Curriculum-based Professional Learning to Support Teachers in Customizing Curriculum for their Students and Context

• In Event: Adaptation of Science Instructional Materials: Localizing Curriculum Materials to Support Equitable Sensemaking

Abstract

Objective and Theoretical Framework

Teachers need support adapting curriculum for their students (Authors, 2022). High-quality professional learning experiences anchored in curriculum materials can support teachers in their instructional practice (Lynch et al., 2019), which is called curriculum-based professional learning (CBPL) (Short & Hirsh, 2020). We argue that curricular customization is an important element of CBPL because it can support teachers in being responsive to their students. In this study, we investigated the impact of CBPL with a customization model on teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the teachers’ customizations.
Methods

We worked with ninety middle school science teachers over the course of one school year as they customized and enacted storyline science curricula (Reiser et al., 2021). All teachers in the study participated in CBPL including four days in person and four hours virtually. In addition, teachers designed and submitted two customizations. We conducted a randomized experimental study (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Approximately half the teachers were in the customization treatment group and half in the control group. For the customization treatment group, the professional learning included an explicit focus on a customization model with four stages all centered on an equity goal.

Data Sources and Analysis

We collected multiple data sources: 1. surveys at four time points, 2. customized curriculum and 3. teacher reflections. The survey instrument included likert scale items for teacher beliefs and PCK. For the quantitative analysis, we conducted linear mixed models (LMM) to account for the clustering of teachers in the two groups across the four time points (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). For the teachers’ customizations, we developed coding schemes from our theoretical framework and an iterative analysis of the data. We then clustered the codes looking for reoccurring and meaningful patterns (Miles et al., 2020).

Results

For the quantitative analysis, we found that one measure resulted in significant growth over the year of CBPL; however, there was no significant effect of the treatment. Specifically, for the teacher belief scale focused on cultural dimensions of science teaching, we found (Table 1) that the outcome increased significantly between time points (0.002, p < .01). However, the treatment condition was not significantly associated with differential growth.

However, for the qualitative analysis, there were differences in the teachers’ customizations (See Table 2). For the control group, the majority of the teachers’ goals focused on increasing support for students, particularly for simplify a task and support science ideas. In contrast, for the customize treatment group, the majority of teachers’ goals targeted equitable participation or student engagement.

Scholarly Significance

For both groups, participating in the CBPL had a significant impact on teachers’ beliefs and PCK. The only differences we observed were in the customizations that the teachers submitted. For the teachers in the customization treatment group, their customizations included a greater focus on equitable participation or engagement for their students suggesting the importance of providing a customization model centered on an equity goal.

Authors

• Katherine L. McNeill, Boston College

• Austin Moore, Boston College

• Maria A. Moreno Vera, Boston College

• Brianna Balke, Boston College

• Laura M. O'Dwyer, Boston College

• Samuel Lee, California State University - Long Beach

• Renee Affolter, OpenSciEd