment yet. Your presence in my life motivates me to the best person I can. You have only ever known a mama who is researching, writing, and fretting about a dissertation. I am so thankful to have had your snuggles throughout this process.

I look forward to splashing in more puddles, collecting rocks, and continuing to exploring the world with you. And finally to my husband Robb, who I love more than words can express. Your love and support have helped me to persevere through the long road to dissertation, particularly when doubts and worries clouded my vision. I am eternally grateful for the confidence you have in me, your positive approach to life, and your ability to make the impossible seem possible.

Thank you for always valuing my dreams and aspirations and backing me up as I work towards them. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. 1 Reforms for Science Learning and Teaching. 4 Statement of the Problem.

9 Purpose of the Study. 12 Significance of the Study. 15 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 18 Sphere One: Teachers’ Backgrounds.

28 Sphere Two: The Local Context. 38 Transition from Preservice to In-service. 39 Influence of School Climate/Culture. 42 Sphere Three: State Policy Environment.

45 Current Policy Environment. 46 Policy and Practice. 47 Conceptual Model of Teacher Socialization: Three Spheres of Influence. 51 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.

54 Rationale for a Mixed-methods Design. 58 Description of Data Source. 59 Phase One: Quantitative Study. 64 Design and Instrumentation.

81 Sequential Regression Analysis. 82 Phase Two: Qualitative Study. 88 Data and instrumentation. 92 Qualitative Data Analysis.

94 CHAPTER FOUR: QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS. 98 Descriptive and Exploratory Data Analysis. 99 Sample Demographic Characteristics. 100 Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables.

101 Findings for Research Questions. 103 Hierarchical multiple regression results and analysis. 114 CHAPTER FIVE: QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS. 117 Case Study Teacher Profiles.

119 Teachers with Low Levels of Reform-based Practices. 120 Teachers with Mean Levels of Reform-based Practices. 121 Teachers with High Levels of Reform-based Practices. 123 Patterns of Talk about Practice.

146 Summary Teachers’ Backgrounds. 166 The Local Context. 170 Summary Local Context. 194 State Policy Environment.

197 Summary State Policy Environment. 206 Chapter Five Summary. 207 CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION. 212 Summary of Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Results.

217 Teachers’ Personal Backgrounds. 217 Teachers’ Professional Preparation. 222 viii Local School Context. 250 Recommendations for Future Research.

299 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sense of Preparedness to Teach Science Scale. Policy Related Instructional Influences Scale. School Culture and Climate Scale.

Quality of Professional Development Scale. Amount of Science Content Specific Professional Development Scale. Description of Independent Variables. Teachers Use of Reform-based Instructional Practices Scale.

Phase Two Study Sample. Descriptive Statistics for Secondary Science Teachers and School Settings. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables. Pearson Correlation of Variables.

Five-Step Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for Variables Predicting Reform-Based Instructional Practices. Case Study Teacher Profiles. Field Placement Requirements by University (# of hours). 147 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

Changing Emphasis of Science Teaching. Sequential Explanatory Mixed-Methods Design. Visual Model for Sequential Explanatory Study Design Procedures. List of Interventions by University.

Phase Two Possible Sample Participants. 91 xi 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION National concerns about the quality of science education continue to rise as the United States falls behind other countries in international comparisons of science and mathematics performance. Results from the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) show that students from the United States rank seventh in the world at the fourth grade level and tenth in the world at the eighth grade level in their science achievement (Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012). Additionally, the most recent results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) show average scores in science literacy for 15 year olds in the United States are lower than 22 other countries (Kelly, Xie, Nord, Jenkins, Chan, & Kastberg, 2013).

Findings from both of these longitudinal studies echo results of the previous TIMSS and PISA studies, which indicate US students have made little progress in closing the gap between the leading nations. This lagging performance heightens concerns about the United States’ ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace and to deal with scientific and technological challenges of the 21st century. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2010) report on the future of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education argues “STEM education will determine whether the United States will remain a leader among nations…the country’s need for a world-leading STEM workforce and scientifically, mathematically, and technologically literate populace has become even greater and will continue to grow – particularly as other nations continue to make rapid advances in science and technology” (p. These assertions regarding the significant role that science education plays in increasing scientific literacy, and in shaping the success of the nation have permeated the discourse on science education for the last two decades (National Research Council [NRC], 2 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991).

Though national attention to this issue has spurred reform efforts increasing standards and accountability, there has been relatively little improvement in the quality of science education (NRC, 2007).