Exploring the role of coherence in science teachers’ sensemaking of science‐specific formative assessment in professional development

Abstract

This study explores the role of conceptual coherence in science teacher learning of science‐specific formative assessment. Conceptual coherence refers to the alignment of ideas about teaching and learning and may be difficult with certain teaching practices, like formative assessment, that have a central role in accountability mechanisms in schools. The case study analyzes how one department of science teachers surfaced and managed issues of coherence as they developed and implemented science‐specific formative assessments during a 3‐year, job‐embedded professional development program. The issues of coherence shifted over the course of the 3 years of professional development as organizational changes happened at the district and the school. These shifting sources of incoherence resulted in varied uptake and use of the resources provided through professional development. When the source of incoherence was with changes introduced by the district or the school administration, the teachers did not leverage the resources provided by the professional development team. However, when the teachers surfaced issues of coherence in their classroom instruction, the science teachers relied on the professional development resources in their sensemaking. The results of this study have implications for the design of science teacher professional learning to provide teachers opportunities to manage sources of incoherence as they work to implement new instructional practices in their classrooms.

A case study of science teachers' goal conflicts arising when integrating engineering into science classes

“…There are several implications for professional learning experiences for science teachers and for research arising from this study. If, as we argue, goal conflict is prevalent both when change is imposed upon teachers and when teachers themselves choose to make a change, then teacher educators may want to consider including opportunities for science teachers to examine and respond to potential goal conflicts in productive ways as part of educative experiences for science teachers (Heredia, 2020;Manz & Suarez, 2018). While we provided a week of professional development surrounding engineering and revising ADE and the SDCs, we did not provide structure for the teachers to revise their existing curriculum and pacing guides.…”

“…One common thread among many studies on science teachers' conflicting goals is conflict appears to result from ambiguity in teachers' understanding of other's goals or expectations (Allen & Heredia, 2021;Allen & Penuel, 2015;Heredia, 2020;Johnson, 2013;Kelley & Finnigan, 2003;Smith & Southerland, 2007). Ambiguity often, but not always, coincides within a changing organizational context, such as the adoption of new standards (Allen & Heredia, 2021;Heredia, 2020). As one example, Heredia (2020) conducted a 3-year case study of seven science teachers enrolled in an ongoing professional development program while the district undertook curriculum HUTNER ET AL.…”

“…| 93 reforms. Heredia (2020) found "as teachers received more information from the district about the expected changes to their curriculum, [participants'] uncertainty shifted toward ambiguity or confusion about what the district expected of their teaching" (p. 592). Heredia (2020) further postulates that ambiguity and uncertainty can lead to contradictory or competing ideas about future instructional practices.…”

How facilitating K–12 professional development shapes science faculty's instructional change

“…Yet when faculty perceived some alignment between institutional policies, resources, and instructional change, such as an instructional improvement grant, they felt the resonance of institutional support and SLP participation bolstered their learning. A sensemaking lens allows for moving beyond a conceptualization of the tenure and promotion process as simply a barrier, and towards a more nuanced understanding of the ways dissonance and alignment stymie or support instructional innovation (Allen & Penuel, 2015; Heredia, 2020). Our findings indicate that incentives embedded in university structures (e.g., instructional innovation support grants) may create pivotal opportunities for alignment between faculties' personal quest for instructional change, external opportunities for pedagogical learning, and institutional policies.…”

“…Depending on the nature and strength of such norms and the social networks in which they are embedded, faculty may be averse to taking pedagogical risks (Kezar, 2014). In addition, how instructors adapt and implement instructional practices is often influenced by the alignment between new instructional practices and existing institutional structures and policies (Heredia, 2020). For example, in a study of teacher science PD, Allen and Penuel (2015) found teachers had difficulty incorporating the ideas of PD due to conflicting organizational goals regarding curriculum and instruction.…”