Missed expectations: teacher and coach tensions at the boundary of STEM integration in an elementary classroom

Justin McFadden1, Gillian Roehrig2
1College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA
2Learning and Environmental Science 320, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA

Tóm tắt

The current study explored how a STEM coach supported an elementary teacher during the implementation of an integrated curriculum that culminated with an engineering design challenge. The findings of the case study reported, detail how the reflective nature of the coaching moves employed failed to fully meet the needs of the teacher given the distinct challenges that arose upon implementation of the co-developed curriculum. By closely examining two primary data sources: (1) five extended coaching sessions, and (2) the coach’s pre-post coaching log reflections; analysis identifies and explores how the pair’s missed expectations produced unanticipated tensions that hindered the potentials of the teacher-coach relationship. Insights related to an elementary teacher’s conceptions of STEM integration are also revealed within the data presented. Finally, analysis enabled discussion of strategies that might be employed to strategically support elementary teachers working with coaches; specifically exploring how differentiated supports based on prior experiences might be instituted.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Anderson, C. W., de los Santos, E. X., Bodbyl, S., Covitt, B. A., Edwards, K. D., Hancock, J. B., … Welch, M. M. (2018). Designing educational systems to support enactment of the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21484. Anderson, R., Feldman, S., & Minstrell, J. (2014). Understanding relationship: Maximizing the effects of science coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(54), 1–16 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n54.2014. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc. (NJ1). Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage Publications Limited. Bengo, P. (2013). Mathematics coaching to improve teaching practice: The experiences of mathematics teachers and coaches (doctoral dissertation). Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., … Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001007. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30. Campbell, P. F. (1996). Empowering children and teachers in the elementary mathematics class- rooms of urban schools. Urban Education, 30, 449–475. Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: SAGE. Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3), 513–518. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2008). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood: Christopher-Gordon. Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947. Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge. Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking Data. Beverly Hills: Sage. Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50–53. Gallucci, C., Lare, M. D. V., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963. Giamellaro, M., & Siegel, D. R. (2018). Coaching teachers to implement innovations in STEM. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 25–38. Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. A. (2017). Examining content-focused coaching knowledge and practices implicated in designing coaching activities. Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–259. Gibbons, L. K., Kazemi, E., & Lewis, R. M. (2017). Developing collective capacity to improve mathematics instruction: Coaching as a lever for school-wide improvement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 231–250. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, (p. 81). London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson. Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48. International Reading Association (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States. Newark: International Reading Association Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/reading-coach-position-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=f44ea18e_6. Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164–190. Jacobs, J., Boardman, A., Potvin, A., & Wang, C. (2018). Understanding teacher resistance to instructional coaching. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 690–703. Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273e282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004. Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Laxton, K. E. (2016). Implementing the next generation science standards: How instructional coaches mediate standards-based educational reforms to teacher practice (doctoral dissertation). Lofthouse, R. (2019). Coaching in education: A professional development process in formation. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 33–45. Lord, B., Cress, K., & Miller, B. (2008). Teacher leadership in support of large-scale mathematics and science education reform. In M. M. Mangin, & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform, (pp. 55–76). New York: Teachers College Press. Majors, Y. (2007). Narrations of cross cultural encounters as interpretative frames for reading word and world. Discourse & Society, 18, 479–506. Mangin, M., & Dunsmore, K. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systematic or individual reform influences enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213. Marco-Bujosa, L. M., & Levy, A. J. (2016). Caught in the balance: An organizational analysis of science teaching in schools with elementary science specialists. Science Education, 100(6), 983–1008. McFadden, J. (2015). Teachers as designers: The iterative process of curriculum design focused on STEM integration. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/175257. McFadden, J. (2019). Transitions in the perpetual beta of NGSS: One science teacher's beliefs and attempts for instructional change, 1-30. Journal of Science Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1559559. McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). Exploring teacher design team endeavors while creating an elementary-focused STEM-integrated curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 21. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley. Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161. Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 2. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. Mudzimiri, R., Burroughs, E. A., Luebeck, J., Sutton, J., & Yopp, D. (2014). A look inside mathematics coaching: Roles, content, and dynamics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(53), n53. Olson, J. K., Tippett, C. D., Milford, T. M., Ohana, C., & Clough, M. P. (2015). Science teacher preparation in a north American context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 7–28. Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators. Newbury Park: Corwin Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London and New Delhi: SAGE. Robertson, D. A., Ford-Connors, E., Frahm, T., Bock, K., Paratore, J. R. (2019). Unpacking productive coaching interactions: Identifying coaching approaches that supports instructional uptake. Professional Development in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634628. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner, (p. 27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179. Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2017). School district educational infrastructure and change at scale: Teacher peer interactions and their beliefs about mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal (Articles In Press). Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22, 413–451. Trygstad, P. J. (2013). 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of elementary school science. Horizon Research, Inc. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria: ASCD. Woulfin, S. L., & Rigby, J. G. (2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323-328. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., & Ghere, G. S. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.