No abstract

The primary objective of this research was to establish a link between preservice, secondary chemistry teachers' knowledge base and beliefs about teaching. The case study followed two preservice chemistry teachers through their methods course, practicum experience, and student teaching internship. Pedagogical content knowledge vignettes, following a microgenetic model, and other data sources were used to monitor participants' conceptual change over time. Participants had well-intentioned beliefs about teaching and chemistry. The interaction of epistemologies and beliefs was determined to be synergistic, such that they remained separate epistemological ideas. The beliefs about content were not changed whereas those for teaching did change; one focused on epistemic understanding and the other on subjective realization.

No abstract

Reform-based science instruction is guided by teachers' normative beliefs. Discursive claims are how teachers say they teach science. Previous research has studied the change in teachers' beliefs and how beliefs influence intended practice and action in the classroom. Few studies have connected what teachers believe, how they say they teach, and how they actually teach in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate how a teacher's normative beliefs, discursive claims, and classroom practices were related to the implementation of reform-based standards. This research study analyzed 78 secondary science teachers' beliefs and claims about teaching in a reform-based, innovative manner. A subset of teachers was observed in the classroom to determine the relationship among beliefs, claims, and implementation in the classroom. The study revealed that there is a disconnect between what science teachers believe and what they say about science teaching. A teacher with traditional normative beliefs and innovative discursive claims implemented reform-based pedagogy. Beliefs alone were not a good predictor of innovative teaching, whereas discursive claims were determined to be a better predictor for implementation of reform-based science teaching. Innovative discursive claims, regardless of the type of beliefs, resulted in innovative teaching. A NormativeDiscursive-Practice Model is proposed to guide research about beliefs and claims leading to classroom implementation. The conclusions indicate that determining teachers' discursive claims is more informative for planning professional development than determining or monitoring their beliefs.

These standards provide performance expectations that reflect a three-dimensional approach to learning science that integrates (i) Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs) of the life sciences, physical sciences, Earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology, (ii) Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs) that connect knowledge across these disciplines, and (iii) Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) that reflect the means by which scientists and engineers engage "in a systematic practice of design" (NRC, 2012, p. 11) More specifically, the Framework argues that these three dimensions (3D) should weave through every aspect of science education, most critically, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This affects science teacher preparation.In 2014, the National Science Teachers' Association (NSTA) adopted the Framework as the guiding principles for teaching and learning science and engineering. With this adoption, it was realized the existing 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards needed to be updated. To match the goals of the Framework, the 2012 Science Teacher Education Standards were expanded to include K-12 grade bands beyond the prior focus on secondary grades alone. This focus on secondary teacher preparation evolved from the use of the 2012 Science Teacher Preparation Standards by the Council for Accreditation of Education Programs (CAEP) for accrediting teacher preparation programs. With the relationship between NSTA and CAEP now dissolved, NSTA had an opportunity to rethink (in light of the Framework), what teachers should know and be able to do in order to provide quality science education K-12.In 2015, the NSTA Board of Directors reached out to the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) to develop a joint committee charged with revising/developing a new set of science teacher preparation standards that would better reflect the goals of the Framework. From 2016 to the early part of 2018, this committee designed and sought multiple rounds of feedback from various professional subject-specific science teaching