Multidistrict Implementation of Science and Engineering Practices Through a Teacher Curriculum Adaptation Model

• In Event: 29.030 - Equity-Focused Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards: Exploring Models of Hope and Possibility

Abstract

Objectives / Purpose
In this design-based implementation research (DBIR) project, researchers collaborate with elementary and middle school teachers from two urban districts to adapt, test and refine instructional materials in support of developing epistemic practices in the NGSS. This poster analyzes the unfolding improvement efforts conducted by teachers in the first year of this three-year effort.

Perspectives / theoretical framework
DBIR is characterized by four key elements: (a) focus on persistent problems of practice; (b) iterative, collaborative design; (c) systematic inquiry and theorizing about learning and implementation; and (d) developing capacity to sustain change within systems (Penuel et al., 2011). We collaborated with practitioners to negotiate problems of practice associated with implementing the NGSS. Working with 70 teachers across two urban school districts, the project team narrowed the focus to three NGSS practices: engineering design, scientific explanation and argumentation (NGSS, 2013; NRC, 2012).

As curriculum enhancements were developed and used, we attended to how new instructional strategies became integrated into existing teacher practice and how that often led to conflicts that needed to be managed (Engeström, 2011). We conduct our analysis from a social and material perspective that attends to multiple structures of social practice involved in the shared work and learning (Bell et al., 2012). We present analytical accounts of the collaborative work with a focus on designs for equitable instruction.

Methods
In this DBIR study, the research team engaged in instructional co-design with teachers. This work was audio-recorded; ethnographic fieldwork was conducted in partner classrooms; and student work was collected / documented. Qualitative case studies capture how design teams coordinated their design and enactments. Conclusions and implications were drawn in relation to the tensions encountered, the solutions developed, and documented improvements in human capacity.

Data sources
We focus on the work of five teachers working with four researchers—drawing upon field notes of classroom observations and professional development sessions, teacher interviews, and classroom assessments.

Results

Co-design of novel practice-focused learning experiences. Participating teachers developed and implemented practice-focused curriculum enhancements across their classrooms with moderate attention to inclusiveness. New problems of teaching practice were also encountered in the process (e.g., instructional time for engineering design, lack of knowledge about assessment). Teachers also tailored their lessons for their school communities (e.g., teaching in Mandarin, presenting work at parent nights).

Over-reliance on instructional scaffolds. During the first year of implementation, teachers adhered to the claim-evidence-reasoning framework for argumentation (Krajcik & McNeill, 2012). The scaffold was framed more as an assessment and less as a tool for meaning-making which privileged writing and test-taking practices over equitable sense-making practices. Efforts are underway to further teachers’ understanding in this area.

Productive coordination with existing teaching practices. Teachers were able to use existing strategies for scaffolding language development as they adapted lessons for use with English language learners (ELLs). This allowed ELLs to participate equitably in writing explanations.

Scientific / scholarly significance
Researcher-practitioner collaboration is powerful means of building human capacity and developing theory about professional learning as implementation unfolds within complex educational systems.

Authors

• Philip L. Bell, University of Washington

• Tana J Peterman, University of Washington - Seattle

• Andrew W. Shouse, University of Washington

• Kerri Wingert, University of Washington - Seattle

• Dan Gallagher, Seattle Public Schools

• Alisha Taylor, Seattle Public Schools

• MaryMargaret Welch, Seattle Public Schools