Identification of the Most Critical Content Knowledge Base for Middle School Science Teachers
Tóm tắt
Much has been said about what science content students need to learn (e.g., Benchmarks for Science Literacy, National Science Education Standards). Less has been said about what science content teachers need to know to teach the content students are expected to learn. This study analyzed four standards documents and assessment frameworks to identify core middle school physical science teacher content knowledge. Analysis across all four documents identified critical middle school physical science content and the relative weightings of this content. This parsimonious selection of content synthesized from these major sources provides guidelines researchers, assessment developers, and professional development providers can use in determining how to expend limited time and other resources.
Tài liệu tham khảo
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Resources for science literacy: Professional development. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/rsl/online/COMPARE/NRC/SUMM2.HTM .
Chaney, B. (1995). Student outcomes and the professional preparation of eighth-grade teachers in science and mathematics. NSF/NELS:88 teacher transcript analysis (Reports–Research/Technical, 143). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 711–727.
Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1998). When should we reward degrees for teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 134, 136–138.
Johnson, E. (1998). Linking the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP) and the third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS): A technical report (No. NCES 98–499). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Kruger, C. J., & Summers, M. K. (1990). An investigation of some English primary school teachers’ understanding of the concepts of force and gravity. British Educational Research Journal, 16, 383–397.
Martin M., & Kelly D. (Eds.), (1996). TIMSS technical report: Design and development (Vol. 1). Boston: Boston College, Center for Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
Monk, D., & King-Rice, J. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics, science: The role of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education (pp. 29–58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Smith, T., Garden, R., Gregory, K., Gonzalez, E., et al. (2003). TIMSS assessment and frameworks and specifications 2003 (2nd ed.). Boston: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). Science framework for the 2005 national assessment for educational progress. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nohara, D. (2001). A comparison of the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), the third international mathematics and science study repeat (TIMSS-R), and the program for international student assessment (Working Paper No. 2001–07). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Raizen, S. (1998). Standards for science education. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 66–121.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement (No. 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschle, & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish preservice science teachers’ understanding of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(1), 57–68.
Vinovskis, M. A. (1998). Overseeing the Nation’s report card: The creation and evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Wilson, F. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No. R-01-3). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.