The role of collective sensemaking and science curriculum development within a research–practice partnership

Abstract

This study examines how researchers can better understand the instructional and practical realities of teachers through collective sensemaking. Traditional approaches to curriculum design engage learning models without accounting for the needed flexibility of teachers. This approach has resulted in tension and gatekeeping-inhibiting the implementation of curriculum. Teachers are often considered relatively autonomous; however, this study sheds light on the constrained autonomy teachers experience resulting from internal and external pressures. This study examines the collective sensemaking process of researchers while developing a high school genetics curriculum. By examining the collective sensemaking of the areas of tension that arose during the curriculum design process, the problem space of researchers expanded and became more aligned with the problem space of teachers. Collective sensemaking encouraged the humanizing of teachers by centering their content, contextual, and social needs. In addition, this study suggests that gatekeeping can result from many factors; but through collective sensemaking, researchers can intentionally design to resolve said factors.

STEM Project-Based Instruction: An Analysis of Teacher-Developed Integrated STEM PBI Curriculum Units

“…Although the units generally did not illustrate exemplary STEM PBI instruction, it is important to consider the possible causes for these weaknesses. With time frequently cited by teachers as a barrier to curriculum development and STEM PBI instruction (e.g., [17,18,54]), it is likely that time was also a significant factor in this study. Similar to findings from Slavit et al [54] study, even with dedicated time for curriculum development, these units were not ready for full classroom implementation.…”

“…Some of the challenges in engaging students in sustained inquiry [53] seem to derive from the tension between STEM PBI instruction and instruction focused on preparation for standardized assessments. Other studies [17,18] have documented tensions between integrated STEM and mandated testing, vocabulary practice, and student accountability. Similarly, studies of PBI have highlighted challenges related to academic standards, cognitive demand, and ensuring that key content is addressed [29,54].…”

“…For example, Hutner et al [17] found that teachers who were implementing STEM design challenges experienced goal conflicts related to pacing and mandated testing. Similarly, Marshall et al [18] found that curricula designed to emphasize conceptual development, con-construction of knowledge, and student autonomy were seen to be in tension with teacher goals related to assessment, including vocabulary knowledge, individual student accountability, and efficient use of time. Further, teachers often feel underprepared to implement integrated STEM instruction [19,20] and are faced with inadequate time for both preparation and instruction of integrated STEM activities and units [20].…”

Administrators' capacity for supporting reform‐oriented science instruction: An urban school district case study

“…This study was conducted to both highlight a strategy for understanding leaders' constructions of instructional leadership components and connect such constructions to responses to a specific instructional setting. As such, its outcomes are intended to build on prior research on leaders' sensemaking in science (Ganon‐Shilon & Schechter, 2017; Spillane & Callahan, 2000; Weick et al, 2005) and offer insights into needs that may arise, for example when seeking to create a culture of consistent feedback (Marshall et al, 2021) for science teachers (see Figure 1 for a visualization of the main components of the study).…”

Leading instructional improvement in elementary science: State science coordinators' sense‐making about the Next Generation Science Standards

“…Within the field of science education, sense‐making is more often invoked when describing children's sense‐making of scientific phenomena (Odden & Russ, 2018; see also, e.g., Haverly et al, 2018; Warren et al, 2001). More recently, some science education researchers are beginning to consider the role of sense‐making in teachers' and leaders' learning (Allen & Heredia, 2021; Allen & Penuel, 2015; Davis et al, 2020; Heredia, 2020; Marshall et al, 2021; see Spillane & Callahan, 2000, for an early example). Much of this scholarship considers the roles of coherence and incoherence between the ideals of reforms in relation to teachers' and leaders' environments, their beliefs, and their prior practices.…”