Abstract
This study examined the science and mathematics instruction of teachers who were initially prepared by the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation program (CETP). The focus of this study was on examining the extent to which science and mathematics teachers used more reform-oriented instructional practices in their classes when they entered the teaching profession. Data were gathered from twelve different CETP projects across the United States. A quasi-experimental design was used where science and mathematics teachers who were initially prepared by the CETP program were followed into the field and compared to teachers who were not prepared by the CETP program. The results indicate that the teachers prepared by the CETP program used slightly more reform-oriented instructional practices than teachers who were not prepared by the CETP program, although both mathematics and science teachers reported low levels of reform-oriented instruction. Implications of results for large-scale reform of science and mathematics teacher preparation are discussed.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 137-145 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | School Science and Mathematics |
| Volume | 108 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 2008 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The surveys used in this study were designed to gather information on perceptions of how often teachers used different instructional strategies and to determine if there were any differences in the reported use of these strategies among science and mathematics teachers and students. Teacher and student surveys were developed through a series of revisions using face‐to‐face and distance discussions with CETP project personnel, pilot testing, opinions of expert consultants, and field testing. Individual items were obtained from existing evaluation instruments developed by CETP projects and from other sources including the surveys used by Horizon Research Inc. in their national curriculum and instruction surveys funded by the NSF ( Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003 ). Initial draft instruments were revised by individual experts from the CETP projects and then by the full group both via the web and face‐to‐face meetings. Pilot data were collected from small groups of students and teachers. Talk‐aloud protocols were also conducted with individuals. An external survey expert also reviewed the items and the pilot data. Instruments were revised based on feedback and were again reviewed by the representatives from the participating CETP projects. These versions were then used in a field test. Field test data were obtained from 146 teachers, and 893 students. These field test data were used to finalize the instruments.
Funding Information:
Support for this work was provided by grant REC #9908902 from The National Science Foundation (NSF). The opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. Author's Note
Publisher Copyright:
2008 School Science and Mathematics Association.