Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers' use of educative curriculum materials

Abstract

New reform documents underscore the importance of learning both the practices and content of science. This integration of practices and content requires sophisticated teaching that does not often happen in elementary classrooms. Educative curriculum materials—materials explicitly designed to support teacher and student learning—have been posited as a way to support teachers to achieve these ambitious goals, yet little is known about how elementary teachers actually use educative curriculum materials in their interactions with students. To address this gap, we used qualitative case study methods drawing mainly on videorecords of the enactments of lessons and teacher interviews to investigate how two fourth‐grade teachers enacted a curriculum unit enhanced with educative features. Evidence of language and teaching moves promoted by the educative features was observed in the teachers' enactments. Findings suggest that variation existed in the teacher–curriculum interactions within and across teachers and across the suite of educative features. The teachers drew on educative features that contained representations of teacher and student work to envision possibilities for teaching the lesson while they used other features for identifying main ideas for the lesson. Implications for curriculum developers and teacher educators are discussed based on the patterns found in the teachers' use of the educative curriculum materials. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 422–449, 2016

An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use

“…Based upon interviews and PCK assessment results, most teachers learned about argumentation from planning and teaching this curriculum. Similar to other work, these findings imply that educative curriculum materials have the potential to support teachers in learning about science practices, such as argumentation (Arias et al, ). However, as these cases revealed, teachers, including teachers working within the same school, used the curriculum in different ways and for different purposes, which resulted in different learning outcomes with regard to their PCK of argumentation.…”

“…The intervention was designed to support teacher implementation of science inquiry for English language learners (ELLs), but, even with explicit supports, they found teachers rarely utilized inquiry. Other studies have found that teachers may draw upon different educative supports based upon their own preferences, content knowledge, and perceived needs (Arias, Bismack, Davis, & Palincsar, ). There is also evidence that teachers may subvert the intent of the curriculum designers by making adaptations that decrease cognitive demands for students (Pintó, ; Remillard, ).…”

Moving Beyond Pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ Enactments of an Educative Science Curriculum Focused on Argumentation

“…For example, educative curricula can provide implementation guidance to illustrate teacher strategies as well as rationales for instructional decisions, explaining why particular approaches are pedagogically appropriate (Beyer, Delgado, Davis, & Krajcik, 2009). Teachers' use of educative curriculum can result in changes in teachers' language use and teaching moves (Arias, Bismark, Davis, & Palincsar, 2016). In light of current reforms, educative supports for disciplinary practices, such as argumentation, may be essential for supporting teachers' knowledge of the practices as well as knowledge of how to support students in achieving these sophisticated learning goals (Davis & Krajcik, 2005).…”

Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials

“…These descriptions and suggestions, then, were design elements serving as tracers. Thus, when we see evidence of effective engagement in the practices, we can reasonably attribute it to the teachers' uptake of the educative features, through using the tracers as analytic tools, in the ways described below (Arias, Bismack, Davis, & Palincsar, 2013;Duncan & Frymier, 1967).…”