Difference between pages "Schneider & Krajcik (2002)" and "Pajeres (1992)"

From MathEd.net Wiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Raymond Johnson
m (→‎Summary: headings for summary)
 
imported>Raymond Johnson
(new page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Title|Supporting Science Teacher Learning: The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials}}
{{Title|Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct}}
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
The article ''Supporting Science Teacher Learning: The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials'' was written by [[Rebecca Schneider]] and [[Joseph Krajcik]] in 2002 and published in ''[[The Journal of Science Teacher Education]]''. It is available from SpringerLink at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1016569117024.
The article ''Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct'' was written by [[Frank Pajares]] and published in ''[[Review of Educational Research]]'' in 1992. The article is available from SAGE Publications at http://rer.sagepub.com/content/62/3/307.


== Abstract ==
== Abstract ==


This article does not have an abstract.
Attention to the beliefs of teachers and teacher candidates should be a focus of educational research and can inform educational practice in ways that prevailing research agendas have not and cannot. The difficulty in studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional problems, poor conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures. This article examines the meaning prominent researchers give to beliefs and how this meaning differs from that of knowledge, provides a definition of belief consistent with the best work in this area, explores the nature of belief structures as outlined by key researchers, and offers a synthesis of findings about the nature of beliefs. The article argues that teachers’ beliefs can and should become an important focus of educational inquiry but that this will require clear conceptualizations, careful examination of key assumptions, consistent understandings and adherence to precise meanings, and proper assessment and investigation of specific belief constructs. Implications of findings and directions for future research are offered.


== Outline of Headings ==
== Outline of Headings ==


* Introduction
* Toward a Meaning of Belief
* Theoretical Framework
** Beliefs and Knowledge
** Designing Educative Materials
** The Effect of Knowledge Versus Beliefs
** Our Questions
** Defining Beliefs
* Methods
* Varying Meanings of Teachers' Beliefs
** Background
** Toward Consensus
** Educative Features of the Materials
* On the Nature of Beliefs
** Teacher Work Sessions
** Rokeach — The Belief System
** Data Collection
** More Recent Conceptions
** Data Reduction
* The Beliefs of Preservice Teachers
** Data Analysis
** Insiders in a Strange Land
* Findings
* Synthesis of Findings on Beliefs
** Individual Teachers
* Reflections and Research Directions
** Teachers' Use of Educative Materials
** Teachers' Content Knowledge
** Teachers' Pedagogical Knowledge
** Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge
* Discussion
 
== Summary ==
 
Schneider and Krajcik argue that if teachers need support to successfully carry out educational reforms. One needed support is ''[[educative curriculum materials]]'' &mdash; curriculum designed around both teacher and student learning ([[Ball & Cohen (1996)|Ball & Cohen, 1996]]). Taking a [[social constructivism|social constructivist]] ([[Blumenfeld, Marx, Patrick, & Krajcik (1996)|Blumenfeld, Marx, Patrick, & Krajcik, 1996]]; [[Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway (1999)|Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, 1999]]) view of project-based science, the researchers developed curriculum materials for the study to represent the ideals of project-based science. They were also designed to be educative for teachers ([[Ball & Cohen (1996)|Ball & Cohen, 1996]]) by persistently supporting teachers throughout the duration of their use in both planning and enactment, with a goal of situating teacher learning in classroom contexts ([[Borko & Putnam (1996)|Borko & Putnam, 1996]]; [[Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989)|Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989]]). Educative curriculum materials need to do more than give teachers directions ([[Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema (1998)|Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema, 1998]]<!--An AERA Paper-->; [[White & Frederiksen (1998)|White & Frederiksen, 1998]]) and need to support teacher learning and decision making aligned with student abilities and needs, the needs of the community, and implications for future learning ([[Ball & Cohen (1996)|Ball & Cohen, 1996]]).
 
Citing studies concerning the transtion from novice to expert science teaching ([[Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy (1998)|Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998]]; [[Carter (1990)|Carter, 1990]]; [[Borko, Bellamy, & Sanders (1992)|Borko, Bellamy, & Sanders, 1992]]; [[Borko & Livingston (1989)|Borko & Livingston, 1989]]; [[Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik (1994)|Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994]]), Schneider & Krajcik consider Shulman's ([[Shulman (1986)|1986]], [[Shulman (1987)|1987]]) framework of content, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), all three of which are required of teachers in planning lessons. Teachers might gain knowledge in these areas through rich narratives of practice, either presented as cases or from their own experiences ([[Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989)|Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989]]; [[Guskey (1986)|Guskey, 1986]]; [[Pajeres (1992)|Pajeres, 1992]]). Although the narratives are not always real, teachers strongly believe they learn by doing ([[Borko & Mayfield (1995)|Borko & Mayfield, 1995]]; [[Fenstermacher (1994)|Fenstermacher, 1994]]; [[Richardson (1990)|Richardson, 1990]]). Therefore, Schneider and Krajcik used five design principles for their educative curriculum (p. 224):
 
* Address each area of knowledge necessary for exemplary practices &mdash; content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and PCK
* Situate teacher learning by meshing the content of the support to lessons for students
* Link different knowledge areas within lessons
* Make knowledge accessible to teachers through short scenarios or models of actual practice
* Address immediate needs for understanding as teachers plan for lessons soon to be enacted
 
These principles resulted in content explanations, unit overviews, enactment scenarios, assessment supports, and teacher strategy notes. At the time these materials created, only the elementary mathematics materials ''Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space'' from [[TERC (1995)]] claimed to have developed similarly educative materials, the research of which yielded mixed results ([[Collopy (1999)|Collopy, 1999]]).
 
=== Research Questions and Design ===
 
Schneider & Krajcik asked the question "What is the role of educative curriculum material in supporting reform-based practices in science education?" (p. 225) and supported it with three subquestions:
 
* How do teachers use educative curriculum materials?
* What do teachers understand when they use educative curriculum materials?
* What are teachers' classroom practices like when they use educative curriculum materials?
 
=== Findings ===


== Also ==
== Also ==
Line 56: Line 27:
=== APA ===
=== APA ===


Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. ''Journal of Science Teacher Education'', 13(3), 221–245. doi:10.1023/A:1016569117024
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. ''Review of Educational Research'', 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307


== BibTeX ==
=== BibTeX ===


<pre>
<pre>
@article{Schneider2002,
@article{Pajares1992,
author = {Schneider, Rebecca M. and Krajcik, Joseph},
author = {Pajares, M. Frank},
doi = {10.1023/A:1016569117024},
doi = {10.3102/00346543062003307},
journal = {Journal of Science Teacher Education},
journal = {Review of Educational Research},
number = {3},
number = {3},
pages = {221--245},
pages = {307--332},
title = {{Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials}},
title = {{Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023\%2FA\%3A1016569117024},
url = {http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/00346543062003307},
volume = {13},
volume = {62},
year = {2002}
year = {1992}
}
}
</pre>
</pre>


[[Category:Journal Articles]]
[[Category:Journal Articles]]
[[Category:Journal of Science Teacher Education]]
[[Category:Review of Educational Research]]
[[Category:2002]]
[[Category:1992]]
[[Category:Curriculum Use]]
[[Category:Teacher Beliefs]]
[[Category:Science Education]]

Latest revision as of 05:09, 2 November 2013

Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct

The article Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct was written by Frank Pajares and published in Review of Educational Research in 1992. The article is available from SAGE Publications at http://rer.sagepub.com/content/62/3/307.

Abstract

Attention to the beliefs of teachers and teacher candidates should be a focus of educational research and can inform educational practice in ways that prevailing research agendas have not and cannot. The difficulty in studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional problems, poor conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures. This article examines the meaning prominent researchers give to beliefs and how this meaning differs from that of knowledge, provides a definition of belief consistent with the best work in this area, explores the nature of belief structures as outlined by key researchers, and offers a synthesis of findings about the nature of beliefs. The article argues that teachers’ beliefs can and should become an important focus of educational inquiry but that this will require clear conceptualizations, careful examination of key assumptions, consistent understandings and adherence to precise meanings, and proper assessment and investigation of specific belief constructs. Implications of findings and directions for future research are offered.

Outline of Headings

  • Toward a Meaning of Belief
    • Beliefs and Knowledge
    • The Effect of Knowledge Versus Beliefs
    • Defining Beliefs
  • Varying Meanings of Teachers' Beliefs
    • Toward Consensus
  • On the Nature of Beliefs
    • Rokeach — The Belief System
    • More Recent Conceptions
  • The Beliefs of Preservice Teachers
    • Insiders in a Strange Land
  • Synthesis of Findings on Beliefs
  • Reflections and Research Directions

Also

APA

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307

BibTeX

@article{Pajares1992,
author = {Pajares, M. Frank},
doi = {10.3102/00346543062003307},
journal = {Review of Educational Research},
number = {3},
pages = {307--332},
title = {{Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct}},
url = {http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/00346543062003307},
volume = {62},
year = {1992}
}
Retrieved from "https://mathed.net/w/index.php?title=Schneider_%26_Krajcik_(2002)&oldid=1055"