Citation
Designing for Culturally Responsive Science Education through Professional Development

Material Information

Title:
Designing for Culturally Responsive Science Education through Professional Development
Creator:
Brown, Julie Catherine
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (393 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Curriculum and Instruction
Teaching and Learning
Committee Chair:
CRIPPEN,KENT J
Committee Co-Chair:
BONDY,ELIZABETH
Committee Members:
ROSS,DORENE D
KOROLY,MARY J
SADLER,TROY DOW
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Classrooms ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Science education ( jstor )
Science learning ( jstor )
Science teachers ( jstor )
Student diversity ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
culturally -- education -- responsive -- science
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Curriculum and Instruction thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
Many scholars argue that bridging students backgrounds with canonical science is necessary when educating diverse students as it reduces incongruences between home and school (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999) and increases the authenticity of science learning (Buxton, 2006). However, teachers are often underprepared for such an endeavor and struggle with enacting culturally responsive pedagogies in science education (CRP Science). Moreover, responsive teaching within restrictive school environments is daunting due to institutional backlash (Sleeter, 2012) and scarcity of curriculum resources (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009). Thus, not only do science teachers require explicit supports for CRP Science teaching and constructing culturally responsive instructional materials, such initiatives must also address the larger contextual influences at play. The STARTS (Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students) PD program was created as a response to these challenges. This qualitative study employed a design-based research (DBR) framework (Barab & Squire, 2004; Wang & Hannafin, 2005) to examine the professional growth of six high school life science teachers as they participated in the 7-month STARTS PD program as well as the relationships between STARTS design elements and teacher CRP Science knowledge and practices. Classroom observations, focus group interviews, and numerous program artifacts were analyzed through multiple methods, including grounded theory analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), typological analysis (Hatch, 2002), and matrix analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Characteristic of DBR, the study produced usable knowledge through the generation of local theory, a design framework, and accompanying design principles, thereby demonstrating both local impact and general relevance. Findings identified six themes characteristic of teacher progression as CRP Science educators in this setting: their views of students, CRP Science conceptions, student repositioning, community building, toolbox, and instructional changes. Additionally, several design elements were associated with teacher professional growth, including critical exploration of and reflection on practice, collective participation, examining critical perspectives on education for diverse students, brainstorming CRP Science lesson ideas, and structured opportunities to learn about students lives alongside the scaffolded integration of students backgrounds with reform-based science instruction. These results highlight the need for explicit and empirically grounded PD elements when supporting CRP Science teacher development. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: CRIPPEN,KENT J.
Local:
Co-adviser: BONDY,ELIZABETH.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Julie Catherine Brown.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Brown, Julie Catherine. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
969976893 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DESIGNING FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT By JULIE C. BROWN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREM ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 © 2014 Julie C. Brown

PAGE 3

3 To my mother, Janice Ferguson: You are the best friend and greatest mother I could have prayed f or. Thank you for always believing in me. To my father, David Ferguson: You are my first and everlasting hero. I love you with all my heart. To my husband, Barry Brown: You will forever be the love of my life. To our daughter, Jolene: Being your mommy h as been my greatest accomplishment yet.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are several people I would like to thank for their support and encouragement throughout this dissertation. Each person holds a special place in my heart, and I am grateful for them. First, I wish to thank my advisor and chair, Dr. Kent Crippen. Kent is the epitome of a professional, researcher, and educator. He has molded me into the scholar that I am today and taught me the importance of striving for integrity in all that I do. I cou ld not have wished for a better advisor. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Troy Sadler, Dr. Buffy Bondy, Dr. Dorene Ross, and Dr. Mary Jo Koroly. Your comments and questions have continually pushed my thinking, each in different directions. Thank you for your support throughout my doctoral studies and this dissertation. I wish to thank the STARTS teachers, Claudia, Christina Joy, Kate, Lorelei, Natalie, and Zane. You have brought this dissertation to life and I am indebted to you. More than that, I am thankful for the opportunity to have learned from you and to have formed deep relationships with each of you. I cherish the time we spent together. I am appreciative of Dr. Philip Poekert, Dr. Donald Pemberton, Dr . Alyson Adams, Dr. Sylvia Boynton, and the Lastinger Center for Learning at the University of Florida. Without your belief in the STARTS program, none of this would have been possible. Thank you for your faith in me and for opening doors to productive col laboration. In addition to those I have mentioned, several people have helped me through the dissertation process in ways that I will never be able to repay. Dr. Kristen Apraiz, Dr.

PAGE 5

5 Rich Busi, Dr. Cindy Kern, and Dr. Cheryl McLaughlin: to each of you I a m eternally grateful for your guidance, suggestions, encouragement, and for lending a listening ear. To my parents, Janice and David Ferguson, my husband, Barry Brown, and our daughter, Jolene: from the bottom of my heart, thank you for being there throu gh every step.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 Changing Demographics and Accompanying Achievement Disparities ........... 23 Teachers are Linchpins for Science Education Reform ................................ .... 24 Increasing Widespread Implementation of CRP Science ................................ . 2 5 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 26 Design Based Research ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Demonstrating Methodological R igor. ................................ .............................. 28 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 30 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 Dissertation Overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 33 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 33 CRP Foundations ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 35 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ................................ ................................ .......... 36 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Why is CRP a Viable Solution? ................................ ................................ ............... 40 ........ 41 Cultural Border Crossing ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Tools ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 43 ................................ ................................ 43 CRP Science ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 45 Characterizing CRP Science According to t he CRIOP ................................ ..... 46 Parameters of CRP Science Sources ................................ .............................. 48 Pedagogy/Instruction & Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences ................ 49 Sociopolitical Consciousness ................................ ................................ ........... 51 Family Collaboration ................................ ................................ ......................... 53

PAGE 7

7 CRP Science is Reform Based ................................ ................................ ........ 55 Discourse & Assessment ................................ ................................ .................. 57 Issues Affecting Widespread Implementation of CRP Science ........................ 60 Teacher Resistance ................................ ................................ ......................... 60 Lack of Resources & Support ................................ ................................ ........... 61 Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers ................................ ............................. 63 Professional Development in Science Education ................................ .................... 64 Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 65 Program goals ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Research goals ................................ ................................ .......................... 66 Supports ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 66 Structured sessions ................................ ................................ ................... 67 Professional learning communities ................................ ............................ 68 Observation & reflection ................................ ................................ ............. 69 Resources and responsive supports ................................ .......................... 71 Outcomes and Challenges ................................ ................................ ............... 73 Changes in beliefs and practice ................................ ................................ . 73 Student performance ................................ ................................ ................. 74 Challenges ................................ ................................ ................................ . 75 Guiding Frameworks on Teacher Change ................................ .............................. 76 Teacher as Learner ................................ ................................ ................................ 77 Teacher Change/Development ................................ ................................ ............... 79 Teacher Development According to Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) ................... 80 Initial development ................................ ................................ ..................... 80 Second phase of development ................................ ................................ ... 81 Third phase of developmen t ................................ ................................ ....... 82 Interactions among the dimensions and phases ................................ ........ 83 Supports ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 84 Teacher as Designer/Adaptor ................................ ................................ ................. 86 Pedagogical Design Capacity ................................ ................................ ................. 86 Design Studies in the Literature ................................ ................................ .............. 89 General Trends ................................ ................................ ................................ 89 Research Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ 91 Iterative Cycles & the Process of Design Refinement ................................ ...... 92 M ethodological Rigor ................................ ................................ ........................ 94 Outcomes & Future Directions ................................ ................................ ......... 96 Extending the Fields of PD in Science Education and CRP Science ...................... 98 PD for Supporting the Design of Instructional Materials ................................ ... 99 PD for CRP Science ................................ ................................ ....................... 101 DBR of PD for Supporting Curriculum Design ................................ ................ 103 Remarks ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 104 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 105 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ....................... 108 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 108 The STARTS PD Program ................................ ................................ .................... 109

PAGE 8

8 Central Mission and Overarching Features ................................ .................... 109 Further Theoretical Grounding ................................ ................................ ....... 111 Job embedded profession al learning ................................ ....................... 111 Web supported ................................ ................................ ......................... 112 Responsive to students and teachers ................................ ...................... 112 STARTS Program Activities ................................ ................................ ........... 114 Lesson study ................................ ................................ ............................ 115 Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks ................................ ............ 117 Curriculum Topic Study ................................ ................................ ............ 119 Professional Growth tasks ................................ ................................ ....... 120 Saturday Collaboration Sessions ................................ ............................. 121 CRP Science units ................................ ................................ ................... 122 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 123 Subject Area Selection ................................ ................................ ................... 124 Research Setting ................................ ................................ ............................ 124 Participant Selection ................................ ................................ ....................... 125 Participant Descriptions ................................ ................................ .................. 126 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 132 Classroom Observations ................................ ................................ ................ 134 CRIOP ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 136 RTOP ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 138 Focus Group I nterviews ................................ ................................ .................. 140 STARTS Artifacts ................................ ................................ ........................... 141 Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) instrument ................................ ................................ ............................. 141 Lesson study documents ................................ ................................ ......... 142 GAIn tasks ................................ ................................ ............................... 142 CTS working document ................................ ................................ ............ 143 CRP Science unit ................................ ................................ ..................... 143 Reflective Writing Prompts ................................ ................................ ....... 143 Saturday Collaboration Session artifacts ................................ ................. 144 Clarification Questions ................................ ................................ ................... 144 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 145 achers ................................ ......... 145 Science Teachers ................................ ................................ ....................... 149 Establishing Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ................ 154 Credibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 155 Originality ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 156 Resonance ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 156 Usefulness ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 157 Statement of Subjectivity ................................ ................................ ...................... 158 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 161 Structure of the Findings ................................ ................................ ....................... 162

PAGE 9

9 4 FROM AWARENESS TO PRACTICE: CONCEPTUALIZING HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATORS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 171 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 171 Theoretical Framework Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ................................ .. 173 Literature Review Educating Culturally Responsive Science Teachers ............. 177 Context STARTS Professional Development ................................ ..................... 180 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 183 Setting and Participants ................................ ................................ .................. 183 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 184 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ . 186 Becoming a CRP Science Teacher ................................ ................................ ...... 191 Time 1 Beginning Conceptions ................................ ................................ .......... 194 CRP Science Knowledge ................................ ................................ ............... 194 Accompanying Instructional Prac tices ................................ ............................ 196 Time 2 Growing in Awareness and Community Building ................................ ... 198 CRP Science Knowledge ................................ ................................ ............... 198 Accompanying Instructional Practices ................................ ............................ 201 Time 3 Moving f rom Awareness to Action: Becoming Responsive, Experiencing Tensions ................................ ................................ ...................... 205 CRP Science Knowledge ................................ ................................ ............... 205 Accompanying Instructional Practices ................................ ............................ 207 Time 4 Enacting the CRP Science Units ................................ ............................ 212 CRP Science Conceptions ................................ ................................ ............. 212 Accompanying Instructional Practices ................................ ............................ 213 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 216 5 DESIGNING FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................................ ................... 225 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 225 Theoretical F ramework ................................ ................................ ......................... 226 Review of Related Literature ................................ ................................ ................. 228 The STARTS PD Program ................................ ................................ .................... 231 Lesson Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 232 Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) Tasks ................................ .................. 233 Curriculum Topic Study ................................ ................................ .................. 234 Professional Growth Tasks ................................ ................................ ............. 236 Saturday Collaboration Sessions ................................ ................................ ... 237 CRP Science Units ................................ ................................ ......................... 238 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 239 Participants & Setting ................................ ................................ ..................... 239 Data Collection & Instruments ................................ ................................ ........ 240 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ . 244 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 249 The Translation of CRP Science to Classroom Practice ................................ 250

PAGE 10

10 CRP Science practices ................................ ................................ ............ 250 Reform based science teaching practices ................................ ............... 254 gression as CRP Science Educators. ................................ ...... 258 Elucidating the Relationship between Structure and Process ............................... 260 Lesson Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 260 GAIn ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 262 CTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 266 Professional Growth Tasks ................................ ................................ ............. 268 Saturday Collaboration Sessions ................................ ................................ ... 270 CRP Science Unit ................................ ................................ ........................... 274 STARTS PD Framework Redesign ................................ ................................ ....... 277 Implications for Inquiry Based Instruction ................................ ....................... 279 Implications for Critical Consciousness ................................ .......................... 280 Implications for Family Connections ................................ ............................... 284 Revised STARTS Design Principles ................................ ................................ ..... 286 Final Remarks ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 289 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 304 Designing for CRP Science ................................ ................................ .................. 304 Connecting Findings to the Literature ................................ ................................ ... 306 Elaborating on Implications & Identifying Avenues for Future Research .............. 311 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ......................... 316 Time ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 317 Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 317 Generalizability ................................ ................................ ............................... 318 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 318 APPENDIX A CRP SCIENCE CODING ................................ ................................ ...................... 323 B INFOR MED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 327 C EXCERPTS FROM DESIGN DECISIONS REPORT (DDR) ................................ . 329 D RESEARCHE ................................ ................................ ......... 333 E CRIOP INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ .......................... 343 F RTOP INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ........................... 355 G SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM THE SEMI STRUCTURED FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 360 H INITIAL CODE BOOK ................................ ................................ ........................... 361 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 372

PAGE 11

11 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 393

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLE S Table page 3 1 School demographics. ................................ ................................ ...................... 165 3 2 Participant demographics. ................................ ................................ ................ 165 3 3 Gui ding research design. ................................ ................................ .................. 166 3 4 Data collection/analysis stages during the STARTS research and development project. ................................ ................................ ........................ 167 3 5 RTOP subscale reliability estimates; subscales as predictors of RTOP scores. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 168 3 6 Becoming CRP Science teachers. ................................ ................................ .... 169 3 7 STARTS activity outcome matrix. ................................ ................................ ..... 1 70 4 1 Becoming CRP Science teachers. ................................ ................................ .... 220 4 2 Data collection/analysis stages during the STARTS research and development project. ................................ ................................ ........................ 222 4 3 Time ....... 224 5 1 STARTS PD program theoretical grounding. ................................ .................... 291 5 2 Demographic information for participants and schools. ................................ .... 294 5 3 STARTS activity outcome matrix. ................................ ................................ ..... 295 5 4 Revised STARTS PD design framework. ................................ ......................... 301 6 1 Features of the STARTS program, their accompanying activities, and ..... 321

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FI GURES Figure page 2 1 The model of teacher development ................................ ................................ .. 107 3 1 STARTS PD program timeline. ................................ ................................ ......... 163 3 2 Theory of action for the GAIn within a STEM teacher education course that includes a field placement. ................................ ................................ ............... 163 3 3 Cartesian plane diagram illustrating dimensions of the category, Toolbox , which contains new strategies and new topics. ................................ ................ 164 4 1 Cartesian plane diagram illustrating dimensions of the category, Toolbox , which contains new strategies and new topics. ................................ ................ 221 4 2 Conceptual model of the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher. .......... 223 5 1 STARTS PD program timeline. ................................ ................................ ......... 294 5 2 Mean CRIOP scores by pillar: Classroom observations. ................................ .. 296 5 3 Mean RTOP scores by subscale: Classroom observations. ............................. 297 5 4 Reported connection s between lesson study and teacher outcomes. .............. 297 5 5 Reported connection s between GAIn tasks and teacher outcomes. ................ 298 5 6 Reported connection s between Curriculum Topic Study and teacher outcomes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 298 5 7 Reported connection s between Professional Growth tasks and teacher outcomes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 299 5 8 Reported connection s between Saturday Collaboration Sessions and teacher outcomes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 299 5 9 Reported connectio n s between CRP Science unit and teacher outcomes. ...... 300

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science BARSTL Beliefs About Reformed Science Teaching and Learning CRIOP Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol CRP Culturally Responsive Pedagogy CRP Science Culturally Responsive Pedagogies in Science education CTS Curriculum Topic Study DBR Design Based Research DDR Design Deci sions Document ELL English Language Learners ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages GAIn Growing Awareness Inventory NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress NAS National Academy of Sciences NCES National Center for Education Stat istics NRC National Research Center NSF National Science Foundation oTPD Online Teacher Professional Development PD Professional Development PDC Pedagogical Design Capacity PG Professional Growth tasks PLC Professional Learning Community PST Preservice Teacher RTOP Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol

PAGE 15

15 RWP Reflective Writing Prompt SSI Socioscientific Issues SSI Summer Science Institute STARTS Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

PAGE 16

16 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DESIGNING FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT By Julie C. Brown August 2014 Chair: Kent J. Crippen Major: Curriculum and Instruction is necessary when educating diverse students as it redu ces incongruences between home and school (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999) and increases the authenticity of science learning (Buxton, 2006). However, teachers are often underprepared for such an endeavor and struggle with enacting culturally responsive pedagogi es in science education (CRP Science). Moreover, responsive teaching within restrictive school environments is daunting due to political backlash (Sleeter, 2012) and scarcity of curriculum resources (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009). Thus, not only do science teac hers require explicit supports for CRP Science teaching and constructing culturally responsive instructional materials, such initiatives must also address the larger contextual influences at play. The STARTS (Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students) PD program was created as a response to these challenges. This qualitative study employed a design based research (DBR) framework (Barab & Squire, 2004; Wang & Hannafin, 2005) to examine the professional growth of six high school life science teachers as the y participated in the 7 month STARTS PD

PAGE 17

17 program as well as the relationships between STARTS CRP Science knowledge and practices. Classroom observations, focus group interviews, and numerous program artifacts were analyzed thro ugh multiple methods, including grounded theory analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), typological analysis (Hatch, 2002), and matrix analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Characteristic of DBR, the study produced usable knowledge through the generation of local theory, a design framework, and accompanying design principles, thereby demonstrating both local impact and general relevance. Science educators in this setting: their views of s tudents, CRP Science conceptions, student repositioning, community building, toolbox, and instructional changes. Additionally, several design elements growth , including critical exploration of and reflection on p ractice, collective participation, examining critical perspectives on education for diverse students, b rainstorm ing CRP Science lesson ideas , and grounds with reform based science instruction. These results highlight the need for explicit and empirically

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION As the United States experiences population gro wth greater than any other industrialized nation (El Nasser, 2006; El Nasser & Overberg, 2011) , unequal increases among populations the U.S. has witnessed a rapid change in its racial profil e . The 1900 U.S. Census reported that non White citizens represented one out of every eight members of the population . A little over a century later that ratio is now one in three (Howard, 2010). Simultaneously, the notion of education as the great equal izer has been challenged as achievement disparities stratified by race and socioeconomic status persist across all academic disciplines and grade levels (Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011 ; National Center for Education Statistics [ N CES] , 2010; National Assessm ent of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2009) . According to 2007 Department of Education data, students of color comprised 42% of the entire public school population and are projected to reach majority status over the next few decades (NCES, 2007). With the di versity of the U.S. citizenry and students rapidly increasing, the economic and social implications of the achievement gap can yield negative outcomes . Current U.S. educational practices leave a significant portion of the nation's citizens undereducated an d underprepared for competition in the global economy (Howard, 2010) . Students from diverse racial backgrounds do want to pursue studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ( STEM ) related fields (Riegle Crumb, Moore, & Ramos Wada, 2010), yet by the time they enter STEM professions they comprise only 10% of the entire workforce (National Science Foundation [NSF] , 2006) . Populations that consistently remain underrepresented in the STEM disciplines

PAGE 19

19 include Black (i.e., African American, Cari bbean American) and Hispanic (i.e., Latino/a ) individuals as well as those from low socioeconomic backgrounds (NCES, 2010 ). The well documented inaccessibility of STEM to students from diverse backgrounds perpetuates the existing achievement gap ( NAEP , 20 09) and is considered to be a contributing factor to the marginal presence of diverse individuals in STEM professions (Campbell, Denes, & Morrison, 2000; Riegle Crumb, Moore, & Ramos Wada, 2010). For instance, the STEM professions, which boast some of the highest paying jobs in the nation, remain largely exclusive in terms of race (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2011). A majority of STEM professions require some form of postsecondary or advanced degree, which further constrains the workforce population , as higher education attendance rates for students from low income backgrounds and underrepresented racial groups are lower when compared to White and Asian students ( Aud et al., 2011 ). With a growing number of 21 st century occupations requiring scientif ic literacy, the exclusion of diverse populations from the STEM workforce constricts economic opportunities, making it considerably more difficult to pursue liberties such as access to quality housing, healthcare, and education (Aud et al., 2010; Bullard, 2001 ) . For example, when compared with workers who enter other professional fields , STEM professionals experience lower unemployment rates. Additionally, STEM occupations are fast growing and offer salaries significantly above the national average (Thomasi an, 2011). Engaging students in current science content and practices has become the cornerstone of the most recent science education reform movement and is espoused in

PAGE 20

20 the 2012 report, The Framework for K 12 Science Educa tion, (1) educat [ e ] all students in science and engineering and (2) provid [ e ] the foundational knowledge for those who will become the scientists, The form of science educatio n advocated in the Framework stands in stark contrast to traditional notions of science in the classroom, which emphasize teacher directed instruction built around textbook driven lessons (Akkus, Gunel, & Hand, 2007 ; DeBoer, 1991). Aimed at achieving great coherence throughout K 12 science teaching and learning, the Framework has explicated core science ideas and crosscutting concepts on which instruction should build over time . Furthermore, priority is placed on enacting authentic science and engineering p ractices, facilitated through inquiry and engineering design . Inquiry is a prominent facet of reform based science education according to the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 201 These shifts have led to the drafting of specific performance expectations for students as learners. To realize the vision of modern reform based science education, all students must actively engage with science concepts, collect and analyze data, construct and defend arguments from evidence, and communicate scientific information ( NRC, 1996; NRC, 2012). In an attempt to address the persistent achievement gap in science by race and income level (NAEP, 2009) , the Framework has also made prominent a desire to achieve cience for A ll through curri culum and instruction. A growing research base

PAGE 21

21 ce instruction bridges the discontinuity between home and school, thereby making science more accessible and meaningful (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Lee, 2004). Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1994; 1 995) is one approach to reducing current achievement disparities . CRP aims to bolster the academic ke learning opportunities more equitable and effective. Culturally responsive pedagogies in science education (hereafter referred to as CRP Science) (Johnson, 2009; Laughter & Ada ms, 2012; Mensah, 2009) utilize multiple strategies in addition to reform bas ed science instruction to facilitate the academic achievement of diverse students. Some of these strategies include: language supports (Johnson, 2009; Lee & Fradd, 1998), relationship building and care (Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011; Mensah, 2011), and soc ial action (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001). Despite the potential of CRP Science to ameliorate current academic trends, it is not widely implemented (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). T eachers report feeling underprepared to educate diverse students (Lee & Buxton, 2010; Song, 2006) and struggle to teach in ways that are culturally responsive (Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008; Rodriguez, 1998). Because of the great influence teachers have on students learning and enacting educatio nal reform (Abell, 2007; Atwater, 1996) , as well as the prom ise of CRP Science to positively impact the academic performance of diverse students responsive science educators must be supported before CRP Science can be r ea lized.

PAGE 22

22 Purpose of the Study The widespread implementation of CRP Science is needed to increase educational opportunities and achievement for diverse students. In order to achieve 21 st century S cience for A ll, science education reform efforts must focus o n supporting teachers as they attempt to enact the myriad responsibilities within the Framework. Preservice teacher preparation alone is inadequate (NRC, 2012); therefore, professional development (PD) for highly effective science teachers who can successf ully educate diverse students is warranted. In this study, the STARTS ( Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students ) PD framework was examined through a design based approach to better understand the impact of this intervention on the learning progression o f six high school life science teachers and to identify any salient mediating features of the framework. To this end, the first attempt to explore CRP Science through design based research was completed with the prominent goals of uncovering mechanisms inf luencing teacher as w ell as the construction of a local theory and design framework for the STARTS PD program (Edelson, 2002 ; McKenney & Reeves, 2012). The STARTS program has been designed to build capacity for sustainable change by empowerin g high school life science teachers with both the practical and theoretical base required to become CRP Science teachers . The program is dual focused on pedagogy and content , thereby address ing challenges common to PD initiatives such as providing teachers with the tools to learn about their students while also connecting instructional decisions to science content and s tate s tandards. Further, STARTS addresses the current lack of culturally responsive curricular resources (Lee,

PAGE 23

23 2004; NRC, 2000) by supportin g science teachers as designers of their own CRP Science instructional units . Accordingly, the purpose of this dissertation was to: (1) characterize the progression of CRP Science knowledge and practices in a group of six high school life science teachers who participated in the STARTS PD program and (2) identify STARTS design elements associated with supporting this professional growth. Statement of the Problem Changing Demographics and Accompanying Achievement Disparities Longstanding achievement dispar ities among Black and Hispanic students and their White and Asian counterparts exist . These gaps transcend subject areas and grade levels (NAEP, 2009; NCES, 2010; NRC, 2012). Scholars believe that action must be taken to alter achievement disparities withi n the U.S. educational system . These scholars contend that positive changes can be made when students, teachers, and scho ols form meaningful connections, in addition to utilizing the culture of the students as educational resources in the classroom (Banks et al, 2005; Gay, 2010; Howard, 2010; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Pedagogy such as this can be described as culturally success often depends on assimilation into mainstr 173). Despite the potential of CRP to improve current academic trends, widespread implementation has been lackluster due to a number of challenges, including a paucity of research connecting CRP with student achievement (S leeter, 2012), lack of supporting resources (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Lee, 2004; NRC, 2012), and teacher resistance (Barnes & Barnes, 2005; Rodriguez, 1998). Yet, as one of the most

PAGE 24

24 influential factors on student learning (Abell, 2007; Atwater, 1996), te achers play an integral role in facilitating science education reform. Therefore, studies exploring how teachers become facilitators of CRP Science in the classroom, as well as which experiences support this development , are needed. Teachers are Linchpins for Science Education Reform For teachers to simultaneously implement reform based science and connect possess a wealth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. For instance, i n order to be culturally responsive an d reform based, science teachers must command deep content knowledge , topic specific pedagogical content knowledge, and they must provide authentic learning experiences rich in scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (NRC, 2012) . Additionally, they must impart care, promote a sense of community in the classroom, use instruction to uncover oppression , and foster (i.e., supporting them in academic success that does not run counter to, or at the ex pense of, their ide ntities) (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1994; 1995 ; Powell et al., 2011; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Compounding the challenges inherent to embodying these practices, many science teachers are already at a disadvantage because they tend to te ach in the same traditional ways they were taught as students (Hammerness et al., 2005; Lortie, 1975). As students, many science teachers never experienced true reform based learning (Barnes & Barnes, 2005; Crippen, 2012). Hence, the professional developme nt of practicing teachers is necessary to support changes in their knowledge and practices. However, not all PD experiences are created equal. An expansive literature base indicates that effective professional learning opportunities are connected to teache daily work (Borko, 200 4 ; Coggshall, Rasmussen, Colton, Milton, & Jacques, 2012;

PAGE 25

25 Desimone, 2009) knowledge should be developed through authentic, active learning experiences (Garet et al., 2001; L oucks Horsley et al., 2010); involvement in the analysis of student work ( Lewis, Perry, Hurd , 2006; Mutch Jones, Puttick, & Minner, 2012; Shimizu, 2002 ); and provision of ongoing supports such as equipment ( Brown et al., 2014; Zozakiewicz & Ro driguez, 2007) and mentoring (Davis & Varma, 2008). Moreover, despite the implementation of research grounded enacting reform are common and can seriously impede program goals (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Crippen et al., 2010; Parke & Coble, 1997; Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011). Increasing Widespread Implementation of CRP Science CRP Science ( (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Mensah, 20 11); (b) engages learners in inquiry (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011); (c) occurs in respectful and inclusive learning environments where multiple perspectives are acknowledged (Lee, 2004; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005) and language suppo rts are widely implemented (Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2009); (d) uses science as a platform to uncover negative stereotypes and biases (Brown, 2013; Tate et al., 2008; Laughter & Adams, 2012); and (e) frequently establishes genuine, community based partnerships to support social action projects (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001) . However, with the exception of isolated studies (e.g., Emdin, 2011; Laughter & Adams, 2012), the literature is currently missing a focus on the application of CRP Science to teacher student discourse and assessment. The STARTS PD program is an educational inno vation aimed at increasing widespread implementation of CRP Science content

PAGE 26

26 knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical design capacity (i.e ., the ability of teachers to design learning environments and instructional materials) . The STARTS program address es current barriers to wide scale enactment of CRP Science on multiple fronts, thereby making CRP Science more accessible while directly impa cting student achievement. Moreover, due to the central role of curriculum materials in teaching (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Parke & Coble, 1997), and the dearth of CRP Science instructional materials (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009; NRC, 2012), PD must also provide opp ortunities for teachers to design such materials. Therefore, to realistically actualize the vision and full potential for CRP Science , ongoing design based research approaches to PD and curricula design , enactment, and refinement are required. Theoretical Framework Design Based Research Design based research (DBR) serves as the theoretical framework for this dissertation . An integration of applied and basic research, DBR has foundations in formative research, developmental research, and design experiments ( Brown, 1992; Shavelson & Towne, 2002 ; van den Akker, 1999; Wang & Hannafin, 2005 ) . DBR is used for constructing effective learning environments via theoretically grounded educational interventions and is suited for examining learnin g processes in environm ents that are designed and systematically altered by the researcher (Barab, 2006 ; McKenney & Reeves, 2012 ). A focus of design studies is the exploration of mechanisms undergirding learning through testing the design, implementation, systematic study, and r efinement of a novel in situ educational intervention (Confrey , 2006; Shavelson & Towne, 2002).

PAGE 27

27 Similar to engineers who consider multiple variables when designing a solution or prototype , researchers design for and continually refine specific learning en vironments , while concurrently examining the impact of mediating factors on learning within th at environment (Barab, 2006; Hja lmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008). Thus, the exploration of a Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2004; Squire, MaKinster, Barnett, Luehmann, & Barab, 2003), as it often places constraints on the enacted design (Joseph, 2004). However, researchers acknowledge that this context is unique in that it is not s olely comprised of routine classroom practices, but rather includes those practices in the presence of a designed intervention (Kelly, 2004). DBR near significance and experience distant ) through the production of usable knowledge about learning in a given context and theor y that guide s future educational tool design (Barab, 2006; Confrey, 2006; Songer, 2006). Studying the progression of educational tool s from design to implementation pro vides a sense of how these tools are appropriated in action as well as connections between tool and context (Squire et al., 2003). While demonstrating local impact is one goal of design research, three additional outcomes are of central importance to the paradigm : local theories, design frameworks, and design methodologies (Edelson, 2002). These outcomes enable work from design studies to be adopted by others and adapted to new contexts, further lending to the pragmatic nature of DBR . Through the se three outcomes DBR transcends basic

PAGE 28

28 demonstrating effective practice. However, design research is not without critique. Critics of DBR have questioned the certainty of assertions and fi ndings (Barab & Squire, 2004; Edelson, 2002), lack of focus on external factors necessary for intervention support (Fishman et al., 2004), limited generalizability (Kelly, 2004), and researcher bias (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Kelly, 2004). Attempts to addr ess these valid concerns have been made by establishing methodological rigor in all phases of design research. Demonstrating Methodological R igor. Like any sound educational research endeavor, it is the responsibility of design studies to demonstrate meth odological rigor. Design researchers attempt to establish rigor through various criteria (Squire et al., 2003). According to Confrey and Lachance (2000), it is essential to demonstrate the quality of internal processes guiding DBR . Additionally , because th e nature of design studies is to design, test , and refine an intervention , on teaching and learning. Specific criteria must be met in order to ensure quality in internal processes and impact on practice. Regarding internal processes, quality is determined by establishing credibility, dependability, and confirmability through rich detail of the research process (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). These specific criteria include assessing: (a) face validity of the conjecture as well as its ability to stand up to peer review; (b) coherence of the story, which should clearly articulate a dialectical relationship between the theory driven conjecture and classroom events; and (c) fidelity to an ideologic al stance throughout the study (Confrey & Lachance, 2000).

PAGE 29

29 Because design studies aim to connect research to practice through educational interventions, it is fundamental to evaluate the potential impact of a designed intervention. To this end, Confrey and Lachance (2000) posit multiple criteria to evaluate impact: (a) feasibility; (b) sustainability; (c) compelling nature (i.e., convinc ing practitioners to act with urgency); (d) adaptability; and (e) generativity (i.e., help ing practitioners reconceptualiz e classroom interactions and practices) (pp.262 3). In this dissertation , the iterative cycle of analysis, design, implementation, and redesign (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p.8) was employed to construct, test, and refine the STARTS PD program. Much like exist ing educational DBR studies, this study wa s primarily concerned with characterizing a designed intervention (the STARTS program) through a set of design principles , associated learning outcomes as CRP Science teachers and designers o f culturally relevant instructional materials) through the production of a local theory , and the mechanisms undergirding these learning progression s through a prescriptive design framework (Barab, 2006; Edelson, 2002; Kelly, 2004; Shavelson & Towne, 2002 ). Methodological rigor was demonstrated through the production and maintenance of a Design Documentation Report (DDR), records of each decision, whether motivated by literature review, field 04, p.241) . Additionally, to establish trustworthiness and reliability, this study provides a variety of evidence abo ut the research process and the impact of the STARTS program on the culturally responsive knowledge and practices of high school life scien ce teachers.

PAGE 30

30 Research Questions T he following questions guide d this dissertation study: 1. For high school life science teachers participating in an explicit PD program on CRP Science, what defines the process of becoming culturally responsive educators? a. As teachers participate in the STARTS program, how does their CRP Science knowledge progress over time? b. As teachers participate in the STARTS program, how do their CRP Science practices change over time? 2. What features of the STARTS design framework can b e associated with supporting the changes in CRP Science knowledge and practices of high school life science teachers? Significance of Study The science education reform movement a ims to reduce achievement gaps by race and income level by supporting hi gh academic standards for all students (Gamoran, 2008; Lee & Fradd, 1998). CRP Science has been advocated as a pathway to decrease the se educational disparities . Yet, teachers report feeling underprepared to educate culturally diverse students. Therefore, programs must be created that enhance educate diverse students through approaches that acknowledge the influence of culture on learning ( Gay, 2010; Howard, 2010 ) and lead t o increased science achievement. Cultura lly responsive science teachers possess a unique set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that must be developed (Brown & Crippen, in review), such as viewing themselves as change agents , approaching the curriculum from a cr itical perspective, 2002). This form of science teacher education is rarely supported through PD (e.g., Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Of the few instances where it

PAGE 31

31 does occur , missing is explicit attention to the relationship between the teacher change process and accompanying structural supports. T o effectively design PD growth as CRP Science teachers , re search is needed on identifying mechanisms supporting this process. Hence, a dual focus on process and structure is required. This dissertation advances research on CRP Science and PD in science education in several ways, most notably through its emphasis on process and structure, thereby producing usable knowledge about salient STARTS design elements which support the growth of teachers as culturally responsive science teachers. int eraction of myriad elements comprising science teaching and learning, especially in large, urban settings where teacher and student resistance to change are continual multiple Title I high schools in a large and diverse Southeast ern United States school district, the STARTS program aimed to directly address this lack of research. In response to this call, the present ally responsive science teachers within the context of the STARTS PD program. To overcome the paucity of CRP Science curriculum resources (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009), the program was also designed to support the creation of CRP Science instructional materia ls by high school life science teachers , which is both widely called for within the literature (Lee & Luykx, 2007; Sleeter, 2012) , and not covered adequately in previous studies of CRP Science ( e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998 ) . Research on PD in science education has featured teachers as

PAGE 32

32 curriculum adaptors (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Davis & Varma, 2008; Luft, 2001) and, less frequently, creators of innovative instructional materials (Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk, DeJong, Bulte, & Pil ot, 2011). Yet, these studies lack rich descriptions detailing the progression of teachers as designers. Because the STARTS program support ed teachers through the creation of culturally responsive instructional materials aligned with state science educati on standards, district mandated pacing gui des, and End of Course exams, this study address es a lack of research exploring and explicating ways to make such innovative materials compatible with the time constraints, logistical concerns, and instructional go als of schools serving underrepresented students (Calabrese Barton, 2007). In the process, the study illustrate s PD program , their professional growth , and teacher reported student outcomes (Lee & Luykx, 2007). Dissertation Overview This dissertation consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the problem, theoretical framework guiding the research, and significance of the study. Chapter 2 describes the relevant literature that grounded and justified t his study. Chapter 3 details of STARTS teachers as CRP Science teachers, which has been prepared in manuscript format . Chapter 5 presents a manuscript detailing findings on the influence of the knowledge and practices, as well as a resulting design framework. Finally, Chapter 6 consists of a discussion of the findings, their implications for scienc e education, and suggestions for future research.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATUR E Introduction As one of the most influential factors on student learning (Abell, 2007; Atwater, 1996), teachers are linchpins for substantial K 12 science education refor m (National Research Council [NRC], 2012). For underrepresented students in particular, success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) involves a highly qualified teacher using the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students to fac ilitate academically challenging instruction (Banks et al., 2005; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2007). Yet, teachers tend to teach in the same traditional ways they were taught (Hammerness et al., 2005; Lortie, 1975). As students, many science teache rs never experienced true reform based science learning experiences (i.e., practices of science [NRC, 2012]) , but rather passive learning opportunities, leaving them to struggle with enacting reform oriented instructional approaches (Barnes & Barnes, 2005; Crippen, 2012). While it is undoubtedly important to prepare prospective science teachers to teach science in engaging, authentic, and student centered ways, preservice teacher education alone is insufficient to build a strong workforce capable of enacti ng the vision of science education espoused by the Framework for K 12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) . Thus, the science education community must also provide inservice teachers with high quality professional development ( PD ) experiences aligned to 21 st cent ury visions of science education (NRC, 2012), connect to student achievement (Crippen, Biesinger, & Ebert, 2010), and be sustainable (Davis & Varma, 2008).

PAGE 34

34 Furthermore, in attempting to make science accessible to all students, the NRC (2012) emphasizes mak ing science education more inclusive of diverse student as to engage them more meaningfully and support them in sustained learning In order to support implem entation of the new standards and ideals for equity espoused in the Framework , PD in science education must be redesigned to include experiences st century science education (practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts) (NRC, 2012) as well as to offer specific strategies for meeting the challenges involved in providing accessible science to all (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Calls for science education reform that attend simultan eously to diverse needs and academic rigor are not new (Lee & Fradd, 1998), yet they often remain unanswered (Mensah, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Even science teachers deemed highly effective require ongoing PD to successfully meet the needs of diverse learners, as they must address the constraints inherent in responsive teaching in restrictive environments (Tate, Clarke, Gallagher, & McLaughlin, 2008). Teachers need ample time and support to collaborate with colleagues and create cultur ally responsive instructional materials (Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008) as well as establish Morrison et al. , 2008; Seitz, 2011). Building on requests within science education for greater emphasis on equity and the need for culturally responsive science instruction, this chapter will argue that science teachers working with diverse students must be culturally responsive and teach

PAGE 35

35 reform based science as envisioned by the Framework for K 12 Science Edu cation . I will begin by presenting a synthesis of the work on culturally re sponsive pedagogies in science education (CRP Science) , and identifying and describing current challenges to widespread implementation of CRP Science as I argue for the intellectual merit of the STARTS (Science Teachers Are Responsive T o Students) PD program . I will continue by reviewing the field of PD in science education , noting trends in goals, specific supports, outcomes and challenges , as well as acknowledge the limited studie s of PD for CRP Science . I then identify issues affecting the widespread implementation of CRP Science, including teacher resistance and lack of resources. Following this section I discuss the relevant literature on preparing culturally responsive teachers before detailing additional conceptual frameworks that guided the design of the STARTS program. To further argue for a design based research (DBR) approach to examining PD for CRP Science, I provide a synthesis of the literature on STEM focused educationa l design research. I then illuminate how this dissertation expands the field of science education by showcasing three particular PD studies, each with elements similar to the STARTS program . I conclude the chapter with final remarks and a summary. To build the theoretical basis of the STARTS PD program , I will synthesize the field of CRP Science, beginning with its foundations in culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) . CRP Foundations Extensive research has documented that uniformity in education via curricul a, teaching, and assessment has not worked for culturally and linguistically diverse students , and leads not only to achievement gaps but also to the high dropout rates seen in Black and Hispanic populations (Howard, 2010; National Center for Education

PAGE 36

36 Sta tistics [NCES], 2010). While competing theories on the academic underperformance of diverse students abound (Bradshaw, 2007), some of which articulate deficit based conceptions (Gay, 2010; Howard, 2010), few hold the power to overturn current trends as wel l as CRP . Culturally responsive pedagogy offers a n approach to ameliorate chronic educational problems as it challenges deficit based thinking, acknowledges these backgrounds as educational resources to support learn ing. Yet, it is not widely implemented in the science classroom (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). The literature on CRP is vast and at times ambiguous. Several terms in education literature have been used synonymously with CRP c ulturally relevant, culturally congruent, culturally sensitive , and so forth. In many instances, such terms are used interchangeably; however, there are often slight distinctions among the constructs. The foundations of CRP Science are grounded in Ladson B pedagogy. Therefore, i n preparation for the synthesis of CRP Science, this section will briefly characterize CRP as a pedagogical paradigm, which has foundations in social justice and multicultural education. Culturally R elevant P edagogy Stemming from her work with successful teachers of African American students, Ladson Billings (1994) first described culturally relevant teaching as assistin g students students to choose academic excellence yet still identify with African and African thus promoting cultural competence. According to Lads on Billings (1995), culturally relevant teachers create learning environments that affirm

PAGE 37

37 Culturally relevant teaching emerged at a time when much of the work regarding African Americans and education was approached from a deficit perspective, often describing the academic underperformance of African American students as a result of what they lacked in te rms of educational resources and support. In contrast, CRP positioned education from an asset based mindset and focused on empowering students intellectually, emotionally, and politically. Culturally relevant teachers impart an ethic of care and personal accountability, foster academic success, and develop cultural competence within their students. Developing socio cultural consciousness in students, i.e., an awareness that their worldview is reflective of their experiences , as well as recognizing the unequ al distribution of power in social instit utions (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) , is a core CRP tenet because it provides students with opportunities to critically examine the world and others (Ladson Billings, 1995) . Ladson Billings (1994) found that teachers wit h culturally relevant practices embodied three distinct attributes: conceptions of self and others, social relations between teacher and student, and conceptions of knowledge. Teachers with culturally relevant conceptions of self and others hold their stu dents and their profession in high regard. These teachers view teaching as an art, believe all students can succeed, see their profession as a way to give back to the local who students are and how they are connected to wider comm teachers organize fluid and equitable social relations in their classrooms, encourage collaborative learning,

PAGE 38

38 demonstrate connections with all students, and emphasize community. A teacher who espous understand and participate in knowledge Billings, 1994, p.81). Teachers who enact CRP are passionate about the content they teach, view knowledge as dynamic and find it important that knowledge be shared by students and teachers , and they act as a facilitator. Though Ladson Billings originally wrote of culturally relevant teaching for African American students, this critical and emancipat ory pedagogy can benefit students from a multitude of backgrounds. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy When Gay (2010) first described culturally responsive pedagogy she suggested it the process of learning, including Ladson Gay espoused culturally responsive pedagogy as a means to enhance the learning of all ethnically diverse students. I , Howard philosophical view that is dedicated to nurturing student academic, social, emoti onal, cultural, and physiological well 8). Gay (2010) identified several characteristics of CRP, describing it as validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and emancipatory. Culturally responsive teachers valid ate students by acknowledging their cultural heritages, using these backgrounds as a bridge between school and home, and incorporating multicultural resources in to the curriculum, regardless of content area. Teachers who enact CRP provide a comprehensive e ducation for diverse students and

PAGE 39

39 teach to the whole child , purposefully developing skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values. As a result , educational excellence transcends academic performance to also include learning outcomes such as , critical social consciousness, CRP is multidimensional because its scope extends beyond curriculum material s to account for teacher student relationships, creating a community b ased classroom climate , description of CRP as multidimensional strongly resembles Ladson notion of social relations. A teacher who holds a culturally relevan t focus may have high expectations for their students which makes CRP an empowering option. Similar to Ladson students are capable of academic success and commit themselves to facil itating this success. The transformative nature of CRP arises from its commitment to confronting oppression, power differentials, and development of social consciousness. Finally, because CRP supports intellectual liberation, it is deemed an emancipatory p edagogy. Gay (2010) argues that not only is knowledge from diverse ethnic populations made accessible, but students are taught how to apply this knowledge to their learning tal and The foundation of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010) in culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson Billings, 1994; 1995) is obvious in many respects, while also extending the work of Ladson Billing s (1994) through clearly artic ulated applications to curriculum and instruction. Together, they provide a rich, evidence based

PAGE 40

40 view of successful teachers of diverse students and an ideal to strive toward in teacher education. Educational scholars have advocated the application of CRP in education ( e.g., Sleeter, 2012; Gay, 2010; Howard, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995). Within the field of science education, several scholars have utilized these pedagogies as a means to disrupt prevailing conceptions of science, increase underrepresented st udents academic success , and engage learners in science practices that lead to social action within the community. Yet, as Sleeter (2012) argued, the research connecting CRP may lead scholars t o be critical of CRP as a theoretical and pedagogical framework, and rightfully so. However, specific theories on culture, diversity, and learning support assertions within CRP and explain why the education community should not turn its back on this transf ormative pedagogy. Why is CRP a Viable Solution? communities of individuals are often homogenized and stereotyped according to images portrayed in the media. While it is indee d inaccurate and unethical to assume that all individuals of a certain background will behave and think alike, Gay (2010) asserts that focal values in different ethn ic groups. Instead, members of ethnic groups, whether While commonalities among individuals from different cultural backgrounds can form the basis for negative stereotypes, they can als o cause the develop ment of a sense of unity and agency among people who share similar life histories. CRP acknowledges and is sensitive to learners whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds

PAGE 41

41 vary significantly from the formal culture of schooling. Aligned w ith social constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on learning and the notion of cultural border crossing, CRP creates a learning environment that is community based, affirms diversity, and in instruction ( i.e., community, home, and familial strengths and traditions) (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) . Discourse patterns vary across cultures and linguistic backgrounds and are often different, sometimes strikingly, from the mainstream culture promoted explicitly (through curriculum and textbooks) and implicitly (from behavioral norms and discourse styles) in formal schooling. For example, lengthy, repetitive talk containing emotional reactions a nd personal experiences are characteristic of some English Language Learner (ELL) groups (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Valdes et al. , 2005). The canon of science commonly portrayed in schooling includes distinct norms, language, and habits of mind (Calabrese Barton , 2007). Research has documented that certain scientific values, such as curiosity, creativity, persistence, and respect toward nature are found in most cultures. However, other values and attitudes specific to the canon of science are more characteristic of Western science, such as thinking independently, using empirical criteria, openly criticizing , and making arguments based on logic ( Buxton, 2006; Lee & Fradd, 1998). Such differences in discourse and daily practices are common in high poverty schools wh ere diverse students are likely to be enrolled and taught by teachers whose backgrounds differ dramatically (Tate et al., 2008). The various ways in which diverse students approach and interact with the world are not only undervalued and underutilized in m ainstream schooling, they are often

PAGE 42

42 misconstrued or perceived as threatening or defiant (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Tutweiler, (Emdin, 2011) and participate in schooling (Tobin, 200 0). Cultural Border Crossing Among other theoretical foundations, CRP is grounded in the concept of cultural border crossing. Cultural border crossing is a process in which the ease of transition by the degree of congruency between the two (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Ladson Billings, 1995). Theoretically speaking, students whose home culture closely resembles that of the norms and behaviors associated with school will experience a relatively smooth transition between the two worlds. In contrast, a student whose home culture is notably distinct from the norms and behaviors associated with school will find border crossing between the two worlds formidable and fraught with psychological harm, as it ofte n means renouncing the values and practices of that student home (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Costa, 1995). For example, it has been documented that the practices of schooling cause nonmainstream students (students whose cultural and linguistic norms devi ate from those promoted in school) to assimilate to the school culture at the expense of their personal native language and behaviors during assimilation (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Vale nzuela, 2005). CRP acknowledges that disparities exist between the culture and practices of schools and the students they serve, which directly impacts multiple student outcomes including cultural competence (Ladson Billings, 1995), engagement (Howard, 200 1),

PAGE 43

43 and achievement (Garza, 2008; Ladson Billings, 1995; Weinstein, Tomlinson Clarke, & Curran, 2004). es backgrounds through instruction and curriculum (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Valdes et al., 2005). Additionally, becaus e the process of border crossing is often accompanied by discomfort and tumult, educators who are culturally responsive impart an ethic of genuine care for students, nurturing and ic success (Rightmyer, 2011). Research has illustrated the importance of strong relationships (e.g., student teacher; student student ; family teacher ) in fostering student engagement (Hondo et al., 2008; Stanley & Plucker, 2008; Valenzuela, 2005). In an e xamination of reasons why students choose to remain in school, meaningful and respectful relationships with educators and peers are high on the list ( Lehr, Johnson, Bremer, Cosio, & Thompson, 2004). However, strong relationships are not the only key to stu dent success. Students need to feel that what they are learning is challenging and relevant to their lives (Stanley & Plucker, 2008). This is especially true among diverse students (Ladson Billings, 1994). Epistemological Foundations The epistemolog ical foundations of CRP lie in sociocultural and social constructivist perspectives (Atwater, 1996). CRP promotes a collectivist view on education versus an individualist model, which pits students against one another in

PAGE 44

44 competition. Through its collectivi st orientation to learning , CRP contends that students will excel when knowledge is constructed through direct experiences with material, in meaningful and relevant contexts, and occurring in a community of practice. From its foundation in the social cons tructivist perspective on learning, CRP positions the learner as the center of knowledge (Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008), with the process of knowledge construction mediated by culture, language, and social interactions (Atwater, 1996; Rodriguez, 1998). Cul tural realities and roles are constructed in concert with social interactions (Ernest, 2010), making the emphasis on what these social interactions look like extremely relevant to the culturally responsive educator . For example, it is important to gauge wh ether or not social interactions in the and the participation of certain students. CRP also takes a sociocultural perspective on learning, arguing that student learning o ccurs in communities of practice via a process of enculturation with associated ways of talking and acting. Therefore, t he relationship between learning and larger social, political, and historical influences as well as the role of identities in learning i s salient (Calabrese Barton, 1998; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005; Lemke, 2001). Learning is facilitated through the use of signs, symbols, and cultural and educational tools (Howard, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978). L anguage serves as a learning tool and provides a lens to examine compatibilities and incongruences in cultural practices and ways of learning (Elmesky & Tobin, 2005; Gee, 2008; Lemke, 2001). With its focus on language and enculturation, sociocultural theory provides a lens for examining and understanding how cul ture contributes to learning (Howard, 2010).

PAGE 45

45 As a theoretical framework, CRP views learning as an active process driven by prior knowledge and social interactions situated within larger historical and political contexts. As such, CRP recognizes that the cu ltural and linguistic norms of diverse students are often ignored, underutilized, and misinterpreted in mainstream schooling. The process therefore tries to ease the cultural border crossing many diverse students experience on a daily basis by creating a l earning environment that is respectful, inclusive, and an extension of their lives at home . CRP Science ascribes to many fundamental tenets of the paradigm. Yet, because of the Westernized aspects of science frequently portrayed in formal schooling, CRP S cience emphasizes aspects not commonly seen in general CRP empirical literature. The next section will characterize CRP Science as it is currently represented in the empirical literature before arguing for a reconceptualization of CRP Science that aligns m ore closely with the standards based reform movement and which is capable of increasing diverse student academic achievement on a wide scale. CRP Science CRP Science stands in stark contrast to traditional science instruction. Science instruction that is considered to be traditional features teacher directed transmission of jargon heavy concepts and relies heavily on the textbook as a primary source of information (Akkus, Gunel, & Hand, 2007; De Boer, 1991). Furthermore, science as it has been traditional ly taught expects that students will learn from teachers as long as content is presented in scientifically accepted ways (Lee & Fradd, 1998). These practices position science instruction in such a way that it promotes passivity, impedes critical thinking, and overlooks direct connections to student experiences (DeBoer, 1991; Yore, 2001).

PAGE 46

46 Conversely , CRP Science ( experiences (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Mensah, 2011); (b) engage s learners in reform based science instruction (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011 ; NRC, 2012 ); (c) occurs in respectful and inclusive learning environments where multiple perspectives are acknowledged (Lee, 2004; Elmesky & Tobin, 200 5) and language supports are widely implemented (Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2009); (d) uses science as a platform to uncover negative stereotypes and biases (Brown, 2013; Tate et al., 2008; Laughter & Adams, 2012); and (e) frequently establishes genuine, communit y based partnerships to support social action projects (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001) (Appendix A). CRP Science is a targeted cultural, and gendered identitie (Tate et al., 2008, p.65). Reform based science education is a component of CRP Science; however, because CRP Science targets students from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds, additiona l structures are required to facilitate academic success. Characterizing CRP Science A ccording to the CRIOP Appendix A demonstrates how CRP Science can be characterized in the empirical literature according to the seven pillars of the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) (Powell et al., 2012). As indicated in its title, culturally responsive practices. The decision to use the CRIOP to guide my chara cterization of CRP Science was based on two premises : the CRIOP (1) represents a synthesis of the vast and timely literature on CRP and (2) in the seven CRIOP pillars ,

PAGE 47

47 operational definitions of specific CRP tenets are provided , making the occasionally neb ulous constructs within CRP more concrete, observable, and directly measurable. In the decisions made to categorize specific elements of the empirical literature on CRP Science , I recognize the subjective nature of such decisions and that to another indiv idual the elements could be categorized differently. However, my interpretation achieved my goal of provid ing a concrete and unifying understanding of CRP Science in actual formal and informal learning environments. Additionally, I acknowledge that I impos ed categories on studies that may not have previously addressed these goals. In CRP Science. R ather the following terms are used: culturally relevant science ( Johnson, 2011; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011 ; Laughter & Adams, 2012; Fusco, 2001; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008); equitable science (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010); science for social justice (Calabrese Barton, 2003); inclusive science (NRC, 2012); democratic science (Calabrese Barton, Basu, Johnson, & Tan, 2011); connected science (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001); instructionally congruent science (Lee, 2004); multicultural science (Calabrese Barton, 2000) and other similar terms . The term CRP Science will be used throughout this dissertation to acknowledge t he various pedagogies in science education that utilize I imposed the seven CRIOP pillars (Classroom Relationships; Family Collaboration; Assessment; Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences; Pedagogy/Instr uction; Discourse; and Sociopolitical Consciousness) and identif ied the empirical work as culturally responsive . As a result, (1) each of these distinct forms of science education contained multiple elements of CRP as operationalized through

PAGE 48

48 Ladson Billing s (1994; 1995), Gay (2010) , and the CRIOP (Powell & Rightmyer, 2011 ), and (2) my hope is that through a unifying theory of action on CRP Science I can advance the field which currently experiences a nearly absent research base (Kelly Jackson, 2011; Laughte r & Adams, 2012), yet holds great promise for diverse students (Lee & Luykx, 2007; Brown Jeffy & Cooper, 2011; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). Moreover, several works describe CRP Science (often conceptual literature or studies of teacher preparation progr ams) , but they did not lend themselves to characterizing the learning environment according to the CRIOP (e.g., Rodriguez, 1998; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007; Lee & Luykx, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 2007; Fusco & Calabrese Barton, 2001). Therefore, although these works will be used to support descriptions of CRP Science , they will not be directly elaborated on in this chapter. The remainder of this section will describe concrete examples of CRP Science . Parameters of CRP Science Sources In this literature r eview of CRP Science I will discuss trends and distinctions among thirteen studies. All of the studies that will be reported on utilized qualitative design methodologies to analyze data and describe findings. As such, each study is small scale with findin gs most often presented as case studies (e.g., Calabrese Barton, 1998; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). Among the specific methodological approaches, ethnography/critical ethnography was most commonly employed as a lens through which to view and interpret re search questions, data, and findings (e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005). Twelve of the thirteen sources were empirical studies containing research questions, conceptual or theoretical frameworks, and rich d escriptions of data sources, analysis, findings, and implications. One particular source, a book chapter (Tate et al., 2008), reports on

PAGE 49

49 specific curricul um design features that have demonstrated (in other empirical articles) an ability to target diverse l earners. Among the sources, the focus of investigation was divided equally between teacher and student. Seven studies focused on teacher education, both preservice and inservice, whereas six sources focused on students. Middle school based studies were ov errepresented and comprised six of the thirteen sources (e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton 2007; Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011; Laughter & Adams, 2012). Elementary and high school studies were relatively equally distributed among the remaining sources, with four elementary based studies (e.g., Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2011; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008) and three high school studies (e.g., Elmesky & Tobin, 2005; Fusco, 2001). Furthermore, three studies occurred in informal environments (e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Fusco, 2001); the remaining sources described teaching and learning in formal learning environments (i.e., the science classroom) . While it has been argued that out of scho ol contexts provide "a kind of freedom in the learning environment not afforded by schools" (Calabrese Barton, 2007, p.335), findings in this synthesis would suggest otherwise. In my presentation of CRP Science I will organize findings according to CRIOP p illars most and least frequently observed as well as notable exceptions . Because the STARTS PD program contains a focus on developing reform based science teachers, I will also describe CRP Science by elucidating its relationship to reform based science ed ucation. Pedagogy/Instruction & Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences In general, CRP of knowledge to support learning (Moll et al., 1992) . The teacher acts as a facilitator

PAGE 50

50 who scaff old s student learning, provide s opportunities for students to engage in the practices of science, and redistribute s authority in the classroom by offering students choices throughout instruction. According to the thirteen sources reported on here, the same can be said of CRP Science . I have chosen to organize my discussion of the Pedagogy/Instruction & Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences CRIOP pillars together as their individual elements were observed in conjunction in all but two of the sources (e.g., Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011). Within these two pillars, the specific CRP elements observed most frequently were students engaged in relevant and meaningful practices of science (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005; Tate et al., 2008) and providing opportunities to voice and value diverse perspective s in instruction (Calabrese Barton, 1998; Mensah, 2011) , which alludes to the reform based nature of CRP Science . Tate, Clark, Gallagher, and McLaughlin (2008) ident ified and utilized both general and targeted curriculum design strategies intended to increase diverse student learning and exemplify CRP Science . General strategies treat diversity among students as any differences they may bring to the classroom (e.g., p rior knowledge, previous academic achievement, interests, or special needs). Examples of general science design strategies intended to bolster the achievement of all students include driving questions and hands on activities to guide inquiry investigations . On the other hand, targeted strategies consider diversity in terms of race, language, culture, and gender. Targeted design strategies politicize the nature of schooling in attempts to remedy inequality. Science curriculum materials containing targeted de sign features connect

PAGE 51

51 their cultural backgrounds and funds of knowledge as educational tools in the learning process. The middle school Asthma module described by Tate et al. (2008) utilized both general and targete d curriculum design strategies. For example, when completing the module, students learned about both the physiology of and social implications related to asthma. The module was situated in a community context to allow students to perceive science as a soci al construction. Furthermore, the notion of science as a source of agency was demonstrated as students analyzed actual data in an attempt to discern which of two programs (either a local diesel reduction program or a neighborhood asthma clinic) would bette r improve the asthma problem in their community. Students were involved in reform based science practices as they interacted with dynamic visualizations explaining the physiology of breathing and asthma, examined multiple pieces of evidence that provided e xplanations about how diesel pollution affects asthma, and considered trade offs when arguing their position in a debate. Sociopolitical Consciousness In their CRP metasynthesis, Morrison, Robbins, and Rose (2008) noted that critical and sociopolitical co nsciousness occurred least frequently in classroom based capstone to culturally relevant pedagogy. It is through critical consciousness that students are empowered with the to ols to transform their lives and ultimately the CRP in general education may be limited in examples of sociopolitical consciousness, the field of CRP Science is plentiful with opportunities to include issue s important to the community (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001; Mensah, 2011) and confront negative stereotypes, biases, and

PAGE 52

52 forms of oppression ( Brown, 2013; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Laughter & Adams, 2012). In fact, this was one area in particular in which CRP Science stood out for its ability to empower students through social action projects that transform the communities and lives around them (Fusco, 2001; Bouillion & Gomez, 2001). In an attempt to identify bridging scaffolds that connect science l earning with students day to day social experiences in meaningful ways, Bouillion & Gomez (2001) worked with teachers and students in two self contained fifth grade classrooms, the n downtown Chicago to co design an interdisciplinary STEM problem based unit around community issues identified by students. The Chicago River Project (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001) desires to clean up the nearby riverbanks that were pol luted with trash. Once teachers and students selected this topic for investigation, they identified an outside organization that shared an interest in the real world problem of polluted riverbanks and helped them reach the goal of riverbank restoration. Th roughout the project, students learned about pollution, ecosystem functioning and overall health as they engaged in multiple reform based science practices , developed a conservancy plan, analyzed data, shared findings with the community, initiated a letter writing campaign to increase awareness and action, implemented strategies for riverbank restoration, and eventually secured lease rights to the riverbank land. Sociopolitical consciousness raising experiences in other CRP Science studies were not organiz ed around projects of the same magnitude as the Chicago River Project ( Bouillion and Gomez , 2001); however, they positioned science in such a way

PAGE 53

53 (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001, p.893). For example, elementary preservice teachers (PSTs) included a community perspective in their lesson on environmental racism. Specifically, the PSTs connected occurrences and effects of pollution to the East Harlem neighborhoods where students lived, which included discussions of asthma incidences within the community. Additionally, Laughter & Adams (2012) reported on the impact of a three day earth/space scien Space Traders short story as a platform to discuss potential impacts of extraterrestrial life on humans, scientific bias, and promote the use of academic language. In the capstone lesson event, a discussion based lab, stud ents wrestled with key earth/space science concepts and social consequences. CRP Science allows students and teachers to challenge social injustices and use science as a means of critiquing and exploring the world around them. Often, the y situated, with attention paid to ameliorating issues closest to home. To achieve this goal, CRP Science utilizes help from family and the greater community. Family Collaboration According to Appendix A, the CRIOP pillar Family Collaboration would seem t o occur least frequently in the works on CRP Science . In fact, it was rare to identify examples of teachers reaching out to parents in non traditional ways or using parent expertise to guide classroom instruction and student learning (e.g., Bouillion & Gom ez, 2001; Fusco, 2001). However, the notion of community based science was prominent within the literature.

PAGE 54

54 In her work with 15 urban teenagers in an after school program based out of a homeless shelter in New York, Fusco (2001) described a community base d science project that involved students and community members in the design and creation of an urban garden. The original project goal was to transform an empty lot across the street from the shelter into a usable community space. During multiple brainsto rming sessions , teens discussed issues that impacted them (e.g., hunger, safety) and ways in which the usable space could alleviate some of these concerns. As their brainstorming sessions became more concrete, teens worked in teams to measure the space, ca tegorize living and nonliving contents within the space, and sketch drawings of the lot to determine the feasibility of their ideas. Once a decision was made to design a community garden and recreation area, local design professionals (including an enviro nmental psychologist) and other community members were invited to discuss plans and ideas. Engaging in discourse in these communities of practice led to future action, as the group began visiting other community gardens for ideas, writing to organizations for assistance and donations, and implementing design plans. Before deciding upon specific plants to purchase for the garden, teen groups charted the position of sunlight over the course of the day and considered how the season would affect plant survival to determine the most cost efficient purchases. Over 50 members from the local community participated in Community Day in which teams laid the foundation for the garden by clearing out garbage, digging holes for fences, painting signs, and planting seeds and seedlings. Community members

PAGE 55

55 day. Additionally , a nearby local community garden was remodeled and revitalized . CRP Science is Reform Based Reform based science education engages students in authentic practices of science (NRC, 2012). The reform based practices of science include asking questions and defining problems; developing and usi ng models; planning and conducting investigations; analyzing and interpreting data; using mathematics and computational thinking; constructing explanations and designing solutions; engaging in evidence based arguments; and obtaining, evaluating, and commun icating information (p. 42). Students are expected to become proficient in these practices , as scientific literacy involves both doing and talking science (Lemke, 1990). Although reform based science education was not specifically examined in the CRP Scie nce studies reported here, there was evidence of multiple reform based science practices within CRP Science. In addition to the previously described examples, several CRP Science studies provided descriptions of students engaged in practices of science. Fo r example, in this passage, Basu and Calabrese Barton (2007) describe the school program focused on practices of s cience, including developing and using models and planning and conducting investigations: W hen studying fish behavior, Neil created a series of experiments and observations he wanted to conduct on the fish and often came to visit the fish during recess, lu nch, and after school to gather additional data. Gabriel decided to study the fish by building an anatomical model, both ou t of clay and aluminum. (p.484)

PAGE 56

56 Kelly Jackson & Jackson (2011) recount a typical science investigation conducted in the classr oom of sixth grade science teacher in a rural, low socioeconomic, pre dom inantly African American school p.408 ). In this excerpt, the authors articulate how students were engaged in multiple practices of science, including analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, and communicating information: During the lab activity, each group was allowed to rotate to eight stations (labeled A As groups reported their findings to the enti re class, they were allowed to defend their positions if not all groups agreed or observe d similar changes. (pp. 411 12) Finally , an excerpt from Lee (2004) regarding teachers of ELL students that were involved in a PD program aimed at supporting their a teach science by using 72). Over time, participating teachers began to involve students in reform based science practices, such as analyzing and interpreting d ata in addition to communicating information in multiple ways: They encouraged students to discuss ideas, findings, and conclusions in large and small groups. They also encouraged students to communicate ideas through drawings, an activity that helped stud ents make careful observations and descriptions. As students gained experience in using science discourse, teachers promoted the use of written forms of communication, particularly data tables, charts, and graphs. These mathematical representations enabled students to find patter ns in data and draw conclusions. ( p.81) In each of the thirteen CRP Science studies there was evidence of students engaged in many reform based science practices. However, among these sources there is not enough information provide d to declare that CRP Science must include the reform based science practices defined in the Framework or those practices that are

PAGE 57

57 characteristic of inquiry. Several practices of science articulated in the Framework comprise inquiry based science education in which students first pose a question and then seek plausible explanations to the question (NRC, 2000). The essential features of inquiry based science include the abilities of learners to be engaged by scientifically oriented questions, give priority t o evidence, formulate explanations from evidence, evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, and communicate and justify their explanations (NRC, 2000, p. 25). Again, identifying reform based science practices was beyond the scope of each study, and therefore I cannot accurately state that these elements were not present. However, inquiry is characteristic of the many practices of science in the Framework and their positive impact on student achievement is well documented within the l iterature (Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004; Luft, 2001; NRC, 2012) . Therefore, it is worth articulating the connection between reform based science and CRP Science, as it has implications for the design of PD programs aiming to prepare teachers who can p rovide rigorous and accessible science. Discourse & Assessment CRP Science acknowledges that important differences exist in the ways students use language and engage in science as they develop science language proficiency (Lee & Fradd, 1998). ELL students often require many concrete experiences and opportunities to use the language of science in social settings before applying them to academic endeavors (Johnson, 2009) . Hands on, inquiry based science can provide opportunities for students who are not comfo rtable with the academic registers of science to use and apply novel terms in their explanation of concepts (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Lee & Luykx, 2007).

PAGE 58

58 Specific language supports used to promote linguistic competence and academic conversation were off ered in multiple studies and include : providing key science terms in both English and Spanish (Lee, 2004; Tate et al., 2008) , providing audio files of science text in Spanish (Tate et al . , 2008) , providing scaffolded notes during lectures (Bianchini & Bren ner, 2010) , and strategically grouping students for collaboration (Lee, 2004; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). However, aside from these specific supports, it was difficult to identify instances where the emphasis in science instruction was on fostering sci ence based academic registers through the use of discourse associated with science (i.e., describing and applying science terms). In other words, many studies acknowledged the importance of preparing diverse students for thinking and acting scientifically, but very few made explicit the connection between promoting the development of academic registers (Gee, 2008) and the resulting (Laughter & Adams, 2012; Lee, 2004). Furthermore, assessment w as another area that CRP Science has yet to adequately address. Although there were several instances of students being able to demonstrate understanding in a variety of ways (e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005), missing are artifac understanding. In fact, when studies attended to student learning, it was most often characterized through qualitative descriptions (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Laughter & Adams, 2012) rather than quantitative measures (Em din, 2011). For example, to assess student learning, Bouillion & Gomez (2001) reported select passages from student interviews in which students were asked to answer a science question posed by the

PAGE 59

59 teacher. The researchers contend that students learned the scientific concepts of water quality, soil erosion, recycling, and water conservation . For example, they provide the following passage from a fifth grader: [To restore the riverbank] I would use a lot of flowers. I would use grass, a lot of grass. I woul d use trees along the border to stop erosion. I would use different types of trees, oak trees and maple trees, and I would use, I would use a lot of big trees 'cause we need shade, and I would use, I would use big trees because the birds also need a place to live. (p.888) The only example of measuring student achievement on a test was identified by transact in class (i.e., participate through the use of specific forms of di scourse), and resulting teacher actions. Emdin followed select high school students for four years and dominant forms of communication. He contrasted student achievement on a unit test by comparing items that assessed conceptual understanding of topics covered in classes that were taught in what he considered a more conventional format. The author re ported that students performed better on topics associated with the lessons where they were allowed to use their home language and that they provided greater detail in their explanations of concepts. CRP Science has demonstrated various ways in which scien ce is used to identify and address social and environmental inequities through the coming together of students and their community. As democratic and widely beneficial as such endeavors may be , they do not necessarily translate to academic achievement in w ays that are measured in the current U.S. educational system. If the CRP Science community intends

PAGE 60

60 in which students talk, act, think, and achieve scientifically need to be mov ed to the forefront. This is one area where CRP Science has yet to rise to the challenge; however, it is imperative in any real discussion of closing achievement gaps. The lack of assessment is one particular challenge to widespread implementation of CRP S cience ; unfortunately, this is not the only issue. In the next section I will briefly identify several challenges that impede the wide scale presence of CRP Science . In my focus on solutions rather than merely identifying problems, I will keep this next se ction brief and devote attention to speculating on areas for future research to address such challenges. Issues Affecting Widespread Implementation of CRP Science As already mentioned, a major issue seen among CRP Science studies is a paucity of research c onnecting its implementation to student achievement. Unfortunately, this is not exclusive to CRP Science alone (Sleeter, 2012). Compounding this issue, CRP Science experiences additional challenges in its attempts at wide scale implementation, which can be the struggle and lack of resources and support. Although I have categorized these separately to show similar trends, they are not mutually exclusive and frequently occur in tandem. Teacher Resistan ce Rodriguez (1998) identified two forms of resistance enacted by PSTs while being prepared to teach science for diversity and understanding: resistance to ideological change and resistance to pedagogical change. Resistance to ideological change is a resul t of tensions experienced by PSTs when their ideological orientations collide with those advocated in the teacher education program. Rodriguez found that for the PSTs he studied, resistance to ideological change resulted from feelings of guilt, shame, and

PAGE 61

61 defensiveness as they were exposed to critical perspectives, in addition to feeling hopeless and overwhelmed with existing school situations. According to Rodriguez, resistance to pedagogical change pertains to when PSTs revert to teaching science in tradi tional manners (i.e., direct instruction), despite being introduced to innovative and engaging (i.e., reform based) science teaching approaches. Reasons for resisting to em ploy practices similar to their cooperating teacher, thereby increasing the chances of completing the practicum; lacking appropriate confidence and support to take risks associated with teaching in novel ways; and feeling that innovative teaching is not fe asible within the school system. In addition to the pedagogical and ideological resistance identified by Rodriguez (1998), t was noted in examples where teachers felt as though students needed to earn the right to participate in inquiry based labs (Barnes & Barnes, 2005) . These teachers then entered a state of benign positive appraisal in which they felt they had already taught in culturally responsive ways in the classroom, despite observations to the contrary (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Lack of Resources & Support CRP Science instructional materials are not widely available (Lee, 2004; NRC, 2012). Thus, teachers who are searching for such resourc es will likely come up empty handed unless they know exactly where to look. Moreover, teachers at all stages of their professional journey require ongoing support as they attempt to enact CRP Science in culturally restrictive environments (Bianc h ini & Bren ner, 2010). While certain science teacher preparation programs may offer topics associated with CRP Science ,

PAGE 62

62 they fall short of the goal of effectively preparing teachers when they lack examples, ongoing support, and curricul um resources (Bianchini & Brenn er, 2010; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Becoming a culturally responsive teacher is an uphill battle for those who already desire to engage in the struggle. Combined with an understanding of the ways in which teachers resist the CRP messa ge and its lack of connection to student achievement , one may question why CRP Science has persisted as long as it has. However, as discussed in the synthesis of CRP Science , there are many positive elements to this form of science education, which acknowl edge s incorporate s them into learning environments that are academically challenging . In order to promote the widespread use of CRP Science and CRP in general , research must document its impact on student learning (Sleeter, 2012) . Currently, there is limited research that accomplishes this goal. Compounding the issue, the literature base documenting the effect of CRP on student learning consists primarily of small scale case studies (Cammarota & Romero, 2009; Ladson Billings, 1995 ) . While there have been several studies that provide rich descriptions of what CRP and CRP Science look like in multiple contexts (Bergeron, 2008; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011; Mensah, 2011) and connect CRP to student outcomes such as engagement (Howard, 2001; Rodriguez, Jones, Pang, & Park, 2004) , these studies postulate that academic learning will follow, yet they stop at student access. In response, Sleeter (2012) argues for two changes: (1) evidence based research that connects CRP and academic achiev ement , so a case for its widespread use can be constructed; and (2) research focused on the

PAGE 63

63 impact of CRP projects, including how teachers learn to become culturally responsive and enact CRP in their classrooms. This dissertation focuses on the latter char ge. Preparing Culturally Responsive T eachers Because of the great influence teachers have on student achievement (Abell, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 2007) and the demographic imperative to alter educational inequities through better preparing the teacher work force (Banks et al., 2005), discussion of educational reform must include teachers. Both Ladson Billings (1995) and Gay (2010) provided descriptions of culturally responsive teachers who use in academics. However, Villegas and Lucas (2002) move beyond simply characterizing culturally responsive teachers and offer research teacher workforce to educate diverse students. Villegas and Lucas describe six fundamental orientations (i.e., specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions) that culturally responsive teachers must possess in order to effectively educate diverse students: (1) sociocultural consciousness, an s differ and shape how we perceive the world; (2) affirming attitudes toward culturally diverse students; (3) acting as agents of change and working for equity in education; (4) embracing constructivist foundations of CRP ; (5) learning about students and t heir communities; and (6) continuously cultivating culturally responsive teaching through a student centered, critical perspective on education. While Villegas and Lucas (2002) originally targeted formal teacher education programs , their message offers far reaching utility and is relevant to teachers at all stages of their professional journey who are charged with educating diverse students.

PAGE 64

64 Attributes of culturally responsive teachers abound. Yet, traditional teacher preparation programs vary in their abil ity to develop culturally responsive educators, leaving many practicing teachers feeling underprepared to educate diverse students (Song, 2006) . These teachers struggle to teach in culturally responsive ways (Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008; Rodriguez, 1998) . To meet the demands of successfully educating a diverse study body, inservice teachers need to feel competent in teaching reform based science that is meaningful and accessible to all students. Therefore, effective PD is necessary. However, not all PD ex periences are created equal. The STARTS PD framework is a research grounded program , built from elements of high quality PD in science education and undergirded by theories on teacher change, pedagogical design capacity, and CRP. The STARTS PD program has been designed to support high school life science development as culturally responsive , reform based educators who can design CRP Science instructional materials . This next section synthesizes literature on PD in science education to make an arg ument for features of the STARTS design framework. A section characterizing three distinct PD studies follows this one to highlight several ways in which this dissertation study extends the fields of PD in science education and CRP Science . Professional De velopment in Science Education When Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) conducted a national survey of over 1,000 math ematics and science teachers previously participating in Eisenhower funded PD experiences, they aimed to identify PD features that significantly reported increases in knowledge, skills and changes in practice. Results indicated that PD opportunities providing core features such as active learning experiences, cohere

PAGE 65

65 daily school responsibilities, and content focus are more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills, which in turn positively impacted practices. Equally important to reported changes in the practice of teachers were stru ctural features such as sufficient time (duration) and collective participation among colleagues. However, of the participating teachers, 79% reported participating in traditional forms of PD (e.g., workshops, courses, and conferences) versus reform orie nted experiences suggesting that, at the time, mathematics and science education PD activities did not effectively of the study by Garet et al. (2001) significantly impacted the design of scien ce education PD experiences to come, as will be described further in my presentation of PD according to their collective goals, specific supports, outcomes and challenges. The PD studies discussed in this section spanned three years on average (Bell & Gil bert, 1994; Crippen et al., 2010; Lee, 2004; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), providing participating teachers with sufficient time to apply their developing knowledge and skills to classroom practice (Desimone, 2009: Green leaf et al., 2010; Loucks Horsle y, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010). Experiences were designed for teachers at all grade levels, K 12, and most often generally across science disciplines. However, units on earth science weather and water cycle (Lee, 2004), climate change (Crippen, 2 012), and seismology (Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011) occurred most frequently when a discipline specific subject area was represented. Goals Program goals PD goals varied in several respects. Teachers were supported as they learned about and attempted to implement reform based science teaching (Bell & Gilbert, 1994;

PAGE 66

66 Luft, 2001), improved their science content knowledge (Crippen, 2012 ; Diamond et al., 2014 ), developed a professional learning community (PLC) (Crippen et al., 2010), adapted technology rich cu rricula (Davis & Varma, 2008), acted as curriculum designers (Parke & Coble, 1997 ; Stolk et al., 2011 ), aligned instruction with earth science content standards through innovative approaches (Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011), used commonalities between their language and culture and that of students in science instruction (Lee, 2004), and implemented culturally responsive (Johnson, 2011) and gender inclusive practices (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). While PD goals aligned to overarching research aims, there w ere notable distinctions between the two that are worth articulating . Research goals The research goals aimed to understand how PD as an intervention impacted 2010; Lu reform minded beliefs (Luft, 2001). Furthermore, research goals sought to characterize how teachers apply their knowledge when engaging in the practices of science (Crippen, 2012) , develop as professionals in these contexts (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Lee, 2004), or discern how teachers manage tensions associated with the change process (Parke & Coble, 1997). Furthermore, multiple studies were interested in examining the impact of a giv en PD program on teacher practices (Luft, 2001; Johnson, 2011; Parke & Coble, 1997; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Supports The supports provided by the PD in science education experiences were vast and wide ranging. Specific supports were aligned with th e documented effective PD

PAGE 67

67 features previously mentioned (Garet et al., 2001) , as well as the seven principles of effective PD experiences outlined by Loucks Horsley et al. (2010): opportunities for teachers to build knowledge and skills; modeling strategie s; building a learning community; supporting teachers in leadership roles; continuous assessment; driven by research on teaching and learning; coherence with other features of the education system. To facilitate discussion of specific strategies, I have ca tegorized supports in the following ways: structured sessions , professional learning communities , observation and reflection , and resources and responsive supports. Other features found to be effective at producing PD goals include analyzing student work ( Davis & Varma, 2008; Lee, 2004), informal learning experiences (Crippen, 2012; Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011), and action research (Crippen et al., 2010). These features occurred infrequently enough that they will not be discussed here. However, their abili ty to facilitate teacher growth should not be overlooked. Additionally, active learning was present throughout all PD experiences, with teachers continuously engaged in reform based science experiences such as inquiry . Finally , it is important to note , th at just as with CRP Science and reform based science education, PD venture did not include those specific supports, but rather, that they were not explicitly articulated. Structured sessions Structured sessions occurred weekly (Bell & Gilbert, 1994), monthly (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), in full day workshops (Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001), and/or in intense one or two weeklong summer institutes (Crippen et al., 2010; Luft, 2001; Zozakie wicz &

PAGE 68

68 Rodriguez, 2007). Often, PD experiences utilized a combination of several or all of these structured sessions to focus on teacher concerns (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Lee, 2004), build science content knowledge (Crippen et al., 2010; Zozakiewicz & Rodrig uez, 2007), or to introduce new activities (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) that were either premade from a specific curriculum (Luft, 2001) or co designed among teachers (Parke & Coble, 1997). Furthermore, these structured sessions supported PLCs and allowed teache rs to troubleshoot as well as brainstorm new ideas. Professional learning communities Throughout each of the studies, teachers consistently engaged in meaningful collaboration with one another in PLCs . According to Cochran Smith and Lytle (1999), PLCs pro discrepancies between theories and practices, challenge common routines, draw on the work of others for generative frameworks, and attempt to make visible much of that which is ta Depending upon the goals of the PD experience, activities and discussions in these PLCs ranged from elucidating personal beliefs about multiple topics (Lee, 2004; Parke & Coble, 1997) to engaging in re form based science practices (Crippen, 2012; Crippen et al., 2010). Occasionally, teachers took on leadership roles by facilitating group sessions and engaging participants in making predictions, using evidence to substantiate claims, analyze data from a v ariety of representations, and create arguments (Crippen, 2012). Additionally, teacher leaders developed collective norms, mediated individual and collective beliefs, and enhanced interpersonal relationships (Crippen et al., 2010). While developing teacher leaders is an intense and time consuming process, there is great value to be found in the endeavor as teacher leaders

PAGE 69

69 experience reduced feelings of isolation, increased professional satisfaction, and continued professional growth (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). Researchers often participated in these professional learning communities to 2007), address specific issues voiced by teachers (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) introduce n ew activities (Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001), discuss instruction progression and student learning (Davis & Varma, 2008), and encourage interdisciplinary collaboration (Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011). The collective participation of teachers in PLCs occurred acros s grade level, and within and among schools in a particular district (Garet et al., 2001). In addition to voicing concerns and brainstorming innovative approaches to science instruction, teachers used PLCs as a space to align their teaching philosophies with current research (Parke & Coble, 1997), analyze problem based, inquiry lessons (Crippen, 2012; Parke & Coble, 1997), share best practices (Crippen et al., 2010, Lee, 2004), and design assessments that were intended to incorporate the native languages of students (Lee, 2004) and elucidate conceptual understanding (Parke & Coble, 1997). Observation & reflection Engaging prior knowledge is essential to facilitating learning, as individuals connect new knowledge to previous experiences. Teachers enter the ir classroom s with deeply held, tacit beliefs about teaching, many of which are incongruent with reform based science teaching. Unless critically examined, such beliefs are perpetuated, tivation and potential to learn. Therefore, to empower science teachers as reform based educators capable of providing rigorous academic experiences, developing teachers as reflective practit ioners is required (Schön, 1983; 1987). I n their exhaustive revie w of the literature

PAGE 70

70 on inquiry based PD, w ithout including explicit reflection as part of PD experiences, it is unlikely that substantial teacher Thus, r eflection is a fun damental part of the learning process . It provides teachers with scaffolds to critically examine their beliefs and current practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) , the impact of their instruction on student outcomes (Howard & Aleman, 2008), and how aligned thei r practices are with reform based science teaching (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Parke & Coble, 1997 ). An additional benefit of reflective practice is that it furnishes teachers with skills for lifelong learning and continual improvement to their practice (Hammer ness et al., 2005). Given the utility of this support to facilitate teacher change through its direct connection to practice, it was not surprising to find reflection as a common thread throughout PD experiences. Reflection was used to examine changes in the ability of teachers to argue as a result of engaging in modified activities (Crippen, 2012), to elicit their cultural histories (Lee, 2004), and to Luft, 2001) . Reflection was also us ed to develop reflexive approaches to collaboration (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), aid curriculum planning and enactment (Davis & Varma, 2008), and was deemed critical to developing teacher leaders (Crippen et al., 2010). Observations serve as a valuable support in that they provide evidence of reflection (Guskey, 2000; Hewson, 2007). Moreover, observation was occasionally used to provide teachers with another route to mon

PAGE 71

71 ascertain insight (Lee, 2004). However, teachers were more often inv subsequently sharing feedback (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Garet et al., 2001; Luft, 2001). In one particular study, teachers were even granted four days of release to accomplish this goal (Luft, 2001). However, in all cases in which teacher observation occurred , it was intended to provide an entry point for teacher reflection on changing practices (Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001), to learn from expert teachers (Garet et al., 2001), and glean effectiveness of instructional ma terials (Davis & Varma, 2008). Resources and responsive supports In order for teachers to engage in reform based science education , they need access to supporting resources such as standards, scholarly articles and books, and physical materials (Loucks Ho rsley et al., 2010). Resources within these studies were identified as ongoing support from researchers/facilitators (Davis & Varma, 2008; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), innovative activities (Bell & Gilbert, 1994), web based management systems (Crippen, 2012), video conferencing (Crippen, 2012), technology based tools (Davis & Varma, 2008; Penuel et al., 2007), and modeling reform based instructional strategies (Davis & Varma, 2008; Lee, 2004; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Additionally, teachers examine d state and national science education standards as they attempted to align instruction with reform based science (Lee, 2004; Parke & Coble, 1997; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Teachers found these resources valuable to different degrees throughout their PD PD program to prepare fourth through sixth grade math ematics and science teachers to teach in multicultural and gender inclusive ways, only 30% of the participating teachers

PAGE 72

72 mentioned acce ss to equipment as valuable. However, greater than 80% of the teachers actually used one or more pieces of equipment during classroom instruction. In contrast, Davis & Varma (2008) found that, when providing PD to support the use of technology based scienc e modules, technology support, modeling effective teaching, and co facilitating instruction were perceived by all participating teachers as the most valuable supports. PD the only and linguistic backgrounds with science instruction (Lee, 2004; Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Experiences changed in conjunction with the changi ng needs of teachers lack of confidence in their science content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In response, an init ial area of emphasis in PD sessions was reform based science instruction, which included rich hands on inquiry opportunities where teachers learned to convey and apply key science concepts associated with the water cycle and weather. As teachers gained kno wledge and confidence, the focus then turned to incorporating Teacher voice was prominent in studies that articulated responsiveness, demonstrating how professional developers viewed teachers as inte lligent and capable professionals (Crippen et al., 2010; Davis & Varma, 2008). During weekly collaboration sessions, teachers negotiated PD content and strategies for executing activities (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) and actively participated in the design, adap tation and implementation of

PAGE 73

73 a five day instructional module (Davis & Varma, 2008). Through responsive supports such as those mentioned here, facilitators were able to develop professional trust with teachers that enable d open and constructive dialogues ab out their practice (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Outcomes and Challenges Changes in beliefs and practice Within the multiple studies examining the the focus on specific aspects of teacher practice under examination varied. For classroom practices with respect to multicultural, gender inclusive science education, whereas others focused on how the PD program based s cience instruction (Crippen et al., 2010; Luft, 2001; Parke & Coble, 1997). (Crippen, 2012; Lee, 2004), inquiry practices (Crippen et al., 2010, Lee, 2004: Luft, 2001), and multicultura l practices (Lee, 2004; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), albeit in implement inquiry based instructional modules, both beginning and experienced teachers showed statistica lly significant changes in their inquiry practices. However, beginning teachers were found to change their beliefs more than their practices, indicating that their beliefs about teaching were pliable, whereas the converse could be said of experienced teach ers in this study. M e.g., Lee, 2004; Luft, , over the

PAGE 74

74 course of the PD program, more comfortable with science as inquiry and gained confidence in their abilit y to meet content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge were requisite for establishing this form of instruction , which indicates that, for elementary teachers who originally had low self eff icacy with teaching science, building science pedagogical knowledge is a gatekeeper to teaching in culturally responsive ways . Student performance With the high premium placed on PD to yield increases in student achievement (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2 001; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2006) and charges that PD in science education is lacking in this connection (Garet et al., 2001), research on PD participation and the impact on student ac hievement when possible. Yet, only four PD initiatives examined the impact on student performance ( e.g., Crippen et al., 2010; Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001; Parke & Coble, 1997). Furthermore, only one study demonstrated a positive impact on student achievement on standardized tests (Crippen et al., 2010), demonstrating that students of participating teachers were more than twice as likely to pass the state science exam compared to a control sample. Participants in Parke and phase PD model for t ransformational science demonstrated improved student attitude and interest when participating in teacher created curriculum merely maintained.

PAGE 75

75 While Luft (2001) demonstrated that students of participating teachers improved their reform based science skills (e.g., the ability to develop researchable questions, design and conduct investigations, and effectively communicate investigation results), missing was a direct link to st engage in the practices of science is certainly valuable. Nonetheless, in order to reduce academic disparities, such changes must translate to increased student achievement. Moreover, of the two studies related to PD for CRP Science (Lee, 2004; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), neither documented improvements of student achievement, echoing arguments made by Sleeter (2012) and Lee and Luykx (2007) that a research base demonstrating connection among PD, CRP Science , and student learning is still largely absent and much needed. Challenges Because of the complexity associated with PD , such endeavors will be met with challenges at some point in time or another. Pertaining to the studies discussed here, multiple challenges arose. In some instances, teachers abstained from us ing abundant available resources in favor of external resources when finding evidence to support an argument (Crippen, 2012) . Additionally, time constraints (Crippen et al., 2010) and teacher resistance (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Crippen et al., 2010; Parke & Coble, 1997; Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011) were noted . identities were chal lenged. In the case of Crippen et al . (2010), it was reported that teachers who decided to leave the PD program were unwilling to examine their beliefs about teaching and practice in deep ways. Furthermore, when reform based eachers were

PAGE 76

76 unwilling to incorporate these approaches into their belief system (Parke & Coble, 1997). Specifically in instances of working with diverse education impacted their perception of (and participation within) the PD program , as well as their ability to meet diverse students (Yerrick & Beatty Adler, 2011). Bell and Gilbert (1994) noted that teachers had to first perceive a need for change and then identify a plan for specific change before their practice was impacted . PD in science education is a complex venture (Hewson, 2007). Supports are wide ranging and depend on the goals of the program. Professional developers must design for the specific teachers experiencing the PD, the larger context, as well as the processes participants undergo. In research grounded PD experiences, such as those shared in this discussion, attention must be paid to how teachers develop during a given k nowledge, skills, and dispositions). Furthermore, challenges within PD ventures are inevitable. For the studies professional identities , much like Rodriguez (1998) found w ith the PSTs in his study . PD pose serious constraints on program success and therefore should be identified and addressed when possible . In the following section , several frameworks that inform the design of the STARTS PD program will be discussed . Guiding Frameworks on Teacher Change In addition to CRP, CRP Science and PD in science education literature, s everal conceptual frameworks guide the STARTS program design. These frameworks include concept ions of teacher as learner (Hammerness et al., 2005; Loughran, 2007; Lortie,

PAGE 77

77 1975; Borko & Putnam, 1996), teacher change/development (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; 1996), and teacher as designer/adaptor (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Davis & Varma, 2008; Remillard, 1999; Squire, MaKinster, Barnett, Luehmann, & Barab, 2003). To better understand these additional theoretical underpinnings of the STARTS PD program , each will be described in the following section. Teacher as Learner Teacher learning is distinct from student learning in many ways, although overlap is noted among the two , especially with regards to social influence (Borko, 200 4 ). In general, teachers hold greater agency over their learning (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). A fter their initial preparation , t eacher learni ng can be sporadic (Wilson & Berne, 1999), w hereas students are responsible for attending school and learning through formal experiences . While both students and teachers are expected to possess a strong command of the subject matter they study (or teach), teachers also require solid pedagogical content knowledge (Abell, 2007; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Shulman, 1986) and the ability to flexibly apply their knowledge to make sound pedagogical decisions (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). How and what teachers learn in teacher preparation programs is strongly mediated by their prior knowledge and experiences (Borko & Putnam, 1996), particularly their experiences as students (Lortie, 1975). Influences such as these can lead teachers to superficial or faulty conc eptions of teaching, absent fundamental pedagogical knowledge and skills (Hammerness et al., 2005). For example, when their own science courses and formal instruction, pr ospective and inservice teachers

PAGE 78

78 will likely remain intact and reproduce the same teach ing practices they experienced as students. reform message needs to be compelling enough and create sufficient dissonance so that a need to know (Dana, McLoughlin, & Freeman, 1998) is created, which increases the likelihood of deep processing and true accommodation when teacher motivation and ability are sufficient (Gregoire, 2003). To support teacher learning, teacher educators must create states of cognitive dissonance (disco mfort resulting from simultaneously dispositions are challenged. For example, when preparing culturally responsive teachers, Villegas & Lucas (2002) argue it is fundamental to in knowledge, skills, and dispositions regarding themselves as cultural beings, the role of schooling, the value of diversity, and the nature of learning. However, this challenge must not occur in isolation, but rather in a supportive and respectful environment (Dana et al., 1998) with the proper supports to accommodate conceptual change. In the realm of science teacher education, science teacher learning involves the construction (and reconstruction) of science pedagogies (Loughran, 2007; Borko & Putnam, 1996) . The professional growth of science teachers can be supported with specific PD structures such as: (a) opportunities for teachers to build their knowledge and skills , (b) model ing instructional strategies , (c) a learning communi ty ( Loucks Horsley et al., 2010 ) , (d) opportunities for enhanced communication among university and school faculty ( Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007 ) , and (e) ongoing suppor t, as well

PAGE 79

79 as (f) opportunities for active learning and collective participation of teachers from the same subject area (Garet et al., 2001). With regard to inservice science teacher education, these supports have been effective at producing teacher learni ng in the following areas: multicultural and gender inclusive instruction (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), instructional congruence (Lee, 2004), learning to teach science as inquiry (Crippen et al., 2010) and incorporating technology into instruction (Davi s & Varma, 2008). Teacher learning is a process distinct from student learning in multiple ways. These distinctions require the use of specific supports to promote teacher learning in both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. However, the presence of high quality PD supports does not guarantee teacher learning. For teacher change to unfold and progress, a closer examination of mediating factors and mechanisms undergirding the process is necessary. Teacher Change/Development As teachers learn new s ubject matter and pedagogical content knowledge they develop and change. Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) identified six perspectives on teacher change, each of which position the teacher as learner in clearly distinguishable ways. The STARTS PD program is designed with two particular models of teacher teacher change as personal development, local reform, and adaptation. In the following section the model of teacher development presented by Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) will be described.

PAGE 80

80 Teacher Development According to Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) acknowledge that teachers experience frustration when they attend PD experiences (e.g., workshops , coursework, inservice courses) , and leave feeling unable to implement new pedagogies, curriculum materials, or content knowledge that improve student learning. Over time, experiences like this may lead teachers to adopt a cynical perspective on PD opport unities and calls for PD that effectively support s teacher change. Moreover, when teachers perceive reform to pose a serious challenge, there is a risk of retreat to traditional forms of teaching once the program has ended (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Loughran, 2007). The model of teacher development proposed by Bell & Gilbert arose from findings of a three year research project in New Zealand ( Learning in Science Project ) that investigated the development of 48 primary and secondary science teachers as they lear ned constructivist oriented approaches to teaching science. Findings indicated that teacher development occurred along three dimensions personal, social, and professional and in three phases (Figure 2 1 ). Generally speaking, the personal development do main associated with the change process and the reconstruction of what it means to be a science teacher; the domain social development is related to collaboration among teachers and with students as notions of science education are renegotiated; and the professional developmen t domain concerns changing knowledge, skills, and dispositions about science education and instruction. Initial development team conducted a teacher survey discerning attitudes, expectations, and efficacy among participants. Results

PAGE 81

81 indicated that participating teachers commonly experienced some level of professional dissatisfaction and chose to engage with the PD because they saw it as an avenue for overcoming this dissatisfaction (personal development). Additionally, teachers who felt a sense of isolation in the classroom before the program onset enrolled in the PD because they anticipated great benefits from collaboration (so cial development). is problematic and full of dilemmas. A focus on learning about practices rather than solving problems of practice (Loughran, 2007) came to the forefront. Vi ewing teaching as problematic enabled participating teachers to engage in the reform message and allowed them to try out new activities without their professional identities being immediately challenged at program onset, thus providing a safe and respectfu l learning environment. Teachers who had not undergone these first phases of development were not as likely to engage in the PD or its reform message. Second phase of development Over the course of PD , teachers entered what Bell and Gilbert categorize as a personal development included reconstructing their visions of a science teacher and addressing concerns regarding reform oriented teaching, such as losing control in the classroom, the amount of te acher directed instruction needed, covering ample traditional curricular materials, and meeting assessment requirements. During the initial social development phase teachers felt isolated from others and perceived collaboration to be valuable. At this seco nd stage of social development, meaningful collaborative experiences among teachers and facilitators established a sense of trust and credibility within the program. Teachers felt more comfortable

PAGE 82

82 contributing to activities, providing supportive and critic al feedback to others, and reflecting on their own practices. Bell & Gilbert found that collective participation that is truly supportive, builds trust with one another, and offers and receives critical feedback about practice in nonjudgmental ways facilit ates the social development of teachers and practice than that previously seen characterizes the second phase of PD . Through continual refle ction, teachers showed growth in their abilities to elicit student thinking and connect it in to instruction in meaningful ways. Teachers refined and applied their ideas about science and science education as they reflected on the roles of teachers, learne rs, the curriculum, and practices of science aligned with constructivist approaches to learning. Third phase of development As teachers experienced success as learners and teachers in a supportive, collaborative environment , they expressed feelings of emp owerment and responsibility for their own development. Concerns from the second phase of personal development (losing control, covering curriculum, meeting assessment requirements) decreased during this final phase of personal development as teachers repea tedly evaluated and learned to trust the reform oriented style of teaching over time. Moreover, teachers and success during implementation of the new curriculum an d no longer felt incompetent if they were not the center of instruction. As teachers developed socially they began to actively seek out collaboration outside of structured PD time and with teachers from other content areas. During

PAGE 83

83 interviews, teachers exp ressed feeling like they had a network of colleagues with whom they could collaborate and voice concerns. In the final phase of the professional development dimension, several participating teachers took initiatives to pursue subsequent professional develo pment opportunities. These teachers took on the role of leaders as they facilitated future PD experiences and introduced colleagues to new classroom activities while supporting them in implementation. Additionally, they applied for positions within the Min istry of Education to serve as professional development facilitators at the regional level. Interactions among the dimensions and phases The process of teacher development observed in the Learning in Science Project can be characterized as one in which p ersonal, social, and professional development occurs in an interwoven fashion. Bell and Gilbert (1996) acknowledge that addressing had both cognitive and affective aspects . . . that it was most crucial to address affective dimensions if teacher development was to development elements. Ultimately, as Bell and Gilbert (1994) worked with teachers and observed their learning progression, data support ed professional development, the pac e of personal development influenced the pace of professional development and the personal development was often influenced by

PAGE 84

84 Supports hat it not only identifies specific dimensions and phases of teacher development and how they are interconnected, but also elucidates specific supports that foster professional growth and permit s teachers to persist in the challenges associated with change s in knowledge and practice . professional dissatisfaction and recognition of the need for change in practice does not necessarily mean they will implement reform based practices (Loughran, 2007; Veal, 1999). To support true conceptual change, dee p processing of the reform message must occur (Gregoire, 2003) and systematic processing can be promoted with specific , high quality supports throughout all phases of development (Bell & Gilbert, 1996). For study, feedback and reflection became the two greatest supports. Personal, social, and professional concerns were attended to in each of the weekly sharing sessions. Teachers voiced their concerns and perceived constraints in learning communities. Collabo ratively, along with the facilitator, participants gave and received feedback while working toward solutions. When concerns were known ahead of time, they were also addressed in specific workshop activities. Of additional importance was reflection on and d iscovery about how teachers themselves have learned over time. Thus, metacognition played a central role in facilitating change. Throughout the professional development program, teachers tried out small activities in their classrooms and reflected on the e xperience from both teaching and student learning perspectives. This allowed participants to critically reflect on aspects of their

PAGE 85

85 themselves as competent professionals was e ssential to continuing the change process. To recap, the model of teacher development proffered by Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) contends that teacher learning and growth occurs along personal, social, and professional dimensions and in distinct, yet inte rrelated phases. Hence, development in one area will not progress in meaningful and lasting ways unless concerns in other areas are attended to and addressed with specific supports. For the 48 teachers in this study, the most effective supports facilitatin g teacher growth were reflection and continuous feedback. Professional developers who utilized effective supports to facilitate science based science practices (e.g., Crippen et al., 2010; Parke & Coble, 1997) and CRP Scien ce (e.g., Rodriguez, 1998; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) experienced teacher resistance. T he Bell and Gilbert (1994; 1996) model offers powerful insight into dimensions and phases of teacher development as well as suggestions for why teachers either embr ace or resist reform messages at specific phases of the PD journey. Challenges associated with teaching in reform based ways must be addressed and overcome if teacher change aligned with PD goals is to occur. This becomes especially salient when involving teachers in the process of creating instructional materials in addition to changing their practices, as the impact on student performance of specific supports and kn owledge of larger contextual influences on curriculum and instruction (Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2004; Squire et al., 2003).

PAGE 86

86 instructional materials bu ilds capacity for sustaining the positive impacts of PD and is especially critical to enacting CRP Science , as most science instructional materials currently in use are not culturally responsive (Lee, 2004; Lee & Luykx, 2007; NRC, 2012; Tate et al., 2008; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Teacher as Designer/Adaptor PD experiences that are ongoing and and practices (Crippen et al., 2010; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). However, PD ofte n focuses on supporting the implementation and adaptation of premade curricul um materials (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Da vis & Varma, 2008; Loucks Horsle y et al., 2010) . In contrast, few reported models aim to directly alter m through the development of innovative instructional materials (Parke & Coble, 1997; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007 ) . Such opportunities build capacity for sustainable change by empowering science teachers with the tools and support necessary to crea te instructional resources that are contextualized to student and classroom needs . The challenge, then, involves designing PD with specific supports (Brown & Edelson, 2003) by aiding them in the constructi on of CRP Science instructional materials. Pedagogical Design Capacity According to Brown and Edelson (2003), the practices of a teacher can ultimately be viewed as engaging in design. When planning for instruction, teachers must first attend to and interp ret existing resources, evaluate any classroom constraints, devise strategies and balance tradeoffs. As a result, teachers as designers of learning

PAGE 87

87 environments possess a pedagogical design capacity. Brown and Edelson (2003) define pedagogical design c apacity . The PDC a teacher possesses enables them to use curriculum materials in a variety of ways, including offloading, adapting, an d improvising. When teachers offload, they rely on premade curriculum materials for instruction, contributing little of their own PDC during enactment. Teachers who adapt curriculum materials adopt specific elements of preexisting instructional resources ( e.g., student worksheets, lab activities), but utilize their PDC when they contribute their own design decisions. PDC is exercised greatly during the process of improvisation. When improvising, teachers do not rely on curriculum materials at all; instead, they design the instruction themselves. Adapting and improvising are the two areas that the STARTS PD program targeted as teachers were supported in their design of CRP Science instructional materials. Thus it was essential to support expanding PDC for tea chers through program activities. By exploring professional developers stand to gain a better understanding of how teachers gain access to and adapt appropriate instructional materials. Teachers adapt curriculum materials to meet contextual needs (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Squire et al., 2003). However, teachers who have not had opportunities to strategically analyze instructional materials often make counterproductive (Beyer & Davis, 2012) or superficial (Lloyd & Behm, 2005) modifications to instr uction. To develop the PDC of a teacher , professional developers must provide adequate opportunities for teachers to critically explore resources and successfully integrate them into classroom practices to meet contextual and student needs. Davis,

PAGE 88

88 Beyer, F orbes, and Stevens (2011) argue that PD should support teachers in learning pedagog ical design capacity . . . and would help teachers be better positioned to make Additionally, teachers must be supported through the process of making instructional goals explicit and linking them to specific curriculum features (Beyer & Davis, 2012; Brown & Edelson, 2003). However, teachers enter PD experiences with various PDCs . Therefore, they may require multiple resources depending on their knowledge and practices . For example, teachers who posse ss a well established PDC may benefit from open ended resources rather than more explicit and structured strategies for linking instructional materials to pedagogical goals (Brown & Edelson, 2003). In their work developing the capacity of elementary PSTs as reform based science curriculum designers, Beyer and Davis (2012) note that participants initially emphasized effective modifications to instruction, such as making science fun, providing hands on activities, and promoting cooperative learning. Similar to Lee (2004) and Abell (2007), the authors noted that participants lacked science content knowledge , pedagogical knowledge, and confidence when they began the course . However, as teachers gained confidence by the end of the course, over 70% of the partici pants modified curriculum materials according to reform based science teaching criteria such as regular check points to assess student understanding, eliciting student ideas through ve questioning.

PAGE 89

89 Several factors influenced expanding PDC and confidence: (a) learning about reform oriented criteria and applying them to lesson plan analysis; (b) repeated practice critiquing lessons; and (c) observing mentor teachers as they modif ied instructional materials. Yet, the authors also found that PSTs understood the need to why practitioners modify materials. This led Beyer and Davis (2012) to assert tha t beginning teachers may be more inclined to productively critique instructional materials if they are provided with rich opportunities to learn about research based theory on science teaching and analyze examples consistent with reform based practices via specific guiding criteria. influence on the progression of CRP Science teachers and constructors of innovative instructional materials , a design based research (DBR) approach is warranted. DBR studies are dis tinct from other research designs in that they are primarily concerned with examining a designed intervention, associated learning outcomes, and the mechanisms undergirding their progression, all with the goal of enhancing future design iterations (Barab, 2006; Edelson, 2002; Kelly, 2004; Shavelson & Towne, 2002). In this next section the field of educational design research will be surveyed. Design Studies in the Literature General T rends At the core of design studies are (1) the design, enactment, and ref inement of an educational intervention (i.e., tool); and (2) identifying and understanding learning progressions, their mechanisms, and mediators when an intervention is enacted (Edelson, 2002 ; Confrey, 2006; McKenney & Reeves, 2012 ). These educational too ls

PAGE 90

90 are designed to facilitate learning and are studied in classroom settings where multiple dependent variables are involved and acknowledged, rather than controlled for. Additionally, many stakeholders are involved in the design and ongoing analysis to br ing a wealth of expertise to the table (Barab & Squire, 2004). Of the STEM education focused design research studies discussed in this synthesis, seven were conceptual pieces (e.g., Barab & Squire, 2004; Kelly, 2004; Confrey, 2006, Edelson, 2002) and six reported on empirical studies utilizing DBR as a methodology (e.g., Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Songer, 2006; Squire et al., 2003). Three design studies were in science education, two focused on mathematics education, and one on STEM education. Four design s tudies were conducted in middle school classrooms and two in elementary school. One particular study enacted a designed curriculum with multiple grade ranges middle, high, and undergraduate (Squire et al., 2003). However, this was the only instance in wh ich high school and postsecondary education were areas of focus. Time immersed in study settings ranged from four days (Squire et al., 2003) to three years (Confrey & Lachance, 2000). All studies utilized a mixed methods approach. However, findings were ul timately presented qualitatively, most often in case studies (e.g., Brown & Edelson, 2003; Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008). Educational tool design, use, and refinement were observed in all cases. Although the tool was frequently a designed curriculum, ther e was an example of additional instructional materials (e.g., outlines and rubrics) as tools to support learning (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008). Also representative of DBR, researchers were actively involved in their studies on multiple levels (Barab & S quire, 2004). All researchers served as participant

PAGE 91

91 observers, providing suggestions and support during curricular enactment and, Further, all but one research team (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008) operated as curriculum designers. Finally , in two studies, curriculum designers also acted as teachers during curriculum enactment (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Joseph, 2004). In this synthesis, I chose to present the empirical literature according to categories of features characteristic of DBR: research goals; iterative cycles and the process of design refinement; methodological rigor; and outcomes and future directions. Research Goals Theoretically, design studies are primar ily concerned with characterizing a designed intervention, associated learning outcomes, and the mechanisms undergirding their progression (Barab, 2006; Edelson, 2002; Kelly, 2004; Shavelson & Towne, 2002). Of the DBR studies discussed in this chapter, res earch goals can be roughly categorized as concerned with characterizing learning progressions (Confrey & Lachance, 2000) , identifying and understanding various mediators of learning (Joseph, 2004; Songer, 2006) and curriculum adaptation (Brown & Edelson, 2 003; Squire et al., 2003) . They can also be used to describe how teachers design educational supports and for which purposes (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008). Occasionally, studies with multiple overarching research goals attended to several DBR facets. Fo r instance, Songer (2006) and her research team designed, implemented, and revised a science inquiry based curriculum, Diverse Species ( BioKIDS ), with sixth grade students over the course of a year to explore how to best develop studen scaffolds and redesign existing data rich technologies so they translate to educational

PAGE 92

92 tools appropriate for student learning. Through this series of research endeavors, Songer (2006) focused on the design of specific learning environments as well as the translation of existing technologies to promote student learning. Iterative Cycles & t he Process o f Design Refinement Constant comparative analysis is not exclusive to DBR. However, in design studies, the purpo se for concurrent data collection and analysis is to refine tools to better understand and impact the learning progression (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Joseph, 2004). Therefore, a salient feature of DBR is the process of design refinement occurring in iterat ive cycles of development. Although some studies clearly articulated iterative design throughout the course of a given study ( e.g., Joseph, 2004) for others this was not so clear ( e.g., Brown & Edelson, 2003; Squire et al., 2003). However, in each of these instances the iterative nature was demonstrated through discussions of & Lachance, 2000; Songer, 2006; Squire et al., 2003). This was best explicated in Confrey and Lac students via empirically grounded instructional materials. Confrey and Lachance (2000) developed a conjecture on splitting as a mathematical construct that arose from a series of previo us research endeavors and theories of learning. According to Confrey (1994), splitting can be defined as an action of creating simultaneously multiple versions of an original, an action often represented by a tree diagram (p. 292) achance, 2000, p. 237) . Thus, splitting moves multiplication beyond repeated addition. Guided by the splitting conjecture , they devised a three of mathematical constructs (e.g., multi plication, division, ratio) via activities that support

PAGE 93

93 the splitting conjecture. Both researchers taught mathematics to these students understanding of interrelationships amo ng relevant mathematical concepts, and concurrently refined emerging theory and the original conjecture. To prepare for each instruction al session, a set of tasks were designed and implemented. Students were then observed during activities , and artifacts were collected. Through informal interviews with students during class time, Confrey and Lachance captured interactions around key tasks the intervention was designed to foster. Of critical importance to understanding how ratio reasoning developed via the splitting conjecture supported activities were the opening and closing of each class progress reports). Furthermore, the curriculum was refined and redesigned over time thro ugh preliminary data analysis based on student responses from various phases of the intervention. Final data analysis occurred post intervention and was devoted to constructing and refining the conjecture and resulting theory (Confrey & Lachance, 2000). Fr om their work, two additional features of DBR are illuminated: its intensity and embeddedness. Design studies occur in naturalistic settings where context plays a large role in that multiple variables are present and cannot be controlled for (Barab & Squir e 2004; Fishman et al., 2004). Moreover, in the case of the work by Confrey and Lachance (2000), they were embedded in the setting for an extended period of time, serving as researchers, curriculum designers, and teachers. While some may applaud design res earchers for their endurance throughout the course of investigation, these

PAGE 94

94 same features lead others to approach DBR findings with skepticism. For example, by not controlling multiple variables, design studies run the risk of not being able to tease out co mplex interactions and establish causality (Kelly, 2004). Therefore, a charge cases presented here, multiple approaches were taken to achieve this goal. Methodological Rigo r Design researchers attempt to establish methodological rigor through the collection and analysis of a variety of data (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Joseph, 2004), triangulation (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008; Squire et al., 2003), and collaboration among te ams of experts (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Songer, 2006). Each of the studies utilized these approaches to establish methodological rigor. However, the role of collaborators varied slightly (e.g., designer; analyst) according to overall research aims. Numerou s data sources were collected and analyzed, including interviews with teachers (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008) and students (Confrey & Lachance, 2000); observation and field notes (Squire et al., 2003); learner created (Joseph, 2004; Songer, 2006) and teacher created artifacts (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008); and audio and video recordings (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Joseph, 2004). In a given study, multiple data sources were triangulated to exhibit trustworthiness, reliability, and ad equate external validity (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Squire et al., 2003). Demonstrating methodological rigor throughout iterative stages of design and analysis is no small task. Such an endeavor requires careful attention to all elements under investigatio n and thorough simultaneous data collection and analysis. One

PAGE 95

95 (2004) work designing classroom activities and communities that allow elementary students to learn in a cogni tive apprenticeship setting. Joseph (2004) and her research team constructed two curricula during the course of this investigation. For the first curriculum, the design team chose the theme of flight because they thought it would be interesting to students . Prior to enactment, multiple small scale activities were designed around this theme and students participated in pre interviews to elicit interests and prior content knowledge. Curriculum enactment occurred once a week over the course of a five week summ er program. Post interviews and student learning artifacts yielded disappointing results for the flight curriculum. Joseph and her team did not observe outcomes aligned with design em to posit that the theoretical link between learner goals and curriculum theme was not salient. Based on the lackluster performance of the first curriculum, the team developed candidate explanations for its failure too much time between lessons (once a week), and they also redesigned the second curriculum to directly address these issues. Because students participating in the original flight curriculum were not interested in the theme or activities, the research team designed the second curriculum for motivation in learning. Then, Joseph and her research team created a design theory (the Interest Driven Learning (IDL) framework) based on their findings from the first curriculum as well explain motivation with a new group of elementary students.

PAGE 96

96 A new theme was chosen for the second curriculum, this time based on surveys observations abo ut how students choose activities. Further, motivation profiles were developed for each of the students to predict engagement with various curriculum features. While enacting the second curriculum, the team found that students were passionate about either video making, featuring aspects of themselves in videos, or social interaction. However the students grappled with project issues in similar ways, despite their motivational profiles. While the second curriculum met the desired design aims, there were stil l challenges. However, because of the methodological rigor undertaken through all phases of design, Joseph was able to provide multiple, informed implications for the work and future directions. Outcomes & Future Directions Design studies are ultimately in tended to be practical endeavo rs producing usable knowledge that provide solutions to educational problems experienced by teachers and learners (Kelly, 2004). Therefore, Edelson (2002) argues that three outcomes of DBR should be the generation of theory, d esign framework, and design methodology. This discussion will devote special attention to the usability of design study outcomes. Furthermore, while DBR studies design for effective learning environments, success was not always an outcome of a given design (e.g., Squire et al., 2003). This left researchers with a great responsibility to provide a rationale and suggest future directions. For this reason, a discussion of both outcomes and future directions follows. Usable knowledge abounds within design studi es, ultimately reinforcing the pragmatic nature of DBR. Design study outcomes led to construction of effective curriculum materials (Joseph, 2004; Songer, 2006), design frameworks (Hjalmarson &

PAGE 97

97 Diefes Dux, 2008), and data driven theory (Brown & Edelson, 20 03; Confrey & and improvisation of designed instructional materials, Brown and Edelson (2003) devised the notion of pedagogical design capacity lity to utilize preexisting curricular materials to design effective learning environments. From this, a loose set of PD guidelines was produced curriculum designers . Moreover, Confrey and Lachance (2000) developed a mo del for approaching mathematical concepts (e.g., multiplication, division, fractions, geometry) through the splitting conjecture and aligned modeling activities in the curriculum with theory. Their work yielded innovative mathematics curriculum material su development of mathematical reasoning. Lastly, findings from the examination of eliciting activities by Hjalmarson and Diefes Dux (2008) resulted in a framework elucidating t purposes for tool construction and use. However, as mentioned earlier, the designed interventions were not always successful at producing desired outcomes. In both cases of lackluster performance , such outcomes were attributable to the absence of student voice in curriculum design (Joseph, 2004; Squire et al., 2003) as well as insufficient connection between theory and original design (Joseph, 2004). For instance, findings from the study by use of a curricu lum in various contexts indicated that learners did not perceive the arching question to be relevant, were unable to detect project goals, and chose to explore only the challenge questions they found personally meaningful.

PAGE 98

98 Additionally, f indings demonstrated that regardless of curriculum design, teachers adapted instructional materials according to their pedagogical beliefs, the classroom culture, and student interest. The authors ultimately contended that curriculum adaptation is mediate d by context, student, and teacher needs . The researchers then speculated on future ect, providing adequate voice s for teachers as well as educational innovations that are adaptive to local needs/constraints , while offering support for teachers as design decisions are developed. DBR is an emerging paradigm that aims to address educationa l problems and produce usable knowledge through the design, implementation, and refinement of educational innovations. Guided by theory driven conjectures, design studies are responsible for generating design frameworks, methodologies, and advancing theory that ultimately enables innovations to be adopted by others and adapted to new contexts. This dissertation study aims to utilize a DBR approach to design, implement, and refine the STARTS PD framework through findings yielded from concurrent data collecti on and analysis. Extending the Fields of PD in Science Education and CRP Science The STARTS PD program is research grounded and features several hallmarks of high quality PD CRP Science knowledg e and practices . In this section, I will elucidate the various ways in which the STARTS program and dissertation research agenda extend the current work in PD in science education and CRP Science . Specifically, I will present examples of how this

PAGE 99

99 dissertation extends empiric al literature on (a) PD in science education for instructional material design reform; (b) PD for CRP Science ; and (c) DBR exploring PD for the design of instructional materials . PD for Supporting the Design of Instructional Materials Jackson and Ash (201 2) reported the results of a three year PD initiative implemented in two low performing majority minority elementary schools in Texas. The intervention was designed to support elementary teachers in the purposeful planning of inquiry science instruction hi ghly aligned to state standards. Additionally, there was heavy emphasis on creating multi sensory word walls as a targeted approach to increas ing the science achievement and language development of ELL students. As teachers worked in grade level teams, the y studied science standards and purposefully planned 5 E instruction (Bybee et al., 2006) around those standards to increase reform based science teaching . As teachers engaged in purposeful planning, they focused specifically on state standards and distric t mandated guidelines. Additionally, teachers were given time to interact with the science content vertically (across K 5 grades ) to identify what they should already know by the time students enter their classrooms. Because the authors were looking specif ically to connect PD experiences with student outcomes, they analyzed the state science assessment scores for all 5 th grade students at the two schools where this school wide intervention occurred. Although there was a ceiling effect for White students at one school (i.e., no statistically significant room for improvement), the remainder of the difference in proportions analyses indicated a significant increase in the passing rate of students over the course

PAGE 100

100 of the intervention. Overall results showed impro ved science learning outcomes and narrowed achievement gaps among ethnically diverse groups of students. When exploring the impact of the PD results of teacher completed surveys. Teachers indicated that purposef ul lesson planning helped them vertically align their science instruction, K 5, as well as initiate a common science instruction planning time that has been sustained. Additionally, teachers began to utilize more science language development strategies in their classrooms, such as interactive word walls and inquiry based instruction. According to Jackson and Ash (2012), t eachers cited the most effective PD E lesson plans that they could use as examples to w rite their own lessons, and alignment of instruction with grade level [state underrepresented PD experiences through teacher created instructional materi by explicating purposeful planning activities, Jackson and Ash provided specific guidelines for implementing this form of PD in new settings. Jackson and Ash (2012) described the primary goal of this PD venture as Texas state science education the STARTS PD program did not share this goal as its primary emphasis, it would be counterprodu ctive to design and implement a PD program PD features were present within the STARTS PD program . Specifically, STARTS teachers examine d state a nd national

PAGE 101

101 science education standards to discern their intent when designing reform based science instruction. Teachers also review ed the lessons they designed for the CRP Science units to identify the degree to which they aligned to state and national s tandards. Moreover, the STARTS PD program extend ed the PD initiative presented by Jackson & Ash (2012) development through the use of the Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) (Brown & Crippen, in review) and CRP Science instruction, which may include interactive word walls. However, an emphasis of the STARTS PD program was bridging the disconnect , as opposed to force fitting instructional strategies that dissertation in a much more rigorous manner than self reports alone. Rich data sources such as repeated classroom observations, multiple STARTS PD program artifacts, and group interview transcripts were utilized as the basis for claims about STARTS PD for CRP Science The empirical literature on PD for CRP Science is limited. Of those, few articles explicate the structure required to effectively implement PD with such a focus. In this article, Zozakiewicz and Rodriguez (2007) present findings from their three year Project Maxima initiative. The Maxima inter vention was built from sociotransformative constructivist principles (Rodriguez, 1998) and designed to support fourth through sixth grade teachers in establishing more inquiry based, culturally relevant, and gender inclusive science instruction. The autho rs modeled CRP Science and invited critique of their practices as a way to assist teachers in establishing culturally relevant classroom

PAGE 102

102 environments. Structured reflection times were planned during monthly meetings and summer institutes where participants and authors discussed how modeled activities were multicultural and gender inclusive . P articipants were also asked how they might further modify such activities to fit a particular grade level and context. Additionally, the research team made themselves a vailable to teachers as they struggled with implementation, providing both ongoing support and the use of science equipment. Participants reported that modeling CRP Science was one of the most influential factors affecting their practice. Additionally, te achers viewed ongoing support as a valuable resource as they began teaching in reform oriented ways and with new instructional teacher resistance. To challenge entrenche d teaching practices and advance CRP Science, Effective PD structures such as modeling innovative pedagogies, criti cal exploration, and ongoing support were featured in the STARTS PD program , as it is clear from the paucity of CRP Science instructional materials that this form of instruction must be modeled, openly practiced, and constructively critiqued by STARTS pa rticipating teachers . teacher resistance. However, they omi t t ed any discussion about resisting the reform message or what actions were taken to directly addre ss this resistance. The STARTS program will further expand on this study by identifying and

PAGE 103

103 during program implementation , as well as pinpointing salient PD features supporting teachers as they encounter such challenges. D BR of PD for Supporting Curriculum Design In this DBR study, Stolk et al. (2011) involved teachers in designing context based science curriculum materials. The overarching research goal was to use existing theory on how teachers internalize actions to inve stigate the effectiveness of their designed PD how to elaborate the framework into a PD programme, and to acquire insight into the contribution of the programme activities to the process of (p.374). Stolk et al. refined their existing PD framework by first identifying, and then designing for specific cognitive and affective goals, which they based on the internalization of actions theory (Galperin, 1992). Furthermor e, the authors made explicit their theory guided expectations for the function of the PD program, from which they subsequently derived hypotheses. Stolk et al. (2011) contend that these expectation driven hypotheses should enable researchers to observe whe re the actual PD trajectory deviates from what's expected and to feed directly into framework design. During the PD program, participating teachers first learned about an example context based science unit, including its underlying general model. The resea rchers led participants through the actual unit, where teachers participated as students would. Then, each teacher enacted this educative context based science unit in their classrooms. Based on their experiences, participants reflected on their teaching e xperiences during the lesson. Finally, teachers then designed an outline for a new context based science unit.

PAGE 104

104 Findings indicated that, although all teachers successfully taught the first unit, they experienced difficulties when applying the same teaching strategies to new situations. Therefore, teachers did not apply the context based unit design model while constructing their outlines. They also reported difficulties motivating students, as the content was not deemed as relevant to students as expected, nor did it provide students with the proper scaffolding to make deep conceptual connections. Furthermore, although not specifically addressed, it was noted that several participants engaged in what Gregoire (2003) would consider heuristic processing , with teachers refusing to engage with the reform challenge. While elements of DBR were present in this study (e.g., elucidating design framework from existing literature; connecting conjectures to expectations for learning outcomes), missing was an in depth di scussion of the ways in which findings were applied to model revision. For example, implications were vague, and did not seem to in designing an outline of a new context based unit, teachers should have access to more resourc es other than a well known chapter from a DBR study by clearly articulating the ways in which methodological rigor was established throughout all phases of design and refinement , as well as generating an in depth design framework and local theor and designers of CRP Science instructional materials. Remarks The literature on PD for CRP Science is scarce. Of such studies, the focus is to instructional material design and student outcomes. When PD does focus on the

PAGE 105

105 design of instructional materials , it is often solely on promoting inquiry based instruction or alignment with state and national standards. Moreover, the same can be said of in depth DBR studies on PD in science education . Yet, to establish both local impact (through effective intervention design) and general relevance (through local theory generation), research on PD for CRP Science must attend to all of these challenges . Hence, this dissertation study expands on the existing empirical literature in several ways. The purpose of this dissertation was to produce local impact and general relevance by : (1) characterizing the progression of culturally responsive knowledge and practices in a group of six high school life science teachers who engaged in the STARTS PD program, thereby describing their journey as CRP Science educators and const ructors of culturally responsive, academically rigorous instructional materials; (2) identifying STARTS design elements associated with supporting the professional growth of these teachers; and (3) generating local theory, a design framework, and set of ac companying design principles based on these findings. Summary High quality PD in science education has made prominent the need to prepare science teachers capable of educating students through research based conceptions of science teaching. PD ventures ha based practices and have begun to connect PD programs with student achievement. On a much smaller scale, PD initiatives have also focused on preparing science teachers to provide students with equitable learning opp ortunities through culturally sensitive instruction. Yet, much work in the area of PD for CRP Science still remains. Academically challenging curriculum materials must be created; teachers must develop a set of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practice s associated with both scientific

PAGE 106

106 inquiry and CRP Science ; and programs need to be directly linked with student achievement. The STARTS PD program utilize d research grounded supports to guide science t through ongoing, job embedded experiences. STARTS teachers participated in a modified lesson study as they learned to examine the impact of their practices on student outcomes. They critically reflect ed on multiple aspects of their practice over time and analyze d student data when making pedagogical design decisions. Ultimately, empowering STARTS teachers as creators of CRP Science instructional materials in PLCs is intended to sustain the positive impacts of this PD for CRP Science. T h is dissertation and the STARTS program contribute to the research and development base in the growing field of CRP Science .

PAGE 107

107 Figure 2 1. The model of teacher development Reprinted by permission from Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development (Page 485, Figure 1) . Teaching & Teacher Education , 10(5), 483 497 .

PAGE 108

108 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Overview The STARTS ( S cience T eachers A re R esponsive T o S tudents ) professional development (PD) program was designed to pre pare culturally responsive, reform based high school life science teachers who create and implement novel CRP Science (culturally responsive pedagogies in science education) instruction al materials . Although the STARTS program provided a research grounded PD experience for science teachers, it was above all else a design based research (DBR) endeavor . Characteristic of other DBR studies , this dissertation study was primarily concerned with describing a designed intervention, associated learning progressions , and the mechanisms undergirding the se progressions (Barab, 2006; Confrey & Lachance, 2000 ; Edelson, 2002; Kelly, 2004; Shavelson & Towne, 2002). Specifically, th is qualitative study utilized grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 199 8), typological analysis (Hatch, 2002), and matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). These methods were used to (1) explore potential relationships between teachers' participation in the STARTS PD program and changes in their CRP Science k nowledge and practices over time; ( 2 ) discern in what ways, specifically, STARTS PD features support ed this professional growth; (3) Science educators; and (4) present an empirically grounded design framework and principles to guide the design of PD of this magnitude .

PAGE 109

109 To this end, the following questions framed the study: 1. For high school life science teachers participating in an explicit PD program on CRP Science, what defi nes the process of becoming culturally responsive educators? a. As teachers participate in the STARTS program, how does their CRP Science knowledge progress over time? b. As teachers participate in the STARTS program, how do their CRP Science practices change over time? 2. What features of the STARTS design framework can be associated with supporting the changes in CRP Science knowledge and practices of high school life science teachers? Prior to elucidating the research design for this study, I will first prese nt the STARTS PD program as a research grounded intervention. Following the intervention explication, I discuss the study design, including the setting, participants and selection procedures in detail. The processes of data collection and analysis will the n be articulated. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the evaluation criteria that were employed to establish trustworthiness. In the following section I describe the STARTS PD program according to its central mission, overarching features, further theoretical grounding, and major activities. The STARTS PD Program Central Mission and Overarching Features The STARTS PD program was designed for use with high school life science teachers working in five ethnically and linguistically diverse public scho ols throughout a large school district in the Southeastern United States . The overall aim of STARTS was to prepare high school life science teachers working in these diverse schools to best inquiry based science instruction. To accomplish this goal, the program was grounded in multiple

PAGE 110

110 bodies of research including: effective PD methods for CRP Science (Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), inquiry based science instruction (Capps et al., 2012; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), and online teacher PD (Dede, 2006); teacher change via PD experiences (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; 1996); and supporting teachers as instructional designers (Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk et al., 2011). Aimed at increasing science teacher efficacy on multiple levels, the STARTS program offers practicality as it features dual emphasis on developing pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge (Crippen et al., 2010). STARTS was situated within district implemented pacing guides and was designed to empower teachers by providing them with the proper tools and support to continually integrate their innovative instructional materials with existing textbooks and educational resources. The STARTS PD program was based upon the premise that through job embedded, ongoing PD that is responsive and contains a dual focus on science content and pedagogy, teachers , specifically into a more culturally responsive, inquiry based form. Furthermore, cen tral to the STARTS program design was the argument that teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students must be aware of the influence of culture on learning (Aiken head & Jegede, 1999; Emdin, 2011 ), their beliefs about students and science teach ing, the political nature of schooling (Darling Hammond, 2010; Jackson, 2009), the importance of relationship building between teachers and students (Hondo et al., 2008; Valenzuela, 2005), and effective subject specific CRP strategies (Brown, 2013). Hence, b uilding instruction, and enhancing culturally congruent discourse were among program foci. To

PAGE 111

111 further situate CRP Science within existing classroom practices, the use of sev eral reform based science practices such as asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations from evidence, and communicating scientific information (NRC, 2012), were also features of the program. Further Theoretical Grounding In addition to the extensive theoretical grounding presented in Chapter 2, the literature based rationale behind additional STARTS PD features deserves attention. In this section, the job embedded, web supported, and responsive nature of the STARTS program is justified. Job embedded professional learning Job embedded PD improves teaching and learning by grounding learning tasks (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010; Putnam & Borko, 2000) . Additionally, job embedded approaches promote reflective practitioners who, through the careful analysis of student data, can offer informed solutions to specific problems of practice. Unlike more traditional forms of PD , job embedded tasks are knowledge centered , learner c entered, assessment centered, and community centered. In other words, job embedded PD is discipline specific as opposed to providing general pedagogical knowledge (knowledge centered), centered), allows teachers to receive feedback on new approaches (assessment centered), and occurs in collaborative environments (community centered) (Coggshall, Rasmussen, Colton, Milton, & Jacques, 2012). One particular form of job embedded PD contained within the STARTS program i s lesson study (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010) .

PAGE 112

112 Web supported Online teacher professional development (oTPD) programs ease burdens commonly associated with traditional PD ventures such as limited time to implement reform pedagogies, lack of ongoing support, a nd disconnect from daily practice (Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009). Since their inception, oTPD programs have been used to introduce new curricula, enhance relationships between school and structional practices (Dede et al., 2009; Whitehouse, Breit, McCloskey, Ketelhut, & Dede, 2006). In the case of science education in particular, oTPD subject matter knowledge, instructional practice, (Doubler & Paget, 2006) as well as facilitate participant discussion (Luft, 2001), manage participant materials (Crippen, 2012), and support communication through videoconference (Crippen et al., 2010). Like any other PD v enture , oTPD program elements should be driven by specific goals and purposes (Dede, 2006; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). The STARTS program utilize d specific oTPD features in combination with face to face learning opportunities that create d a coherent PD e xperience and further connect ed practice s . Specifically, STARTS teachers enroll ed in a six month long PD course in which they share d lesson study products, completed Professional Growth tasks , and participate d in a professional netwo rk to expand their culturally responsive and reform based pedagogies in a variety of ways (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). Responsive to students and teachers Aligned with guiding principles of CRP (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) , the STARTS program employ ed an asset based orientation of

PAGE 113

113 teachers and students. STARTS was designed to continually uncover and incorporate teacher voice throughout the PD program . For example, participating teachers complete d a survey in which they iden tif ied their initial professional need s and beliefs about science teaching and learning . Findings from the survey were directly integrated into the PD design to both acknowledge the constraints teachers experience and to build on their strengths. During th e first face to face Saturday Collaboration Session, t eachers also generate d ideas about CRP and reform based science teaching practices they were already implementing through a self assessment survey and small group discussions. This approach value d teach ers as professionals and recognize d the strengths they already possess ed , unlike many multicultural teacher education programs (Furman, 2008; Mensah, 2011). Additionally, teacher s continually use d the CRIOP self assessment ( Mallory & Saccysyn, 2012) as a g uide to discern aspects of their practice needing improvement, rather than simply receiving feedback from this researcher. Recognizing the myriad restraints imposed on science teachers , the STARTS program was designed to be cognizant of district mandated p acing guides, state and national standards, required textbooks, and biology End of Course exams . These contextual factors were accounted for when designing PD experiences that increase d content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and support ed them as designers of CRP Science instructional materials (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010) . Teacher voice weigh ed heavily in decisions over which core science ideas and crosscutting concepts to focus on throughout the program.

PAGE 114

114 To promote CRP Science and student re sponsiveness, teachers completed a series of Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks (Brown & Crippen, in review) . The purpose of the GAIn was to develop cultural responsiveness in teachers through the completion of specific tasks that are student centere d and aligned with key tenets of CRP (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995; Powell et al., 2011; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The GAIn cience instructional materials. Additionally, while participating in STARTS, teachers focused in on their students at two levels. The first level of focus was classroom specific. Teachers were asked to select one of their class periods to follow throughout the program. It was expected that teachers would connect instructional decisions and insights to interactions and outcomes in this classroom. The second level of focus was student specific. Within the selected classroom, teachers were asked to choose 4 5 closely. Analyses on and input from these students were used to gauge the effectiveness of the lesson study research lesson, to hone in on during the GAIn tasks, and to connect data analysis and resulting suggestions with i nstruction. The selections , who were more eager to communicate with the teacher, and students who were disengaged. STARTS Program Activities As an ongoing, job embedded PD pro gram, STARTS provided participating teachers with multiple opportunities to enact and reflect on CRP Science in their daily practices (Coggshall, et al., 2012; Desimone, 2009). As t eachers learned reform based, CRP Science knowledge and practices, their pr ofessional growth was supported in a

PAGE 115

115 blended environment. Ongoing support occurred face to face in regular Saturday Collaboration Sessions as well as in online environ ments (Dede, 2006; Loucks Horsle y et al., 2010). Teachers engaged in six major activities during STARTS: lesson study, Curriculum Topic Study , GAIn tasks, Professional Growth tasks, CRP Science unit construction, and Saturday Collaboration Sessions. Each activity will be detailed according to its ability to facilitate the STARTS PD program goa ls. A timeline of the program is presented in Figure 3 1 . Lesson s tudy Learning how to teach requires practice and study. As teachers design, enact, and subsequently analyze lessons , their teaching will likely improve. However, this is dependent upon sever al factors, including careful observation of effective elements and critical reflection on strategies needing improvement. Lesson study fosters teacher growth through collaboration in professional learning communities (PLCs) where developing knowledge for teaching is a major focus (Shimizu, 2002). Originating in Japan as an innovative PD approach (Isoda, 2010), a major focus of lesson study is the development of research lessons intended to meet specific student learning goals. As a result, lesson study fea tures teac hers working collaboratively to identify target goals for student learning and to construct corresponding high quality lessons. Teachers participating in PLCs engage in a cycle of reflective practice with the aim of constructing, analyzing, and r evising a research lesson (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). L ong term student learning goals based on a specific theme are identified; lessons aligned with these goals are devised and implemented while team members observe and collect data on student learning . F inally, debriefing and revision based on analysis and feedback occurs (Lewis et al., 2006; Mutch Jones, Puttick, & Minner, 2012 ;

PAGE 116

116 Shimizu, 2002). thereby developing them development are lesson enactment, reflection, and refinement. As colleagues observe lesson as learners would. Due to the collaborative nature of lesson study, teachers are able to discuss lesson content and confusions first hand as they refine instruction ( Mutch Jones et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, through critical reflection and analysis, teachers better comprehend how and why lesson elements promoted student learning, thus increasing their pedagogical design capacity. Lesson study was the first major activity teachers engaged in during the STARTS program . The lesson study cycle was intended to help teachers begin to learn about reflect on the impact of the ir practice on student outcomes, and identify areas for professional growth that may not have been previously articulated. During this modified lesson study cycle , teachers worked i n pairs to first identify one class period apiece to focus on . They then identified target student outcomes, and constructed a science lesson intended to address learning goals specifically for their classes. Because teacher pairs often taught at different schools, each teacher then video recorded the lesson, focusing closely on a group of 3 4 students who were of special interest to the teacher. Teachers then observed one g uide that was managed in the STARTS online course system . To complete the lesson study cycle, teachers met face to face during the second Saturday Collaboration

PAGE 117

117 Session , debriefed the entire process, and brainstormed ideas for lesson redesign based on find ings. Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks The GAIn tasks are a series of three reflective practice protocols that provide STARTS teachers with structured support as they learn to identify and meaningfully c backgrounds into reform based science instruction (Brown & Crippen, in review) . The GAIn has been designed to develop the abilities of CRP Science teachers as they complete specific tasks, each of which are student centered and aligned with key tenets of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) , community of learners (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The GAIn tasks were intended to transition teachers fr om first exploring their practice from a classroom centered perspective to connecting instruction to beyond the classroom factors he first GAIn task focused on information eeds during class time. In the final GAIn task and school . The GAIn tasks were designed to help STARTS teachers critically examine the implicit messages conveyed by their classroo m environments, relationships between teacher and students, and to allow them to speculate on ways to incorporate CRP Science into classroom instruction. The GAIn tasks also served as the primary structure for or ganizing information that was learned about students that would then be integrated into the capstone project, the CRP Science unit.

PAGE 118

118 Through the GAIn tasks , STARTS teachers were expected to gain experience backgrounds and interests to r eform based instructional strategies and assessment practices that build on these strengths. Though the GAIn does not represent an exhaustive picture of CRP Science , it provides a starting point for teachers kgrounds and connect this knowledge to instruction in meaningful ways, which is uncharacteristic of traditional science classrooms (Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004). In a previous study exploring the impact of GAIn tasks on secondary mathema (PSTs) lesson planning for CRP , Brown and Crippen (in review) planning for, effective mathematics and science pedagogy requires: critically reflecting on field experiences, collaborating with PSTs across disciplines to design lessons, directly connecting these lesson plans to course teachings and structured observation findings , and evaluating lesson impact according to specific student outcomes . Further, t he authors identified distinct forms of reflection that best support PSTs through each of the processes. These findings were then developed into a domain level theory of action (Figure 3 2 ). For example, during the Observation process (Reflection A), PSTs identify translated into CRP based science and mathematics instruction. While completing the GAIn task (prior to Collaboration), PSTs reflect on interactions between stude nts and the cooperating teacher and speculate on potential CRP connections, as well as ideas for student centered instruction. The GAIn tasks were then redesigned to reflect these

PAGE 119

119 findings. During the STARTS program, teachers completed the second iteration of GAIn protocols. Curriculum Topic Study When practitioners engage in Curriculum Topic Study (CTS) (Keeley, 2005) they do just that, study a science curriculum topic. The CTS process is systematic and in depth, utilizing a set of resources and strategie s designed to bridge research and practice in ways that improve science teaching and learning (Keeley, 2005). The teacher identifies a science topic (e.g., cells; rocks and minerals) and a CTS guide then identifies readings that support teachers develop me nt of knowledge on the topic (e.g., Benchmarks for Science Literacy , American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; Science for all Americans , AAAS, 1990). The six sections being developed include : (1) i dentifying adult content knowledge , (2) consider ing instructional implications, (3) ident ifying concepts and specific ideas, (4) exami ning research on student learning, (5) exa mining coherency and articulation, and (6) clarify ing state standards and district curriculum (Keeley, 2005, p.20) . Through CTS, teachers focus on examine effective instructional strategies, and align this to science education standards , which are essential to promoting student le arning (Borko, 2004; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). CTS provides structure and guidance for teachers to explore core science ideas and the progression of crosscutting concepts, better preparing them to engage students in authentic inquiry experiences t hat replicate science practices. Furthermore, CTS provides teachers with resources to learn about research on student learning. Educative materials such as the CTS enable teachers to learn about and participate in the

PAGE 120

120 practices of science. Such scaffolds a re necessary, given that many science teachers have never been involved in authentic inquiry throughout their formal schooling experiences (Barnes & Barnes, 2005). Du ring the STARTS program, teachers collaboratively conducted a CTS for the specific science topic featured in their innovative , culturally responsive science unit. STARTS teachers worked in teams to conduct a CTS as a way to foster reform based science teachin g by deepening their knowledge of the science content to be featured in their CRP Scien ce unit . They also examined research on student learning and suggested instructional strategies for their topic, explored the progression of crosscutting concepts for this topic , elucidated relevant state and national science education standards, and provi ded a structured way to support the design of their CRP Science units. The resulting document became the foundation for the reform based science r integrated with GAIn findings, which formed the culturally responsive portion of the unit. Adamson, Santau, engaging in CTS, teachers can acco mplish both of these goals. Professional Growth t asks Professional Growth (PG) tasks arose out of the need for PD programs to to connect to their daily practices. The PG tasks began about halfway through the STARTS program as a result of emergent findings, including new professional goals articulated by teachers , as well as trends from classroom observations. The teachers selected three topics on which they wanted to learn more (e.g., making student thinking visible, effective collaboration/ student

PAGE 121

121 grouping, and connecting families & science) . To further assist STARTS teachers in achieving their professional goals, the PG tasks prompted teachers to identify key features of effective CRP Science and reform base d science practices (from the literature, through video recordings of STARTS teachers exemplifying a practice, or by analyzing sample lesson plans), and then considering how to modify and apply these practices for their classroom contexts. Certain PG tasks fostering and assessment strategies in the classroom, as these became areas of professional growth identified by teachers. For example, in the Making Student Thinking Visible PG task , teachers were aske d to consider how questioning techniques could be used as a way to el during whole class discussion. They then watched a video clip of a STARTS teacher executing these strat egies with her biology students , speculated on ways to increase the use of similar questions in their classroom , and made an action plan for this . Saturday Collaboration Sessions The Saturday Collaboration Sessions became the primary forum for collective participation. Teachers met mont hly in these face to face, all day Saturday Collaboration Sessions where they brainstormed lesson ideas, completed major tasks, voiced concerns, and designed innovative instruction. The Saturday Collaboration Sessions were also a time for the researcher, a n d, eventually, STARTS teachers, to model reform based , CRP Science instructional strategies. The collective participation of teachers from similar subject areas, schools, and/or grade levels is fundamental to fostering professional growth. Through collect ive participation, teachers collaborate with one another in a meaningful way in PLCs. According to Cochran Smith and Lytle

PAGE 122

122 (1999), PLCs provide a learning environment in which teachers work together to , challenge common routines, draw on the work of others for generative frameworks, and attempt to make visible In the PD literature, researchers often participated in PLCs to pr obe further about specific issues voiced by teachers (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) introduce and model new activities (Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001), and discuss instruction progression an d student learning (Davis & Varma, 2008) . The collective participation of teachers in PLCs occurred across grade level s , within and among schools in a particular district (Garet et al., 2001). In addition to voicing concerns and brainstorming innovative a pproaches to science instruction, teachers used PLCs as a space to align their teaching philosophies with current research (Parke & Coble, 1997), analyze problem based, inquiry lessons (Crippen, 2012; Parke & Coble, 1997), and share best practices (Cr ippen et al., 2010, Lee, 2004). During the STARTS PD program teachers and the researcher met in a PLC for all of the purposes cited above. CRP Science u nits As the capstone project of STARTS, the CRP Science units were intended to bridge together science conte creating meaningful and challenging science instruction that is truly student centered. Teachers were assisted through the process of creating their CRP Science units in multiple ways. First, as part o f each major activity ( e.g., lesson study, CTS, GAIn and PG tasks ), teachers were provided with a series of scaffolds leading them to reflect on salient elements of each task and their current practices, enabling them to speculate on

PAGE 123

123 ways to connect what w as learned to instruction, and then allowing them to implement trial lessons utilizing their suggested connections. Second, teachers worked collaboratively in both face to face and online environments to brainstorm potential connections and instructional s trategies. Finally , teachers voiced their interest in learning more about specific topics (e.g., effective collaboration in the science classroom, making student thinking visible). These topics were included in the STARTS program with specific tasks design ed to support teachers in learning about research based strategies, critically observing their colleagues practicing these strategies, and then speculating on potential connections to their CRP Science unit . The STARTS program contain ed many hallmarks of high quality PD. To support content knowledge and reform based, CRP Science pedagogical knowledge , participating teachers engaged in six major activities over the course of several months. The next section explains the research design uti lized to examine STARTS framework capable of supporting this professional growth. Research Design This dissertation study produces both local impact and general relevance thro ugh the generation of a research grounded design framework, a set of accompanying design principles , and local theory (Edelson, 2002). To understand the progression of high school life science teachers as teachers of CRP Science within the context of the S TARTS PD program, the study applied a qualitative approach to address guiding research questions . Data were simultaneously collected and analyzed to provide a deeper understanding of the impact of the STARTS program on high school life science velopment as well as to explore PD framework elements supporting

PAGE 124

124 professional growth and the ways in which these effective e lements mediate teacher change. I begin the research design description with the rationale for selecting biology, and the life sciences more generally, as the subject area of interest. Subject Area Selection 2012; Riegle Crumb, Moore, and Ramos Wada, 2011), and solidifies during high school, when they are ma king concrete decisions about future career aspirations (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). These aspirations are predictive of educational attainment, s (Bandura et al. , 2001; Riegle Crumb et al., 2011). Because enrollment in biology classes is often mandatory and occurs during this highly influential time period, efforts to enhance Furthermore, becaus e the biology classes in this Southeastern state contain a high stakes standardized exam, there are additional constraints and added stresses placed on both students and their teachers. Therefore, the high school life science disciplines were chosen becaus e of the desire to enact effective PD experiences in the presence of such contextual factors. Research Setting The STARTS PD program took place in f ive diverse high schools in a large school district in the Southeastern United States (Table 3 1) . The progr am was situated within a larger, district funded STEM reform initiative which aimed to increase the rigor and accessibility of K 12 STEM education. The district student body is racially and linguistically diverse, with approximately the same percentage of Black, Hispanic, and White students

PAGE 125

125 the district). demographics, three schools enrolled greater than 75% r acial minority students, and one school was predominantly White (Table 3 1). The three schools serving the largest minority student populations were also receiving Title I funds. Among all five high schools, an average of 65% of the student body had achiev ed proficiency on the state biology End of Course exam, which is required for graduation. To pass the exam, students must demonstrate proficiency by earning at least three out of five possible points. A score of four or five indicates mastery. On average, 12% of the entire student body from these five schools had achieved mastery. Participant Selection Six life science teachers from throughout these five high schools participated in the study . Participating teachers were purposefully selected because of t heir ability to contribute to theory development (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 1998 ). I began working with and recruiting the six participants from a total population (n=13) of life science teachers from this school district who participated in a separate week long, content focused summer PD institute, the Summer Science Institute (SSI). Teachers from this particular district were of interest because of the larger STEM Initiative, through which the STARTS PD program was funded. During SSI, I presented an overvie w of the STARTS PD program to the life science teachers from the district. Institutional review board informed consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed to the total population. Six teachers gave their permission to participate in the STARTS PD program a nd the research study. When asked to explain their desire to participate in this program

PAGE 126

126 would enhance their teaching abilities) to specific (i.e., they could develop str ategies to Participant Descriptions selected pseudonyms, as were the names of their high schools. All participants were female, but represented vario us races and ethnicities as well as varied years of teaching experience (Table 3 2). During the study, the teachers all taught some form of high school life science subject, but ranged in the level (e.g., General, Honors) and focus (e.g., Biology with a co ncentration on English for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL Biology]). In several cases participating teachers also taught additional subject areas at this time, but chose to focus on one particular class period. To best portray each teacher, excerpts fro m their autobiographies accompany my descriptions. Christina Joy was a lively and charismatic teacher. A skilled teacher with 14 years of experience, Christina Jo y was the only teacher who did not teach a biology course at the time of this study , though she had in the past and regularly mentored beginning biology teachers . Christina Joy taught zoology as well as anatomy and physiology for the medical magnet program. She was selected to serve as the district Marza no (teacher accountability system) (Marza no, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) liaison and was well regarded in her school, where she also tutored students after hours . In fact, during one classroom visit , the Marzano system, told me that personal conversation, 10/15/13). Christina Joy described herself as an over achiever and was university at the time of the study . Not lon g after the STARTS PD program concluded,

PAGE 127

127 Christina Joy received Here is how Christina Joy described her K 12 schooling experience and how it impacted her as a teacher: When I reflect on my learning experienc e in Kindergarten through twelfth grade many things come to mind. First and foremost, something that should be divulged at the onset, is that I attended private, Christian schools my entire life until college. Overall, my experiences were positive and I would not change much if the opportunity existed to do so. Rules were present and followed, and I was not one to really test the waters in that area, for the most part anyway. I was never a rebel or one to go against the grain. I was a go with the flow, conservative and polite student, always aiming to please the teacher. At the time, I never understood the rational {sic} for the kids who did not follow the rules and . . . my teachers and educational expe riences in K 12 have clearly defined who I am as a teacher today, as well as impacted my educational philosophy. I cherish those days; sometimes they feel like a lifetime ago and sometimes they feel like yesterday. Luckily, I get to carry the torch on in my own classroom, hoping to impact my students the way these teacher influenced me . (Autobiography, 9/13) Claudia was a sweet, strong willed teacher. She often spoke of how she was and was even interviewed by the local news station to speak out on teacher accountability. In addition to her strong content knowledge, Claudia was fluent in both English and Spanish. As a result, she served as the biology teacher for ESOL students, teachi ng her biology classes in both languages. Claudia had been teaching for 22 years at the time of the study. She taught in both the United States and Costa Rica, where she lived for several years. During the STARTS PD program, Claudia lost several family me mbers and close friends which took an obvious toll on her personally and professionally. Still, Claudia remained actively involved in the program. As a child and adolescent, Claudia moved frequently. She recounts this in her autobiography:

PAGE 128

128 I went to kinder garden in Nicaragua for a year, a private, catholic, girls school, i have very few memories about it . . . we moved to my mom's home town . . . in Costa Rica, and i went the another private, catholic school during first and second grade . . . Then we moved t o San Jos e . . . i also went to private catholic schools, only for girls, until 5th grade . . . In 6th grade, i went to another school, perhaps one of the best in the country . . . [ applied for a teaching p osition at the British School of Costa Rica , was teaching 6th grade science in English and Spanish, 7 8 9 10 grade in English, and 11th grade biology in Spanish only . . . i was offered a job at the European school in C osta Rica, so i moved there, i was in charge of the whole science department, and i was very successful . . . [in 2001] i applied to come to work to USA on a program that they hire teachers from all over the world . . . I got a job at a mid dle school, a title one school . . . [ i n 2007] . . . i tr ansferred to a high school [and] In 2009, the superintendent hired a new chief academic officer who changed the way schools system was, there was too many aggravations, harassment, and a hostile environment in the schools . . . i used to speak in front of t he school board almost every month until, i was on the news, newspaper called me to interview me . . . i became an admiration for many parents and members of the community, for being a foreigner, a teacher and speaking on behalf of teachers and students. As I always began my speeches: "My name is [Claudia], i am here exercising the freedom of speech in order to defend the dignity of our profession an d the education of our children. (Autobiography, 9/13) Kate was a second year teacher at the time she particip ated in the research study. Though she had the least experience of all STARTS participating teachers, it did not show. Kate consistently provided authentic and academically rigorous science experiences for her biology and anatomy and physiology students (I observed her teaching both subject areas). Kate was a friendly and reserved person who connected with several other STARTS teachers during the program. This was the first time Kate had ever taught anatomy and physiology, so she often found great value in her relationship with Christina Joy. Through STARTS, Kate consistently exhibited great innovative teaching on her own science teaching style :

PAGE 129

129 The first class that comes t o mind when I think of educational impact on me is my fourth and fifth grade gifted level class. The number of students involved in the gifted program around the county was low, so once a week remember a bit of pride and novelty of getting to ride a bus with only 6 of my best friends, to go to a class where a very small number of us got to work on advanced projects . . . I remember one day when our teacher taught us the fundamentals o f algebra by moving manipulatives around the equal sign. It was so simple! After all that I had heard about how hard algebra was from my older sister in middle school, I was so shocked at how easy it was to understand. Looking back now, I see the positive results of inquiry based learning. Once I understood this basic concept, it was so easy for me to add the little twists that came when I finally did take algebra later on . . . my school experience is b ecause in middle and high school, I just passively absorbed everything. I remember one day mindlessly copying d me or gave me an opportunity to step up and figure stuff out, especially when it was together with my friends . . . I teach my students how I enjoyed being taught, by utilizing small groups and inquiry or challenge based lessons. (Autobiography, 9/13) Lo relei, a biology teacher of 8 years, came into education after being a scientist. My background was science; my major was in biology. I never had education classes so I was thrown into being a teacher . . . knowing interview 1). Like the other STARTS teachers, Lorelei was also an over achiever. She often set extremely high personal and professional goals and worked tirelessly to a chieve them. She often emphasized the meaningful, respectful relationships she was building with her Honors Biology students, and was sensitive to their need for perfection. Lorelei consistently provided her students with caring and challenging learning ex periences. I can recall school days being a fun social event with learning sprinkled in. My parents owned a small wholesale distribution business during this time. I really appreciated the fact my parents had a flexible work schedule and could always be t here, especially, to greet me after school with a

PAGE 130

130 snack; my favorite was apples with peanut butter . . . My favorite teacher teacher] had the largest impact on my future decision to major in Biology. My dream of studying biology started at the young of 14 while attending [local] High School which was shortly after meeting Ms. [favorite teacher ] . . . I could recall as a youngster always wanting the more challenging teacher because I knew I would learn more . . . To this day, I enjoy a along with what my teachers and parents asked of me . . . My class schedule only reflected advanced placement in science and math, not a ll subject areas so I was stuck in regular classes. School became mundane and I was rarely challenged . . . Throughout high school, I could not wait to go to college and begin my dream. I was in love with the idea of working in a lab all day and being surr ounded by like minded people. I continued to play soccer and pursued the sport intensely while playing on the [local high school] team, in a recreational league, and several invitation only ed top of my class and through dual enrollment received an early taste of what college would be like as a junior. (Autobiography, 9/13) Natalie was an outgoing teacher who was very engaged in her school. Though she was teaching biology when I began working alongside her, Natalie had previously taught integrated science and environmental science. In addition to teaching biology, Natalie also coordinated the Student Government Association (SGA). She was often involved in organizing homecoming and fundraising events, accompanied students on SGA related weekend trips, and frequently remained at work until 7pm. While participating in the STARTS PD program, Natalie was simultaneously pursuing an d grant university. She was very accommodating to her students, often working one on one with them and speaking in English and Spanish to facilitate academic conversations. Natalie and Lorelei taught at the same high school, where they collaborated with o ne another to devise activities and lessons. Natalie always had a penchant for teaching, which she explained in her autobiography:

PAGE 131

131 When I was jus t 4 years old, my single mother had to place me in day care in order to go to work. She needed to provide for my brother and I, and needed us to go to school . . . When I was in first grade, my older brother and I began riding the bus after school to a public, all grades school where mom always knew what kind of teachers I had because I would go home . . . I attended a public middle school [that] fed into one of the worst high schools in [one] County at the time. My mother knew she could not afford to put us in private school, so we moved counties just before my brother reached 9 th grade; I was in 8 th grade. My mother always made our moves in the summer so we never had to switch schools mid year . . . I entered 8 th grade into a different public schoo l in [another] County. This was a very different school than I was used to. I was one of the only Hispanic students in my classes . . . I joined SGA when I was a sophomore and that was it; I was hooked. I met my SGA advisor and created such a connection with her . . . She changed my life for the better. She brought out leadership qualities in me that I never knew I was capable. She molded me into the leader I am today. I graduated high school knowing that I wanted to be a high school teacher just like Mr s. [SGA advisor] . Here I am today, 10 years later, fulfilling my dream. Although this has been my dream, I never anticipated it being this difficult. (Autobiography, 9/13) Zane had been teaching science in the United States since 2005, though she had prev iously taught and served as an educational leader in Haiti for seven years. Zane taught both general and advanced placement biology at the time that she participated in the study. She was very active in her church and connected with students and their fami lies there. Zane was pursuing an online graduate degree in educational leadership while participating in STARTS, which she often cited as reason for her sporadic engagement with the PD program. She worked diligently to prepare instruction, creating new les sons when she already had existing materials. In her autobiography, she explained: I was born in Haiti and raised by my Grand mother who exposed me to literacy at an early age while she was reading her Bible . . . After high school, I entered college of educ ation and started teaching at the same time as an elementary teacher. It was possible in my country considering the scarcity of human resources in the education field. After three years, I moved up to become a secondary teacher and I taught almost every

PAGE 132

132 br anch of science . . . I left the classroom for four years to work as a manager of an education project that trained and supervised teachers in the Southwest area in Haiti . . . In August 2005, I got my first full time position as a middle school science teac her [in the United States] . I spent six years teaching middle school students and move d into High Schoo l in 2011 as a Biology Teacher . . . [ this is] (English Language Learner) class . . . s tudents play a major role shaping me as the teacher I am today. My students are my patrons. I work with and for my students. As a leader in the classroo m, I listen to them. I pay attention to where they are , where they are expected to go. I promote mutual respect and collaboration among them and between us . . . My dream would be to have the opportunity to go back and help reform our school system in my [home] country. I would love to start somewhere and help one teacher at a time improve his/her profession al practice. teacher I can and have a life long impact on my students . (Autobiography, 9/13) Table 3 3 depicts the guiding research design for the study, including the data sources and analytic approaches according to each research question. The following sources were collected with the aim of gathering sufficient data to reach theore tical saturation (Creswell, 2009 ) and to satisfactorily inform the STARTS design fra mework. An overview of the stages is presented first, followed by a description of each data source according to its type. Data Collection Data were collected in multiple stages accompanied by concurrent an alysis (Table 3 4) . According to Charmaz (2006), g rounded theory data are s , intentions, and actions as well as the CRP Science knowledge and practices o ver time, numerous data sources were collected in five stages, with ongoing analysis supporting the theoretical sampling of new data sources (in addition to pre established data sources). In addition to these data sources, supplemental data were collected to determine the ability of the STARTS PD

PAGE 133

133 decisions and revisions, an ongoing reflexive journal (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was maintained throughout all stages of the STARTS re se arch and development program. The Saturday Collaboration Sessions demarcated each data collection stage. In between each Saturday Collaboration Session, teachers were engaged in various STARTS activities and their classrooms were observed. At each stage the data were read holistically, open coded by incident, and preliminary patterns and trends in their CRP Science knowledge and practices, as well as any explicit connections between the the reflexive journal. Journal entries were connected to an ongoing Design Decisions Report (DDR) in which any PD activity decisions were revised based on emergent findings. For example, as the program progressed, teachers consistently abstained from esta blishing devoted to practical ways to connect science with families was designed and imple mented during the third stage. Appendix C contains an excerpt from the DDR. During the first stage of data collection and analysis, teachers completed the preliminary Beliefs About Reformed Science Teaching and Learning ( BARSTL) questionnaire (Sampson, End erle, & Grooms, 2013), engaged in lesson study, and participated in the first Saturday Collaboration Session. In addition, their classroom practices were autobiographies, a nd RWPs were examined.

PAGE 134

134 Next, the first group interview, second Saturday Collaboration Session, and second observations were held. These three sources were video recorded and transcribed. In the third stage, STARTS activity artifacts such as the GAIn 2, PG tasks, CTS working document, and RWPs were collected and examined. At this time, a third round of classroom observations was conducted. Teachers also attended the third Saturday Collaboration Session in which they engaged in another group interview, compl eted a mock teaching session, and provided feedback on the session. All activities were video recorded and transcribed. During the fourth stage, teachers completed all PG tasks, the third GAIn task, and their CRP Science unit templates. Teachers presented their CRP Science units during the final Saturday Collaboration Session and also participated in a STARTS redesign session in which they provided feedback about the structure and nature of the major activities. Both the CRP Science unit presentations and STARTS redesign session were video recorded and transcribed verbatim. There was also a final concurrent data collection analysis stage after the fourth Saturday Collaboration Session. This allowed additional time for any remaining teachers to enact their C RP Science units as well as any additional data collection associated with theoretical sampling, which were often responses to clarification questions via email and phone correspondences. Classroom Observations Observations enable the researcher to record data as it naturally occurs in a given context (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2011). To the non participant observer, (Flick, 2009, p. 225). When conducting grounded theory re search in particular, the

PAGE 135

135 researcher heavily attends to action and interaction during observation. Through this attention, the researcher can then focus on the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs. The classroom practices of each teacher were observ ed six times, once a month during the second through fourth months, and on three occasions during CRP Science unit implementation. One teacher (Zane) did not complete her CRP Science unit. Thus , five teachers were observed as they enacted their CRP Science units . Each observation was video recorded, transcribed, and field notes produced. Observations lasted an entire class period. The duration depended on whether the teacher taught in block schedule format (90 110 minute range) or shorter class periods (50 minutes). However, Corbin and Strauss (2008) warn of potential drawbacks to observation. The authors without checking out that meaning with participants. It is always benefi cial to combine observation with interview or leave open the possibility to verify interpretations with followed the observation. If this was not permissible, the teacher and I communicated through email and phone later that evening. During each observation for which I was physically present, I took on the role of nonparticipant observer to be as minimally disruptive to normal classroom functioning as possible. In the even t that it was not always possible for me to be present during the CRP Science unit implementation, teachers video recorded their three lessons, transferred the recordings to a storage device, and mailed them to me.

PAGE 136

136 During each observation, I recorded fie ld notes. Adhering to the suggestions posed by Charmaz (2006) and Hatch (2002), field notes contained a chronological language use, and discernable feelings, as well as sum maries describing significant processes that were characteristic of CRP, CRP Science, and reform based science teaching. My initial interpretations and analyses were recorded as well, though they were clearly bracketed from raw field notes. Field notes of my second observation of based and CRP Science practices, I used the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) developed by the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) ( Malo Juvera, Powell, & Cantrell, 2013 ; Powell et al., 2011) (Appendix E) and the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) developed by the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) project (Piburn & Sawada, 2000) (Appendix F). After the observation was complete for the day, I viewed the video recording and completed a CRIOP and RTOP for each teacher. I entered the CRIOP and RTOP scores into an Excel spreadsheet and w according to CRP Science and the CRIOP as well as reform based science teaching and the RTOP. CRIOP The CRIOP contains 25 indicators across seven pillars: Classroom Relationships, Family Collaboration, Assessmen t Practices, Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences, Pedagogy/Instructional Practices, Discourse/Instructional Conversation, and Sociopolitical Consciousness. The CRIOP represents a synthesis of

PAGE 137

137 the vast and timely literature on culturally responsive peda gogy (CRP) and provides operational definitions of specific CRP tenets in the seven CRIOP pillars. In these pillars, operational definitions of specific CRP tenets are provided , making the occasionally nebulous constructs within CRP more concrete, observab le, and directly measurable. For example, the Classroom Relationships pillar was designed to capture elements of the classroom environment, such as respectful learning atmosphere, high teacher expectations, and productive student collaboration. Family Coll aboration measures the extent to which the teacher reaches out to family and establishes assessment practices and student self assessment. Curriculum/Planned Learning Exper knowledge, experiences, and diverse perspectives. Inquiry based practices, teacher scaffolding, and developing academic vocabularies are all contained within the Pedagogy/Instructi onal Practices pillar. The inclusion of culturally congruent discourse and instructional strategies that promote academic conversation are encapsulated in the Discourse/Instructional Conversation pillar. Finally, Sociopolitical Consciousness pertains to th e ways in which the curriculum includes opportunities for students to explore issues important to the local context and confront stereotypes and bias. Performance on each indicator ranges on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great extent). Each pillar is scored holistically; therefore, the total possible points vary for each pillar depending upon the number of indicators contained within each pillar. Reliability of the CRIOP internal consistency (i. e. , intercorrelations among CRIOP items). Analysis yielded an

PAGE 138

138 alpha value of 0.94 ( items. After the sample size was determined large enough for factor analysis, an exploratory factor analysi s was conducted on classroom observation data between 2008 2009 (N = 78) to identify underlying CRIOP components. Results indicate that the CRIOP is a consistent assessment for culturally responsive teaching (Malo Juvera et al., 2013) . RTOP The RTOP was de signed to measure the reform based practices of science and mathematics teachers. Designed through a constructivist lens, the RTOP operationalizes mathematics and science education reform constructs so they can be observed and measured. This constructivist oriented, reform minded characterization of mathematics and science education emanates from three major mathematics and science education reform sources: (1) National Council Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) reports (1991; 1995; 2000); (2) National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) reports (1996; 2000); and (3) AAAS Project 2061 reports (1990; 1993). The RTOP consists of 25 items divided among three major subsets : (1) Lesson Design and Implementation; (2) Content; and (3) Classroom Culture. The subset of Lesson Design and Implementation items were created to capture reform based, constructivist lessons. For example, the degrees to which instruction recognizes generated ideas are measured . The second category, Content, measures science and/or mathematics content as well as the process of inquiry. This is further broken down into two subscales, one focused on capturing propositional knowledge (e.g., fundamental concepts are

PAGE 139

139 explored) and t he other focused on procedural knowledge (e.g., student reflection). The Classroom Cultur e items subset measures how often students are enc ouraged to actively participate, to communicate their ideas, as opposed to teacher directed instruction. This categor y is divided into two subscales, communicative interactions (e.g., high proportion of student conversation) and student teacher relationships (e.g., teacher as a resource person). Performance on each item ranges on a scale from 0 (never occurred) to 4 (ver y descriptive). The maximum points for each subscale is 20 points (5 items for each subscale). The total possible points equaled 100. However, high school science teachers typically average a score of 42, which is the lowest score among all comparison grou ps (middle school, community college, and university students) (Piburn & Sawada, 2000). To determine instrument reliability, a best fit linear regression was conducted on observation data from 153 middle school, high school, and college level math and phy sics classrooms during Fall 1999 (N = 287). The reliability estimate, R 2 = 0.954, is a robust value that indicates strong overall consistency among the instrument items. Additionally, reliability of the RTOP subscales were also calculated. These results ar e presented in Table 3 5. Reliability was also calculated for observations occurring in eight biology classrooms during Fall , 1999. Reliability was determined to be very high (R 2 = 0803), indicating high internal reliability among the instrument items thro ughout multiple science classrooms as well as in the mathematics classrooms. Construct validity and predictive validity were calculated to assess instrument validity. Construct validity measures the degree to which the test items accurately measure an oper ationalized theoretical construct (in this case, inquiry oriented instruction)

PAGE 140

140 (American Education Research Association [AERA], 1999). Correlational analysis yielded high R 2 values across all s ubsets, as seen in Table 3 5 . Results indicate strong construct validity. I first trained on the RTOP through the online training videos and I also participated in a full day training session with a graduate student. Additionally, I trained on and helped revise the original CRIOP at the CCLD during the summer of 2012 . During the face to face training session with the graduate student, we observed and evaluated two videos of science and mathematics classrooms that were unrelated to the project, according to the RTOP and CRIOP. We discussed our scores and came to consen sus for items from both observation protocols. Additionally, during the first Saturday Session, the STARTS teachers observed and evaluated the same two videos with the RTOP and CRIOP. We then discussed their results and came to a group consensus. After eac h observation I engaged in member checking by providing teachers with field notes and RTOP and CRIOP scores. Focus Group Interviews Two semi structured focus group interviews were held with participating teachers at the second (10/13) and third (11/13) Sat urday Collaboration Sessions to gain insight into their experiences with STARTS activities, their professional growth, and relationships with students. Sample q uestions from the se two i nterviews are found in Appendix G. Interviews contained questions inten ded to advance theory about the process of developing as a CRP Science teacher via PD (Creswell, 2009 ). Interviews reveal pertinent information to both the researcher and the participant. Corbin and s participants an opportunity to

PAGE 141

141 The formal interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. During the first focus group int Science, their students, and STARTS experiences thus far. Further, the initial interview questions pertained to concepts from the literature (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), such as areas of CRP Science teachers were struggling with. At the time of the second were learning about students to instruction, and the process of designing CRP Science instructional material s. Both interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. STARTS Artifacts Beliefs a bout Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) instrument The BARSTL instrument (Sampson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013) was developed to measure the degree to whi teaching and learning reflected reform based orientations. The instrument contains 32 statements divided across four subscales: How people learn about science; Lesson D esign and I mplementation; Chara cteristics of T eachers and the L earning E nvironment; and The N ature of the S cience C urriculum (Sampson et al., 2013, p. 6). Items were informed by several reform documents (e.g., AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). Each subscale contained eight items, with four items representing reform based science education orientation and the remaining four capturing traditional perspectives. The instrument employs a four point Likert type scale in which teachers indicate the degree to which they disagree or agree with a statement. Higher scores reflect more reform based beliefs about science education.

PAGE 142

142 The BARSTL was administered to participating teachers during the first stage of data collection/analysis as part of a larger questionnaire to discern their initial beliefs about sc ience education as well as their professional needs. Through item results, I was able to more thoroughly design PD experiences that account for and were responsive to Lesson study documents Lesson study documents w ere collected and preliminarily analyzed during the first stage as participating teachers submitted them. Lesson study documents included group goal selections, the research lesson, observation and analysis documents, and revised lessons. In addition to st ructuring the lesson study experience for teachers, these documents aided constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) by allowing me to compare (a) the CRP Science knowledge and practices of teachers and (b) their views of students at different time periods. GAIn tasks The GAIn tasks required teachers to identify CRP Science practices in the literature and, subsequently, their classrooms. Teachers reflected on the relevance of such practices for their students and speculated on plans to integrat e responsive collected as participants completed them and subsequently analyzed for potential trends. This occurred during the first, second, and third stages of data co llection/analysis. These GAIn tasks served to promote dialogue between teacher and researcher through my provided feedback as well as providing a source of constant comparison.

PAGE 143

143 CTS working document The completed CTS working documents of the teachers were c ollected and examined during the third stage of data collection/analysis. Much like the GAIn tasks and lesson study documents, the CTS working document served two primary roles. s with a major task. It also scaffolded the incorporation of reform based science teaching into the CRP Science unit. From a research standpoint, the CTS working document was a given point in time. By constantly comparing the CTS working documents across teachers and other STARTS artifacts, I was able to explore shifts in CRP Science knowledge and practices over time. CRP Science unit The CRP Science unit template structured the integration of responsive teacher instruction (via GAIn findings) with reform based science (via CTS findings). The instructional units were collected and examined during the fourth stage. The CRP Science units served as a source of triangulation betwe en intended and observed practices. Reflective Writing Prompts professional, social, and personal development (Bell & Gilbert, 1996). Participants continually reflect ed on their practice and progression throughout the course of STARTS. To aid the collection of rich data, I created Reflective Writing Prompts (RWPs) to accompany STARTS activities. Teachers completed nine RWPs in all. An RWP topic varied depending on the partic ular activity in which teachers were engaged. For

PAGE 144

144 based practices with examples from the literature, and connecting PG content to classroom practice. The RWP data were used to examine how teachers describe d their own professional development, as well as any mediating factors. While the RWPs had practical value in that they structured PG tasks and teacher enabled me to seek answers to questions that arose during preliminary analysis, thereby serving as an additional source for theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006). Saturday Collaboration Session a rtifacts The Saturday Collaboration Sessions served as the main structure for teachers to brainstorm new lesson ideas, enact novel CRP Science strategies, and receive feedback on their practices. Teachers participated in a mock teaching feedback session (third Saturday Collaboration Session, 11/13) and STARTS redesign session (fourth Saturday Collaboration Session, 1/14) in which they were asked to provide feedback on the effectiveness of specific STARTS activities as well as suggestions for structural redesign of the p rogram. At the fourth Saturday Collaboration Session (1/14), each teacher also presented their CRP Science units. Each of these activities were video recorded and transcribed verbatim. These data sources were examined to determine potential relationships b etween STARTS PD activities and their professional growth as CRP Science teachers. Clarification Questions The Clarification Questions data were constructed after the completion of the STARTS PD program in response to emerging theoretical categories duri ng the systematic process of open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Certain categories and

PAGE 145

145 their properties (i.e., attributes) remained unclear. Thus, as a form of theoretical sampling, I posed additional Clarification Questions to the participating teache rs that were focused specifically on weak but developing categories. Charmaz (2006) defines develop your emerging theory . . . you conduct theoretical sampling by sampling to develop the properties of your category(ies) focused Clarification Questions were collected during the fifth and final stage of data collection/analysis. The data were used to further develop the oretical categories. Data Analysis This dissertation study utilized multiple qualitative approaches to data analysis, including: grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), typological analysis (Hatch, 2002), and matrix analysis (Averill, 200 2; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Though there was overlap between the qualitative analysis methods employed to answer the guiding research questions for this dissertation study, each question was addressed through a distinct application of these methods (refer to Table 3 3). Thus, this section consists of a detailed account of the data analysis process according to each research question. To understand the process of becoming a CRP Science educator for the six high school life science teachers participating in the STARTS PD program, I utilized grounded theory analysis methods. Grounded theory is appropriate for examining interactions between individuals or among persons within specific contexts (Charmaz, 2006; Strau ss & Corbin, 1998) , particularly when a weak literature base exists . Specific attention is paid to process, action, and the structure within which these are situated,

PAGE 146

146 s (Creswell, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory analysis techniques include open, axial, and selective coding, with the overall aim to move from concrete to abstract through theory generation. Researchers utilizing grounded theory familiarize t hemselves with existing theories and concepts to develop sensitivity to potential meanings within the data . However, as Charmaz (2006) warns, ata are initially explored for categories. To reduce the potential for distorting messages within the data, I also engaged in the process of constantly comparing data sources to each other. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), grounded theory analysis begins with open coding, in which "categories are discovered in data and developed in terms of their properties and dimensions" (p.102) . First, I organized the data sources in HyperRESEARCH (qualitative data management software) as they were collected. I e xamined my reflexive journal entries to identify any potential emerging codes around student teacher interactions were two areas of initial focus, as I had observed changes t o this end over time in classroom observations. I also paid special attention to any data passages related to family connections and sociopolitical consciousness raising, as these were areas infrequently exhibited by teachers in their practices. At the end of the first four stages of data collection and analysis, I conducted a more systematic approach to open coding than the incident by incident approach previously employed. I began line by line coding the group interview transcripts. Like Charmaz (2000), I broke

PAGE 147

147 data into single, sensible units and then labeled the actions and meanings portrayed in each unit . Appendix H presents the complete list of initial codes and their potential associated categories. Table 3 6 contains a list of preliminary codes inclu ding perceiving that grouping promotes better work , getting better means new activities and practices, and building relationships with students . As I progressed through open coding, potential categories began to emerge. These categories were based on eithe r (1) frequency of related codes, (2) multiple representations/facets of a certain process (i.e., properties of codes, Strauss & Corbin, 1998), or (3) potential categories from my reflexive journal. Examples of early potential categories included : student grouping, teacher scaffolding, family collaboration, and sociopolitical consciousness . I also kept memos of possible conceptual categories as a way to manage the data as I coded them, which were added to my journal. I then engaged in axial coding to furth er develop categories according to their properties and dimensions. The related codes were consolidated in Hyperresearch according to their similarity in meaning or relation to the categories (Str auss & Corbin, 1998). T o explore progression and not just ac tion in a given time period, I also look ed across the codes over time. Therefore, I further grouped the coded passages and their emerging categories according to the time in which they occurred (ex: the first group interview occurred several months prior t o the CRP Science u nit presentations). This resulted in chunks of open codes associated with a developing category over a timeline. Examples of developing categories during this stage of analysis included: professional g rowth (as process), a wareness (as a state of being), connecting s cience with s tudents (as an action), teacher s atisfaction (as a state of being and an outcome), and toolbox

PAGE 148

148 (as an object supporting teacher change ). These categories were compared across the teachers and over time periods. To further develop the categories, I went back to their associated codes to identify properties (i.e., attributes) and dimensions (i.e., range of properties of a category) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). At this ti me, I explored which codes were outliers, and which codes were more distantly and more closely related to one another, if at all. C odes that no longer appeared relevant to the data were removed . I constructed Cartesian planes for each category at this point to visually represent the dimensions along which a category ranged. Figure 3 3 illustrates a Cartesian plane for the developing category, toolbox , which contains the properties new topics and new strategies . At this phase of analysis, the dimensions ranged from favorable to unfavorable conditions for th e incorporation of a new strategy or relevant science topic to existing instruction. For example, in the top left quadrant are conditions in which it was favorable for STARTS teachers to apply relevant topics to existing science content in the curricula, s uch as when the topic was combined with a previously used instructional strategy. In the bottom right quadrant are instances in which the application of a new strategy was unfavorable, including the need to cover content and prepare students for the End of Course exam. By articulating the range along which categories existed, I was better able to discern the conditions (where, when, how, and why) associated with a category (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Additionally, I engaged in theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2 006) to seek pertinent data for emerging categories that still had ambiguous dimensions (e.g., repositioning students ). To develop these dimensions further, I sought pertinent data from participating teachers, largely through

PAGE 149

149 phone and email correspondence s. As I developed richer understandings of the categories, I revised their labels as needed (ex: connecting science with students was merged into instructional change ) and wrote detailed memos describing their properties, all of which were supported with e vidence passages. Because the codes were now consolidated according to source (and, therefore, relative time), I looked for relationships, additional properties/dimensions of a code, and where they could be further consolidated. Once sa lient categories wer e identified, I utilized selective coding to integrate and refine them further. Many of these categories and their associated properties/ dimensions were repetitive among data sources, including those obtained through theoretical sampling , thus indicating t hat theoretical saturation had been attained. progression as CRP Science teachers, which are listed in Table 3 6. I wrote statements that articulated the observed relationships between themes. Finally, I created a narrative reflecting the temporal progressions of these themes and their supporting relational statements . In the narrative, I looked closely for shifts in Science knowledge and practices, paying special a ttention to describe these shifts according to the ir defining properties. The resulting narrative further allowed me to articulate dim ensions of the categories . Teachers In order to Science teachers and the STARTS PD features capable of supporting this professional growth, data were analyzed in multiple stages using qualitative analysis approaches,

PAGE 150

150 including methods for t ypological analysis (Hatch, 2002), matrix analysis ( Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994 ), and constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) . professional growth, I shifting CRP Science and reform based knowledge and practices over time. To do this, I employed typological analysis methods (Hatch, 2002) to examine the classroom observations , field notes, an d STARTS artifacts . The first step in typological analysis was to read through the data and divide sections by predetermine d categories/typologies. The typologies I was interested in were the various elements of CRP Science and reform based science teaching, which were identified and operationalized according to the CRIOP and RTOP, respectively. First, I coded all classroom observations according to the CRIOP and RTOP scales. These were recorded as evidence of either CRP Science or refo rm based science classroom practices . In addition to direct observation of practices, I was also interested in CRP Science and reform based science teaching knowledge . Therefore, I also coded various teacher artifacts according to the CRIOP pilla rs and RTOP lesson study documents, CTS documents, and RWPs. The next step in the analysis was to compile the main ideas associated with each typology in a summary sheet for all six teachers. The summary sheets were organized in HyperRESEARCH reform based knowledge and practices according to the typologies. I isolated the codes by each teacher, and wrote a descriptive s ummary of their reform based and CRP

PAGE 151

151 Science knowledge and practices, which condensed the large data set. Following the construction of summary sheets, the next step in typological analysis is discerning any emerging patterns, relationships, or trends (Hat ch, 2002). Because I was ultimately interested in understanding how their culturally responsive and reform based science teaching knowledge and practices developed over time in the STARTS program, I isolated the coded instances per teacher across a timelin e, demarcated by the vari ous STARTS activities. I then broke the summaries for each participant into four categories: CRP Science knowledge , CRP Science practices , reform based science teaching knowledge , and reform based science teaching practices . I repe ated this step, now looking for connections and patterns across the teachers. Through this I could then examine patterns in developing knowledge and practices over time, such as similarities, differences, and correspondences among the categories. My goal f or engaging in these steps was to Science and reform based science teaching over time . Through this process, I now had an empirical basis for exploring which STARTS PD features were capabl e of supporting based knowledge and practices. Once there was an empirical foundation for exploring the ways in which STARTS based, CRP Science educators, I emp loyed methods for matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in an attempt to identify relationships between STARTS activities and teacher outcomes, which were represented by the six p rogression themes identified through the grounded theory

PAGE 152

152 more main dimensions or variables . . . suggest the use of a de scriptive effects matrix to determine what changes a particular program elicits in its participants. The resulting matrix provides a visual display of the relationship between structural elements (in this case, the STARTS PD activities) and changes in prac tice. To better isolate relationships between STARTS activities and outcomes, the six outcomes, with instructional changes becoming new topics and new strategies . I then examin ed the data and isolated instances in which a teacher made a direct connection between one of the outcomes and a specific STARTS activity . For example, in the passage below, Lorelei refers to an article she read for a PG task on collaborative learning as t he source of new instructional strategies she utilized: The student grouping article was the one I learned the most from and utilized these strategies in the classroom. I also plan on continuing the u se of the strategies detailed . . . I will continue to us e the strategies discussed in the student grouping article and plan on early implementation next year . (Lorelei, RWP Eval uation ) If no direct connection was reported , it did not necessarily mean that the particular activity did not assist in multiple dimen sions of professio nal growth. Rather, the results indicated that there was no direct reporting of the connection in data sources. Across the data sources I identified 171 such direct connections. Because er . . . making the relationships matrix containing cells populated with the format STARTS Activity > Teacher Outcome . This activity outcome matrix enabled me to dis cern the degree to which the various STARTS activities accounted for each outcome, and thereby to locate the phenomena

PAGE 153

153 of professional growth in context (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In the matrix (Table 3 7), the STARTS activity is one dimension and the speci fic outcome is another. For example, one column might contain information for Lesson Study > Views of Students . The corresponding cell contains the total number of isolated evidence passages for a direct connection between the STARTS Activity, lesson stud y, and the outcome theme, community building. In the instance of Lesson Study > Views of Students, the total number of isolated evidence passages is one. The total of all connections identified between any STARTS activity and a given outcome were then sum med for that outcome. For example, there were 38 instances of a direct connection among all six STARTS activities and the outcome Views of Students . To represent the degree to which a given activity was associated with a particular outcome, I then divided the actual instances of a connection between A ctivity > O utcome by the total instances and represented this as a percentage. In the Lesson Study > Views of Students example, there were six instances of a direct connection between the lesson study (activi ty) and views of students (outcome). Thus, lesson study was associated with changing views of students in 16% of all instances. Through the matrix I could now begin to visualize the relationship between ogression) (Strauss & Corbin, us, to further assist in visually representing this relationship, I constructed one figure for each activity containing the

PAGE 154

154 seven teacher outcomes and their associated connections to that particular activity. These figures are presented in Chapter 5 alongs ide their associated activities. This qualitative study applied grounded theory analysis, typological analysis, and becoming CRP Science teachers and the STARTS PD features su pporting shifts in their knowledge and practices. In the following section I articulate the criteria for evaluating the rigor of qualitative research by establishing trustworthiness. Establishing Trustworthiness near significance and experience (Barab & Squire, 2004, p.6), design studies are intended to produce usable knowledge about a given educational tool while also advancing theory. Therefore, specific outcomes of DBR should include the generation of local t heory , design frameworks, and accompanying design principles . However, the quality of such products should be well established through specific criteria. Design researchers are responsible for demonstrating methodological rigor in both the internal process es of research and the trustworthiness, design based researchers provide a variety of evidence about the L incoln and Guba (1985) noted that establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research is one way to evaluate the quality of the work completed. The criteria Lincoln and Guba (1985) provide d to evaluate the trustworthiness of a qualitative inquiry include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Charmaz (2006) suggests a similar set of expectations for evaluating grounded theory studies. Because of the central importance of grounded theory to this dissertation study, these criteria were

PAGE 155

155 used to establish trustworthiness and evaluate impact of the findings. They include: credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. These constructs will be examined in the following sections and the ways in which they were preserved within this study will be illuminated. Credibility Credibility is analogous to the construct of internal validity within a quantitative research paradigm . qualitative inquiry, how a researcher est of a particular inquiry for the subjects . . . with which and the context in which the inquiry redibility is evaluated to determine the degree to which the study examines what it was designed to examine in a particular setting and with a specific group of individuals (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To demonstrate credibility, familiarity with t he setting or topic . . . categories [that] cover a wide range of empirical observations . . . [and] strong logical links between the gathered data and your argument To establish credibility, I engaged in persistent, repeated observa tion, peer debriefing after each classroom observation and Saturday Collaboration Session, and member checking when appropriate (teachers reviewed my field notes and CRIOP and RTOP scores after each ob servation, confirming and/or revising as needed) . I ach ieved triangulation by constant comparison across multiple data sources (e.g., classroom observation transcripts, field notes, focus group interview transcripts, STARTS activity artifacts completed by each teacher) and an audit trail through my reflexive j ournal

PAGE 156

156 which contained raw data passages, summaries of preliminary analytical notes, and methodological notes such as design decisions. Originality Because the outcome of a grounded theory study consists of generation of novel theory (or extension of exi sting theory in an innovative manner), the product should be refine curr a careful review of the literature prior to the study, I was aware of the existing theories on cultural responsiveness, cultural relevance, and cultural congruence both generally within education and specifically within science education. Furthermore, I was aware of the perspectives on teacher change and supporting teachers as curriculum designers within the context of PD posited in the empirical literature. Hence, I was knowledge able about the ways in which findings of this study extended existing theories in addition to providing new insights on the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher. progressi ons that arose from relational statements about the major concepts and their properties. This in itself is not present within the literature on CRP Science and specific the theoretical and practical significance of this work. Resonance nance (p. 182). In this study, theoretical saturation was

PAGE 157

157 achieved when gathering new data from participants no longer revealed new properties of the six theoretical categories. Grounded theorists also strive for resonance through demonstrating that the re sulting theory is sensible to participants. Member checking was employed regularly throughout this study to ensure sensible findings that my field notes and CRIOP and R TOP scores after every classroom observation. We then discussed these documents through debriefing, which occurred in person or via email and/or phone correspondences. Finally, throughout the later stages of analysis (i.e., axial and selective coding) emer ging findings were communicated to participants in electronic documents and via phone/email correspondences. The participants were asked to confirm and/or revise my interpretations of the data. Usefulness The notion of usefulness aligns to criteria for e valuating the impact of design studies proposed by Confrey and Lachance (2000), particularly the compelling nature, adaptability, and generativity of a designed intervention. Compelling nature pertains to how well the intervention convinces practitioners t o act with urgency to implement reform. The intervention must move beyo nd being viewed as interesting and compel practitioners to change, without haste. A designed intervention is considered adaptable when it can be flexibly applied to multiple educational settings while expecting similar outcomes. Generativity relates to the degree to which the conjecture undergirding a designed intervention helps practitioners reconceptualize classroom interactions and practices. This last criterion relates most closely t o the robustness and practicality of a local theory and design framework.

PAGE 158

158 Grounded theory and the products of qualitative inquiry are useful if they offer interpretations that can actually be used by people, spark additional research, and contribute to the relevant knowledge base. Through the construction of a localized grounded theory ( chapter 4), design framework, and set of design principles (Chapter 5), I aimed to address these criteria and, ultimately, the usefulness of this qualitative study. Statement of Subjectivity Acknowledging subjectivity is essential to the qualitative resea rch paradigm. research program from data collection, interaction with participants, analysis, to theory construction the values and beliefs possessed by the researcher mus t be acknowledged (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This is especially true when an end goal of one amenable to modification. Rather we are part of our constructed theory and this p. 149). As a researcher, I hold several beliefs that perpetually influenced my actions and decisions. As a designer, these beliefs further shaped the design and impleme ntation of the STARTS PD program, including my role as facilitator. Though the program was built from the relevant literature, the way in which I applied theory to practice was highly influenced by my beliefs about science education for diverse learners an d PD. I begin by declaring these salient beliefs and conclude by articulating

PAGE 159

159 the ways that I confronted and questioned these taken for granted assumptions through a reflexive approach that ultimately enhanced the trustworthiness of the study. I entered th is study with specific beliefs about how science should be taught, especially to diverse students who are historically underrepresented. In the classroom, importance to st udents. Science knowledge emanating from different ethnic groups should be made accessible and treated as worthy of the same respect as canonical science. Through this, students build cultural competence in the presence of science and are more likely to fo rge identities of themselves as scientists. Science should also be explored through a critical lens and used as a platform to uncover the existing forms of oppression that impact diverse students. Students should have opportunities to engage in social acti on, applying their science knowledge to remedy community issues when appropriate. Thus, science for diverse learners should be culturally responsive, transformative, emancipatory, and connected to the community. Furthermore, I believe that in order to best foster the academic success of diverse students in the current educational system and prepare them for postsecondary success, should that be their next step, culturally responsive science education must occur in conjunction with reform based science educa tion, such as the practices of science (NRC, 2012), including inquiry (NRC, 2000). For diverse students in particular, being scientifically literate in the ways recognized in national reform reports enables them to acquire the culture of power more readily by making those practices explicit. I also hold specific beliefs about the teachers with whom I worked during this study. Because of the manner in which I met them (they chose to spend a week away

PAGE 160

160 from their families and home during the summer to attend the SSI program), I assumed that these teachers were motivated to continue growing professionally and also had the resources to capitalize on this opportunity. Because they were informed of the nature of the STARTS PD program before deciding to participate , I believed that they genuinely desired to learn how to better connect with their students through culturally responsive approaches to science instruction. I also believed that the teachers entered the program with many strengths, several of which I plann ed to utilize to further their professional schooling and science instruction as it is presented in the district curricula. Furthermore, I believed they had limited e science. Lastly, I hold beliefs about the nature of PD as well as the specific school systems in which teachers operate. These beliefs are influenced by my own experiences as a science teacher for both high school and elementary students who was required to engage in PD on a regular basis. Because teachers chose to participate in the STARTS PD program, as opposed to being required to do so, it was essential that the program continually be responsive to their needs (on personal, classroom, and school levels) while admittedly forwarding a CRP Science agenda. The beliefs I declared have affected several aspects of the research and design program. Alongside the guiding theoretical frameworks, they influence d what I attended to during observations and other data collection sessions, which PD experiences and readings I selected for teachers, and how I interpreted the data. Therefore, to bolster the trustworthiness of the study, I employed multiple techniques f or assuring the

PAGE 161

161 methodological rigor of qualitative research, including numerous data sources, multiple stages of analysis, frequent and repeated observation, prolonged engagement, member checking, and an audit trail (Creswell, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Additionally, I maintained a reflexive memo writing journal (Charmaz, 2006) throughout the program, which included reflective notes after each Saturday Collaboration Session, my preliminary analyses, and suggestions for upcoming STARTS activity content ba sed on ongoing Design Decisions Report (DDR) in which any PD design decisions were revised based on emergent findings. Summary The STARTS PD program was designed to suppo rt changes in CRP Science knowledge and practices as well as their ability to construct innovative CRP Science instructional materials . To do so, six major activities formed the corpus of the program: lesson study, GAIn tasks, CTS, PG tasks, CRP Science unit construction, and Saturday Collaboration Sessions. Six high school life science teachers from throughout a culturally and linguistically diverse school district in the Southeastern United States participated in the STARTS PD program and the re search investigation. This study applied a qualitative design to characterize the professional growth process of these six teachers and identify salient PD framework features that influence d their progression as CRP Science educators in this context. To collected, including two focus group interviews at Saturday Collaboration Sessions, artifacts. These data were analyzed through grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2006;

PAGE 162

162 professional growth as CRP Science educators, the same data sources were examined. However, they were analyzed t hrough distinct qualitative methods, such as typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) and matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Through concurrent data collection and analysis, a local theory el ucidating participating ove r the course of STARTS was generated. Furthermore, STARTS design framework and design principles were revised based on the grounded theory and explicated to establish local impact and general relevance. The results of this study are useful in that they e xtend theory about high school progression to structural features of a research grounded PD program. Therefore, the results hold implications for the design of PD venture s of this magnitude, which are sorely needed. Structure of the Findings The findings of this study are presented in Chapter s 4 and 5, which have been prepared in manuscript format. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the grounded theory study, including a growth as CRP Science educators in the context of the STARTS PD program. Chapter 5 details findings of the typological and matrix analyses through which specific STARTS framework features that later revised. While relevant implications for the findings are discussed at the conclusion of each chapter, they are also further explicated in Chapter 6, alongside the limitations of this study .

PAGE 163

163 Figure 3 1 . STARTS PD program timeline . Figure 3 2 . Theory of action for the GAIn within a STEM teacher education course that includes a field placement. Note: *Activities that occur during the field placement . Reprinted by permission from Br own, J.C. & Crippen, K.J. (in review). The Growing Awareness Inventory: Building capacity for culturally responsive STEM with a structured observation protocol (Page 20, Figure 2) . Submitted to School Science and Mathematics.

PAGE 164

164 Figure 3 3. Cartesian p lane diagram illustrating dimensions of the category , Toolbox , which contains new strategies and new topics .

PAGE 165

165 Table 3 1 . School demographics . School Free and r educed l unch p opulation (%) Racial m inority p opulation (%) Biology End of Course e xam p rofic iency, m astery (%) Golf Ridge 64 72 55, 8 Seaside 77 83 52, 7 Palm View 21 33 91, 21 Stars Hollow 34 57 78, 16 Socrates Academy 75 88 52, 6 Table 3 2 . Participant demographics . Teacher Ethnicity/Race ( s elf r eported) Years of e xperience Subject a rea(s) t aught School Christina Joy White 14 Anatomy & Physiology*, Zoology Golf Ridge Claudia Hispanic 24 ESOL Biology*, General Biology Seaside Kate White 2 Anatomy & Physiology*, Honors Biology Palm View Lorelei Peruvian American 8 Honors Biology* Stars Hollow Natalie Latina 4 General Biology* Stars Hollow Zane Haitian American 16 General Biology*, Advanced Placement Biology Socrates Academy Note: * asterisk denotes subject area for focus class period .

PAGE 166

166 Table 3 3 . Guiding research design . Re search q uestion Data s ources Data a nalysis For high school life science teachers participating in an explicit PD program on CRP Science, what defines the process of becoming culturally responsive educators? Focus g roup interviews Classroom observations Field notes STARTS PD artifacts: BARSTL questionnaire (Sampson et al., 2013) GAIn tasks Professional Growth tasks Reflective Writing Prompts Mock teaching feedback transcript STARTS Redesign transcript CRP Science unit presentations tra nscripts Grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) Constant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) What features of the STARTS design framework can be associated with supporting the changes in CRP Science knowledge a nd practices of high school life science teachers? Focus g roup interviews Classroom observations Field notes Design Decisions Report STARTS PD artifacts: BARSTL questionnaire Lesson study document GAIn tasks CTS document Professional Growth t asks Reflective Writing Prompts Mock teaching feedback transcript STARTS Redesign transcript CRP Science unit presentations transcripts Typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) Matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) Constan t comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

PAGE 167

167 Table 3 4 . Data c ollection/ a nalysis stages during the STARTS research and development project. Data Sources Project Timeline Data Collection Stage Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Mar April BARSTL questionnaire X Classroom observations* X X X X X Group interviews X X Reflective Writing Prompts X X X X X X Lesson study documents X Autobiography X GAIn tasks X X X CTS document X PG tasks X X CRP Science units X X Saturday Collaboration Session artifacts X X X X Clarification Questions (email, phone correspondence) X X X accompany each classroom observation. Design Decisions Report was maintained throughout .

PAGE 168

168 Table 3 5 . RTOP s ubscale r eliability e stimates ; s ubs cales as p redictors of RTOP scores . Subscale R squared Subscale 1: Lesson Design and Implementation 0.915 Subscale 2: Content Propositional Pedagogic Knowledge 0.670 Subscale 3: Content Procedural Pedagogic Knowledge 0.946 Subscale 4: Classroom Cul ture Communicative Interactions 0.907 Subscale 5: Classroom Culture Student/Teacher Relationships 0.872 Predictor R squared (as p redictor of t otal) Subscale 1 0.956 Subscale 2 0.769 Subscale 3 0.971 Subscale 4 0.967 Subscale 5 0.941 Reprinted b y permission from Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) reference manual (ACEPT Tech. Rep. No. IN00 3) (Page 10, Table 1; Page 12, Table 2). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers

PAGE 169

169 Table 3 6 . Becoming CRP Science teachers . Selective codes Axial codes Open codes Views of s tudents Awareness Sociopolitical elements Perceiving the classroom environment as not natural, Being forced to think of students and not just content CRP Science c onceptions Awareness Teacher satisfaction Teacher progression Acknowledging importance of relevance in instruction, Being culturally responsive means engaging activities Being culturally responsive is rare Toolbox Topic vs strategy Family co nnections Getting better means new activities and practices, Identifying new techniques, Community b uilding Creating safe spaces Care Care is required for students to trust, Care is responsible for positiv e St T relationships Repositioning s tudents Student grouping Student outcomes Believing in her students, Perceiving that grouping promotes better work Instructional c hanges Professional growth Connecting science with students Assessment Seeing old wa y of questioning as invasive, Gaining deeper understanding of why to make instructional strategies

PAGE 170

170 Table 3 7 . STARTS a ctivity o utcome matrix . Activity o utcome CRP Science c onceptions Views of s t udents Teaching p ractices Com munity b ui ld in g St udent r e po sition ing New t opic New s trategy Lesson Study 1 (6%) 6 (16%) 11 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 1 (3%) GAIn 15 (88%) 29 (76%) 31 (55%) 5 (63%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 7 (18%) CTS 1 (6%) 1 (3%) 9 (16%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 12 (31%) PG tasks * 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (5%) 2 (25%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 9 (23%) CRP Science Unit 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) Sat. Collab. Session** 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 10 (26%) Total 17 (100%) 38 (100%) 56 (100%) 8 (100%) 1 (100%) 12 (100%) 39 (100%) Note : *Professional Growth t asks , **Saturday Collaboration Sessions .

PAGE 171

171 CHAPTER 4 FROM AWARENESS TO PRACTICE: CONCEPTUALIZING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS RESPONSIVE EDUCATORS Introduction As the United States experiences population growth greater than any other industrialized nation (El Nasser, 2006; El Nasser & Overberg, 2011) , unequal increases now more diverse than ever before. Simultaneously, th e notion of education as the great equalizer has been challenged , as achievement disparities stratified by race and socioeconomic status persist across all academic disciplines and grade levels (Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010; National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2009 ) . Black and Hispanic students consistently underperform on national science assessments, and this trend spills over to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ( STEM) workforce, which remains largely exclusive in terms of race (NSF, 2011). Current U.S. educational practices leave a significant portion of the nation's citizens undereducated (Howard, 2010 ). A majority of STEM professions require some form of posts econdary or advanced degree . This further constrains the workforce population , as higher education attendance rates for students from these underrepresented racial groups are lower when compared to White and Asian students (Aud et al., 2011). With a growin g number of 21 st century occupations requiring scientific literacy, the exclusion of diverse populations from the STEM workforce constricts economic opportunities, making it considerably more difficult to pursue liberties such as access to quality housing, healthcare, and education (Aud et al., 2010; Bullard, 2001) . Accordingly, there are both social and economic implications for this trend.

PAGE 172

172 In an attempt to address the persistent achievement gap in science by race and socioeconomic status (NAEP, 2009), the most recent science education reform report, The Framework for K 12 Science Education , has made prominent a desire to achieve Science for All through curriculum and instruction. A growing research base argues for t with science instruction as a way to bridge incongruences between home and school, thereby making science more accessible and meaningful to students that are traditionally underrepresented in the discipline (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Lee, 2004). Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1994; 1995) cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frame (Gay, 2010, p.31) to make learning opportunities more equitable and effective. When implemented, CRP bolsters the academic achievement (Ladson Billings, 1995; Weinstein, Tomlinson Clarke, & Curran, 2004) and engagem ent of diverse students (Gay, 2010; Howard, 2010). Despite the potential of CRP to ameliorate current academic trends, it is not widely enacted (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). Teachers report feeling underprepared to educate dive rse students (Song, 2006) and struggle with teaching in ways that are culturally responsive (Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008). Because of the great influence teachers have on student learning and the promise of CRP to positively impact underrepresented studen academic performance, the development of teachers as culturally responsive science educators must be supported. Few professional development (PD) initiatives have

PAGE 173

173 equity for diverse students, such programs are an imperative. The STARTS (Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students) PD program was created as a response to this imperative. As such the program was designed to prepare teachers to enact culturally respon sive pedagogies in science education (hereafter referred to as CRP Science) and design and implement academically rigorous grounded theory study seeks to address the research question: f or high 1 983 ool life science teachers participating in an explicit PD progra m on CRP Science, w hat defines the process of becoming culturally responsive educators? In this paper I present a local ression as CRP Science teachers in the theory is produced when limited manifestations of a certain phenomenon are studied . . . this kind of work results in understanding of l earning within specific ecological contexts as CRP Science teachers, I present a conceptual model and articulate the relationships among six themes characteristic of t heir professional growth over time. Accompanying the teacher progression model and supporting temporal narratives are descriptions of the program activities at each phase, thereby advancing knowledge about potential relationships between the process of tea and PD structures. Theoretical Framework Culturally Responsive Pedagogy The foundations of CRP Science are grounded in Ladson lly responsive pedagogy. In this section I will detail the work of Ladson Billings (1994;

PAGE 174

174 1995) and Gay (2010), paying specific attention to the characteristics of teachers who enact CRP before presenting a description of CRP Science that is grounded in t he relevant literature. Stemming from her work with successful teachers of African American students, Ladson Billings (1994) first described culturally relevant teaching as assisting students ws African American students to choose academic excellence yet still identify with African and African thus promoting cultural competence. According to Ladson Billings (1995), culturally relevant teachers create learning environme nts that affirm Culturally relevant teaching emerged at a time when much of the work regarding Africa n Americans and education was approached from a deficit perspective, often describing the academic underperformance of African American students as a result of what they lacked in terms of educational resources and support. In contrast, CRP positioned educ ation from an asset based mindset and focused on empowering students intellectually, emotionally, and politically. Ladson Billings (1994) found that teachers with culturally relevant practices embodied three distinct attributes: conceptions of self and oth ers, social relations between teacher and student, and conceptions of knowledge. Teachers with culturally relevant conceptions of self and others hold their students and their profession in high regard. These teachers view teaching as an art, believe all students can succeed, see their profession as a way to give back to the local

PAGE 175

175 who students are and how they are connected to wider teachers organize fluid and equitable social relations in their classrooms, encourage collaborative learning, demonstrate connections with all students, and emphasize community. A teacher who understand and parti cipate in knowledge Billings, 1994, p.81). Teachers who enact CRP are passionate about the content they teach, view knowledge as dynamic and shared by students and teachers , and act as facilitator s . When Gay ( 2010) first wrote of culturally responsive pedagogy, she suggested it process of learning, including the work of Ladson Billings (1994; 1995). Gay (2010) identified several characteristics of CRP, describing it as validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and emancipatory. Culturally responsive teachers validate students by acknowledging their cultural heritages, using these backgrounds as a br idge between school, and home, and incorporating multicultural resources in the curriculum, regardless of content area. Teachers who enact CRP provide a comprehensive education for diverse students in that they teach the whole child , purposefully developin g skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values. As a result , educational excellence transcends academic performance to also include learning outcomes such as political activism, and responsible community mem

PAGE 176

176 CRP is multidimensional because its scope extends beyond curriculum material s to account for teacher student relationships, creating a community based classroom climate , instructional techniques, and assessment strategies. In t (2010) description of CRP as multidimensional strongly resembles Ladson (1994) notion of social relations. The unrelentingly high expectations a culturally relevant teacher holds for her/his students are the basis for CRP as emp owering. Similar to Ladson all students are capable of academic success and commit themselves to facilitating this success. The transformative nature of CRP arises from its commitment t o confronting oppression, power differentials, and development of social consciousness. Finally, because CRP supports intellectual liberation, it is deemed an emancipatory pedagogy. Gay (2010) argues that not only is knowledge from diverse ethnic populatio ns made accessible, students are taught to apply this knowledge to their learning experiences, (p.38). The foundation of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010) in culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson Billings, 1994; 1995) is obvious in many respects, while also extending the work of Ladson Billing s (1994) through clearly articulated applications to curriculum and instruction. Due to their similarities, the two are o ften used interchangeably. Together they provide a rich, evidence based view of successful teachers of diverse students and an ideal to strive toward in teacher education. Within the field of science education, several scholars have utilized these pedagogi es as a means to disrupt prevailing conceptions of science, increase underrepresented

PAGE 177

177 students , and engage learners in science practices that lead to social action within the community. Literature Review Educating Culturally Responsive Science Teachers CRP Science reflects several attributes of culturally relevant and responsive (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton, 1998; Mensah, 2011); ( b) engages learners in inquiry (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011); (c) occurs in respectful and inclusive learning environments where multiple perspectives are acknowledged (Lee, 2004; Elmesky & Tobin, 2005) and language supports ar e widely implemented (Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2009); (d) uses science as a platform to uncover negative stereotypes and biases (Brown, 2013; Tate et al., 2008; Laughter & Adams, 2012); and (e) frequently establishes genuine, community based partnerships to sup port social action projects (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001). CRP Science stands in stark contrast to traditional science instruction, which features teacher centered transmission of jargon heavy concepts, reliance on textbooks as the primary source of information, and concepts taught as discrete bits of information (Akkus et al, 2007; De Boer, 1991; Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004 ). However, traditional science instruction still pervades For teachers to simultaneousl y implement reform based science according to the Framework (NRC, 2012) and to possess a wealth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. To be culturally responsive and reform based, science teachers must co mmand deep content knowledge , topic specific pedagogical content knowledge, and provide authentic learning experiences rich in scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (NRC, 2012) . In

PAGE 178

178 addition, they must impart care, promote a sense of community in the classroom, use instruction to uncover oppression , and foster (i.e., supporting them in academic success that does not run counter to, or at the expense of, their ide ntities) (Gay, 2010; Ladson Bill ings, 1994; 1995 ; Powell et al., 2011; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Compounding the challenges inherent in personifying these practices, many science teachers are already at a disadvantage because they tend to teach in the same traditional ways they were taugh t as students (Hammerness et al., 2005; Lortie, 1975). Hence, professional development of practicing teachers is necessary to support their growth. There have been few instances of PD programs designed to prepare CRP Science teachers (e.g., Lee, 2004; John son, 2011). Zozakiewicz and Rodriguez (2007) presented the Project Maxima initiative , which was built from sociotransformative constructivist principles (Rodriguez, 1998) and designed to support fourth through sixth grade teachers in establishing more inq uiry based, culturally relevant, and gender inclusive science instruction. The authors modeled CRP Science and invited critique of their practices as a way to assist teachers in establishing culturally relevant classroom environments. Structured reflection times were planned during monthly meetings and summer institutes , providing the participants and authors with opportunities to discuss how modeled activities were multi cultural and gender inclusive. P articipants were also asked how they might further modi fy such activities to fit a particular grade level and context. Additionally, the research team made themselves available to teachers as they struggled with implementation, providing both ongoing support and the use of science equipment.

PAGE 179

179 Participants repo rted that modeling CRP Science was one of the most influential factors affecting their practice. Additionally, teachers viewed ongoing support as a valuable resource as they began teaching in reform oriented ways and with new instructional materials. The a encountered teacher resistance. To challenge entrenched teaching practices and for diversity a central construct in te While this work showcases a much needed form of PD and begins to articulate connections the process of becoming culturally re sponsive, gender inclusive science teachers. While literature on teacher development abounds (e.g., Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Hammerness et al., 2005), and specifically on teacher development in the context of PD (e.g., Bell & Gilbert, 1994; 1996; Gre goire, 2003), there are few examples of PD literature exploring the process of teachers growth as CRP Science educators (e.g., Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Furthermore, of these isolated instances, missing is explicit attentio n to the relationship between the teacher change process and accompanying structural supports. Yet, to best design PD programs capable of supporting teachers growth as culturally responsive science educators, focus on process and structure is required . T h ere must be an understanding about the conditions under which the process is facilitated. This study will respond to the call by Sleeter (2012) for research on the impact of CRP projects, including how teachers learn to become culturally responsive . In add ition, the research will build upon the work of scholars who design PD for CRP Science (e.g., Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2011;

PAGE 180

180 Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), to generate a grounded theory of the process of high ers paying particular attention to PD structures supporting this process. Context STARTS Professional Development The STARTS PD program was designed for use with high school life science teachers working in five ethnically and linguistically diverse pu blic schools throughout a large school district in the Southeastern United States . The overall aim of STARTS was to prepare high school life science teachers working in these diverse schools to best sponsive, inquiry based science instruction. The STARTS program was grounded in bodies of research in the following areas: teacher change in PD environments (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; 1996) effective PD design ( Capps et al., 2012; Garet et al., 2001; Loucks H orsley et al., 2010), CRP (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002), reform based science education (NRC, 2000 ; 2012), and curriculum design and enactment (Park & Coble, 1997 ; Stolk et al., 2011 ). The STARTS PD program was based upon the p remise that through job embedded, ongoing PD that is responsive and contains a dual focus on science content and pedagogy, teachers specifically, into a more culturally responsive, inquiry based form. Furthermor e, central to the STARTS program design was the argument that teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students must be aware of the influence of culture on learning (Aiken head & Jegede, 1999; Emdin, 2011 ), their beliefs about students and science teaching, the political nature of schooling (Darling Hammond, 2010; Jackson, 2009), the importance of

PAGE 181

181 relationship building between teachers and students (Hondo et al., 2008; Valenzuela, 2005), and effective subject specific CRP strategies (Brown, 2013). with science instruction, and enhancing culturally congruent discourse were among the program foci. To further situate CRP Science within existing classroom practices, supporting based science practices were also features of the program. These included practices such as asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations from evidence, and communicating scientific informatio n (NRC, 2012) . The STARTS program occurred through six major activities in a blended learning environment. Teachers engaged in a modified lesson study (Lewis et al., 2006) to initiative a reflective practitioner stance in which they systematically explore d the ability of their instruction to impact intended student outcomes. They also completed a series of three Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks (Brown & Crippen, in review) to critically examine their classroom environment . These included student s tudent and student teacher interactions, learn ing and suggest ing relevant instruction from these findings. In preparation for designing their CRP Science units, teachers also completed a Curriculum Topic Stu dy (CTS) (Keeley, 2005). The completed CTS document provided a scaffold for integrating reform based science teaching (via CTS findings) with CRP Science teaching (via GAIn findings ). In order to ensure that the program was continually responsive to teache rs needs (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010) several Professional Growth (PG) tasks were also designed. The PG tasks centered on areas of professional growth that the teachers

PAGE 182

182 expressed a desire in learning more about, such as formative assessment. To address t he lack of available CRP Science materials (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2011), as their capstone project the STARTS teachers designed CRP Science units that were face to face Sat urday Collaboration Sessions, which served as the main forum for collective participation. During these sessions, the author modeled CRP Science strategies , teachers brainstormed lesson ideas, discussed readings on CRP Science, and mock taught select CRP S cience lessons. While participating in STARTS, teachers focused in on their students at two levels. The first level of focus was classroom specific. Teachers were asked to select one of their class periods to follow throughout the program. It was expected that teachers would connect instructional decisions and insights to interactions and outcomes in this classroom. The second level of focus was student specific. Within the selected classroom, teachers were asked to choose 4 ow closely. Analyses on and input from these stud ents were used to gauge lesson s tudy effectiveness, to hone in on during the GAIn tasks, and to connect data analysis and resulting suggestions with instruction. The choices were up to the teacher and includ ed , who were more eager to communicate with the teacher, and students who were disengaged. For this study, the STARTS PD program was designed to support science teachers through the processes of: (a) developing culturally responsive knowledge and practices, ( b ) developing reform based science instructional practices, and ( c ) designing CRP Science instructional materials aligned with state and national science education

PAGE 183

183 standards, district mandated pacing guides, and End of Course exam content. Similar to alongside additional activities, enabled parti cipating teachers to develop culturally responsive knowledge, practices, and instructional materials. Therefore, this paper will describe the temporal shifts in STARTS teachers practices as well as present a conceptual model of t heir professional growth . Methods Setting and Participants The STARTS PD program took place in f ive diverse high schools in a large school district in the Southeastern United States . The program was situated within a larger, district funded STEM reform in itiative aiming to increase the rigor and accessibility of K 12 STEM education. The district student body is racially and linguistically diverse, with approximately the same percentage of Black, Hispanic, and White students (Hispanic, Black, and Other Race demographics, three schools enrolled greater than 75% racial minority students, and one school was predominantly White. The three schools serving the largest minority student populations were also receiving Title I funds. Among all five high schools, an average of 65% of the student body had achieved proficiency on the state biology End of Course exam, which is required for gr aduation. However, only 13% of the entire student body had achieved mastery (a score of 4/5 or 5/5 total points). Six life science teachers from throughout across the five high schools participated in this study . All participants were female, but represent ed various races

PAGE 184

184 and ethnicities as well as years of teaching experience. The teachers all taught some form of high school life science subject, but ranged in the level (e.g., General, Honors) and focus (e.g., Biology with a concentration on English for Sp eakers of Other Languages [ESOL Biology]). The author began working with and recruiting the six participating teachers during a separate weeklong content focused summer PD institute. When asked to explain their desire to participate in the STARTS PD progra m, Data Collection Data were concurrently collected and analyzed in multiple stages (Tab le 4 2) . To produce rich and thorough descri ptions of were collected in five stages with ongoing analysis supporting the theoretical sampling of new data sources (in addition to pre established data sources). Each teac her was observed six times, once a month during the second through fourth months and on three occasions during CRP Science unit implementation. Each observation was video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and field notes were produced. The field notes contai ned a chronological breakdown of individual and collective actions, statements, and discernable feelings as well as summaries describing significant processes that were characteristic of CRP and/or CRP Science. Furthermore, STARTS artifacts, such as teache (RWP) responses, were collected as they were completed by participants and

PAGE 185

185 subsequently analyzed for potential themes. Because the Saturday Collaboration Sessions served as the main structure for bra instorming new lesson ideas, trying out new CRP Science strategies, and receiving feedback, multiple activities were video recorded and later transcribed as well. These activities and their accompanying data sources are identified next. The Saturday Collab oration Sessions demarcated each data collection stage. In between each Saturday Collaboration Session, teachers were engaged in various STARTS activities and their classrooms were observed. At each stage the data were read holistically, open coded by inci dent, and preliminary patterns and trends in their CRP Science knowledge and practices were recorded in a reflexive journal (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), which was maintained through the entire study. Journal entries were connected to an ongoing Design Decisions Report (DDR) in which any PD design decisions were revised based on emergent findings. For example, as the program progressed, teachers consistently abstained from establishing partnerships with knowledge had been discussed previously, a PG task specifically devoted to practical ways to connect science with families was designed and implemented during the third stage. During the first stage of data collection and analysis, teachers completed the preliminary Beliefs About Reformed Science Teaching and Learning ( BARSTL) questionnaire (Sampson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013) in order to assess their initial beliefs about how science should be taught and learned. They also engaged in lesson study, participated in the first Saturday Collaboration Session, and had their classroom

PAGE 186

186 practices observed for the first time. In the second stage, teacher completed GAIn 1 tasks, autobiographies, and RWPs were examined. Additionally, the first gro up interview, second observation, and second Saturday Collaboration S ession were held. These three sources were video recorded and transcribed. In the third stage, STARTS activity artifacts such as the second GAIn task, PG tasks, CTS working document, and RWPs were collected and examined. At this time, a third round of classroom observations was conducted. Teachers also attended the third Saturday Collaboration Session in which they engaged in a second group interview, completed a mock teaching session, and provided feedback on the mock teaching activity. All activities were video recorded and transcribed. During the fourth stage teachers completed all PG tasks, the third GAIn task, and their CRP Science unit templates. Teachers presented their CRP Science u nits during the final Saturday Collaboration Session and also participated in a STARTS redesign session in which they provided feedback about the structure and nature of the major activities. Both the CRP Science unit presentations and STARTS redesign sess ion were video recorded and transcribed verbatim. There was also a final concurrent data collection analysis stage after the fourth Saturday Session. This allowed additional time for any remaining teachers to finalize their CRP Science units. At this time , additional data collection associated with theoretical sampling was also completed. These were often responses to clarification questions collected via email and phone correspondence. Data Analysis ssion as teachers of CRP Science within the context of the STARTS PD program, I employed multiple techniques to assure the methodological rigor of qualitative research, including numerous data

PAGE 187

187 sources, multiple stages of analysis, frequent and repeated obs ervation, prolonged engagement, member checking, and an audit trail (Creswell, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Additionally, I maintained a reflexive memo writing journal (Charmaz, 2006) throughout the program, which included reflective notes after each Satur day Collaboration Session, my preliminary analyses, and suggestions for upcoming Grounded theory is an appropriate method for examining interactions between individuals or among persons within spec ific contexts (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) , particularly when a weak literature base exists . Specific attention is paid to the process, action, and the structure within which these are situated, thereby providing rich data sources later used to (Creswell, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory analysis techniques include open, axial, and selective coding, with the overall aim to move from concrete to abstract through theory generation. Researchers utilizing grounded theory familiarize themselves with existing theories and concepts to develop sensitivity to potential meanings within the data . However, as Charmaz (2006) warns, Thus, theories should be set aside as data are initially explored for categories. To reduce the potential for distorting messages within the data, I also engaged in the process of constantly comparing data sources to each other. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), grounded theory analysis begins with open coding, in which "categories are discovered in data and developed in terms of their properties and dimensions" (p.102) . First, I organized the data sources in

PAGE 188

188 HyperRESEARCH (qualitative data manageme nt software) as they were collected. I examined my reflexive journal entries to identify any potential emerging codes around student teacher interactions were two areas of i nitial focus, as I had observed changes to this end over time in classroom observations. I also paid special attention to any data passages related to family connections and sociopolitical consciousness raising, as these were areas that teachers infrequent ly exhibited in their practices. At the end of the first four stages of data collection and analysis, I conducted a more systematic approach to open coding than the incident by incident approach previously employed. I began line by line coding the group in terview transcripts. Like Charmaz (2000), I broke data into single, sensible units and then labeled the actions and meanings portrayed in each unit . Table 4 1 contains a list of preliminary codes including perceiving that grouping promotes better work , get ting better means new activities and practices, and building relationships with students . As I progressed through open coding, potential categories began to emerge. These categories were based on either (1) frequency of related codes, (2) multiple represen tations/facets of a certain process (i.e., properties of codes, Strauss & Corbin, 1998), or (3) potential categories from my reflexive journal. Examples of early potential categories included : student grouping, teacher scaffolding, family collaboration, an d sociopolitical consciousness . I also kept memos of possible conceptual categories as a way to manage the data as I coded them, which were added to my journal. I then engaged in axial coding to further develop categories according to their properties and dimensions. The related codes were consolidated in HyperRESEARCH

PAGE 189

189 according to their similarity in meaning or relation to the categories (Str auss & Corbin, 1998). T o explore progression and not just action in a given time period, I also look ed across the c odes over time. Therefore, I further grouped the coded passages and their emerging categories according to the time in which they occurred (ex: the first group interview occurred several months prior to the CRP Science u nit presentations). This resulted in chunks of open codes associated with a developing category over a timeline. Examples of developing categories during this stage of analysis included: professional g rowth (as process), a wareness (as a state of being), connecting s cience with s tudents (as a n action), teacher s atisfaction (as a state of being and an outcome), and toolbox (as an object supporting teacher change ). These categories were compared across the teachers and over time periods. To further develop the categories, I went back to their as sociated codes to identify properties (i.e., attributes) and dimensions (i.e., range of properties of a category) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). At this ti me, I explored which codes were outliers and which codes were more distantly and closely related to one an other, if at all. C odes that no longer appeared relevant to the data were removed . At this point, I constructed Cartesian planes for each category to visually represent the dimensions along which a category ranged. Figure 4 1 illustrates a Cartesian plane for the developing category, toolbox , which contains the properties new topics and new strategies . At this phase of analysis, the dimensions ranged from favorable to unfavorable conditions for the incorporation of a new strategy or relevant science topic to existing instruction. For example, in the top left quadrant are conditions in which it was favorable for STARTS teachers to apply relevant topics to existing

PAGE 190

190 science content in the curricula, such as when the topic was combined with a previously used in structional strategy. In the bottom right quadrant are instances in which the application of a new strategy was unfavorable, including the need to cover content and prepare students for the End of Course exam. By articulating the range along which categori es existed, I was better able to discern the conditions (where, when, how, and why) associated with a category (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Additionally, I engaged in theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006) for emerging categories that still had ambiguous dimens ions (e.g., repositioning students ). To develop these dimensions further, I sought pertinent data from participating teachers, largely through phone and email correspondences. As I developed richer understandings of the categories, I revised their labels a s needed (ex: connecting science with students was merged into instructional change ) and wrote detailed memos describing their properties, all of which were supported with evidence passages. Because the codes were now consolidated according to source (and, therefore, relative time), I looked for relationships, additional properties/dimensions of a code, and where they could be further consolidated. Once sa lient categories were identified, I utilized selective coding to integrate and refine them further. Ma ny of these categories and their associated properties/ dimensions were repetitive among data sources, including those obtained through theoretical sampling , thus indicating that theoretical saturation had been attained. This resulted in six themes associat progression as CRP Science teachers, which are listed in Table 4 1. I wrote statements that articulated the observed relationships between themes. Finally, I created a narrative reflecting the temporal progression s of these themes and their supporting

PAGE 191

191 relational statements . In the narrative, I looked closely for shifts in Science knowledge and practices, paying special attention to describe these shifts according to the ir defining properties. The resu lting narrative further allowed me to articulate dim ensions of the categories . Becoming a CRP Science Teacher In my examination of the process high school life science teachers undergo as they become CRP Science teachers within the context of the STARTS P D program, six themes emerged from the data: views of students, CRP Science conceptions, utilizing a toolbox, community building, repositioning students, and instructional changes. These themes are presented as a conceptual model (Figure 4 2). To explore p otential relationships between process and supporting structures, my discussion of the data periods according to major STARTS program activities. I begin with an overview of the findings, which are highlighted in the time ordered matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to illustrate the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher (Table 4 3 ). For the six high school life science teachers participating in the STARTS PD program, beco ming a CRP Science teacher involved a process of moving from awareness to action. STARTS teachers developed an awareness of CRP Science knowledge, their students, and a toolbox (i.e., a cache of responsive instructional strategies and relevant science topi cs). As their awareness deepened and expanded, teachers translated their awareness to action through specific instructional changes, repositioning students, and community building. For STARTS teachers, there was a specific instructional pace associated wit h becoming a CRP Science teacher. As teachers became more student centered and culturally responsive they made

PAGE 192

192 adjustments to their practice that temporarily slowed their normal instruction al pace. Teachers elicit ed continually g auge d student understanding through formative assessment techniques , implement ed new instructional strategies that were responsive to student needs , engaged students in multiple science practices, and dove deeper into relevant science topics in an attempt to make them more relatable Though these adjustments temporarily impacted the amount of material STARTS teachers covered, they observed greater student engagement and deeper learning. This slower pace was also a result of getting to kn ow their students more deeply , which accompanied changing views of students over time . The views that teachers held of their students progressed from general and assumption laden at the beginning of the program both in and out of school. As they learned about their students and engaged in STARTS program activities , teachers Science conceptions expanded from initially narrow and focused on race to considering power relations and seeing culture as an asset, an d, ultimately, to the translation of knowledge about students to classroom practices intended to empower their students . For this group of teachers, there was a lso repositioning associated with becoming a CRP Science teacher. students became more informed by what they were learning about their students, they began to reposition students and shift authority in the classroom by utilizing novel instructional strategies from their toolbox. This repositioning had three components, student, teacher, and instructional. Students took on new roles in the classroom and were reposition ed as experts and leaders , whereas at the beginning of the STARTS PD program they had a

PAGE 193

193 more passive role. The teacher component involved a shifting of auth ority over time. T he relationships between STARTS teachers and their students became more fluid (Ladson Billings, 1994), which led to new teacher roles. Teachers first spoke of students as capable, then began to articulate a connection between themselves a s caring educators and forging meaningful student teacher relationships. Finally, they decreased choices and classroom interactions. The instructional component that accompan ied student repositioning pertained to the increased use of cooperative learning structures and involving students in creating products together. they were treated as constructors of kno wledge as opposed to receivers. For instance, reflection on their performance and understanding during assignments The STARTS teachers emphasized community building within their classroo ms. Community building is the action through which they empowered and repositioned students by changing their instruction (e.g., cooperative learning activities) and enacting care. Their attempts to build respectful and equitable learning environments with students were fueled by more than increasing achievement; Over time, their purposes for building classroom communities grew. Community buildi ng student interaction, and academic conversations.

PAGE 194

194 The student repositioning and community building associated with becoming a CRP Science teacher yielded instructional ch anges, where emphasis on content during planning was decreased and instead emphasis on students became a top priority. Collaborative learning became a prominent feature of the STARTS teachers classrooms over time. Such instructional changes accompanied ST ARTS teachers who took through the lesson study and GAIn tasks. They were also exposed to a nd asked to utilize a toolbox of responsive instructional strategies and relevant science topics through the Saturday Collaboration Sessions and PG tasks, and purposefully connected these findings to instruction through the CRP Science unit template. As a consequence of changing their instruction, repositioning students, and community building, STARTS teachers o bserved their students engaging more meaningfully in academic conversation, performing better on classroom assignments, and becoming more autonomous. Time 1 Beginning Conceptions CRP Science Knowledge Where I am at [ high s that you could bring in language or culture or food or something like that . (Kate, Sa turday Collaboration Session 1) The initial CRP Science conceptions of teachers wer e simplistic, often focused on race, and ignored power relations. Kate conveys this in the quote above, describing CRP Science in a way that Sleeter (2012) refers to as cultural celebration . According to Sleeter (2012) viewing CRP as a cultural celebration disconnects culture from academic learning and is a common tendency among teachers who have not critically examined their expectations of underrepresented students. When teachers engage in cultural

PAGE 195

195 celebration they view learning about culture as an end to itself, thereby overlooking Occasionally, the conceptions of CRP Science centered on facilitating academic learning , but this came through as includ ing (Natalie, RWP 1). Furthermore, CRP Science was viewed by some of the teachers as potentially offensive . They saw it as lumping students into forced categories (based on ethnicity) that they might not necessarily associate with. Natalie spe aks of this when discussing potential issues while which she asserts, must be done with tact and caution without looking too stereotypical. Some students may be offended when you are trying to cater t he lesson to their ethnic likings , When they talked about being culturally responsive teacher s , the STARTS teachers spoke of caring for and being respectful of their students. They described care as having nurt uring feelings for students, attending to their emotional needs , and providing them o tudy document). Much like the account Bondy, Ross, Hambacher, and Acosta (2013) provide of Dianna, a White first year teacher working with African American students, STARTS teachers connections between t the teachers did articulate that in order to care for and be respectful of students, they needed students , these comments were largely assumption based, referring to previous

PAGE 196

196 experiences with other students as their basis for characterizing the students they were currently educating. When teachers rely on assumptions and previous experiences to characterize their students, partic ularly with diverse students, they run the risk of holding stereotypical and deficit based views (Ladson Billings, 1995; Tutwiler, 2007), which negatively impacts the rigor of the learning experiences they provide (Howard, 2010). Though there was no eviden ce that STARTS teachers openly provided less challenging learning experiences for their diverse students, their instruction was also not reflective of CRP Science. Accompanying Instructional Practices I tend to introduce the material, have students intera ct with the material in some way and then test them on it . (Christina Joy, RWP 2) In the first months of the STARTS program, science instruction was primarily teacher directed and consistent with their reported beliefs about the ways that science should be taught and learned . For example, Zane and Claudia both communicated beliefs about teaching and learning science that were incongruent with CRP Science and reform based science teaching. They both of the talking in ( BARSTL questionnaire as counterproductive to covering content. something relevant a student has brought up (RWP 1), suggesting that at this time was viewed as a distraction to achieving set lesson objectives. According to Ladson B illings (1994), the comment made by Christina Joy is

PAGE 197

197 constrains opportunities to reducing deep learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Teachers spoke of translating their knowledge of CRP Science into practice via differentiated instruction, though no elaboration was given as to how this is accomplished nor was it witnessed in classroom observations. Furthermore, some of the teachers expressed tension with differentiating instruction, as it was perceived to produce insufficient instructional rigor. Lorelei articulated this s entiment when she said , T he teacher [should] not adapt the lesson to fit the needs of the students [because the] During lesson study, teachers were introduced to exploring the impact of their teachi ng on student outcomes in a systematic manner. By measuring student outcomes in relation to lesson objectives that were designed for them, the teachers began to examine how well their practices facilitated intended outcomes. They reported that this was the first time they had formally examined their actual versus intended practices. As a result, though their practices were still primarily traditional, teachers did begin to involve students more actively in the learning process than they reported doing in th e past. Mainly, this occurred by bringing students up to the front of the classroom to answer questions and conducting lab activities. In isolated instances, student exploration preceded a lecture, providing students with opportunities to learn from experi ence . When students were engaged in a lab activity, the activities often required that they follow rigid procedures.

PAGE 198

198 students engaged in a lab activity intended to familiarize t hem with measuring volumes, 10 th grade students whose primary language was Spanish. After asking a series of review questions on the properties of matter in both Spanish and English, Claudia informed her students that they should get their lab notebooks and copy the pre written hypothesis from the board. The students were then arranged in groups of four and Claudia walked them through each step in a mechanical fashion. In my field notes I recorded: T hough this lab let s students practice basic lab skills, during the actual part of the lab it appeared to be little more than that. At the end of the class, [Claudia] dedicated time to pull the main concepts out (density, volum e, mass) and revisit the hypothesis (one whole class hypothesis), but this was only done with certain students and she did all the explaining, rather than having students think through the concepts. So, in a sense, while students were acting like scientist s would, they were not really engaging in any investigation . ( Observation 1, 9/ 13) Time 2 Growing in Awareness and Community Building CRP Science Knowledge aware the biggest thing so far with this, with STARTS, more . (Lorelei, Group i nterview 1) As teachers began their first GAIn task, the ways in which they described CRP Science was in contrast to their beginning conceptions. As they engaged with course readings and critically examined aspects of their classroo m practice in the GAIn, the teachers began to build a rati onale for enacting CRP Science that was tied to their own noted,

PAGE 199

199 me because people are all so, y l with no relevance. The kids are lik e, How is this relevant to me? S ifting through . . . so m uch more fun for them [the students] and us [the teachers ] when we . . . . (Group interview 1) Much like the ideas expressed by Christina Joy, other STARTS teachers articulated a desire to engage students in science with relevance. However, missing from their comments was a rationale for why such approaches are effective beyond the fact that the transformative nature of the pe consciousness, intellectual critique, and political and personal efficacy in students so that they can combat prejudices, racism, and other forms of oppression and , there was evidence of emerging critical awareness in STARTS teachers. As STARTS teachers engaged in the first GAIn task , they read literature on CRP Science and critical works on classroom environment and schooling . They examine d their own classroom env ironment (both physical and student student/student teacher interactions), and suggest ed strategies for creating (or maintaining) a culturally relevant classroom environment tied to what they observed as well as the CRP Science literature . They then create d an action plan for enacting their suggested strategies. This task support ed critical consciousness. As the teachers discussed readings about the political nature of schooling, they began to take a critical perspective. They started t o translate their critical perspectives to action by building classroom communities, which they felt eased stress and decreased student resistance.

PAGE 200

200 When writing in her completed GAIn 1 task about the positive impact of a culturally responsive classroom, Ka te shared, S of an environment where students help each other in a community like way has been shown to increase achievement as well as skills to engage in social action . (GAIn 1) In this quote, Kate articulated that resistance could result from a classroom environment that is unwelcoming , which leads to stress . Creating a community reduces student stress and also increases achievement. Zane also articulated what she previously felt about the classroom, To me the classroom was not a natural environment; I perceive it not being natural for students, and when I read one of the papers i t say {sic} , , and with these kids they are questioning the system but they voice it in a different way and that makes me more confident about the way I manage my classroom; not to let t hem do whatever they want to do, but try to make it mo re natural , you know, a community . (Group i nterview 1). Among the teachers, e mphasis was now placed on creating a classroom community . Similar to Ladson community building in the classroom was seen by STARTS teachers as a way to impart care and promote student learning. Discussions of CRP Science no longer centered just and care , but how backgrounds are seen as assets. This was accompanied by changing conceptions of se lf and others (Ladson Billings, 1994), where teachers view themselves and others as cultural beings. As Zane explains : . . . I s Y ou I . t it was a good thing, but it also ignored other factors that I take into consideration because to

PAGE 201

201 not know you as Spanish missing out on some useful thing that you bringing to the classroom, and you are a student, same considerations but I have to pay attention to what you can bring to the classroo m and make it different what your contribution can be so we can build a community together . (Group i nterview 1) identities, which influences learning. According to Vil legas and Lucas (2002), this passage highlights her expanding sociocultural consciousness, or mediated by a variety of factors, chief among them race/et hnicity, social class, and culturally responsive teaching. As they described their roles as educators, STARTS teachers spoke of repositioning their emphasis on instructi on to include the students in meaningful ways , as opposed to focusing solely on their needs . Christina Joy stated , . Though this comment highlights a as distracting, she later shared that she struggled with accomplishing this goal. Accompanying Instructional Practices T complained about in my GAIn is how they [students] why; this to use in a meaningful way instead of just kind of throwing together . . . these typical inquiry procedures that I already know in my head, but now it actually makes saying at the very b eginning, doing things on purpose. (Kate, Group i nterview 1)

PAGE 202

202 The teachers began to speculate on ways to bring culturally responsive practices into the classroom as well as a rationale for these instructional decisions. Overall, teachers viewed CRP Scie nce structures like collaboration promote , in which s tudents were expected to be Billings, 1994). As the teachers learned n ew instructional strategies during the second Saturday Collaboration Session they began to add to their toolbox. V ariations of cooperative learning abound in their classrooms group , GAIn 1). This emphasis on collaboration wa s reflected in the second round of classroom observations, though s tudents were largely grouped for lab activities and with no specific roles beyond completing the task at hand . For example, when I visited Christina Joy for the second time, I observed students working in pairs to distinguish tissue types according to size, shape, function and other features. The environment in Christina oriented. In a class of 28, the major ity of her students were either Black or Hispanic. During the station activity, Christina Joy continually circulated among student pairs to clarify procedures and ask comprehension questions. Students were often asked to elucidate their rationale for makin g specific the correct usage of terminology. As a facilitator to her students, it was common to hear

PAGE 203

203 entific . . . please make it scientific . . . Instead of saying it looks like the picture, you could say . . . lovely. Help out your . Students each had a guiding worksheet, but no specific roles for participation. Their final products were individual lab write ups in their science journals. While students were engaged with one another, t hey were individually accountable for their performance. For the first time, the teachers also spoke of slowing down their current pace of instruction and using formative assessment to gauge student learning. Claudia in particular used multiple formative a ssessment techniques to gauge STARTS teachers talked very generally about contextualizing instruction in throug h relevant science topics what cultural element they can bring to the classroom and bring those strategies nterview 1). Furthermore, during this time period some teachers set not yet cr

PAGE 204

204 still planned to create the centers. At the conclusion of the STARTS PD program I had not seen the centers. However, the teachers did begin to design instruction that was respons ive to the needs they were learning about their students . In the quote at the beginning of this section, Kate shares a deeper understanding of the reason behind why certain room interactions during the GAIn task, Kate began to notice that her male students dominated group conversations, leaving females silent. Before noticing this through one of the GAIn prompts, Kate assumed that her female students were just not participati ng. However, as the above passage illustrate s , Kate now had a deeper understanding of why this was the case , which ultimately impacted her instruction . Several teachers began to speculate on the connection between their practices and student outcomes. Cla udia W why , you know, it a ntervie w 1). During this time period, the teachers also made connections between their previously articulated professional goals, perceived issues in the classroom, and potential instructional strategies to address these. STARTS teachers also became more aware o f their own practices. As Lorelei relates . . . that c ntervi ew 1). For Lorelei, this represented a significant shift in her teaching practices and beliefs about being a good science teacher

PAGE 205

205 from that which she reported in the initial science teaching and learning questionnaire. Lorelei ndency on her, describing her actions during lab my head cut off. consistent with what I observed when first visiting her classroom. During a lab investigation of carbon and macromolecules , I noted that Lore repeatedly brought [students] all materials, helped [students] through procedures, and several [students] were hesitant to proceed without her affirming them , pausing and looking at her until she confirmed the next step (Observation 1 field notes , 9/ 11/13 ). Lorelei saw this aspect of her teaching as a chronic problem and it became an area of professional growth that she selected at the beginning of the STARTS program. However, by the second observation, Lorelei had already involved students in more ex tensive discourse, this time around the concept of mitosis, than the methods I had witnessed in the past. The views that STARTS teachers held about their students became based on actual experiences with their students as opposed to previous experiences wi th other students. However, at this time, most of their discussions of students as individuals were based on information they learned about how students acted inside of class time, , the additional GAIn tasks they would soon participate in required a deeper level of understanding Time 3 Moving from Awareness to Action: Becoming Responsive, Experiencing Tensions CRP Science Knowledge CRP are ways of knowing that guide a community, and is not exclusive to . (L orelei, RWP Change)

PAGE 206

206 The teachers Science expanded beyond racial lines , seeing it more as a way of knowing, a stance (G ay, 2010) . sentiment. Students became viewed as members of a community, and CRP Science was viewed as a way to guide the functioning of this community. For the first time, care was now directly connected to its influence o n classroom interactions. Teachers began to articulate their importance in maintaining a community of learners. When the teachers conveyed care , it now also included actively seeking out ways to con nect better with their students: I teach a very diverse g roup of regular learners. I use quotations, because they are far from regular. They are simply not placed in an honors classroom. I felt it would be to my benefit to read how to connect with my hip hop learners . (Natalie, GAIn 2) For STARTS teachers, c are was shown through creating respectful, emotionally safe learning environments for their students. The ways in which teachers and students constructed a sense of community in their cla ssrooms was articulated as well: helping the whole community , and one thing that I promote is what I call emotional safety. They have to feel emotionally safe to be able to speak, to share, to go to the board , to interact i nterview 2). Creating a sense of community was seen as a way to foster academic conversation as well , as Christina Joy explains: A teacher that makes students feel part of a bigger picture and make science relatable to them Through the GAIn tasks, STARTS teache rs were prompted to learn about . To foster culturally congruent discourse, the GAIn 2 task prompted teachers to read about student teacher interactions in CRP Science classrooms, and to crit ically examine their questioning and

PAGE 207

207 communication patterns and resulting student participation. The task also provided literature and from what they observed), and helped c reate a plan to enact these strategies. The teachers spoke even more specifically about their students, knowing more about them as individuals and planning on ways to connect their lives outside of school to science content. At this time, most comments abo ut students were still based largely on classroom interactions and behavior; yet, purposeful connections between this information and practice were also being made. From the first day of school, I noticed how this class is dominated by boys, not only in n umbers, but also in the amount of talking in the classroom. There are three girls in this class that speak up, but that number is small a male. I know that while in their small groups, however (from listening as I teach), all but two girls in this class offer suggestions and thoughts to the group (peers) . (Kate, GAIn 2) In this passage, Kate cues into student interactions in specific ways, but still makes . Yet, to integrate responsive strategies with relevant science topics, teachers must learn about the lives and needs of their students outside of school a s well (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Accompanying Instructional Practices A fter writing and reviewing Gain 2, I want to utilize question and answers in a less invasive way. Instead of teacher questions, students raise hands and teacher calls on student, I woul d like to employ other alternatives so students do not feel so on the spot and nervous. For example, I can give review or preview questions and have students turn and talk to discuss the answers and then have one member of the group share out . (Christina Jo y, GAIn 2) Because the GAIn tasks required teachers to speculate on ties between what the y were learning about students and their classrooms, connections to practice were

PAGE 208

208 repeatedly made. As the teachers learned more about CRP Science and their students, the repositioning of students continued and grew in new ways. They began to discuss and implement potential strategies that increasingly positioned students Billings , 1994, p.117) in their classrooms . Teachers repositioned students as experts. For example, during my third observation of her biology class, I witnessed first students, who were all either Black (mainly Haitian American) or His panic. Several had recently exited ESOL programs and, during the p revious observation debrief , Zane , 10 /13). During this introductory lesson on genetics, Zane acted more as a conductor tha n a director, allowing students to drive much of the explanations and discourse. Zane projected multiple choice items on the whiteboard and had students come up, one at a time, to talk sly learned. Sensing that this process was slightly uncomfortable for some students, Zane assured I am not giving this task to you to distract you; I am giving this to you to show you how important it is to succeed. We are not alone, we will do this together board, read the question aloud and paused to think through his rationale. Students waited patiently as he explained which choices were incorrect, based on what he r emembered. When he selected the incorrect answer (

PAGE 209

209 redirected to other students. Together, they arrived at the correct answer and justification. In my field notes I wrote, [Zane] leads another student through this thought processing session. But, she still lets the students drive the process . . . When another focus group student volunteered, he makes light of his struggles, but all of the student s are facing forward, attentive, raising their hands to help him and are so encouraging. This is part of the safe environment that [Zane] has helped them create over time . ( Observation 3, 11/ 13 , italics in original ) In this instance, Zane conducted a lesson that empo wered students by acknowledging the institutional influence upon them and the imperative to succeed on the End of Course exam. Through this, Zane makes explicit to her students the rules of the culture of power (in this case the standardized test they must pass to graduate), which makes acquiring power easier (Delpit, 1995). The leadership roles that were repeatedly Claudia s peaks to this , M d of them. They have improved in different ways. For example one of them likes to be a leader; [he] share[s] ideas and opinions, he a good team worker , rather than talking and disrupting the class and himself like before . and to help the others . (Group i nterview 2) To provide STARTS teachers with additional instructional strategies for their toolbox, teachers completed PG tasks in which they read practitioner articles on making student thinking visible and effective collaboration , identified salient strategies, and speculated on ways to implement these strategies. Largely, shifts in teaching were not yet around changing lesson content to in clude aspects of their studen as part of Billings, 1994, p.117). Instead they were about changing instructional strategies in ways the teachers reported were more student centered and empowering. I deas for collaborative learning became more o rdered, with

PAGE 210

210 specific student r oles , in an attempt to create equitable and rigorous learning experiences . Cooperative learning structures were viewed as essential to enacting reform based and CRP Science. [about CRP Science ], however, I would add the use of group work as a strong mechanism for inquiry E ven as the teachers began to learn more about their and added new instructional tools to thei r toolbox, they shared struggles about not knowing relevant topics to apply to their science instruction. Christina Joy describes this struggle: relatable to students . . . I can think of a variety of teaching str ategies that w ould be effective for this chapter but making it more relatable to students has me (GAIn 2). As the teachers continued to reposition students and include cooperative learning activities more frequently, there were noticeable differences in thei r instruction. For example, in the third lesson I observed, Kate had her anatomy and physiology students work in groups to complete a muscle stations lab. She and Christina Joy had co designed this lesson, but Kate modified it to make it more responsive to needs, as she had been actively working to increase communication by female students . During the lesson, Kate required students to practice cooperative learning strategies (students had roles as understanding checker, summarizer, idea genera tor, etc.) to increase the effectiveness of their groups. In my field notes I noted that s he You have plenty of ideas, but you have really nothing else, so make sure that you are also cooperating in these ways (pointing to the list of interactions ) provid ed specific feedback and ask ed clarifying questions

PAGE 211

211 about process and content. The students worked in groups of 3 4 and rotated through exploratory stations where they identified the parts of a muscle cell, l ocated muscle fibers on a model, and engaged in muscle fatigue activities (e.g., weight lifting, wall sitting, and pincer gripping), every ten minutes. The lesson kept students actively our group was really competitive Ironically, the activities permitted competition while also promoting group accountability (O bservation 3 field notes, 11/ 13). In preparation for designing their CRP Science instructional units, STARTS teachers first c ompleted a Curriculum Topic Study on the unit topic. A fter completing the CTS, teachers began to place an emphasis on uncovering misconceptions commonly held by students. They articulated their importance to effective instruction . Natalie explained, able to see and read about DNA , its many misconceptions and tackle these with my students. So we went and talked about that because that was one of the misconceptions I found in the [curriculum topic] study ( G roup interview 2). The teachers also began to talk about the importance of teaching the bigger picture of a concept/big idea in addition to spending time on the smallest details and facts, which led to very specific changes in their practice that were later evident in their implementation of the CR P Science units. However, utilizing these strategies also came at the expense of time. Christina Joy describe d the tension between the amount of time it takes to cover content and engage students in active learning, From the [CRP Science] units I created this year, I am over four weeks behind last year and am now trying to play catch up . . . In the future I have to make these lessons significantly shorter to be able to get through my required material . ( Clarification Questions )

PAGE 212

212 Time 4 Enacting the CRP S cience Unit s CRP Science Conceptions In my mind I thought a good teacher or an effective teaching practice would be for me to just always be there for them; whatever they needed from me then I was there. And then that meant that I was running around my cla ssroom like a chicken with my head cut off and it was just too much. So I came to realize I really need to put more on them because they can believe in myself that I could let go, too. (Lorelei, Presentation) As STARTS teachers neared their capstone project, designing and enacting the CRP Science units, they frequently spoke of how important their role as a teacher was in facilitating relationships, student learning, and maintaining a c lassroom community. The central role of curriculum materials was downplayed, because teachers saw themselves as key factors in student learning whereas this had not been previously emphasized. Natalie expressed this point, ve learned from all this is that the more I get to know them the better they do . . . they do better because I have a personal connection with them. I know my students more on a personal level as opposed to just biology work now . (Presentation) Care became well articulated, multi dimensional, and connected to practice, primarily through continued community building. Community building moved beyond creating emotionally safe classroom spaces to students relying on one another to complete a task, constructing a final product together , and present ing their expert knowledge to the classroom. Lorelei speaks abou t this when describing a lesson on pedigree analysis and allele frequencies, T hey really needed to rely on each other, too, because at the end they needed t he class data to come up with the frequency and to plot everything out. So that created this sense of community, they all relied on each other real ly to kind of work it through. Some really got it and some . (Pre sentation)

PAGE 213

213 In this lesson , students were responsible for arriving at a solution together, thereby successfully completing the task. Collaboration was about more than achievement to Lorelei, though. It was about students assisting one another. Of this, La dson Billings, teachers encouraged a community of learners rather than competitive, individual achievement. By demanding a higher level of academic . T hrough the GAIn and PG tasks, teachers were prompted to learn about students spend their free time, and how they feel about various science topics ( Villegas & Lucas, 2002) . In the third GAIn task in particular , teachers were asked to sit down with their students, learn specific information about them in relation to science, and then make instructional decisions based on their findings. Through this and other actions ( e.g., Christina Joy used social media to con nect with her students and showcase their exemplary work ), STARTS teachers were Billings, 1994, p.66). Accompanying Instructional Practices h ave it [the CRP Science unit]. W ith CRP , instead of just thinking about the content , which I would normally do when planning, I was forced to bring in my students into what I was thinking ab out . (Kate, Group interview 2) STARTS teachers designed CRP Scienc e units around the following topics: DNA structure and function, protein synthesis, the cell cycle, and the musculoskeletal system. When they spoke of their CRP Science units, the teachers placed a strong and ab ove captures this emphasis, as she shifted her instructional design focus from the notion of teaching content to teaching

PAGE 214

214 students . By the time they were creating and implementing their CRP Science units, the n oriented. Student engagement increased, as did student choice in assignments. Because the teachers were implementing novel instructional materials, the slower pace became even more evident during this time period, not only for scaffolding new instruction al strategies but also for diving deeper into topics Natalie discusses this element when commenting on the lesson she designed to explore the various forms of mutations. With hopes of making content more relatable to her students, Natalie involved students in a collaborative learning activity where they explored mutation causing diseases that were common in various ethnic populations (e.g., Tay : So this was a good lesson that I ne ver had done before. Whenever I talked about mutations I just kind of did four or five P owerpoint slides on the types of mutations and just moved on and never really made it personal to them, and because I made it personal they did better on t he tests . ( Pre sentation) To design their CRP Science units, teachers utilized several tools from their toolbox. Kate applied an instructional strategy she learned from one of the PG tasks during a sarcomere contraction activity. During the lesson, Kate involved studen ts in monitoring their forms of group communication through a worksheet she designed. She then used the worksheet to have students reflect on which types of interactions they were likely to have engaged in and which they needed to improve upon to increase th e depth of their communications in the future. The teachers also expanded their assessments to include multiple ways to demonstrate proficiency. Claudia shares, I planned for them to express their learning, either by drawing or in their presentation . . . For example my students who spoke less English , they did the best chart. My students with the middle English [proficiency] , they

PAGE 215

215 were the ones who made the better connections of their understanding among everyone . (Presentation) Providing students with m ultiple ways to demonstrate proficiency stands in stark contrast to my previous observations of Claudia, where she relied heavily on textbook based worksheets as the primary way to evaluate her students. By expanding her assessment approaches, Claudia repo academic success, given the appropriate learning environment and instructional What resulted as the CRP Science units were enacted was not o nly a noticeable difference in st udent to student communication, but also shifting interaction s between teacher and student, which further repositioned students in their roles as learners. Lorelei articulated this change, labs are so . . . they run just so smooth. Yes! They get it. I walk around and I talk to them, I get to know them more. It d , and then you kind of branch off a little bit , and then we bring it back . (Presentation) E classrooms were not only congruous with CRP Science, but also reflective of learner centered environments. Bransford, Brown, and Co . . . refer[s] to environments that pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational setting . . . includ[ing] teaching practices that have been 133 4). R eflecting on their unit design , STARTS teachers shared both successes and challenges. While their characterization of CRP Science e xpanded, some teachers still

PAGE 216

216 struggled with narrow conceptions of how to enact CRP Science instru ction. Christina Joy reports, T instruction , at some point the kids have to have notes o r material or Ok, get in a group; get in a group . (Presentation) and a trivialized view of CRP Science, in whic h the paradigm is reduced to steps to follow as opposed to pedagogy for empowering diverse students (Sleeter, 2012). However, a closer examination of her words reveals a serious challenge for teachers trying to enact a responsive pedagogy in a restrictive, evaluation driven environment. Lorelei elucidates the institutional influence teachers perceived as a continual challenge to teaching CRP Scien ce: The district provides a suggested pacing guide at the start of the school year. Although the pace is a sugg estion, the biology course contains an E nd of C ou rse exam as well as a district provided semester exam. These two assessments cover content aligned with the district pace. Meaning, if you do not follow the pacing chart , the students will be tested on mater ial you never taught . (Clarification Questions) Though multiple teachers articulated that students were learning more science through a culturally responsive approach, this occurrence holds specific implications for supporting teachers as they experience the backlash associated with enacting innovative pedagogies (Sleeter, 2012). Discussion As a research and development program, the STARTS PD program was designed to prepare CRP Science teachers capable of designing and implementing culturally responsive, r eform based science instructional materials . The research f or high school life science teachers participating in

PAGE 217

217 an explicit PD progra m on CRP Science, w hat defines the process of becoming culturally responsive educators? My analysis led to the development of a conceptual model representing the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher within this context, thereby responding to the call made by Patchen and Cox Petersen (2008) to encourage science educators to pursue addit ional research to determine what teachers are actually doing in classrooms to enact CRP and to document the strategies most . Through this model, six themes characteristic of the process were elucidated: CRP Science conceptions, views of students, repositioning students, utilizing a toolbox, community building, and instructional changes. , and Ladson conceptions of self and others, STARTS teachers believed that all of the students they worked with were capable of success . They them, and, over time, came to treat teachin rather than depositing information (p.34). Over the course of the STARTS program, teachers exemplified the multidimensional nature of CRP (Gay, 2010) as their relationships with students became more fluid and equita ble. Great care was taken to build a classroom community , and students were treated as members of this community (Ladson Billings, 1994). Collaborative learning became a regular element of the pense of time. As STARTS teachers grew professionally they enacted several elements of CRP Science. Though they began to develop sociocultural consciousness and view

PAGE 218

218 knowledge critically, there was only one instance of engaging students in the critical ex ploration of science topics. Yet, Morrison, Robbins, and Rose (2008) argued that consciousness that students are empowered with the tools to transform their lives and education are limited in examples of sociopolitical consciousness (Morrison et al., 2008), the field of CRP Science is rich with opportunities to include issues important to t he community ( e.g., Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001; Mensah, 2011) and confront negative stereotypes, biases, and forms of oppression ( e.g., Calabrese Barton, 1998; Laughter & Adams, 2012). However, with the exception of isolated studies (e.g., Mens a h , 2011; Laughter & Adams, 2012), opportunities for students to examine science from a critical perspective were designed by science education researchers, not teachers. Therefore, additional research is required not only to develop sociopolitical/critical consciousness in science teacher s , but also how to support science Additionally, research is required on designing PD programs that support responsive teaching in a restrictive envir onment because CRP Science teachers are fighting an uphill battle. Sleeter (2012) identifies the political backlash associated with culturally responsive teaching, arguing that schools with underachieving students are more often pressured to conform to sta ndardization rather than responsiveness. Citing an expansive literature base, Sleeter (2012) asserts that teachers are given less time to research and develop curriculum that students can relate to, non tested curriculum disappears under pressure to raise test scores, and teachers are increasingly patrolled

PAGE 219

219 to make sure they are teaching the required curriculum, at the required pace 577). The NRC (2012) advocates reducing the amount of science content covered in curricula to core ideas in four discipli nary areas (life sciences; earth and space sciences; physical sciences; and engineering, technology, and applications of science) in an effort to support sustained engagement and deeper learning. However, opportunities to include culturally responsive inst ruction around these core ideas must also be acknowledged at the policy level in order for reform of this magnitude to be actualized.

PAGE 220

220 Table 4 1 . Becoming CRP Science teachers . Selective codes Axial codes Open codes Views of Students Awareness Soci opolitical elements Perceiving the classroom environment as not natural, Being forced to think of students and not just content CRP Science Conceptions Awareness Teacher satisfaction Teacher progression Acknowledging importance of relevance in instruct ion, Being culturally responsive means engaging activities Being culturally responsive is rare Toolbox Topic vs strategy Family connections Getting better means new activities and practices, Identifying new techniques, natural to build from pree xisting lessons Community Building Creating safe spaces Care Care is required for students to trust , Care is responsible for positive St T relationships Repositioning Students Student grouping Student outcomes Believing in her students , Perceiving t hat grouping promotes better work Instructional Changes Professional growth Connecting science with students Assessment Seeing old way of questioning as invasive, Gaining deeper understanding of why to make instructional strategies

PAGE 221

221 Figure 4 1 . Ca rtesian plane diagram illustrating dimensions of the category , Toolbox , which contains new strategies and new topics .

PAGE 222

222 Table 4 2. Data collection/a nalysis stages during the STARTS research and development project . Data s ources P roject t imeline Data collection s tage Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Mar April BARSTL questionnaire X Classroom observations* X X X X X Group interviews X X Reflective Writing Prompts X X X X X X Lesson study documents X Autobiography X GAIn tasks X X X CTS document X PG tasks X X CRP Science units X X Saturday Collaboration Session artifacts X X X X Clarification Questions (email, phone correspondence) X X X ield notes accompany each classroom observation. Design Decisions Report was maintained throughout .

PAGE 223

223 Figure 4 2 . Conceptual model of the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher .

PAGE 224

22 4 Table 4 3 . Time . Time 1: 8/1/13 9/15/13 Time 2: 9/16/13 10/ 15/13 Time 3: 10/16/13 11/30/13 Time 4: 12/1/13 1/31/14 PD Activities CRP Science readings, Lesson Study, Observation 1, Saturday Collaboration Session 1 GAIn 1, Autobiography, Begin CTS Group Interview 1, Observation 2, Saturday Collaboration Se ssion 2 GAIn 2, Professional Growth tasks, Complete CTS, Begin CRP Science unit design, Group Interview 2, Observation 3, Saturday Collaboration Session 3 GAIn 3, Professional Growth tasks, Complete and enact CRP Science unit, Observations 4 6, Saturday C ollaboration Session 4 CRP Science C onceptions Focused on race, Missing critical perspective, dislikes, Care is about liking students Critical perspective on schooling, Forming a community, Background as asset, Compare current practic es to CRP A way of knowing and being, Care is multi faceted and about connecting with students, important, Relationship building, Care connected to practice Views of Students Based on assumptions and previous experiences with other stude nts Based on classroom interactions, Examining the impact of instruction on students Students are capable individuals, Making connections between students and instruction Based on conversations with students, Learning about their lives outside of school, C onnected to instruction Repositioning Students N/A Increasing active role Students as leaders, experts Student communication is primary discourse in classroom Teachers let go of control, Decreased reliance on teacher, Students construct product toget her Community Building N/A Reduces student stress, Promotes interaction, Conveys care Emotionally safe spaces, Mechanism for academic success Students depend on each other, Students construct product together Toolbox Relevant topics are potentially offe nsive Concept mapping as a way to elicit understanding Cooperative learning roles, Challenge finding relevant topics, Uncovering student misconceptions Applying relevant topics to responsive instructional strategies, Questioning scaffolds Instructional C hanges Teacher directed, Some active learning experiences, but follow rigid procedures Begin student centered stance, Cooperative learning for lab activities, Formative assessment Cooperative learning as mechanism for reform based science teaching, Empower ing students, Student reflection Multiple ways to demonstrate proficiency, Continued practices from Times 2 and 3

PAGE 225

225 CHAPTER 5 DESIGNING FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Introduction It is hard to deny the imp ortant role teachers play in facilitating science education reform. According to the National Research Council [NRC] (2012), interactions between teachers and students in individual classrooms are the determining factor in whether students . For diverse individuals who are often underrepresented in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, academic success in science is increased when teachers integrate their cultural and l inguistic backgrounds with academically rigorous instruction (Banks et al., 2005 ; Lee & Luykx, 2007). Calls for science education reform that attend s (Lee & Fradd, 1998) ; yet they oft en remain unanswered (Mensah, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). Embedded within the literature exploring such culturally responsive pedagogies in science education (hereafter referred to as CRP Science) is the professional development (PD) of CRP Scien ce teachers who are capable of effectively educating diverse students. Although some scholars have begun to examine PD programs with this aim (Lee, 2004; Lee et al., 2004; Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), none have done so from a design based perspective with the intent to produce usable knowledge about how to best construct such experiences. Yet, Cohen and Hill (2002) experiences has the greatest impact on their beli efs and practices, and eventually, on

PAGE 226

226 ensure academic excellence for diverse students through CRP Science and the great velopment as culturally responsive educators, design based approaches are crucial. This study employed typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) and matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) to address the research question, what features of the STA RTS design framework can be associated with supporting changes in culturally responsive knowledge and practices of high school life science teachers? In this paper I report on the critical characteristics of the STARTS ( Science Teachers Are Responsive To S tudents ) PD program for developing CRP Science teachers that designed and enacted innovative instructional materials. To generate usable knowledge about preparing CRP Science teachers through PD, I also present the revised STARTS design framework and an ac companying set of design principles. Theoretical Framework Central to this study is the exploration of the influence of STARTS PD growing knowledge and practices. Therefore, design based research (DBR) serves as an appropriate fra mework guiding this study. DBR is used for constructing effective learning environments via theoretically grounded educational interventions and is suited for examining learnin g processes in environments that are designed and systematically altered by the researcher (Barab, 2006, McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Design studies occur in naturalistic settings where context plays a large role in that multiple variables are present and cannot be controlled for (Barab & Squire 2004; Fishman et al., 2004). Thus, a focus of design studies is the exploration of mechanisms undergirding learning through a novel in situ educational intervention (Confrey , 2006; Shavelson & Towne, 2002). To accomplish this goal, d esign

PAGE 227

227 researchers engage in iterative cycles of problem analysis, design, implementation, examination, and redesign (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Though c onstant comparative analysis is not exclusive to DBR , the purpose for concurrent data collection and analysis in design studies is the revision of an educational tool to be tter understand and impact the learning progression (Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Joseph, 2004). near significance and experience distant lear ning in a given context and theories that guide future educational tool design (Barab, 2006; Confrey, 2006; Songer, 2006). Studying the progression of an educational tool from design to implementation provides a sense of how these tools are appropriated in action as well as connections between tool and context (Squire et al., 2003). To establish the local impact and general relevance Barab and Squire (2004) refer to , design studies aim to produce usable knowledge about a given educational tool while also ad vancing theory. Therefore, specific outcomes of DBR should include the generation of theory and the explication of an innovative product through design frameworks (Edelson, 2002; McKenney & Reeves, 2012) . These outcomes enable work from design studies to b e adopted by others and adapted to new contexts, further lending themselves to the pragmatic nature of DBR . However, the quality of such products should be well established through specific criteria. Design researchers are responsible for demonstrating me thodological rigor in on teaching and learning , particularly because of their active involvement in development and research (Barab & Squire, 2004). It is common for d esign researchers

PAGE 228

228 to serve as curriculum designers (Joseph, 2004; Songer, 2006), professional developers (Raval, McKenney, & Pieters, 2010), teachers (Confrey & Lachance, 2000), and participant observers (Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008; Squire et al., 2003) . To establish trustworthiness and reliability, educational design researchers collect numerous forms of data (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Hjalmarson & Diefes Dux, 2008) and provide a variety of evidence about the research process ( Joseph, 2004) , as well as the chance, 2000; Songer, 2006). Design studies are ultimately intended as a practical endeavor producing usable knowledge about solutions to educational dilemmas experienced by teachers and learners ( Kelly, 2004) through the production of design frameworks and theory (Edelson, 2002) . After reporting findings to the guiding question for this study, I will present a revised design framework and set of design principles. Local theory generated on teachers is reported elsewhere. First, I begin with a review of the related literature from which the STARTS PD program was built. Review of Related Literature The literature on effective methods of PD is vast. Over time, scholars have identified multiple hallmarks of high quality PD programs. Though far from an exhaustive list, these hallmarks include: job daily practices (Borko, 2004; Croft et al., 2010), the collective participation of teachers from similar grade levels and subject areas (Garet et al., 2001), the modeling of innovative strategies and best practices (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), active learning experiences (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001) , dual focus on content and pedagogy (Garet et al., 2001; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), and ongoing support (Desimone,

PAGE 229

229 2009). Effective PD programs utilizing core features such as these have positively impacted the knowledge and practices of science teache rs as well as student performance (e.g., Crippen et al., 2010; Luft, 2001; Parke & Coble, 1997). Because reform based science teaching (i.e., engaging students in the practices of science [NRC, 2012] and inquiry [NRC, 2000]) is an element of CRP Science, P D experiences that support science exhaustive review of the literature on inquiry based PD, Capps, Crawford, and Constas (2012) identified multiple experiences tha t were effective in supporting reform based s cience teaching. According to the authors, supportive PD experiences are in accord with state and national standards, require teachers to develop innovative lessons, engage teachers in reflection and inquiry based learning activities , include content knowl edge learning opportunities, and discuss transference of program objectives to classroom practices. Such experiences actively engage teachers in the practices they advocate. In order to prepare a teaching workforce capable of engaging students in science p ractices, PD containing these features is needed. E ven highly effective science teachers require additional PD experiences to successfully meet the needs of diverse learners, as they must address the constraints inherent in responsive teaching in restrict ive environments (Tate, Clarke, Gallagher, & McLaughlin, 2008). To promote science education that is more inclusive of diverse and backgrounds so as to engage them more m eaningfully and support them in sustained learning A goal of this magnitude requires s pecific strategies for preparing teachers who can provide accessible science. Because teachers who enact

PAGE 230

230 CRP Science require unique knowledge and practices , add itional PD supports must be designed and provided for this purpose . Of the few studies of PD for CRP Science teachers, researchers have involved teachers in: learning about inquiry and cooperative learning strategies, conducting home visits, completing a c onversational Spanish course (Johnson, 2011); reflexive approaches to collaboration, community building, modeling multicultural science instruction, and content focused summer institutes (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) . They have determined the focus of PD sessions by conducting inquiry based investigations, sharing best practices, examining student learning, discussing their personal experiences as newcomers to the United States, and reading theories on learning (Lee, 2004). Among the sources, science educ ators asked teachers to construct the supports provided to this end are not well articulated nor are the actual products . of the value of the program or changes in their practices over time. Absent from these studies is the relationship between structural elements and the resulting professional growth of teachers. Though PD elements are identified to various degrees, the rati onale for and the particular ordering of the experiences is implicit. Yet, to best design effective PD, these relationships must be elucidated. development as CRP Science teachers and design ers of culturally responsive instructional m aterials is sorely needed. Existing PD studies that support science teachers as instructional designers pertain solely to promoting inquiry based instruction (Stolk et al., 2011) or alignment to state and national standards (Jackson & Ash, 2012) . Through t he design, enactment, and evaluation of the STARTS

PAGE 231

231 PD program, this study acknowledges the importance of empowering teachers as designers of CRP Science instructional materials , thereby building capacity for sustainable change and addressing a lack of cult urally responsive materials (Lee, 2004; NRC, 2012 ). Through this approach, the study assertion [CRT] seems to be the missing link in the research on C As an educational intervention, the STARTS PD program was designed based on the literature on effective PD for supporting reform based CRP Science practices. In the following section, the program is detailed according to its theoretical grounding, objectives, and activities. The STARTS PD Program The STARTS PD program was designed to prepare culturally responsive, reform based high school life science teachers who create and implement novel CRP Science instructional materi als. To accomplish these goals, the program was grounded in multiple bodies of research including: effective PD methods for CRP Science (Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), inquiry based science instruction (Capps et al., 2012; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), and online teacher PD (Dede, 2006); teacher change via PD experiences (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; 1996); and providing support to teachers as instructional designers (Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk et al., 2011) Table 5 1 provides a comprehensive list of the theoretical grounding for the STARTS activities. . The STARTS program was job embedded, thereby providing participating teachers with multiple opportunities to enact and reflect on CRP Science in their daily practices (Coggshall, Rasmussen, Colton, Milton, & Jacques, 2012; Desimone, 2009). As teachers learned reform based, CRP Science knowledge and practices their

PAGE 232

232 professional growth was supported in a blended environment. Ongoing support occurred face to face during monthly Saturday Collaboration Se ssions as well as in online environments (Dede, 2006; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). During STARTS, t eachers engaged in six major activities , all of which I facilitated . Each activity will be detailed according to its ability to facilitate the STARTS PD pro gram goals. A timeline of the STARTS PD program is presented in Figure 5 1. Lesson Study Learning how to teach requires practice and study. As teachers design, enact, and subsequently analyze lessons their teaching will likely improve. However, this is dep endent upon several factors, including careful observation of effective elements and critical reflection on strategies needing improvement. Lesson study fosters teacher growth through collaboration in professional learning communities where developing know ledge for teaching is a major focus (Shimizu, 2002). Originating in Japan as an innovative PD approach (Isoda, 2010), a major focus of lesson study is the development of research lessons intended to meet specific student learning goals. As a result, lesson study features teac hers working collaboratively to identify target goals for student learning and construct corresponding high quality lessons. Professional learning communities engage in a cycle of reflective practice with the aim of constructing, analyz ing, and revising a research lesson (Loucks Horsley et al., 2010). L ong term student learning goals based on a specific theme are identified; lessons aligned with these goals are devised and implemented while team members observe and collect data on studen t learning; finally, debriefing and revision based on analysis and feedback occurs (Lewis et al., 2006; Mutch Jones et al., 2012; Shimizu, 2002).

PAGE 233

233 Lesson study was the first major activity teachers engaged in during the STARTS program . The lesson study cyc le was intended to help teachers understand their reflect on the impact of the ir practice on student outcomes, and identify areas for professional growth that may not have been previously articulated. During this modified lesson s tudy cycle , teachers worked in pairs to first identify one class period apiece to focus on, identified target student outcomes, and then constructed a science lesson intended to address learning goals specifically for their classes. Because teacher pairs o ften taught at different schools, each teacher then video recorded the lesson, focusing closely on a group of 3 4 students who were of provided feedback through the use of a structured feedback guide that was managed in the STARTS online course system . To complete the lesson study cycle, teachers then met face to face during the second Saturday Collaboration Session , debriefed the entire process, and brainstormed ideas for lesson redesign based on findings. Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) Tasks To promote CRP Science and student responsiveness, teachers completed the Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks (Brown & Crippen, in review) . The GAIn tasks are a series of th ree reflective practice protocols that provide STARTS teachers cultural and linguistic backgrounds into reform based science instruction. The GAIn has been designed to develop CRP Science teachers as they complete specific tasks . E ach of these tasks are student centered and aligned with key tenets of culturally responsive

PAGE 234

234 building a communit y of learners (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The GAIn tasks were intended to transition teachers from exploring their practice from a classroom centered perspective to connecting instruction to beyond the classroom factors (i. he first GAIn task focused on information final GAIn task classroom and schoo l . The GAIn tasks were designed to help STARTS teachers critically examine the implicit messages conveyed by their classroom environments, relationships between teacher and students, patterns, and to speculate on ways to i ncorporate CRP Science intro classroom instruction. The GAIn tasks also served as the primary structure for integrating information that was learned about students into the capstone project, the CRP Science unit. Through the GAIn tasks , STARTS teachers we re expected to gain experience backgrounds and interests to reform based instructional strategies and assessment practices that build on these strengths. Though the GAIn does not represent an exhaustive picture of CRP Science , it provi des a starting point for teachers to instruction in meaningful ways, which is uncharacteristic of traditional science classrooms (Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2 004). Curriculum Topic Study The Curriculum Topic Study (CTS) process is systematic and in depth, utilizing a set of resources and strategies designed to bridge research and practice in ways that

PAGE 235

235 improve science teaching and learning (Keeley, 2005). The t eacher identifies a science topic (e.g., cells; rocks and minerals) and a CTS guide then identifies readings that support teachers develop ment of knowledge on the topic (e.g., Benchmarks for Science Literacy , American Association for the Advancement of Sc ience [AAAS], 1993; Science for all Americans , AAAS, 1990). CTS provides structure and guidance for teachers to explore core science ideas and the progression of crosscutting concepts . This better prepar es them to engage students in authentic inquiry expe riences and science practices. Furthermore, CTS provides teachers with resources to learn about research on student learning. Educational materials such as the CTS enable teachers to learn about and participate in the practices of science. Such scaffolds a re necessary, given that many science teachers have never been involved in authentic inquiry throughout their formal schooling experiences (Barnes & Barnes, 2005). During the STARTS program , teachers collaboratively conducted a CTS for the specific science topic featured in their innovative culturally responsive science unit. STARTS teachers worked in teams to conduct a CTS as a way to foster reform based science teaching by deepening their knowledge of the science content to be featured in their CRP Scienc e unit, examining research on student learning and suggested instructional strategies for their topic, exploring the progression of crosscutting concepts for this topic, elucidating relevant state and national science education standards, and providing a s tructured way to support the design of their CRP Science units. The resulting document became the foundation for the reform based science r integrated with GAIn

PAGE 236

236 findings, which formed the culturally respon sive portion of the unit. Adamson , Santau, and Lee (2013) argue that engaging in a Curriculum Topic Study , tea chers can accomplish both of these goals. Professional Growth Tasks Professional Growth (PG) tasks arose out of the need for PD programs to PG tasks began about halfway through the STARTS program as a result of emergent findings, including new professional goals articulated by teachers as well as trends from classroom observations. The teachers selected three topics on which they wanted to learn more (e.g., making student thinking visible, student grouping /effective collaboration , and connecting families & science ) . To further assist STARTS teachers in achieving their professional goals, the PG tasks prompted teachers to identify key features of effective CRP Science and r eform based science practices (from the literature, through video recordings of STARTS teachers exemplifying a practice, or by analyzing sample lesson plans), and then considering how to modify and apply these practices for their classroom contexts. Certai fostering and assessment strategies in the classroom, as these became areas of professional growth identified by teachers. For example, in the Making Student Thinking Visible PG task , teachers were asked to consider how questioning techniques could be used as a way to el during whole class discussion. They then watched a video clip of a STARTS teacher executing these

PAGE 237

237 strat egies with her biolog y students, speculated on ways to increase the use of similar questions in their classroom , and made an action plan for this . Saturday Collaboration Sessions The collective participation of teachers from similar subject areas, schools, and/or grade levels is fundamental to fostering professional growth. Through collective participation, teachers meaningfully collaborate d with one another in professional learning communities (PLCs). According to Cochran Smith and Lytle (1999), PLCs provide a learning environ discrepancies between theories and practices, challenge common routines, draw on the work of others for generative frameworks, and attempt to make visible much of that which is taken for granted about teach In the PD literature, researchers often participated in PLCs to probe further about specific issues voiced by teachers (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) intr oduce and model new activities (Lee, 2004; Luft, 2001), and discuss instruction progression and student learning (Davis & Varma, 2008) . The collective participation of teachers in PLCs occurred across grade level, within and among schools in a particular d istrict (Garet et al., 2001). In addition to voicing concerns and brainstorming innovative approaches to science instruction, teachers used PLCs as a space to align their teaching philosophies with current research (Parke & Coble, 1997), analyze problem ba sed inquiry lessons (Crippen, 2012; Parke & Coble, 1997), and share best practices (Cr ippen et al., 2010, Lee, 2004). During the STARTS PD program teachers met in a PLC for all the purposes cited above. The Saturday Collaboration Sessions became the prima ry forum for collective

PAGE 238

238 participation. Teachers met monthly in these face to face, all day Saturday Collaboration Sessions where they brainstormed lesson ideas, completed major tasks, voice d concerns, and designed innovative instruction. The Saturday Colla boration Sessions were also a time for me as lead researcher , an d, eventually, STARTS teachers, to model reform based , CRP Science instructional strategies. CRP Science Units As the capstone project of STARTS, the CRP Science units were intended to bridge creating meaningful and challenging science instruction that is truly student centered. Teachers were assisted through the process of creating their culturally responsive science units in multiple ways. First, as part of each major activity (lesson study, CTS, GAIn and PG tasks ), teachers were provided with a series of scaffolds leading them to reflect on salient elements of each task and their current practices, speculate on ways to connect what was learned into instruction, and then implement trial lessons utilizing their suggested connections. Second, teachers worked collaboratively in both face to face and online environments to brainstorm potential connections and instructiona l strategies. Finally , teachers voiced their interest in learning more about specific topics (e.g., effective collaboration in the science classroom, making student thinking visible). These topics were included in the STARTS program , with specific tasks de signed to support teachers in learning about research based strategies, critically observing their colleagues practicing these strategies, then speculating on potential connections to their CRP Science unit .

PAGE 239

239 Methods For this study I examined the ability of STARTS PD features (i.e., major to produce usable knowledge about the program. The study utilized typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) and matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) to address the research question, what features of the STARTS design framework can be associated with supporting the changes in culturally responsive knowledge and practices of high school life science teachers? Participating teache rs and the larger research setting, as well as data collection and analysis methods, will be detailed in the following sections before findings are presented. Participants & Setting Six high school life science teachers from throughout a large, culturally and linguistically diverse school district in the Southeastern United States participated in this study. All teachers were female, but they represented multiple ethnic backgrounds. Their years of professional experience ranged from two to 24 years. Five of the six teachers received traditional training in education. One teacher was alternatively certified. While participating in the STARTS PD program, teachers selected one class period to follow throughout the program. Teachers were expected to apply what t hey learned during STARTS to science instruction for this class period. Within this particular class, teachers were then asked to select four to monitor their progress. The focus group students were chosen by teacher s for a variety of reasons, ranging from those who were disengaged to students that teachers wanted to learn more about. The subject area taught in the focus class, as well as the racial

PAGE 240

240 makeup of students for these classes, is presented along with demogra phic details about the six participants in Table 5 2. These six teachers represented five of the more than 20 high schools in the district; demographic details of the five schools are also found in Table 5 2. The biology End of Course exam is a high stakes assessment required for graduation. To pass the exam, students must demonstrate proficiency and earn at least three out of five possible points. A score of four or five indicates mastery. B ecause of this high stakes standardized exam, there are additional constraints and added stresses placed on both students and their teachers. Therefore, teachers from the life science disciplines were chosen because of the desire to enact and examine PD experiences in the presence of such contextual factors. Data Collect ion & Instruments Multiple data sources were collected to determine the ability of STARTS PD completed each activity, I engaged in a process of concurrent data collection a nd preliminary analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) for all activity artifacts (see Table 5 1), looking specifically for evidence of CRP Science and/or reform based knowledge and practices as well as any explicit connections between the STARTS activities and Reflective Writing Prompt (RWP) for every STARTS activity. While the RWPs had research st andpoint they enabled me to seek answers to questions that arose during preliminary analysis. To document all design decisions and revisions, I kept an ongoing reflexive journal (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The journal was maintained throughout all

PAGE 241

241 stages of th e STARTS research and development program and contained , with records of each decision, whether motivated by literature review, field research, or in addition to preliminary analysis thoughts . As a result, this journal also served as an audit trail. Additionally, I conducted two semi structured group interviews at the second (10/13) and third (11/13) Saturday Collaboration Sessions. Interview questions centered TS tasks, their beliefs about CRP Science, what they were learning about students in their focus classroom, and the process of designing CRP Science instructional materials. These interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Teachers also participated i n a mock teaching feedback session (third Saturday Collaboration Session, 11/13) and STARTS redesign session (fourth Saturday Collaboration Session, 1/14) in which they were asked to provide feedback on the effectiveness of specific STARTS activities as we ll as suggestions for structural redesign of the program. At the fourth Saturday Collaboration Session (1/14), each teacher also presented their CRP Science units. Each of these sessions and activities were video recorded and transcribed. I also observed program, once a month during the second through fourth months and three times during the enactment of their CRP Science units. One teacher did not complete her CRP Science unit. Thus , five teach ers were observed as they enacted their CRP Science units . Each observation was video recorded, transcribed, and copious field notes were recorded. To assist the examination of CRP Science and reform based practices, I used the Culturally Responsive Instr uction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) developed by the

PAGE 242

242 Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) ( Malo Juvera, Powell, & Cantrell, 2013 ; Powell et al., 2011) and the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) developed by the Arizona Collaborati ve for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) project (Piburn & Sawada, 2000) . The CRIOP contains 25 indicators across seven pillars: Classroom Relationships, Family Collaboration, Assessment Practices, Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences, Pedagogy/Instructional Practices, Discourse/Instructional Conversation, and Sociopolitical Consciousness. The Classroom Relationships pillar was designed to capture elements of the classroom environment, such as respectful learning atmosphere, high teacher expectations, and productive student collaboration. Family Collaboration measures the extent to which the teacher reaches out to family of formative assessment practice s and student self assessment. Curriculum/Planned prior knowledge, experiences, and diverse perspectives. Inquiry based practices, teacher scaffolding, and developing acade mic vocabularies are all contained within the Pedagogy/Instructional Practices pillar. The inclusion of culturally congruent discourse and instructional strategies that promote academic conversation are encapsulated in the Discourse/Instructional Conversat ion pillar. Finally , Sociopolitical Consciousness pertains to the ways in which the curriculum includes opportunities for students to explore issues important to the local context and confront stereotypes and bias. Performance on each indicator ranges on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great

PAGE 243

243 extent). Each pillar is scored holistically; therefore, the total possible points for each pillar ranges depending upon the number of indicators contained within each pillar. The RTOP consists of 25 items divided among three major subsets : (1) Lesson Design and Implementation; (2) Content; and (3) Classroom Culture. The subset of Lesson Design and Implementation items were created to capture reform based, constructivist lessons. For example, the degrees to which i nstruction recognizes generated ideas are measured. The second category, Content, measures science and/or mathematics content as well as the process of inquiry. This is further broken down into two subscales, one focused on capturing propositional knowledge (e.g., fundamental concepts are explored) and the other focused on procedural knowledge (e.g., student reflection). The Classroom Cultur e items subset measures how often students are enc ouraged to actively p articipate and communicate their ideas, as opposed to teacher directed instruction. This category is divided into two subscales, communicative interactions (e.g., high proportion of student conversation) and student teacher relationships (e.g., teacher as a resource person). Performance on each item ranges on a scale from 0 (never occurred) to 4 (very descriptive). The maximum points for each subscale is 20 points (5 items each subscale). The total possible points equals 100. However, high school science te achers typically average a score of 42, which is the lowest score among all comparison groups (middle school, community college, and university students) (Piburn & Sawada, 2000). I first trained on the RTOP through the online training videos as well as by participating in a full day training session with a graduate student. Additionally, I trained

PAGE 244

244 on and helped revise the original CRIOP at the CCLD during the summer of 2012. During the face to face training session with the graduate student, we observed an d evaluated two videos of science and mathematics classrooms that were unrelated to the project according to the RTOP and CRIOP. We discussed our scores and came to consensus for items from both observation protocols. Additionally, during the first Saturda y Session, the STARTS teachers observed and evaluated the same two videos with the RTOP and CRIOP. We then discussed their results and came to group consensus. After each observation I also engaged in member checking by providing teachers with field notes and RTOP and CRIOP scores. Data Analysis The data were analyzed in multiple stages using qualitative analysis approaches, including methods for typological analysis (Hatch , 2002) and matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Miles and Huberm an (1994) suggest that an effects Before identifying features of the sional growth, I first sought to based knowledge and practices over time. To do this, I employed typological analysis methods (Hatch, 2002) to examine the classroom observations , field notes, and completed STARTS artifacts . The first step in typological analysis is to read through the data and divide sections by predetermine d categories/typologies. The typologies I was interested in were the various elements of CRP Sci ence and reform based science teaching, which were identified and operationalized according to the CRIOP and RTOP, respectively.

PAGE 245

245 First, I coded all classroom observations according to the CRIOP and RTOP scales. These were recorded as evidence of either CRP Science or reform based science classroom practices . In addition to direct observation of practices, I was also interested in CRP Science and reform based science teaching knowledge . Therefore, I also coded various teacher artifacts according to the CRIOP pillars and RTOP lesson study documents, CTS documents, and RWPs. The next step in the analysis was to compile the main ideas associated with each typology in a summa ry sheet for all six teachers. The summary sheets were organized in HyperRESEARCH ( qualitative data management software program) and contained based knowledge and practices according to the typologies. I isolated the codes by each teacher, and wrote a descriptive summary of their reform based and CRP Science knowledge and practices, which condensed the large data set. Following the construction of summary sheets, the next step in typological analysis wa s to discern any emerging patterns, relationships, or trends (Hatch, 2002). Because I was ultimately interested in understanding how their culturally responsive and reform based science teaching knowledge and practices developed over time in the STARTS pro gram, I isolated the coded instances per teacher across a timeline, demarcated by the vari ous STARTS activities. I then broke the summaries for each participant into four categories: CRP Science knowledge , CRP Science practices , reform based science teachi ng knowledge , and reform based science teaching practices . I repeated this step, now looking for connections and patterns across the

PAGE 246

246 teachers. Through this , I could then examine patterns in developing knowledge and practices over time, such as similarities , differences, and correspondences among the categories. My goal for engaging in these steps was to determine to what degree based science teaching over time . Through this process, I developed a n empirical basis for exploring which reform based knowledge and practices. I also conducted a grounded theory analysis of the data sources in order to understand STARTS teac as reported in C hapter 4. Through open, axial, and selective coding, I identified six themes students, community bui lding, repositioning students, utilizing a toolbox, and instructional changes. Findings from this study are mentioned here, as the progression themes are relevant to the next phase of analysis. Once there was an empirical foundation for exploring the ways in which STARTS based, CRP Science educators, I employed methods for matrix analysis (Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in an attempt to i dentify relationships between STARTS activities and teacher outcomes, which were represented by the six progression themes identified through the grounded theory more main dimensions or variables . . .

PAGE 247

247 matrix provides a visual display of the relationship between structural elements (in this case, the STARTS PD activities) and changes in practice. To better isolate relati onships between STARTS activities and outcomes, the six outcomes, with instructional changes becoming new topics and new strategies . I then examined the data and isolated instan ces in which a teacher made a direct connection between one of the outcomes and a specific STARTS activity . For example, in the passage below , Lorelei refers to an article she read for a PG task on collaborative learning as the source of new instructional strategies she utilized: The student grouping article was the one I learned the most from and utilized these strategies in the classroom. I also plan on continuing the u se of the strategies detailed . . . I will continue to use the strategies discussed in t he student grouping article and plan on early implementation next year . (Lorelei, RWP Eval uation ) If no direct connection was reported , it did not necessarily mean that the particular activity did not assist in multiple dimensions of professio nal growth. R ather, it indicated that there was no direct reporting of the connection in data sources. Across leads to another, and then to another . . . making the relationships among e vents very cells populated with the format STARTS Activity > Teacher Outcome (Table 5 3). This activity outcome matrix enabled me to discern the degree to which the various STARTS activities accounted for each outcome, and thereby locate the phenomena of professional growth in context (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In the matrix , the STARTS activity is one dimension and the specific outcome is another. For example, one co lumn might contain information for Lesson Study > Views

PAGE 248

248 of Students . The corresponding cell contains the total number of isolated evidence passages for a direction connection between the STARTS Activity, lesson study, and the outcome theme, community buil ding. In the instance of Lesson Study > Views of Students, the total number of isolated evidence passages is one. The total of all connections identified between any STARTS activity and a given outcome were then summed for that outcome. For example, there were 38 instances of a direct connection among all six STARTS activities and the outcome Views of Students . To represent the degree to which a given activity was associated with a particular outcome, I then divided the actual instances of a connection bet ween A ctivity > O utcome by the total instances and represented this as a percentage. In the Lesson Study > Views of Students example, there were six instances of a direct connection between the lesson study (activity) and views of students (outcome). Thu s, lesson study was associated with changing views of students in 16% of all instances. Through the matrix I could now begin to visualize the relationship between 1998). Acc repres enting this relationship, I constructed one figure for each activity containing the seven teacher outcomes and their associated connections to that particular activity. These figures are presented alongside their associated activities. I employed numerous mechanisms to enhance the trustworthiness of findings. To establish credibility, I engaged in repeated observation and peer debriefing after each

PAGE 249

249 classroom observation . I also conducted member checking when appropriate (teachers reviewed my field notes an d CRIOP and RTOP scores after each ob servation, confirming and/or revising if needed) . To establish confirmability of findings, I achieved triangulation by constant comparison across multiple data sources (e.g., classroom observation transcripts, field no tes, group interview transcripts, STARTS activity artifacts completed by each teacher) and created an audit trail through my reflexive journal which contained raw data passages, summaries of theoretical and analytical notes, and methodological notes such a s design decisions. Findings Before presenting findings of the ways in which STARTS PD program elements supported the professional growth of teachers , I begin classroom observations during the program to highlight their shiftin g reform based and CRP Science practices. Then, I briefly describe six themes that characterize STARTS program. Figure s 5 2 and 5 3 represent the mean CRIOP and RTOP score s , respectively, across STARTS teachers for their classroom observations. There are four data columns for each , Oct. 13 (n=6) , and Nov. 13 (n=6) columns represent the first three classroom observations . The fourt h column (CRP Sci Avg) for each observation protocol represents the average scores across the three observations of the CRP Science unit for each teacher. One teacher did not complete her CRP Science unit. Thus, the CRP Science Avg column contains the aver aged scores for 15 observations, three observations for each of the five teachers as they enacted their CRP Science units . Teachers taught their CRP Science units over

PAGE 250

250 consecutive days (ranging from 5 7 school days) in either December 2013 or January 2014. and RTOP scores for the entire CRP Science unit were averaged to clearly discern shifts in practice over time. Because the final three observations for each teacher (CRP Sci Avg) occurred consecuti vely and within the unit itself they were considered as the same time period. The x axis lists the CRIOP pillars (Figure 5 2) and RTOP subscales (Figure 5 3) . On the y axis, the range (1 4 for CRIOP; 0 2 0 for RTOP) is aligned to possible total scores of the frequency of these practices . Because ea ch RTOP subscale contains 5 items, there is a possible 20 points for each subscale. The Translation of CRP Science to Classroom Practice CRP Science practices During the STARTS PD program, teachers exhibited consistent growth in several CRP Science practi ces (Figure 5 2) . The consistent increase in the Classroom Relationships pillar growing emphasis on community building within their classrooms over time. Across teachers, care was increasingly demonstrated as they engaged student s in cooperative learning activities in attempts to produce equitable and respectful learning environments. Alt hough throughout the STARTS program teachers consistently conveyed high expectations, students became increasingly viewed as capable, which was r eflected in the shifting authority of the teachers noted during observations. These authority shifts became more representative of culturally responsive classrooms over time, in which students were engaged as a community of learners, collaboration was the norm, and there were equitable student teacher relationships (Ladson Billings, 1994). Direct instruction occurred less frequently over time , and instead students took on more active roles during class time. For

PAGE 251

251 example, ms students were asked to work in small groups to construct concept maps of the musculoskeletal system and then present their product to the class, providing a supporting rationale for the connections they made across concepts. These instructional changes conversations. Increasing formative assessment and discourse encouraging practices are optimistic findings and stand in contras t to depictions of CRP Science in the literature. In my review of the CRP Science literature, it was difficult to identify instances where the emphasis in science instruction was on fostering science based academic registers through the use of discourse as sociated with science (i.e., describing and applying science terms), with the exception of isolated studies (e.g., Laughter & Adams, 2012). In other words, many studies acknowledged the importance of preparing diverse students for thinking and acting scien tifically, but very few made explicit the connection between promoting the development of academic registers (Gee, 2008) and the ability 2004). Yet, scientific literacy requires the use of specialized discourse and practices that must be developed in students, as literacy involves both doing and talking science (Lemke, 1990). STARTS culturally congruent teaching practices that affirmed involving them in academic conversation using language reflective of communication in their homes. For several teachers, such as Claudia, Natalie, and Zane, this also meant that students were aske d to use their native languages during instruction. As a result,

PAGE 252

252 students were often asked to hold academic conversations with one another in their (Christina Joy, Observation 3 transcr ipt ). instruction during classroom observations were family collaborations and the treatment of science topics in a critical manner . These critical reviews of science were intended to produce sociopolitical consciousness in students. The two observed instances of science as a platform for sociopolitical and critical awareness came from Christina Joy Joy prompted her students to explore skin cancer rates according to race in an attempt to increase awareness of a serious topic, especially since [the curriculum] mostly talk[s] about skin cancer in relation to light skinned people not too relevant to my kids correspondence, 3 /14 ). In a lesson on biotechnology, Zane used whole class discussion time as an opportunity to confront negative stereotypes : Zane This is also very useful . . . a crime is committed, DNA samples are found at the crim e scene. Now what they have to do is to find a potential suspect and they match the DNA found at the crime scene, the DNA of the . . . now people because they are a Black man riding a bicycle. (P retending to be a police officer), Who raped you? (P retending to be a victim) , A Black man on a bicycle Sts E xactly ! Zane d to downplay the seriousness of a violent crime like sexual assault. Rather, she was pointing out to her students that advances in biotechnology (i.e., DNA testing) enable law enforcement officials to make more accurate arrests as opposed to relying on ra cial profiling. This was especially

PAGE 253

253 relevant to both Zane a Haitian American woman with sons and her students, who were from African American, Caribbean American, or Hispanic backgrounds. Despite these two examples of using science to increase student issues important to their families and community as well as uncover bias, STARTS teachers at large refrained from including such topics in their curricula. Moreover, family partnerships were absent. Collaborations with family are a way for teachers to honor the to moving beyond deficit based conceptions of families from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds ( Gonzalez et al., 2005). Yet, the only instances of STARTS teachers s or using family expertise to support instruction were reported to have occurred in the past . W hen asked to explain ways in which they currently reached out to parents , STARTS teachers revealed that they viewed sociopolitical issues and family connections as relevant topics to which science content can be applied. For example, when Claudia described instances at a school whe re she taught previously , these were done to bring in scientists who could present information on science topics discussed in class, such as the classification of kingdoms in biology . ogy who visited class one day. Reflecting on the experience, s he share d , H e came with a whole lab set up for the students and gave a wonderful speech about organisms that cause diseases . . . he brought different kind of worms . . . [ and] . . . slides of mi croscopes showing a test of a child with severe parasites . (RWP, Connecting Families & Science) To Claudia, family collaborations were worth establishing if they added depth to science topics already being covered in the curriculum. Additionally, on the o ccasions where

PAGE 254

254 sociopolitical topics were successfully applied to science content, it was facilitated through an instructional strategy that had either been previously learned during the program and used multiple times or was an existing strategy from thei r toolbox of resources for CRP Science. The STARTS teachers also reported that they felt uncom fortable reaching out to family, saw this as impractical given the number of students they taught , and were unsure of how to begin establishing a partnership. T hough the lack of family partnerships is a concerning trend, it is consistent with several studies of CRP Science that do not identify family connections . While the notion of community based science was prominent within the literature (e.g., Bouillion and Gomez, 2001; Fusco, 2001), it was rare to identify examples of teachers reaching out to family in non traditional ways or using family expertise to guide classroom instruction and student learning (e.g., Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011; Tobin, 2000). Reform based science teaching practices According to Johnson (2011), multiple elements of CRP Science are complimentary to components of effective science instruction outlined in the National Science Education Standards The position taken by Johnson i n this comment was reflected in the similarities noted among certain aspects of the CRIOP and RTOP scores of STARTS teachers Discourse/Instructional Conversation pillar increased over time, so did their RTOP scores f or the Communicative Interactions subscale (Figure 5 3). These two categories contain multiple similarities, such as their emphases on active student engagement through academic conversations and communicating information through a variety of media. Over t

PAGE 255

255 engagement was evident . Students worked collaboratively and relied on each other to learn science content and construct products that were often presented to the class. They were involved i n developing and using models to explain science phenomena, analyzing and interpreting data, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating scientific information in small group and whole class settings. For example, during one of her CRP Science unit lesso ns, Claudia engaged her ESOL biology students in the construction of various visual representations of DNA structure and function. Students worked in small groups of either four or five to complete the tasks. In one group students were asked to illustrate nucleotide bonding ( single, double , or triple bond s ), while in another group students created a chart depicting the process of transcription ( converting DNA to mRNA). In a third group student s were responsible for drawing the structure of a nucleotide; a f ourth group focused on translation ( converting mRNA to protein) . Though the task for each group required a different level of difficulty (which Claudia determined based on their English proficiency), Claudia never communicated this to students. Rather, she helped them feel as though each poster was indeed an equally important contribution. Students then presented their products to the class, explaining the processes depicted in their models in Spanish and English. In my field notes I reported: The students appear to be very proud of their work and capable of describing their poster in detail . . . they are completely engaged, not just in their presentation but also in watching others and asking questions . . . [ Claudia] asks students to describe what they lik ed most about this activity. While it seems that she may be aiming for content, the students replied (in Spanish) that they liked working together, representing lesson seemed at times to focus on recall type information, this was quite a powerful lesson in that it allowed the students to work together to take control of their learning, demonstrate their knowledge in a variety of ways,

PAGE 256

256 and communicate their conceptual understanding to ot hers in Spanish and English . ( CRP Science observation , 1 / 2014) As they participated improved in every subscale with the exception of Student Teacher Relationships. This subscale was consistent across time among the teachers and pertained to how patient teachers were with their students, how much they valued student participation, and how teachers consistently held high expectation s for their students and were respectful of them during class time. They made an effort to balance their questioning so that numerous students were called on during whole class discussions. When conducting a lab investigation, they regularly visited with e ach student group to check comprehension and pose clarifying questions. However, their views on students as capable individuals increased over time such that they began to relinquish control and progressively moved toward less direct instruction. The influ based science teaching can also be seen. Overall, the teachers designed for and implemented more reform based science teaching during the CRP Science unit than had been previously observed. Due to the were more focused on core science ideas and promoted strong conceptual understanding . They also Though STARTS teachers did improve in pr ocedural knowledge during the enactment of their CRP Science units, their subscale scores were consistent for every other time period and also the lowest scores across all the subscales. Considering that this subscale was designed to capture the process of inquiry, this is a concerning trend

PAGE 257

257 classrooms (Capps, Crawford, & Constas, 2012). I infrequently observed teachers engaging students in the process of constructing their own hypotheses and devising a means for testing them. While it was more common to see students articulating hypotheses before a lab investigation, this usually accompanied a tightly scripted lab where the end goal was acceptance or rejection of the h ypothesis. Furthermore, there was only one instance of students critically assessing lab procedures . Additionally, while student reflection on their understanding became a more prominent element of eas being challenged and critiqued. revealed that there was a discrepancy between their goals of ideal science (in this case, critiqued. Natalie is a unique example of this disparity. In her GAIn 2 task she wrote of wanting students who normally do not participate to feel comfortable and provided this as a reason for accepting their answers witho ut any critical evaluation. However, by the time she implemented her CRP Science unit, there was evidence that Natalie did overview of a lesson on mitosis from her CRP Scienc e unit during the final Saturday W hen they were done , they raise their hands . . . challenge them . . . ure that you this activity students worked in groups at stations to learn about the different stages of

PAGE 258

258 mitosis, which were presented out of order. Students had to interpret the information they were presented with, deduce t he correct order, and provide a justification for their which led to students feeling uncertain. However, while observing this lesson, I witnessed Natalie use structured qu estioning techniques that moved the groups from feeling uncomfortable to being more certain of their final products, all the while providing evidence to support their decisions. the Lesson Design subscale was inconsistent. Th is subset pertains to several student centered practices. Though students were increasingly engaged as members of a learning community and their prior knowledge elicited, the focus and direction of the lesson was rarely determined by ideas originating with the students themselves . When asked to explain these trends, the teachers spoke at length of the institutional influence they experienced, specifically citing the need to prepare their students for the End of Course exam as a reason for not letting studen ts Claudia, Clarification Questions). The impact of high stakes testing, such as the End of Course exam, on curriculum narrowing is both concerning and well documented . There is a strong positive correlation b etween standardized assessments and teacher directed, passive transmission of discrete facts to student s (Au, 2009), which threatens the presence of reform based and CRP Science practices. rogression as CRP Science E ducators. culturall y responsive, reform based science practices reported here are a result of their professional growth as CRP Science teachers. There are six themes that described how the STARTS teachers came to epitomize the practices reflected in

PAGE 259

259 the CRIOP and RTOP graphs . They include: CRP Science conceptions, views of students, student repositioning, community building, utilizing a toolbox, and instructional changes. While this progression has been detailed elsewhere ( C hapter 4), I present an overview of each theme in pr eparation for elucidating the STARTS framework elements capable of supporting this professional growth. The CRP Science conceptions theme from being simplistic and tied to ra ce at the beginning of the program to being STARTS their views of students were assumption laden and occasionally deficit based, teachers began to learn about their students in very purposeful ways through the lesson study, GAIn tasks, and Professional Gr owth tasks. As teachers engaged in these program activities, they viewed their students as capabl e and proceeded to connect In time, students became more active in their classrooms and were repositioned as leaders, whereas in the first months of the STARTS PD program this was not evident. Comm unity building was a mechanism for conveying care, establishing fluid student teacher relationships, and increasing academic discourse. The toolbox represents a collection of instructional strategies and relevant topics that were a mechanism for implementi ng CRP Science. Johnson (2011) refers to an . . . that [teachers] can leverage to make their instruction more innovative and responsive to (Christina Joy, Pres entation; Kate, RWP Evaluation) and drew heavily from it when

PAGE 260

260 they also became more aware of their own teaching practices, which caused them to reassess their instructional CRP Science accompanied instructional changes that were less teacher directed and more reflective of culturally responsive, reform based science practices. Elucidating the Relationship between Stru cture and Process activities and six progression themes encompassing their professional growth are reported in this section, thereby elucidating the relationship between structural program elements and the process of becoming a CRP Science teacher. Lesson Study Figure 5 and their outcomes as CRP Science teachers. Overall, the lesson study was reported to increase a smaller extent, conceptions of CRP Science. Additionally, there was evidence that the lesson study experience was accountable for the addition of new instructional strategies program activities, lesson study was not largely responsible for supporting the CRP Science knowledge and practices of participating teachers. When STARTS teachers spoke of the i n depth process of lesson study , its benefits and challenges , they primarily perceived it as a way to begin exploring their did because it was kind of an introduct Session). The lesson study fostered the critical exploration of STARTS teachers

PAGE 261

261 practices, the intended and actual outcomes o n students, which ultimately led teachers to refine their professional goals so they were more responsive to students than when initially identified . Christina Joy describes such changes, Now that I have done a lesson study, I have identified that I would like to grow in terms of reflection for myself and my students, so this is actually my p rofessional goal for this year student reflection . . . rarely do I go back and have them reflect on what they have learned and what they might still have questions about . (RWP 2) In addition to serving as a vehicle for exploring their practices, STARTS t eachers also became more conscious of their students through lesson study, both academically and socially. However, b ecause of the nature of lesson study as a tool for identifying behaviors tended to focus on areas for improvement, such as strengthening their abilities to work cooperatively. Though their comments about students were still general at this time in the program , the lesson study served as a structured introduction t o begin purposefully connecting instruction with specific student needs as well as expanding qualities that influence their motivation. For example, after sensing a disparity between student interactions outside and inside of class time, Natalie and Lorelei became mainly could be expressed. This focus on developing collabora tive and respectful environments is a component of both CRP Science and reform based science teaching, in which students interact with one another in meaningful ways, thereby creating a classroom community. When discussing their experiences with lesson st udy, STARTS teachers shared concerns about the timing of the task. These concerns centered around two issues: not

PAGE 262

262 yet knowing students well enough , and their practices being in transition at the beginning of the school year. A second, and perhaps more conc erning set of issues focused on the structure of the lesson study experience. Listening further to STARTS teachers speak of their challenges with the lesson study task at the following Saturday Collaboration Session, it became evident that additional struc turing was required to make this experience more beneficial to their professional growth. The suggestions shared by STARTS teachers highlighted a need for better scaffolding of the observation and analysis phase in particular . For the teachers, the overal l effectiveness of the lesson study was hampered by asking them to set out on a project of this magnitude primarily on their own. Kate shares her thoughts to this end, Another issue that came up with the lesson study activity was analyzing ideo recordings of teaching the lessons. There were some snags with technology and mailing videos, but I think the honest issue was that it was our first time doing an activity completely on our own time . (RWP 2) Despite the challenges faced by STARTS tea chers as they participated in the lesson study, data revealed that it was fairly beneficial to their developing knowledge of reform based, CRP Science teaching as it provided them with a new level of awareness of their practices as well as a deeper conside ration of their students when planning instruction. GAIn The GAIn tasks were strongly associated with several outcomes related to Science, their teaching practices, views of stude nts, and adding to their toolbox through new relevant science topics and responsive instructional strategies (Figure 5 5). As

PAGE 263

263 STARTS teachers talked about the influence of the GAIn on their professional growth, they reported that the prompts contained with in the GAIn tasks helped organize their thoughts and facilitated reflection on translation to practice. They spoke of critically analyzing their practice and applying learned strategies to their instruction for specific purposes. Kate explains, The GAIn a ctivities made it possible for me to make a connection between the strategies that I had learned about (jigsaw, concept maps, equal student questioning) and my actual teaching practices, meaning, I could now identify issues [in the classroom] through the G AIn, give myself solutions to those issues, and put those solutions into practice . (RWP Evaluation ) selecting her focus group students, Kate chose a group of four females whom sh e identified as not speaking up in class. As she learned more about these students through the GAIn tasks, Kate discovered that they were often spoken over during group activities. Kate struggled to devise strategies for overcoming this obstacle at first, but over the course of STARTS she learned and implemented cooperative learning strategies that increased their participation. However, when completing the third GAIn said they were disinterested in science as a subject. As a result, Kate employed additional strategies that were introduced in STARTS and also began to incorporate relevant science topics into instruction as a way to engage her students. Kate reported succ ess with her four female students, noting that they not only became more confident and frequently communicated during science processes , but also became more self reliant over time.

PAGE 264

264 The GAIn readings were intended to serve as exemplars of effective CRP Sc ience and a springboard for reflection on practice and subsequent action. Christina : R e ading from articles about here is what a culturally responsive ng to myself, ok, are there any elements over here I kind of want to shift? So I would have never read articles on that prior to this or analyzed any of this to that exten t . (Group i nterview 1) In this passage, Christina Joy describes how a GAIn readin g pertaining to classroom environment enabled her to envision what a culturally responsive classroom might look like, contrast her own classroom environment and practices to the example, and then speculate on potential changes as a result. Hence, the GAIn assignments also had a GAIn tasks , to introduce STARTS teachers to effective science practices. Their expanding awarenes s of CRP Science and their teaching practices prompted STARTS teachers to consider new instructional approaches. Sometimes these changes were related to events witnessed inside the classroom, while at others they were directly connected to what STARTS teac hers learned about their students outside of the classroom. Often, this was through the building of a classroom community, where students felt respected and ownership and opportunities for acting as teacher and leader. The STARTS teachers also utilized instructional strategies learned during the program that they felt helped knowledge , and connected these conceptions to science content. When they spoke of

PAGE 265

265 associated student outcomes, they were positive . (Christina Joy, RWP Evaluat ion ). Although not intentionally designed for this purpose, the GAIn also served as a structure that helped STARTS teachers add to their toolbox, whether it was implementing a novel strategy in response to an issue they observed in the classroom or identif lives outside of class. Among the teachers, the GAIn tasks were regarded as a major contributor to creating connections between science instruction and culturally relevant topics. When identifying shortcomings of the GAIn tasks, the STARTS teachers pointed to a need for more specific questions to ask students as they began to consider ways to third GAIn assignment , STARTS teachers w instruction by first administering a survey to all students about their interest in science and then holding a conversation with each of their focus group students. The information learned was then supposed to be directly applied to a new lesson that featured a relevant science topic and a responsive instructional strategy. Of the list of potential student questions provided in the third GAIn task, Natalie explained: M any of the students res ponded to texting and hanging out with friends when I asked what their hobbies are. I wish I would have asked them what hanging out consists of. I would have like d to know more specifics about their lives outside of school. For instance, what is the ir family background or have they always lived in that house ? I feel those types of questions would allow them to explain their stories better to me. (RWP Evaluation )

PAGE 266

266 While the concern voiced by Natalie is important to address, as the task would have bee n more beneficial to her if more structured questions were provided, it is important to note that the GAIn was designed as a structured way to begin considering how to link what teachers know about students to relevant instruction. It was not intended to b e the only instance of learning about students or a substitute for learning about students beyond these assignments. CTS Several STARTS teachers admitted that completing a Curriculum Topic Study was the most complex activity of all their STARTS experience s. In fact, teachers reported that the process was frustrating and the overall value of CTS was not clear until they had completed the activity. After completing the CTS, their perspectives shifted dramatically. When STARTS teachers spoke about their exper iences with CTS, it was largely around identifying new strategies for teaching familiar concepts that were more aligned to reform based science practices (Figure 5 6) . They talked of coming away with a better understanding of how to recognize and teach the issue , which they contrasted with their existing practices. Thus, the CTS experience also functioned as a way for teachers to continue gaining awareness of their instructional , and cells are made up of molecules . A that connection before until today, so s nterview 1). Teaching the core ideas of a science discipline, as opposed to d isconnected facts, enables teachers to organize instruction around the knowledge structure of the discipline and promote deeper exploration of essential concepts (Keeley, 2005; NRC, 2012).

PAGE 267

267 For the first time, STARTS teachers commented on the importance of uncovering As they recognized a disconnect between several of their practices and those espoused in the CTS resources, STARTS teachers began to reconsider effective sc ience . . . what are the misconceptions before we start . . . and then compare them to what I think my oy, Group i nterview 1). By eliciting and challe conceptual change (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Furthermore, this shift also highlights the increasing student centeredness that was characteristic of STARTS es over time. After completing the CTS, STARTS teachers had a solid foundation for their CRP Science unit and a new approach to reform based science teaching, now emphasizing deeper conceptual learning through teaching connections to big ideas and attendin g to common misconceptions. To a smaller extent, the CTS experience also provided new science topics that teachers applied to their CRP Science unit design, such as mutations commonly found in individuals of a certain ethnicity , as well as the connection b etween DNA, geographic location, and resulting skin pigmentation. Though STARTS teachers viewed CTS as supporting their reform based science practices, there were mixed opinions about the overall benefit of completing the CTS in preparation for the CRP Sc ience Unit. These opinions were quite polarized and ranged from complete support of the process to feelings of minimal professional gain. This dichotomy was based on the amount of available resources for a specific topic. For

PAGE 268

268 example, Claudia, Lorelei, Nat alie, and Zane (who all completed their CTS on DNA structure and function) expressed positive outcomes and greater confidence in their teaching practices after completing the CTS. Conversely, Kate and Christina Joy (who partnered to complete their CTS on t opics related to the musculoskeletal system) mapping and looking at the bigger picture utilizing the [CTS] references, I otherwise did not gain much P Evaluation ). It appears that the primary limitations of CTS were in the depth and breadth of available content by subject area. Despite the limitations expressed , the CTS activity provided teachers with a more rounded view of reform based science teachin g and prepared them for designing innovative instructional materials. Professional Growth Tasks As STARTS teachers moved between awareness and action, they spoke of , Presentation ) of instructional strategies , and relevant science topics to facilitate their enactment of CRP Science. The PG tasks provided STARTS teachers with plentiful examples of instructional practices that promoted collaborative learning, formative assessment, and more meaningful teacher student interacti ons (Figure 5 7) . Because CRP Science is deeply contextualized, with th e introduction of each strategy STARTS teachers were repeatedly asked to consider how and classroom needs (which they had already been following c losely through other activities such as the GAIn tasks and lesson study), size fits continue their quest for community building through collaborative learning and

PAGE 269

269 repositioning students as more active in their learning. In fact, the PG tasks were the only time in which a teacher highlighted a direct connection between a STARTS activity and student repositioning: And then also I took the opportunity to work with them [her students] on the reading that we [STARTS teachers] had to do on the student grouping, and this was how they collected data on the types of statements they were giving . . . we worked a lot on it; they actually got a little annoyed at how much we talked about working together, but then they did have a few much . (Kat e, Presentation) In this passage Kate describes how, through a reading on cooperative learning structures, she strove to promote meaningful and equitable academic conversation among her students. In her attempts to increase student student interaction, Kat e repositioned her students in such a way that their comments, insights, and questions were central to the success of the activity. beliefs over time. For example, in the Mak ing Student Thinking Visible task, STARTS structured questioning techniques. They then watched a video excerpt of Natalie employing the questioning technique with her s tudents . Afterwards, they reflected on salient elements of the technique, considered how to apply the method to their own instruction and made a plan for integrating the technique into their instruction. The STARTS teachers then reflected on the effectiven ess of the questioning technique once it was enacted in their classrooms . T he PG tasks also had limitations. Though several teachers felt it was beneficial

PAGE 270

270 the STARTS co urse site, others found that this had limited impact on their instruction (Christina Joy, RWP Evaluation ). Additionally, c ertain readings introduced STARTS teachers to app roaches that they were uncomfortable with and felt were impractical . a way to reach students in the community setting and I am uncomfortable going to WP Evaluation ). In this particular instance, the STARTS teachers and I held a discussion about connecting families and science in ways that they were comfortable with. In this conversation STARTS teachers posed alternative solutions such as meeting family during sporting events or extracurricular activities, communicating through email or phone, and connecting at church. Saturday Collaboration Sessions In spite of the ongoing commitment required of teachers to devote an entire Saturday to PD (in addition to their online tasks), they perceived the collaboration sessions as valuable for multiple reasons, though this was not necessarily reflected in the matrix analysis findings (Figure 5 8) . Although the benefits of collegiality arising from this PLC were min imally connected to the progression themes, the collective Sessions became a time to hold professional conversations , complete major tasks, receive feedback on their pract ice, all of which they cited as beneficial to their

PAGE 271

271 professional gr owth . As a time to come together and clarify next steps, the sessions eased feelings of being overwhelmed with the lar ger STARTS tasks. Claudia voiced , A ctually it [the lesson study] feels overwhelming but when we get together and when we think about it together you think not that overwhelming . (Group i nterview 1 , italics indicate emphasis ) The c ollec tive participation that occurred during the Saturday Collaboration Sessions enabled STARTS teachers to brainstorm ideas for CRP Science, co design instruction, and share their best practices . Thus, when connected to specific outcomes, STARTS teachers viewe d their time to gether as opportunities to learn new strategies and, to a lesser degree, relevant science topics. This was also a time when I modeled several CRP Science strategies intended to promote equitable science learning, including structured protoco ls for conversation (e.g., http://www.nsrfharmony.org ). Modeling and s trategy sharing provided teachers with new tools for their toolbox, which they drew heavily from when designing their CRP Science units. As a r esult, STARTS teachers modified their own instruction in ways that they associated with CRP Science. Though teachers compare d practices and consider ed new instructional strategies, missing from their discussions was a deeper understanding of why the new strategies work ed . Rather, the emphasis was simply on accepting that the strategies did work. Without a deeper understanding of the intentions behind a strategy or curriculum, Buxton, Lee, and Santau (2008) modify or enrich their ideas about content or Accepting a practice without critical examination supports findings that the Saturday Collaboration Sessions were not closely associated with teachers becoming more aware of their own practi ces during this activity, but

PAGE 272

272 rather that it was a time to acquire new strategies and topics for the toolbox . However, as teachers implemented the instructional strategies learned during the Saturday Collaboration Sessions, reflected on their outcomes (thr ough GAIn and PG tasks), and revised accordingly (through CRP Science unit), their practices In addition, the PLC sessions forged a supportive network of colleagues that relied on each oth er while i mplementing new instruction , even when the teachers taught different subject areas . Over time, STARTS teachers came to depend on one another so strongly that they engaged in collective participation beyond the structured program experiences. Lorelei I love the brainstorming that we do within this group, like we work really well together. I love bouncing ideas off [Christina Joy] and being able to do like I did with the timeline [activity], being able to email you [the author] and [Christina Joy] and just ki because I forgot right in the middle of a lesson . . . she sent me an email . . . o h, okay , I got a new system now and it was perfect. JCB Did it make a difference for your lesson? Lorelei A huge difference and even in the way that I presented the information of what I wanted them to do , it was like night and day from my second hour [class period ] to . . . by the time my fifth hour [class period ] rolled around ok, I got this . (Group interview 2, italics indicate emphasis ) In this instance, Lorelei recalled her experience implementing a new lesson that she co designed with Christina Joy. Running into a snag, she emailed Christina Joy and me in between classes. Based on the prompt fe edback Lorelei received, she was able to make small, but needed, modifications to her instruction, which she describes as . STARTS teachers also encouraged one another through the difficulties and challenges associated with designi ng for and implementing a new form

PAGE 273

273 [t] he collaboration sessions allowed STARTS science teachers to share their experience in the classroom while implementing the CRP strategies. We learned from each other strengths and struggl Evaluation ). The bond that formed between teachers became so strong as they participated in the STARTS PD program that they even credited one another for instructional strategies that were originally introduced by me . However, there were instances when faulty design in STARTS activities threatened the positive impacts of collective participation and the Saturday Collaboration Sessions. For example, in preparation to enact their CRP Science units, ST ARTS teachers engaged in a mock teaching activity during the third Saturday Session. The activity was designed to assist teachers as they implement novel CRP Science instruction, providing them with a low risk forum for mock teaching one of the ir CRP Science unit lesso ns. The teachers noted several drawba cks to the mock teaching decreased authenticity, meaning that it was awkward to teach another teacher who is not an actual student and cannot provide feedback such as a student might. The one on one nature of the partnership exacerbated this decreased authenticity. Second, there was a disparity between the perceived value of the mock teaching activity and level of professional experience. Natalie and Kate, the two t eachers with the least amount of classroom experience, shared that it was beneficial to receive feedback on the actual mechanics of implementing a lesson they had never taught before. However, for a more experienced teacher like Christina Joy, this was not the case.

PAGE 274

274 Christina Joy explained : When I design a lesson I feel like after fourteen years I can figure out where . . . [students are] going to be m experience . . . yo u kind of already see what the issues are going to be. (Mock teaching feedback transcript) When working with a group of teachers with such diverse experience s , it was a challenge to meet the professional needs of everyone at a given time. Though the STARTS PD program was designed to be responsive to teachers, there were times when this goal fell short. CRP Science Unit Though the STARTS teachers expressed that designing and enacting the CRP Science unit was beneficial to their students and themselves, they rarely talked about the unit in a way that directly connected to their outcomes (Figure 5 9). This is largely because, as the capstone project, the CRP Science unit was built from all of the previous STARTS activities. They learned about science content t hrough the CTS, connections to students through the GAIn tasks, and responsive instructional strategies during the PG tasks and Saturday Collaboration Sessions. In fact, when they presented an overview of their CRP Science units to one another during the f inal Saturday Collaboration Session, the teachers asserted that the unit was reform based because it connected to the CTS and PG tasks, and that it was culturally responsive because it connected to the GAIn tasks. This comment made by Christina Joy highlig hts the influence of the Saturday Collaboration Session, GAIn tasks, lesson study, and the toolbox in the construction of her CRP Science unit: I also add ed because of my GAIn protocol . . . I added some reflection for the students and on the reflection fo r this particular lab so many kids said to me . . . I was so happy we did that before the test . . . this is probably

PAGE 275

275 the number one thing that I loved and learned about STARTS, it all came from . . . remember when Julie had us do the sticky notes activity ? I just took that and mod . (Presentation) The sticky notes activity that Christina Joy referred to in this passage was a concept mapping activity in which teachers used colored Post It notes to indicate their revised thinkin g about concepts as they progressed through the CTS. Christina Joy describes how this particular instructional strategy became a tool in her toolbox that was were learne d during her GAIn tasks, where she highlighted the need for scaffolding students were held accountable for articulating relationships among concepts with sufficient deta il that they could then present it to the class. Furthermore, during the lesson study, Christina Joy noted that her students required more assistance with self reflections. Over the course of the STARTS program she then included multiple uses of self refle ction in her a natomy and p hysiology assignments, including this one. The teachers also found that engaging in CRP Science lessons led to positive student outcomes, which ultimately increased their satisfaction with the final product. I rea lly liked this [CRP Science Unit]; it seems that there is more connection now with my students, we know each other better and they work better . . . it impacted my students in a positive way" (RWP Evaluation ). Kate and Zane spoke of unication in science, Lorelei of their decreased reliance on her, and Natalie of improved performance on tests. Despite the positive outcomes associated with constructing their CRP Science units, STARTS teachers also experienced challenges. In or der to keep all teachers on a similar timeline, STARTS teachers had a two month window for implementing their CRP Science unit. This was

PAGE 276

276 announced to teachers at the beginning of the program so they could anticipate which curriculum units would most likely be modified to be more culturally responsive and plan ahead as needed. As a result, the time of year in which the unit was enacted (late November 2013 to late January 2014) constrained possible topics and led to difficulties because of district mandated p acing guides. Furthermore, this constrained timeline was cited by Zane as the reason for not completing her CRP Science unit. Though her classroom observations indicated that she applied what had been learned during the CTS, there were no obvious connectio ns to her GAIn findings. When asked why this was the case, Zane reported that she had been so busy preparing students for the first attempt at the End of Course exam that she did not have time to modify the unit further. Additionally, though STARTS teache rs spoke of applying science topics to instruction they felt were relatable to their students, this did not happen as often as discussed. For the teachers who applied relevant topics to the CRP Science unit, this was only after they had either learned a re sponsive instructional strategy during STARTS and used it multiple times or utilized a preexisting strategy that they were very comfortable with. For the teachers in this study, a relevant science topic was not applied in conjunction with a newly learned r esponsive instructional strategy. The strategy had to be implemented on multiple occasions before then making science content more and family connections. Relate d to this concern, STARTS teachers also expressed a desire to extend the STARTS program so that they could make additional units more reflective of CRP Science. Kate expresses this sentiment : As we discussed at the end of our last collaborative session, t here is often a fall

PAGE 277

277 stop doing STARTS activities. I would have liked to look over my entire where student interest and m y other GAIn findings could be incorporated. feel totally disconnected from CRP practices later on in the yea r . (RWP Evaluation) Concerned that their practices might revert to the mo re traditional approaches utilized before participating in the program, Kate and others wanted to ward off this situation by requesting additional time to construct CRP Science instructional materials for multiple units. This is a weakness of the STARTS fr amework design. However, because CRP is so deeply contextualized (Gay, 2010 ), extending CRP Science to all curriculum units serves only as a partial solution, as students, their needs, and backgrounds will change from year to year. STARTS PD Framework Red esign The STARTS PD program was designed to develop culturally responsive, reform based science teachers who create CRP Science instructional materials. As teachers participated in the STARTS PD program , their knowledge and practices became progressively m ore reflective of reform based, CRP Science teachers though classrooms were observed to be a place where teacher student relationships were more fluid than at program onset, ac ademic communication and collaboration increased, and formative assessment was used more frequently. Amid these successes, challenges to developing teachers who enact all dimensions of CRP Science and reform based science teaching emerged. Inquiry based sc ience instruction and critical awareness building experiences were sporadic. Family connections were absent. Hence, the original STARTS PD framework requires reexamination.

PAGE 278

278 In this section, I first present several implications for redesign of the STARTS P D framework (Table 5 4), and conclude by articulating a set of design principles derived from empirical findings and the literature. understanding specific elements or phases of educational design research . . . some offer (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 73). The level of detail of the specific phases contained within a design framework varies. Those with lower specification are more readily availab le for adaptation to new contexts than highly specified models imply (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Therefore I aim to offer a set of design principles to accompany the revised design framework that are prescriptive in nature but produce usable knowledge for s cience educators and professional developers interested in expanding the presence of CRP Science through PD. Collectively, these revisions will lengthen the overall duration of the original STARTS PD program, as they call not only for revision of existing PD experiences but also the inclusion of additional activities , such as service learning projects and inquiry based active learning experiences. B ecause of the manner in which STARTS teachers actually applied CRP Science topics to instruction (only after a strategy was learned and well implemented), the timeline must also shift to include more family based and sociopolitical awareness raising topics after several student centered, constructivist strategies have been learned, implemented, revised, and used a gain (Johnson, 2011) . Furthermo re, as Morrison, Robbins, and Rose (2008) have argued, teachers require ample time to design CRP instructional materials. The STARTS teachers also echoed this need. Therefore, the revised framework includes structures for e xp anding CRP

PAGE 279

279 Science out to multiple units so teachers do not fall into the trap of reverting back to traditional practices (Loughran, 2007) . The elements of the revised framework and additional PD experiences must cohere with what teachers are held account able for (tightly aligned to pacing guide, standards and EOC exam) . A s Barab and Luehmann (2003) emphasize : G iven the time and resource constraints of teachers and the fact that they are held publicly accountable through standardized tests, our efforts m ust needs for efficiency as well as effectiveness in the development of learning opportunities . (p.358) T herefore, t o support high school life CRP Sci ence , the science education community must provide resources that are effective within the constraints inherent to the profession. I begin with implications for increasing CRP based instruction. Implications for Inquiry Bas ed Instruction Over time, the STARTS teachers engaged students more frequently in the practices of science such as obtaining, analyzing and communicating scientific information , using mathematics and computational thinking, and engaging in evidence based a rguments. However, students had little choice over selecting their assignments, their claims were infrequently challenged, and they very rarely designed their own experiments to test hypotheses and conjectures. Because the STARTS PD program was designed to increase such classroom experiences, these outcomes represent a design flaw. A key element to effective inquiry based PD is authentic learning experiences where teachers first engage in inquiry cycles as students before considering how to incorporate the se experiences into their classrooms . A unique form of PD that can offer

PAGE 280

280 such experiences is the scientist teacher partnership (STP). Designing PD to include meaningful STP experiences can assist teachers in translating content knowledge to inquiry based s cience instruction (Brown, Bokor, Crippen, & Koroly, 2014). STPs with this potential have involved teachers in conducting authentic inquiry investigations alongside scientists (Dresner & Worley, 2006; Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005), being guided through inquiry cycles by scientist experts (Harris Willcuts, 2009), and assisting scientists with their ongoing investigations (Lotter , Harwood, & Bonner , 2006) . Furthermore, PD experiences that prompt teachers to bring in lessons and adapt them to be mor e aligned to inquiry support their construction of reform based science instructional materials (Lotter et al., 2006). By including an STP component to the revised STARTS PD framework, teachers would have opportunities to engage in inquiry based learning alongside experts. As they engage in such active learning experiences, their ability to translate these practices to the classroom would be supported through structured time in which teachers modify preexisting materials to more closely resemble inquiry th rough the 5E lesson planning framework ( Bybee et al., 2006) . Implications for Critical Consciousness Culturally responsive teachers are critically (i.e., sociopolitica lly, sociocultural ly, historically) conscious and view teaching as a political act (Lads on Billings, 1995). Teachers who are critically conscious recognize that individuals from different backgrounds experience the world much differently from one another, as a result of their experiences that are impacted by race, social class, and other face ts of identity (Tatum, 1997; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). They enact the social justice foundations of education by empowering diverse students both in and out of school (Bondy et al., 2013; Gay, 2010).

PAGE 281

281 Adopting a critical perspective must first be accomplishe d and espoused by teachers before they can begin to act as agents of social, political, and educational change. Though STARTS teachers began to develop a critical perspective of schooling over time and emphasized community building as a way to reduce stude nt resistance (C hapter 4), critical consciousness is one area that was largely absent. Critical consciousness can be developed as teachers become aware that differences in social location lead to differences in access to power (Gamoran, 2008; Villegas & L ucas, 2002). Zozakiewicz and Rodriguez (2007) assisted the development of a critical, multicultural and gender inclusive perspective in science teachers by applying sociotransformative constructivist principles (i.e., a merge of multicultural education and social constructivism) (Rodriguez, 1998) to PD experiences. In addition to well established hallmarks of high quality PD (e.g., Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), throughout the pr responsive and theoretically explicit, (b) providing ongoing and on site support, [and] (c) facilita program encapsulated these principles, there were dimensions not present in the original STARTS framework. For example, teachers were not engaged in critically reflecting on the impa ct of cultural practices in society and their daily lives to the degree that Maxima participants experienced. Furthermore, while STARTS teachers were introduced to nonmainstream perspectives of science, they did not critically examine who defines science a s it is presented in the curriculum. These are two areas in which

PAGE 282

282 the Maxima PD project offered more opportunities for critical analysis of science education and the education system at large than the STARTS program did. Given that the awareness of multicu ltural and inquiry based teaching practices increased for teachers participating in the Maxima project , PD experiences like those offered by Zozakiewicz and Rodriguez are warranted for the professional development of CRP Science teachers. Though science te achers may come to know more about culturally responsive, reform based science teaching through these PD approaches, teachers still need assistance with apply ing sociopolitical science topics to curricula. When treated as relevant topics in which science investigation can be contextualized, as the teachers in this study did, suggestions for increasing the coverage of sociopolitical topics in CRP Science classrooms can be informed by the literature on socioscientific issues (SSI). According to Sadler, Amirs hokoohi, relevant issues within science curricula . . . Though the emphases on CRP Science topics (sociopolitical awareness, unco vering oppression, using science investigation as a platform for emancipation) and SSI (ethical considerations, moral reasoning, argumentation) are often different, there are several underlying similarities. For example, prominent in both fields are the ex ploration of bias and issues important to the community, which often leads to social action. Furthermore, the literature on teacher perspectives around SSI mirrors the experiences of teachers in this study in that teachers struggled with engaging students in the discussion of controversial topics ( Sa dler et al., 2006).

PAGE 283

283 To foster the use of SSI in the classroom, Gray and Bryce (2006) argue for PD experiences that make the knowledge and beliefs held by teachers explicit, while also providing supports to confr about science are incongruous with nature of science views held by science educators and historians of science. Moreover, because controversial issues are often linked to political, social, and/or economic concerns (e.g., genetic engineering), PD experiences should involve teachers in exploring the tentativeness and uncertainty associated with scientific knowledge, which can be done by introducing multiple perspectives on a given phenomeno n (Oulton , Dillon, & Grace, 2004 ). These can be integrated into active learning PD experiences such as extended inquiry cycles and field experiences , which (Luft, 2001) and argument ation (Crippen, 2012) . Similar to CRP Science, where teachers empower students by developing their attitudes and values in addition to knowledge (Gay, 2010; Kelly Jackson & Jackson, 2011), Oulton et al. (2004) assert that teachers engaging students in the exploration of controversial topics should: shed light on the nature of controversial issues, motivate critically reflect on their own stance, help students identify bias and critically evaluate claims of neutrality, promote open mindedness, and share with students how they arrive d at their position on the issue. The model presented by Oulton et al. (2004) can be used to support teachers as they attempt to engage students in controversial topics, thereby increasing structure and potentially reducing apprehension. Through sociotransformative and SSI informed approaches to PD, educators can develop a

PAGE 284

284 critical stance in science teachers while also support ing their use of cont roversial topics and the practices of science. Implications for Family Connections I cultural and linguistic norms and the norms of the science classroom are referred to as cult urally congruent (Lee & Buxton, 2010). Cultural congruence can be accomplished by de veloped bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well contracting skills, knowledge of medicine, and religious knowledge. Through the use of students and community resources, science teachers can build partnerships with families and make science more relevant to diverse students (Lee & Buxton, 2010). However, learning about and establishing partnerships with studen ts and their fami lies takes time. Villegas and Lucas (2002) suggest key types of information culturally responsive teachers must know about students to enact culturally congruent instruction , includ ing hool, the relationships to academic disciplines, and the communities they live in. Villegas and Lucas provide guiding questions for educators interested in doing this legwork. Several of these questions were included in the GAIn 3 task. To learn more about lives, scholars also suggest conducting home visits (Gonzalez et al., 2005; Johnson, 2011). However, as was the case with STARTS teachers, some may not feel comfortable with such a practice. Ongoing communication with families can occur

PAGE 285

285 through multiple avenues, many of which (e.g., participating in community events, church) were already suggested by STARTS teachers. Yet, they did not engage in these activities. lives an d backgrounds in a manner that is time constraints requires the incorporation of tasks that can be completed at school, at least as they are setting out on an entirely new practice. Such activities include us ing photo elicitation methods (Allen, 2007; Clark Ibáñez, 2004) as a way for students to share information about their lives in relation to a particular phenomenon or core science ideas or cultural memoirs where students share a story of themselves as cult ural beings and reflect on the influences that have shaped who they are (Allen , 2007). knowledge from within the school walls. However, teachers should get into the community i n order to learn more about their students . Calabrese Barton (2000) accomplished this through engaging her preservice teachers (PSTs) in community service combine classroom work with social action and service in order to promote development with whom Calabrese Barton (2000) worked , service learning experiences prompted a critical awareness where they q uestioned their beliefs about science content and pedagogy, schooling, and the community. By engaging in service learning , PSTs formed ideas about students and science beyond the school walls, viewed children as children and not just students to be taught , and gained

PAGE 286

286 awareness of their own cultural norms. PD that utilizes a service learning approach, prompted with reflection and implications for classroom practice, could help teachers craft culturally congruent instruction as well as establish family and co mmunity ties. Whether this happens through volunteering at a community event (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), engaging in family science programs (McCollough, 2011), or another outlet depends upon specific context ual needs. Since the inception of the standards b ased reform movement, policies have been implemented this has resulted in the intensification of the teaching profession (Apple, 2009) . Teachers have been cast as managers expected t o produce annual growth in students on high stakes assessments (Sleeter & Stillman, 2009) . They experience decreased time for PD due to increased professional demands (Wei, Darling Hammond, & Adamson, 2010) , and de skilling through adherence to rigid pacin g guides and repeated testing of students (Apple, 2009). Therefore, engaging teachers in service learning must 643) or additional professional accountability standards. Should teachers engage in a service learning project , it could be woven through another project that honors what teachers are held responsible for every day . Revised STARTS Design Principles Mindful of both the strengths and flaws within the STAR TS PD program, I present a set of design principles for a revised PD framework with the same goals as the original: to prepare reform based CRP Science teachers capable of constructing and enacting CRP Science instructional materials. van den Akker (1999) major knowledge to be gained from development research is in the form of (both

PAGE 287

287 formula for articulating design principles, which I will use to present my revised design principles. These principles will be constructed from empirical findings and the relevant literature. Though the principles emanating from findings were originally grounded in the literature (see Table 5 1), here such principles will be p resented without citations to emphasize their empirical nature. Principles that were derived from the literature but were not applied to the original STARTS framework will be cited accordingly. To design PD for the purpose of preparing reform based, CRP S cience teachers and designers of CRP Science instructional materials, it is best advised that the PD s P rovide experiences for teachers to critically observe their classro oms, learn , and identify science topics that are relevant to students ; Assist teachers in identifying themselves as cultural beings with unique experiences that have shaped who they are today ; Engage te achers in uncovering the historical, social, and political nature of schooling as well as problematizing and expanding perceptions of science as it is currently taught in school ( Gamoran, 2008; Villegas & Lucas, 2002 ) ; Involve teachers in critically reflec ting on the impact of cultural practices in society and their daily lives (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) ; Engage in service learning projects beyond the school walls (Calabrese Barton, 2000) ; Assign students tasks such as photo elicitation ( Clark Ibáñez, 2004 ) or cultural memoir construction (Allen, 2007) around a particular scientific phenomenon . The teachers should also be supported in developing CRP Science practices through activities that: Present teachers with practical examples of CRP Science (thro ugh readings and modeling) , opportunities to critique these examples, speculate on ways to apply these examples to their classrooms, and reflect on outcomes ;

PAGE 288

288 Engage teachers in the examination of their practice on intended student outcomes and then suggest instructional revisions based on findings ; Offer structured time for the collective participation of teachers in which they can brainstorm lesson ideas, co design instruction, and receive critical feedback ; Allow teachers to first learn about and implemen t responsive instructional strategies and then consider how to utilize these strategies by applying them to relevant science topics ; Provide a structured template for integrating information learned about students into science instruction ; Offer ongoing su pport and frequent communication between teachers and researchers/professional developers ; Connect findings from service learning projects (Calabrese Barton, 2000) or home visits to instructional design (Gonzalez et al., 2005) (either through responsive in structional strategies or relevant science topics) ; Utilize a set of guidelines for engaging students in the exploration of controversial science topics (Oulton et al., 200 4 ) . T based science teaching should be supported throug h activities that: Engage teachers in the systematic study of science curriculum topics ; Engage teachers in inquiry based active learning experiences (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005) ; Provide teachers with readings and experiences that help them u nderstand how students learn science (Crippen et al., 2010) ; Offer opportunities for teachers to increase their science content knowledge (Lee, 2004) ; Make knowledge and beliefs about science explicit , while also providing supports to confront an d examine these beliefs (Gray & Bryce, 2006) ; Explore the tentativeness and uncertainty associated with scientific knowledge (Oulton et al., 200 4 ) . T based science practices should be supported through activities that:

PAGE 289

289 A ssist teachers in tr anslating content knowledge to reform based science instruction ; Offer ongoing support and frequent communication between teachers and researchers/professional developers ; Engage teachers in inquiry based active learning experiences ( Jeanpierre, Oberhauser , & Freeman, 2005 ) . Te achers should be supported as designers of reform based CRP Science instructional materials through activities that: Engage teachers in critically analyzing existing sample lesson plans for elements of CRP Science ; Provide a set of gu idelines for integrating information learned about students into science instruction ; Provide teachers with structured lesson planning templates ; Offer structured time for the collective participation of teachers in which they can brainstorm lesson ideas, co design instruction, and receive critical feedback ; Offer ongoing support and frequent communication between teachers and researchers/professional developers ; Prompt teachers to bring in lessons and adapt them to be more aligned to inquiry support teache based science instructional materials (Lotter et al., 2006) ; Utilize a set of guidelines for engaging students in the exploration of controversial science topics (Oulton et al., 200 4 ) or making instruction gender inclusive (Zozak iewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) . Final Remarks The STARTS PD program was designed to support the development of reform based, CRP Science teachers, thereby seeking to advance the wide scale implementation of CRP Science. Despite the potential of CRP Science to a meliorate educational inequity, the approach remains marginalized. Loucks Horsley et al. (2010) assert that if PD efforts are to be actualized, policymakers must embrace the visions of

PAGE 290

290 science education advocated within them. Much like the argument posed b y Sadler et science educators must promote the inclusion of CRP Science topics in state and national standards and make the case that CRP Science curricula are compleme ntary to and reinforce standards based science instruction. The findings of this study indicate complementarity between reform based science teaching and CRP Science. To increase the sustainability of programs like STARTS and overcome the lack of CRP Scien ce materials, science educators must support teachers in designing deeply contextualized instructional materials like those espoused by CRP scholars. A heuristic could help accomplish this goal, much in the way Norton Meier, Hand, and Ardasheva (2013) scaf based inquiry through the Science Writing Heuristic. However, a necessary first step to constructing a research grounded heuristic of this magnitude is a better understanding of how teachers engage in the design CRP Science materials. What does this process look like? What are the strengths and weaknesses of engaging teachers in the design of innovative materials such as these? Research around this area is sorely needed as the science education community seeks to best suppor t the development of CRP Science teachers.

PAGE 291

291 Table 5 1 . STARTS PD program theoretical grounding . Goal Design s tructure Theoretical g rounding Data p roduced CRP Science Lesson study Improving teaching requires collaboration, examination, and practi ce (Lewis, 2002; Loucks Horsley et al ., 2010) Student data inform practice (Lewis, 2002; Shimizu, 2002) Effective PD* is job embedded (Borko, 200 4 ; Desimone, 2009) Lesson study artifacts Completed research lesson Student worksheets RWP*** CRP Science G AIn tasks CR** teachers are socioculturally aware (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) CR teachers validate 2010) CR teachers build communities of learners (Ladson Billings, 1994) Reflection is necessary for developing a CR stance (Lu cas & Grinberg, 2008; Wiggins et al., 2007) Completed GAIn tasks Student survey results Reform b ased s cience t eaching Curriculum Topic Study (CTS) Expert teachers have strong content and pedagogical knowledge (Keeley, 2005) Teacher expertise pos itively impacts student learning (Keeley, 2005) Effective PD engages teachers in the study of learning theories (Crippen et al., 2010) Effective PD is job embedded (Borko, 200 4 ; Desimone, 2009) CTS working document RWP

PAGE 292

292 Table 5 1. Continued CRP Science, Reform b ased s cience t eaching Professional Growth (PG) tasks CRP Science is compl e mentary to reform based science education (Johnson, 2011) Cooperative learning increases student enga gement (Johnson et al., 1994) Formative assessment strategies reveal conceptual understanding (Sadler, 1989). Diverse students academic performance increases with family involvement (Antunez, 2000; Jeynes, 2005) Reflection is an essential component of lea rning and improvement (Hammerness et al., 2005) RWP for each PG task CRP Science u nit d esign CRP Science unit Curriculum is central to teaching (Ball & Cohen, 1996) Paucity of CRP Science curriculum materials (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009) PD can s upport teachers as designers (Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk et al., 2011) Structured lesson planning construction of curriculum materials (Jackson & Ash, 2012) CRP Science unit template Student worksheets Goal De sign s tructure Theoretical g rounding Data p roduced

PAGE 293

293 Table 5 1. Contin ued CRP Science, Reform b ased s cience t eaching, CRP Science u nit d esign Saturday Collaboration Sessions Effective PD provides active learning experiences (Brown et al., 2014; Crippen, 2012) Modeling novel instruction facilitates teacher development (Capps et al., 2012; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) Collective participation positively impacts teacher development (Garet et al., 2001) Teacher development occurs on personal, social, and profess ional dimensions (Bell & Gilbert, 1996). Ongoing support is essential to effective PD (Brown et al., 2014; Capps et al., 2012; Lee, 2004) RWP for each session Group interviews 1 & 2 (+) Mock teaching feedback session (+) STARTS Redesign session (+) CRP S cience unit present ations (+) Note: *Professional Development, **Culturally Responsive, *** Reflective Writing Prompt , (+) video recorded and transcribed . Goal Design s tructure Theoretical g rounding Data p roduced

PAGE 294

294 Figure 5 1 . STARTS PD program timeline . Table 5 2 . Demographic information for participants and schools . Teacher Subject a rea t aught Focus c lass s tudent r acial m akeup School wide f ree and r educed l unch p opulation (%) School wide b iology End of Course e xam p roficiency, m astery (%) Christina Joy Anatomy & Physiology Black, Hispanic 64 55, 8 Clau dia ESOL Biology Hispanic 77 52, 7 Kate Anatomy & Physiology Asian, White, Multirace 21 91, 21 Lorelei Honors Biology White, Hispanic 34 78, 16 Natalie General Biology Black, Hispanic, White 34 78, 16 Zane General Biology Black, Hispanic 75 52, 6

PAGE 295

295 Table 5 3 . STARTS a ctivity o utcome matrix . Activity o utcome CRP Science c onceptions Views of s t udents Teaching p ractices Com munity b ui ld in g St udent r epo sition ing New t opic New s trategy Lesson Study 1 (6%) 6 (16%) 11 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 1 (3%) G AIn 15 (88%) 29 (76%) 31 (55%) 5 (63%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 7 (18%) CTS 1 (6%) 1 (3%) 9 (16%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 12 (31%) PG tasks * 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (5%) 2 (25%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 9 (23%) CRP Science Unit 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) Sat . Collab. Session** 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 10 (26%) Total 17 (100%) 38 (100%) 56 (100%) 8 (100%) 1 (100%) 12 (100%) 39 (100%) Note: *Professional Growth t asks , **Saturday Collaboration Sessions .

PAGE 296

296 Figure 5 2 . Mean CRIOP scores by pillar: Classroom observations . 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Average Scale Score CRIOP Pillars Mean CRIOP scores by pillar: Classroom observations Sep '13 Oct '13 Nov '13 CRP Sci Avg (Dec '13, Jan '14)

PAGE 297

297 Figure 5 3 . Mean RTOP s cores by subscale: Classroom observations . Figure 5 4 . Reported connection s between lesson study and teacher outcomes . 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Lesson Design Propositional Procedural Communicative Relationships Average Subscale Score RTOP Subscales Mean RTOP scores by subscale: Classroom observations Sep '13 Oct '13 Nov '13 CRP Sci Avg (Dec '13, Jan '14)

PAGE 298

298 Figure 5 5 . Reported connections between GAIn tasks and teacher ou tcomes . Figure 5 6 . Reported connections b etween Curriculum Topic Study and teacher outcomes .

PAGE 299

299 Figure 5 7 . Reported connection s between Professional Growth tasks and teacher outcomes . Figure 5 8 . Reported connection s between Saturday Collaborati on Sessions and teacher outc omes .

PAGE 300

300 Figure 5 9 . Reported connection s between CRP Science unit and teacher outc omes .

PAGE 301

301 Table 5 4 . Revised STARTS PD d esign f ramework . Goal Desig n o bjectives (Corresponding CRIOP, RTOP items) Design s tructure Observed o utcomes Redesign s uggestions (Accompany design principles) CRP Science Reflect on impact of practice on select student outcomes Plan science lesson with culturally responsive and reform based elements (CRIOP 5.2, 5.4; RTOP 4.6, 4.7, 4.8) Identify CRIOP and/or RTOP focused areas for professional growth Lesson study (+) Begin exploring practice, (+) Identify professional growth goals, (+) Student awareness ( ) Overwhelming as first task, ( ) CRP Science narrowly enacted, ( ) Restructure the observation & analysis phase [ Inquiry c onnections Active learning experiences, STP, modify existing lesson plans] [ Family c onnections Service l earning component; cultural memoi rs; photo elicitation projects] [ Sociopolitical c onnections Develop critically reflexive stance; guidelines for topics] Develop awareness of messages conveyed by classroom environment, including student st udent interactions (CRIOP Pillar I, CRIOP 5.1, 5.4) Develop awareness of relationship between teacher communication/questioning patterns and student participation (CRIOP 6.1, 6.2, 6.3) Speculate on ways to incorporate culturally relevant topics into less on plans (CRIOP 4.1, 5.1, 5.4 Suggest instructional strategies based on information learned about students (CRIOP 4.1, 5.1, 5.4) Explore examples of CRP Science and compare it to current practice GAIn (+) Critically analyze the impact of practic e on students, (+) Introduce CRP Science practices, (+) Expand ideas of CRP Science, (+) Add tools to Toolbox, and out of school, (+) Shifting authority, (+) Incr eased student communication, ( ) Specific questions needed to identify relevant topics Explore effective culturally responsive instructional approaches Identify approaches for connecting science instruc tion to these funds of knowledge and make a plan to implement (CRIOP 2.1, 2.3, 4.1) PG task: Families & Science (+) Add tools to Toolbox, (+) Identify effective science practices, (+) Structure for connecting effective practices to classroom needs ( ) Impractical content, ( ) Uncomfortable connecting with family

PAGE 302

302 Table 5 4. Continued Goal Design o bjectives (Corresponding CRIOP, RTOP items) Design st ructure Observed o utc omes Redesign s uggestions (Accompany design principles) Reform b ased s cience t eaching Deepen knowledge of the science topic that CRP Science Unit is designed around (RTOP 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11) Examine research on student learning and instructional strateg ies for CRP Science Unit topic (RTOP 3.1, 3.2) Explore the progression of crosscutting concepts for CRP Science Unit topic (RTOP 4.6, 4.7) Identify state and national education standards for CRP Science Unit topic and align the unit to these standards ( RTOP 4.6) CTS (+) Awareness of teaching practices, Importance of uncovering and addressing student misconceptions, (+) Add tools to Toolbox, ( ) Complex, ( ) Limited resources for topic, ( ) Guiding document r edundant at times Apply learned strategies to classroom instruction ( RTOP 5.17, 5.19) Make a plan to implement strategies during CRP Science Unit, connecting to GAIn and CTS findings (CRIOP 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1, 6.3; RTOP 3.2, 5.16, 5.17, 5.19, 5.20) P G tasks: Making Student Thinking Visible; Student Grouping (+) Add tools to Toolbox, (+) Identify effective science practices, (+) Structure for connecting effective practices to classroom needs, (+) Reposition student roles, ( ) Limited benefit to seeing action

PAGE 303

303 Table 5 4 . Continued Goal Design o bjectives (Corresponding CRIOP, RTOP items) Design s tructure Observed o utcomes Redesign s uggestions (Accompany design principles) CRP Science u nit d esign Critically analyze sample lesson plans for CRIOP, RTOP connections Design instructional materials (or modify existing materials) to make them more culturally responsive (GAIn connection) and reform b ased (CTS connection) PG tasks (+) Add tools to Toolbox, (+) Identify effective science practices, (+) Structure for connecting effective practices to classroom needs ( action, ( ) Impractical content Bridge together science content (through CTS) needs (through GAIn), thereby creating meaningful and challenging science instruction that is student centered CRP Science unit template (+) Structure connecting GAI n and CTS, (+) Add tools to Toolbox, (+) Comprehensive instruction, (+) Community building, (+) Responsive to students, ( ) Time of year constrained possible topics, ( ) Only completed for one unit CRP Science, Reform based science teaching, CRP Science unit design Design objectives from above were reinforced during the Saturday Collaboration Sessions Saturday Collaboration Sessions (+) Collective participation, (+) Supportive network, (+) Observe CRP Science practices, (+) Co design CRP Science instruction, (+) Model and share instructional strategies, ( ) Accepting practices without critical examination, ( ) Limited professional benefit from certain activities Note: (+) = reported benefits; ( ) = reported limitations .

PAGE 304

304 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Designing for CRP Sc ience There is an imperative to disrupt the inequalities in science achievement by preparing teachers who can successfully educate diverse students. The chronic achievement gap points to much needed pedagogical reform. While engaging students in the authen tic practices of science is advocated as a way to achieve Science for All with canonical science is also necessary when educating diverse students as it reduces incongruences between home and school (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Lee & Buxton, 2010) and increases the authenticity of science learning (Buxton, 2006; Calabrese Barton, 1998). However, teachers are often underprepared for such an endeavor and struggle with enacting cult urally responsive pedagogies in science education (CRP Science). Moreover, responsive teaching within restrictive school environments is daunting due to political backlash (Sleeter, 2012) and the scarcity of curriculum resources (Lee, 2004; Mensah, 2009). Thus, not only do science teachers require explicit supports for CRP Science teaching and to construct culturally responsive instructional materials, but such initiatives must also acknowledge the larger contextual influences at play. Few studies have det ailed programs of this magnitude. Such studies have experiences affected classroom practices (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) as well as ices changed over time (Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2011). Yet, none have done so with the explicit goal of producing usable

PAGE 305

305 knowledge through the generation of theory about the progression of teachers as CRP Science educators and the simultaneous identification o f a design framework capable of supporting this growth. However, to best develop effective programs and CRP Science teachers, elucidating the relationship between process and structure is necessary. By articulating the process of becoming a CRP Science tea cher via PD and identifying supporting mechanisms, this study answered the calls made by Patchen and Cox encourage science educators to pursue additional research to determine what teachers are actually doing in classrooms to enact CRP and to and the request by Sleeter (2012) for research on the impact of CRP projects, including how teachers learn to become culturally responsive . This qualitative study employe d a design based research (DBR) framework (Barab & Squire, 2004; Wang & Hannafin, 2005) to detail the STARTS (Science Teachers Are Responsive To Students) PD program as a designed intervention, elucidate associated learning progressions , and identify the m echanisms undergirding the se progressions. The inquiry was guided by two research questions. The first educators while participating in the STARTS PD program. The second resea rch question directed an examination of the relationship between STARTS program design To best address the research questions and their aims, c lassroom observations, focus group interviews, and numerous program artifacts were analyzed through multiple methods, including grounded theory analysis ( Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998),

PAGE 306

306 typological analysis (Hatch, 2002), and matrix analysis ( Averill, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Characteristic of DBR, the present study produced usable knowledge through the generation of local theory (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), a design framework (Edelson, 2002), and accompanying design principles (van den Akker, 1999), thereby demonstrating both local impact and general relevance. In this chapter, an overview of the findings of this study and their connection to the literature is presented first, implications for CRP Science and PD in science education are discussed in relation to the findi ngs, the limitations of this study are elucidated, and, finally, the chapter concludes with a final note on the study. Connecting Findings to the Literature Over the course of the STARTS program, participating teachers exemplified the multidimens ional nat ure of CRP to a certain extent. C are was taken to build a classroom community where students were treated as members of this community (Ladson Billings, 1994). These findings are s upportive of research from Patchen and Cox Petersen (2008) and Johnson (2011 ) that the relationships between teachers and their input was valued more over time. In contrast to the two elementary teachers with whom Patchen and Cox Petersen (2008) worked , STARTS teache rs shift ed authority in the classroom on both conceptual (i.e . , eliciting prior knowledge ) and structural levels (i.e., providing opportunities for student directed study). Further, STARTS teachers epitomized several elements of Sammie, a culturally respon sive middle school science teacher depicted by Kel ly Jackson and Jackson (2011). For instance, s everal teachers displayed student work and encouraging posters around the classroom, expected students to be nd fostered this through collaborative

PAGE 307

307 learning with specific roles. There were also patterns of CRP Science that STARTS teachers did not embrace. T hough there were isolated instances in which STARTS teachers discussed issues of oppression and power within their classro oms, the findings of this study are similar to Patchen and Cox Petersen (2008) who found that few teachers neither mentioned power relationships explicitly nor did [they] integrate an analysis or consideration of power relations into their i nstruction (p. 1005) . One of the most noteworthy findings of the present study was the ability of teachers to translate CRP Science knowledge to practice through instruction that incorporated relevant science topics with responsive strategies. For example , Christina Joy had students explore skin cancer rates according to race, Kate problematized the pseudoscience of phrenology as a form of oppression enacted by the dominant culture, ich she pre instruction are but two of four critical aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010), the central role of curriculum materials in enacting educa tional reform cannot be overlooked (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Lee & Buxton, 2010). using lives as a starting point for instruction (e.g., Patchen & Cox Petersen, 2008; Bianchini & Brenner, 2010) . W hile some STARTS teachers alluded to such difficulties, they were largely successful with the task. The findings suggest that teachers benefit from specific PD features when constructing CRP Science materials (Table 6 1), and that they sought thes e opportunities beyond the experiences provided by the design. Specifically, the STARTS teachers cited the Growing Awareness Inventory (GAIn) tasks, Saturday

PAGE 308

308 Collaboration Sessions, and Curriculum Topic Study (CTS) as primary activities contributing to the ir CRP Science instructional decisions. became more reflective of those that have been previously des cribed in the published literature, their reform based science practices improved in all areas except Student/Teacher Relationships, which remained consistent throughout the STARTS program. While others have acknowledged the complementary nature of reform based science teaching and CRP Science vis à vis inquiry (e.g., Johnson, 2011), absent from the literature is an explicit examination of the progression of the two side by side. The findings of this study indicate a specific and corresponding progression i reform based, CRP Science practices . engagement was evident . Students worked collaboratively and relied on each other to learn science content and construct products that were often presented to the ir class mates . They developed and used models to explain science phenomena, analyzed and interpreted data, and obtained , evaluated , and communicated scientific information in culturally congruent manners in both small group and whole class settings. These results are important for advancing the presence of CRP Science through a strategy suggested by Sadler et al. (2006) . They indicated that a case must be made that nontraditional pedagogies such as teaching socioscientific iss ues (SSI) and CRP Science reinforce standards based science education. This is particularly important, as the impact of the standards based movement and its resulting high stakes tests, such

PAGE 309

309 as the biology End of Course exam, on curriculum nar rowing has b een well documented (Au, 2009; Darling Hammond, 2010). Thus, the impetus for teachers to enact CRP Science is threatened when related standards are absent. The results of this study strengthen the argument that CRP Science reinforces standards based scienc e education. The effectiveness of particular STARTS framework elements in developing inquiry ba sed instruction (Luft, 2001), content knowledge (Lee, 2004), and adaptation of premade curricula (Bell & Gilbert, 1994). Seldom do PD programs address these foci while also developing teachers who are multicultural science educators (Lee & Buxton, 2010; Mo ore, 2007). Multicultural science education approaches, such as CRP Science, have than the science instruction espoused in more traditional PD in science education (Moore, 2007, p. [p]rofessional development along the lines of multicultural science education gives a more critical stance toward teaching science, constructing scientific knowledge, and using this knowledge in ways that empower both Table 6 1 illuminates the salient STARTS features associated with supporting the development of the CRP Science teachers in this study. Findings indicate that as teachers participated in the STARTS program, their view s of students, conceptions of CRP Science, and instructional practices shifted to become more representative of CRP Science. Much like scholars aiming to develop CRP Science teachers (e.g., Lee, 2004; Johnson, 2011; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez,

PAGE 310

310 2007), the find several key elements, including science content knowledge, CRP Science and reform based pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of themselves as cultural beings in relation to the students they serve, and in Other researchers have advocated the use of specific experiences to develop culturally responsive teachers (e.g., Ferguson, 2008; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007). While not reducing the impo rtance of approaches suggested by other CRP Science scholars , the results of this study indicate that developing CRP Science teachers may be accomplished without such experiences. For example, teachers in this study did not need to engage in dialogic conve rsation in order to teach f or diversity and understanding, as suggested by Zozakiewicz and Rodriguez (2007). Furthermore, STARTS teachers still promoted culturally congruent discourse without enrolling in conversational Spanish classes , as participants fro . For STARTS participants there were multiple occasions on which Spanish terms were used to facilitate culturally congruent instruction for linguistically diverse learners, even among teachers who were not bilingual. For exam ple, I observed Christina Joy using the kissing muscle. You know, [puckering lips] beso, [touching mouth] por la boca; that 29/14). The results suggest that such experiences may not be required to produce science teachers who embrace reform based, culturally responsive pedagogies. support of cultur ,

PAGE 311

311 Buxton, Lee, and Santau (2008) developed a comprehensive 3 rd 5 th grade curriculum for use with teachers participating in PD that addressed science content, inquiry, English language an d literacy supports, and mathematics connections (p. 497). The authors stated that designing their own curriculum materials was a necessity in order to overcome challenges. However, the findings of this study suggest that, with the proper PD supports, teac hers are completely capable of constructing such materials . STARTS teachers constructed and implemented materials that addressed common needs, and aligned to state science education standards. Involving teachers in the construction of instructional materials increases teacher ownership (Parke & Coble, 1997), supports changes to practice in a more sustainable manner (Brown et al., 2014), and are an imperative for CRP Science materials in particular, which are in scarce supply (Lee, 2004) and are never completely beyond context; nor . . . ever totally Findings of the study contribute to the existing literature base on CRP Science and PD in scien ce education. These findings, articulated above, have implications for the design of PD for CRP Science and future research. In the following section those implications are illuminated. Elaborating on Implications & Identifying Avenues for Future Research In C hapters 4 and 5 , I provided findings based discussion and implications chapters I stated that, beyond the supports offered by the STARTS program, science teachers require ass istance with adopting critical stances, connecting science with -

PAGE 312

312 based and culturally responsive. To enhance the presence of CRP Science , I argued that, for PD efforts to b e actualized, policymakers must embrace the visions of science education advocated within them (Buxton et al., 2008; Loucks Horsley et al., 2010), as CRP Science out in our societ Morrison, Robbins, and Rose, 2008, p. 444) . Although CRP Science teaching is a challenging endeavor, results of this study indicate that teachers are indeed capable of responsive teaching in restrictive environments. With design research such as that reported in this study, it is the science educators and professional developers who must evaluate the applicability of the recommendations (i.e., design principles) made. Hence, implications are presented for each community, alongside suggestions for relev ant future research. The principal implication for science educators who examine PD for CRP Science is that more research is needed to further understand and articulate which PD experiences facilitate this development in a variety of contexts. There are li mited studies to this end (Lee & Buxton, 2010; Moore, 2007). There is also an imperative to explore and identify how to best support teachers in the design of CRP Science instructional materials. Such inquiries are a necessity considering the paucity of cu rrent resources and the chronic science achievement gap by race and socioeconomic status. A second implication for science educators is to continue exploring the development of CRP Science teachers in a variety of contexts at the preservice and inservic e levels. While a growing research base has provided rich descriptions of teachers that embody a CRP stance and enact culturally responsive pedagogi es (e.g., Ladson Billings, 1994; 1995), as well as identify specific orientations that must be

PAGE 313

313 developed in CRP teachers (e.g., Villegas & Lucas, 2002), I argu e that the science education community in particular should explore what characterizes the professional growth of CRP Science teachers in multiple contexts and under various conditions. How does the local theory generated from this study inform their development? While there is value in the explanatory, descriptive, and predictive power of local theories, because they are derived from findings within domain specific and limited settings they are still subsequent examinations, local theories are meant to be further refined, validated, and/or refuted (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Thus, the science education community should cont the additional aim of applying this knowledge to design interventions/learning environments that best support their development. Given the necessity to ensure academic excellence fo r diverse students through CRP Science and the great influence teachers have on student learning, such investigations are a much needed next step. A third suggestion for the science education community is related to the e practices. In this study I used the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) (Powell et al., 2012) to assist in classroom practices. The constructs depicted in the instrument represent a synthesis o f the vast and timely literature on culturally responsive instruction . O perational definitions of specific culturally responsive instruction tenets are provided, making the occasionally nebulous constructs more concrete and directly measurable. However, pr ior to this dissertation, the instrument has neither been used in high school nor in science classrooms. As a result , there are

PAGE 314

314 incongruences between CRP Science and CRP as operationalized through the CRIOP. I nquiry based science instruction is one compo ne nt of CRP Science that is treated cursorily in the CRIOP . For example, while inquiry is present it is determined by tudents are encouraged to pose questions and find answers to their questions using a variety of resources Thus, to examine CRP Science teacher quality and its relation to student outcomes , an instrument reflecting the domain specific application of CRP should be developed. The design principles accompanying the revised STARTS framework may guide p rofessional developers aiming to prepare culturally responsive science teachers. However, as mentioned previously, PD initiatives must take into account larger contextual influences. They must cohere with accountability measures for teachers , which means a tight alignment to district , state , and national standards as well as demonstrating student achievement . Research must connect student learning to CRP Science (Lee & Luykx, 2007; Sleeter, 2012) and include student artifacts to illuminate key mediators o f the learning process. Currently, there is limited research that accomplishes this goal. Compounding the issue, the literature base documenting the effect of culturally responsive pedagogy on student achievement consists primarily of small scale case stud ies (Cammarota & Romero, 2009; Ladson Billings, 1995) . Thus, to increase CRP Science on a wide scale, additional research is required that connects biology E nd of C ourse exam (f or this group of participating teachers) and national assessments of science achievement.

PAGE 315

315 Additional research may help further refine the design principles proposed in this study, particularly in the areas of supporting a critical and family connected sta nce among science teachers and the translation of this stance to instructional materials that are emancipatory and academically rigorous. The fact that participating teachers did not embrace certain crucial elements of CRP Science (i.e., family connections , using science instruction to uncover and problematize oppression and bias), even while participating in an empirically grounded PD program designed to foster this growth, alludes to the complex task of developing a critical and community connected stance among these science teachers. Other studies acknowledge such challenges for teachers (e.g., Morrison et al., 2008). A closer examination of the reasons for this perpetual issue as well as strategies for addressing the dilemma is warranted. Furthermore, th is study was concerned with identifying salient PD features associated with supporting the changing CRP Science knowledge and practices of teachers . While and specific de sign elements, it is uncertain why these specific features were effective for the professional growth of this group of teachers. The literature upon which the STARTS program was designed provides plausible explanations for the effectiveness of each design element ( refer to Table 5 1). For instance, Ross, Bondy, and Kyle (1993) . . . foundation to this end was beyond the scope of the study. Additional research related to identifying and modeling the causal nature of the relationship between these variables is merited.

PAGE 316

316 Future research examining the effectiveness of PD programs for CRP Science shoul d first evaluate the quality of PD experiences and then make suggestions for program redesign based on those findings. Revised programs should be further there is a risk o f retreat to former pedagogies once the program has ended (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Loughran, 2007). To promote CRP Science in multiple settings, the program should be scaled up once effectiveness has been determined. However, Lee and Buxton (2010) have noted considerable challenges when attempting to scale up PD for CRP Science initiatives, including a weak conceptual base to draw from when designing PD of this magnitude, accountability policies that reinforce assimilation into mainstream cultures, and confro nting contextual constraints. While this dissertation adds to the conceptual base Lee and Buxton (2010) speak of, much work in this area is still needed. Moreover, while research indicates that diverse students perform better academically when families are involved in their education (Antunez, 2000; Jeynes, 2005) and when taught in emancipating ways (Ladson Billings, 1995), the teachers in this study reported positive student outcomes without explicit attention to either. As a result, further research is ne eded to explore the ways in which a culturally responsive approach promotes better academic performance for diverse students as opposed to a responsive approach. Limitations of the Study As with the design of an intervention, the research design also impo ses constraints. There are several limitations to this study. They include: (a) time, (b) instruments, and (c) generalizability.

PAGE 317

317 Time The first limitation pertains to the temporal scope of the data that were collected, particularly classroom observations. Even though I observ ed practices six times during the STARTS program , I was unable to observe the entirety of their practices. Through the collection of numerous additional artifacts (e.g., completed GAIn tasks, lesson study docume nts, PG tasks, and CTS working document) I attempted to increase methodological rigor by using these data as sources for triangulation. For example, I analyzed these artifacts for statements of their practice s . Doing this also allowed me the oppo reported practices . These sources were then compared with the repeated classroom observations . Instruments A second possible limitation lies with the instruments used to measure CRP Science and reform based classr oom practices. Though the validity and reliability of both instruments are acceptable, they still pose limitations. The CRIOP (Powell et al., 2012) instrument was originally designed to examine the literacy practices of elementary teachers. T hus , there are limitations to the ways that CRP Science was operationalized . I attempted to mitigate this by also looking for elements of practice that were representative of the synthesis of CRP Scien ce, such as reform based science teaching practices . However, ultimat ely the use of the CRIOP constrains the characterization of CRP Science. T he RTOP (Piburn & Sawada, 2000) has been widely used to characterize the inquiry based practices of sci ence classrooms ( e.g., Judson & Lawson, 2007; Park, Jang, Chen, & Jung, 2011; R oehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007 ) . However, because the instrument als o includes mathematics reform based instruction,

PAGE 318

318 based practice. As a result, I chose to acknowledge the i nfluence of both science and mathematics education reform contained within the instrument and refer red to instruction as "reform based . " Finally, there were limitations pertaining to a ssigning scores to each teacher. Though I trained on each protocol , ther e were still limitations as I was the only rater . Thus, no inte r rater reliability could be determined. In an attempt to reduce bias I engaged in member checking with the teachers after every observation. Generalizability A critique of design studies is th eir limited generalizability (Kelly, 2004), as the research and educational intervention are often highly contextualized. This study was delimited to the six high school life science teachers who participated in the STARTS PD program. Furthermore, t he recr uitment and selection process limited the breadth of the findings of the study. Though teachers represented a wide range of professional experience, they were selected from a population of Summer Science Institute (SSI) participants. As a result, the teach ers in this study were highly motivated, volunteering not only in the weeklong residential SSI experience but also in the intensive 7 month STARTS program. Hence, the generalizability of the results is limited beyond the teachers in this study. However, it should be noted that, because no two settings are alike, grounded theory research is not necessarily intended to produce results that can be generalized (Charmaz, 2006) . Conclusion This study sought to produce usable knowledge by elucidating the process o f becoming a CRP Science teacher and instructional designer in the context of the STARTS PD program. Additionally, because of the design based nature of the study,

PAGE 319

319 also e ssential. Ultimately, this study sought to advance the knowledge base in science education by articulating the relationship between process and structure. STARTS participating teachers demonstrated evidence of CRP Science teaching over time. Six themes we re characteristic among teachers as they developed CRP Science knowledge and practices: their expanding awareness of CRP Science, shifting views of students, community building, student repositioning, acquisition and application of a toolbox of responsive instructional strategies and relevant science topics, and the accompanying instructional changes. Amid this progression, there were crucial elements of CRP Science that teachers did not enact, including family partnerships and using science instruction to uncover and ameliorate oppression. Several design elements , including critical exploration of and reflection on practice, collective participation, examining critical perspectives on education for diverse students, brainstorming CRP based science instruction. These results highlight the need for additio nal research in several areas, including: variety of contexts and scale up of such interventions, exploring and identifying how to best support teachers in the construction of academically ri gorous CRP Science instructional materials, developing a discipline specific instrument for measuring determining a causal model for the relationships among the variables. Additionally, because the teachers in this stud y reported positive

PAGE 320

320 student learning outcomes when they were taught in ways that did not reflect comprehensive visions of CRP Science, research is also needed to explore the ways in which a culturally responsive approach promotes better academic performanc e for diverse students as opposed to a responsive approach. Collectively, th ese studies chart the path for a new phase of science education reform.

PAGE 321

321 Table 6 1 . Features of the STARTS program, their accompanying activities, and associated outcomes of teache Science knowledge and practices . Salient feature Corresponding STARTS activities Teacher outcome Critically exploring/analyzing teaching practices Lesson study, GAIn tasks, PG tasks More aware of teaching practices Reflect ing on the impact of p ractice on intended versus actual student outcomes Lesson study, GAIn tasks, PG tasks More aware of teaching practices , Connect instruction to students they serve versus prior emphasis primarily on content Purposefully connect ing instruction with specific student needs Lesson study, GAIn tasks, CRP Science unit Design instruction that utilizes responsive strategies Providing examples of CRP Science and reform based science instruction GAIn tasks, PG tasks, CTS, SCS Deeper understanding of CPR Science an d reform based science teaching Comparing current practices to CRP Science and reform based science exemplars GAIn tasks, PG tasks More aware of teaching practices , Deeper understanding of CPR Science and reform based science teaching, Change instruction Critic ally analyzing sample lesson plans for the presence of CRP Science and reform based science instruction PG tasks Implement new instructional strategies Learn ing about and developing critical perspectives on education for diverse students GAIn tas ks, SCS Pro moted awareness of CRP Science , Fostered need for relevant instruction Prompt ing teachers to learn more about their focus class and focus out of school GAIn tasks Shifted views of students , Community building Design instruction that utilizes responsive strategies and applies relevant science topics,

PAGE 322

322 Table 6 1. Continued Salient feature Corresponding STARTS activities Teacher outcome Supporting teachers in making experiences an d science instruction GAIn tasks, SCS, CRP Science unit Design instruction that utilizes responsive strategies and applies relevant science topics Providing resources for teachers as they suggest responsive strategies and relevant topics GAIn tasks, PG t asks Utilize toolbox of strategies and topics, Change instruction Brainstorm ing lesson ideas , co designing lessons, and speculating on how to overcome classroom issues Lesson study, SCS, CRP Science unit Design instruction that utilizes responsive strateg ies and applies relevant science topics Fostering a s upportive network of colleagues SCS Eases overwhelming feelings, Assistance when implementing novel instruction Note: PG: Professional Growth, GA In: Growing Awareness Inventory, CTS: Curriculum Topic S tudy, SCS: Saturday Collaboration Sessions .

PAGE 323

323 APPENDIX A CRP SCIENCE CODING

PAGE 324

324

PAGE 325

325

PAGE 326

326

PAGE 327

327 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 328

328

PAGE 329

329 APPENDIX C EXCERPTS FROM DESIGN DECISIONS REPORT (DDR) ated by In preparation for first Saturday Collaboration Session. They will have four articles of CRP in science to choose from. Their job is to read 2. Then, read over t he CRIOP Did this because I want to make sure that not only do they get to see examples of CRP Science, but also because this is another way to model what CRP Science looks like and also builds confidence in them as they can see that what I am asking the m to design is not so far off from what they already do. Also, this way they have to discern for themselves what CRP in science looks like, (2010) pp.31 8 to read. How can you expect to ever fit into all of those categories?? Teachers not only need to see modeled examples of this (above and Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007; Lee, 2004) but also need it to practically link to their classrooms (remember what [Claudia and Chr istina Joy] said about how they hated when PD was so theoretical and did not provide them with anything to be used in the classroom?) with their students (Darling Hamm cited in Stepanek et al, 2007, p.11) With the CRIOP, I want them to know how they will be evaluated. However, I also need checklist that once you finally get there you are then a fantastic teacher. However, I also did this to let them start thinking about where they might want to grow as we progress through STARTS. They will elucidate this i n the Reflective Writing Prompt an d regularly monitor their progress. (1) Tate et al . (2008) excerpt (define any acronyms [TELS: Technology Enhanced Learning in Science] and provide a backdrop; this science activity is for grades XXX deals with XXX topics and can be found at XXX) (2) Suriel (2010 ) (science activity for grades XXX deals with XXX topics) (3) Brown (2013) (science activity for grades XXX deals with XXX topics) (4) Fraser Abder et al (2010) (science activity for grades XXX deals with XXX topics) Based on the two CRP in science readings and t he CRIOP, describe for me (in the Reflective Writing Prompts): (1) How they would characterize culturally responsive science instruction (2) Which of these elements they already practice with confidence and regularity (3) Which of these elements they would like to pra ctice more often

PAGE 330

330 observation protocol (as well as the CRIOP). For the RTOP, include a Reflective Writing Prompt that asks 2 3 above Already Practicing CRIOP elements RTOP ele ments For example: For example: Would Like to Practice More Often CRIOP elements RTOP elements For example: For example: The answers to these prompts will help them as they develop their goals for the Lesson Study (XXX area of p ractice that they are interested in exploring), which we will talk about on Saturday. Also include Agenda on the Moodle site and remind them to bring their Lesson Study ideas Need resources how will they read about it? (brief 1 2 page in session; discu ss with one another) Need video cases for the CRIOP, RTOP Tools for ambitious science teaching, Kay Toliver -----------------------------------------------------------------------In preparation for the first observation : The compelling argument has to come from what happens in their classrooms . I am making this statement based not only on the literature (Gregoire, 2003; Loucks Inside Outside Circle we did during the first Saturday C ollaboration Session. Nobody picked any of the more emotionally charged quotes that pointed to larger issues within education and the underrepresented students who disproportionately feel the negative impact of these issues. Instead, their quote selection s at this stage tended to revolve around the following themes: Learners come in with prior knowledge Teachers need support in making changes in their classrooms So, back to the main point , that the compelling argument at this point seems to stem from what goes on in their classrooms.

PAGE 331

331 Ex: how students act How students perform How their teaching impacts these student outcomes (action, performance, etc . ) So, to make CRP Science compelling, they need to see it make an impact with their students. The lesson study is set up to do this to an extent. Less emphasis needs to be on having them examine where they match up in the CRIOP/RTOP directly. I drafted several post observation debrief questions to make the argument compelling . During class time, what matters most to you? At XXX point in the lesson I noticed you did XXX technique (pick out a CRP Science or RTOP technique). (a) Tell me about why you decided to do this particular strategy and how i t relates to your intended practices (from the CRIOP self assessment) (b) What impact did this have on student performance? CRIOP self assessment versus actual assessment together. Prior to teaching this lesson, you expected to use XX X CRIOP strategies (and list a few). I saw you do many of these frequently and well (or some other descriptor). Tell me about which, if any, of these strategies you originally intended to use but feel you did not practice today. Why do you think this is s o, that you did not practice XXX? -----------------------------------------------------------------------In preparation for the CRP Science tasks : Furthermore, I need to select readings that make the message more compelling by connecting it tightly to t heir contextual needs. I chose four readings and am very pleased with these for the following reasons: (1) T hey are tailored to the students the Fellows are working with a. Example: gifted students ([Kate] and [Lorele i]), urban and hip hop ([Zane], [Natalie], [Christina Joy]), and English Language Learners ([Claudia]) (2) Each one connects directly to science, which is good because they can see CRP contextualized within science, not just on a general, literacy, or elementa ry level (3) They are each practical, offering teaching strategies or directions for such strategies But I need to also design the activity so that it asks them to briefly describe WHY they chose this particular reading (Before You Teach section). That way I can further identify the details of their compelling message ( what is compelling to them and why ) as well as design the PD around this, whether it be additional readings in that area or a new

PAGE 332

332 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Accompany ing the Professional Growth tasks: available a video clip on our Moodle site of each part in action. The Fellows have shared with me that t several PD for science education sources have used observation as a way to initiate practices from expert t eachers (Garet et al., 2001). So for example, if we are looking at the classroom environment, I might put up pictures , t hen, possibly tie this to an assignment, such as the GAIn Before you Teach section. Or, if we are where I see this happening and then upload it to the site and ask the Fellows to provide evidence of where they see this happ ening and provide a rationale for why it was effective. This would be engaging and give them a chance to see on e another in action.

PAGE 333

333 APPENDIX D FIELD NOTES [Christina Joy] October 15, 2013 Summary . telling me about the Marzano accountability system and said something to the effect of, the one who taught me everything I need to know . in pairs to distinguish tissue types according to size, shape, function and other features. Additionally, students were co ntinually asked to elucidate their rationale for making include the correct usage of terminology. Christina Joy is clearly the director in this speculation) a place where the commander successfully leads her pupils. This was evidenced through little waste in instructional time (Christina Joy moves quickly and effectively through tasks, t hough it does not feel hurried), students working collaboratively and depending on one another as opposed to Christina Joy. During the station activity, Christina Joy continually circulated among student pairs to clarify procedures and ask comprehension qu estions. Additionally, Christina Joy consistently provided specific, positive feedback to her students. She delivers explicit directions and students as college sketch what you see, sketch what you providing plentiful opportunities for students to share their diverse perspectives on the science content under examination. During the first observation , this really came through, and I ima gine that it is a common occurrence in class. However, I was not able to see this today. Classroom Environment: There is new student work on the walls since I was last here (see below). 2 nd period anatomy and physiology (7:30a 9:10a) Today 23 students ar e present. 13 females; 10 males. They are pretty diverse in terms of student ethnicity. is present also, but she does not interact with the students.

PAGE 334

334 Agenda: Tissue Stations Lab today Today students are wo

PAGE 335

335 Chronological Breakdown: Christina Joy begins class right on time Explains clearly that P art 4 of the assignment will be done on their own T hey will do the first three sections on their own They will work with a partner in the stations

PAGE 336

336 She has all the station materials ready to go Ocular lenses A few students answer: Adjustment Then, she explains wha t they are to do with the knob

PAGE 337

337 Take your textbook, open up to C (they do) Do you remember how we talked about how artistic impression is different than what you actually see? very station Hint: contains adipocytes (reason for claim) So she models for them what she wants in a response: emales If you look on pages 134 Choral response from several students, who are all looking at the book: smooth T: Part 4 where are we doing that? St: A t home T: In your 16 mins . into video 1

PAGE 338

338 you can Christina Joy picks the student pairs and tells each pair at which station to begin Christina Joy is moving around the classroom, helping students, checking that they know what they are doing One female student (raises her hand) one , Takes about 15 seconds to answer her question Facilitating and posit ive feedback so good, I was gonna get a picture of you in action [which she uploads to her Instagram account; she has many student followers who post back] These are the nuclei, no in the blue Christina Joy stops for a brief second to take pictures of the students She will upload these to Instagram

PAGE 339

339 s are all looking Positive reinforcement, which is focused on attention to detail and proper use of academic language. I want you to look rig 6 mins into video 2 If you made the microscope move, just call me over two layers?? Are you sure? Are all [B female student] Do we do the write up? 17:44: Student Student Conversation while looking at prepared slides of adipose tissue. 2 B female students S again ? St 2 How do you change it? (about the microscope focus) Wait, the outline is pink not the center Do I have to make all St 1: Where does i t say C? St 2: Right there (looking away from scope and pointing to worksheet) ? ep, I know All those pretty circles (now looking through microscope) Oh, they look so pretty, yeah yeah look at it again. Fat looks pretty ? (expression of disbelief) St 2: Wait what did you get for A , I mean for C? Adipose? St 1 : Yeah, definitely adipose

PAGE 340

340 Student Student Conversation (So this is a nice instance of two students persisting through the site without immediately running to th e teacher for help) T wo students at computer, H male and H female, working on epithelial cell virtual lab: F: Okay, now search histology F: Virtual lab F: Epithelial tissues F/M: e p i t h e l i a l [Female st helping male st at computer spell] F: click M: this looks like it tells you [they are clicking and looking in silence] M: Where is it? Can we go back and view it? [Now they are searching in silence about two minutes go by and he says,] M: I got it I think stratified Y please make it scientific Instead of saying it looks like the picture, you could say [Christina Joy is on to another group checking to see their rationales] Positive praise you see that? [referring to a B female helping a H male] That was so kind. You got Now on video 3 High Expectations and Care sketch what you see, sketch what you (positive message that they are acting like college students)

PAGE 341

341 Into 3 rd video, at 8:32, Christina Joy sits down for the first time. She is up and moving throughout the entire class. I ask a H female if I can take a pictu re of her work from the stations: Note: Students have sustained their work during this entire class period to this point (well over an hour, without getting too loud o r off task) The student student I recorded the conversation of earlier are still working on their computer search. 8:5 0am Christina Joy says this lab they will probably get 75% done today and will take about ha lf a period for the next class. They will then discuss and compare their results.

PAGE 342

342 Sometimes they are working in the ISN and sometimes they are working in the lab sheet . Part 4 of the station lab worksheet is the reflection and THIS will go into their la bs Example of a reflection: How d ifficult was it to identify each feature ? What could have made the process less difficult? Responses will be separate (the worksheet and the lab report ISN)

PAGE 343

343 APPENDIX E CRIOP INSTRUMENT

PAGE 344

344

PAGE 345

345

PAGE 346

346

PAGE 347

347

PAGE 348

348

PAGE 349

349

PAGE 350

350

PAGE 351

351

PAGE 352

35 2

PAGE 353

353

PAGE 354

354

PAGE 355

355 APPENDI X F RTOP INSTRUMENT

PAGE 356

356

PAGE 357

357

PAGE 358

358

PAGE 359

359

PAGE 360

360 APPENDIX G SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM THE SEMI STRUCTURED FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS Focus Group Interview #1: October 12, 2013 ? What has influenced your growth as a teacher? Imagine I were a fly on the wall in one of your classes. Describe what you think I would see in terms of teaching and student learning. What has the process of becoming a culturally responsive teacher been like? o In what ways do you see your self as a culturally responsive teacher? How has STARTS supported your growth so far? o How can it better support your growth? How has your participation in the STARTS activities shaped the way you think about science teaching and your classroom practices? How has your participation in STARTS impacted the way you interact with your students? A s you prepare to design your instructional materials, what activities do you feel will be most beneficial ? Focus Group Interview #2 : November 16, 2013 Tell me a littl e bit about the students in your focus group/focus class ? What have you learned about them over time? What does a great biology teacher/ anatomy & physiology teacher look like to you? Have these characteristics changed over the course of STARTS? How do you o Tell me a little bit about your CRP Science unit plan at this point . As you begin designing lessons for your CRP Science unit, what has infl uenced your choice of activities/lesson content? Tell me about the process of designing these instructional materials: o What has been the easiest to include? The most challenging? o What are the lessons/activities you are the proudest of at this moment? Why? What STARTS related tasks have you found most helpful as you design the se materials? What additional support would you like as you finalize your lessons/ CRP Science Unit?

PAGE 361

361 APPENDIX H INITIAL CODE BOOK

PAGE 362

362

PAGE 363

363

PAGE 364

364

PAGE 365

365

PAGE 366

366

PAGE 367

367

PAGE 368

368

PAGE 369

369

PAGE 370

370

PAGE 371

371

PAGE 372

372 LIST OF REFERENCES A bell, S.K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Achieve, Inc. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved f rom http://www.nextgenscience.org . Adamson, K., Santau, A., & Lee, O. (2013). The impact of professional development on in urba n elementary schools. Journal of Science Teacher Education . 24(3), 553 571. Aikenhead, G.S., & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (3), 269 287 . Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29 (14), 1745 1765. Allen , J. (2007). Creating welcoming schools: A practical guide to home school partnerships with diverse families . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY : Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. American Education Research Association, American Psychological Associati on, and the National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA. Antunez, B. (2000). When everyone is involved: Parents and communities in school reform. In : Framing effective prac tice: Topics and issues in the education of English language learners (pp. 53 59). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from www.ncela.gw u.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/framing/6parents.htm Apple, M. (2009). Controlling the work of teachers. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 199 213). New York, NY: Routledge.

PAGE 373

373 Atwater, M.M. (1996). Social c onstructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 821 837. Au, W. (2009). High stakes testing and curriculum control: A qualitative metasynthesis. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. T hornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies r eader (3rd ed., pp. 286 302). New York, NY: Routledge. Aud, S., Fox, M, & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Natio nal Center for Education Statistics. Averill, J.B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research . 12, 855 866. DOI : 10.1177/104973230201200611 Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is or might be the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25 (9), 6 8,14. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self efficacy beliefs as shape Child Development . 72(1), 187 206. Banks, J.A., Cochran Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., . . . McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling Hammond & J. Bran sford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232 274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Barab, S.A. (2006). Design based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. In R. K. Saw yer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.153 169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S.A., & Luehmann, A.L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Scienc e Education, 87 (4), 454 467. Barab, S.A., & Squire, K.D. (2004). Design b ased r esearch: Putting a s take in the g round. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1 14. DOI : 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

PAGE 374

374 Barnes, M. B., & Barnes, L. W. (2005). Using inquiry pr ocesses to investigate knowledge, skills, and perceptions of diverse learners: an approach to working with prospective and current science teachers. In A. J. Rodriguez & R. S. Kitchen (Eds.), Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classroom s: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy (pp. 61 86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Basu, S.J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teac hing, 44 (3), 466 489. DOI : 10.1002/tea.20143 Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10 (5), 483 497. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A mode l from science education . London: The Falmer Press. Bell, D.A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism . New York, NY: Basic Books. Bergeron, B.S. (2008). Enacting a c ulturally r esponsive c urriculum in a n ovice t eacher's c lassroo m. Urban Education, 43 (1), 4 28. DOI : 10.1177/0042085907309208 Beyer, C.J., & Davis, E.A. (2012). Developing preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical design capacity for reform based curriculum design. Curriculum Inquiry, 42 (3), 386 413. doi: 10.1111/j .1467 873X.2012.00599.x Bianchini, J.A., & Brenner, M.E. (2010). The role of induction in learning to teach toward equity: A study of beginning science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 94 (1), 164 195. DOI : 10.1002/sce.20353 Bondy, E., Ross, D .D., Hambacher, E., & Acosta, M. (2013). Becoming warm demanders: Perspectives and practices of first year teachers. Urban Education, 48, 420 450. DOI : 10.1177/0042085912456846 Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3 15. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673 708). New York: MacMillan. Bouillion, L.M., & Gomez, L.M. (2001). Con necting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (8), 878 898.

PAGE 375

375 Bradshaw, T.K. (2007). Theories of poverty and anti poverty progr ams in community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 38 (1), 7 25. Bransford, J., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . National Research Council . Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Brown Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J.E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy : An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature . Teacher Education Quarte rly, 38 (1), 65 84. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141 178. Brown, J. C., Bokor, J. R., Crippen, K. J. , & Koroly, M.J. (2014). Translating current science into materials for high school via a scientist teacher partnership. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 239 262. Brown, J.C. (2013). Exploring contemporary issues in genetics & society: Karyoty ping, biological sex, & gender. The American Biology Teacher, 75(9), 692 697. Brown, J.C. & Crippen, K.J. (in review). The Growing Awareness Inventory: Building capacity for culturally responsive STEM with a structured observation protocol. Submitted to S chool Science and Mathematics. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools . Evanston, IL: LeTUS. Bullard, R.D. (2001). Environmental justice in the 21st century: Race still matters. Phylon, 49 , 151 171. elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 695 721. DOI : 10.1002/tea.20105 Buxton, C.A., Lee, O., & Santau, A. (2008). Promoting science among English language class rooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 19, 495 511. DOI 10.1007/s10972 008 9103 x

PAGE 376

376 Bybee., R.W., Taylor, J.A., Garder, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effective ness. Report prepared for the Office of Science Education. National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Scie nce Teaching, 35 (4), 379 394. DOI : 10.1002/(sici)1098 2736(199804)35:4<379::aid tea8>3.0.co;2 n Calabrese Barton, A. (2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers through service learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (6), 797 820. Calabrese Barton, A. (2003). Teaching science for social justice . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Science learning in urban settings. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science edu cation (pp. 319 343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Calabrese Barton, A., Basu, S.J., Johnson, V., & Tan, E. (2011). Introduction. In S. J. Basu, A. Calabrese Barton & E. Tan (Eds.), Democratic science teaching: Building the expertise to e mpower low income minority youth in science (Vol. 3 , pp. 1 19 ). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2009). The Social Justice Education Project: A critically compassionate intellectualism for Chicana/o students. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook for social justice education (pp. 465 476). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Campbell, G., Denes, R., & Morrison, C. (2000). Access denied: Race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Capps, D.K., Crawford, B.A., Constas, M.A. (2012). A review of the empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 23, 291 318 . DOI 10.1007/s10972 012 9275 2 Charmaz, C. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage. Clark Ibáñez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist , 47, 1507 1527. Clarke, D., & Hollingswo rth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 , 947 967.

PAGE 377

377 Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher , 32( 1), 9 13 . Cochran Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities . Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 249 306). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Coggshall, J.G., Rasmussen, C., Colton, A., Milton, J., & Jacques, C. (2012). Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job embedded professional learning in teacher evaluation [A research & policy brief]. Washington, DC : National Comprehensive Center for Teache r Quality. Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2002). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record , 102(2), 294 343. Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawy er (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (pp. 135 152). New York: Cambridge University Press. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transforming teaching experiments through conjecture driven research design. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231 265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3 rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Costa, V.B. (1995). When science is "another world": Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79 (5), 313 333. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research d esign: Choosing among five traditions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crippen, K.J. (2012). Argument a s professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education . DOI 10.1007/s10972 012 9282 3 Crippen, K.J., Biesinger, K.D., & Ebert, E.K. (2010). Using professional development to achieve classroo m reform and science proficiency: an urban success story from southern Nevada, USA. Professional Development in Education, 36 (4), 637 661. DOI : 10.1080/19415250903396026

PAGE 378

378 Croft, A., Coggshall, J.G., Dolan, M., & Powers, E. (with Killion, J.). (2010). Job e mbedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Dana, T.M., McLoughlin, A.S., & Freeman, T.B. (1998). Creating dissonance in p rospective teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning science . Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego. Darling Hammond, L. (2010). to equity will determine our future . New York, NY: Teachers College. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. . (2005). Designing educative curriclum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3 14. Davis, E.A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 94 122). New York, NY: Teachers College. Davis, E.A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C.T., & Stev ens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical Teaching and Teacher Education , 27, 797 810. DOI : 10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.005 DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice . Ne w York: Teachers College Press. Dede, C. (2006). The evolution of online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models & methods (pp. 1 13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E.M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (8), 8 19. DOI : 10.1177/0022487108327554 Delpit, L. (1995). ultural conflict in the classroom . New York: New Press. Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving i mpact s tudies of t p rofessional d evelopment: Toward b etter c onceptualizations and m easures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181 199. DOI : 10.3102/0013189x0833 1140 Doubler, S.J., & Paget, K.F. (2006). Science learning and teaching. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 117 136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

PAGE 379

379 Dresner, M. & Worley, E. (2006). T eacher research experiences, partnerships with scientists, and teacher networks sustaining factors from professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 17, 1 14. DOI : 10.1007/s10972 005 9000 5 Edelson, D.C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 105 121. El Nasser, H. (2006). How will the USA cope with unprecedented growth? USA Today . Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006 10 26 100 million_x.htm El Nasser, H., & Overberg, P. (2011). U.S. population growth slowed, still envied. USA Today . Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011 01 06 us population_N.htm?csp=webslice Elmesky, R., & Tobin, K. (2005). Expanding our understandings of urban science education by expanding the r oles of students as researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (7), 807 828. Emdin, C. (2011). Dimensions of communication in urban science education: Interactions and transactions. Science Education, 95 (1), 1 20. DOI : 10.1002/sce.20411 Eri ckson, F. (1986). Cultural difference and science education. The Urban Review , 18(2), 117 124 Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new frontiers . New York: S pringer. they look like? Journal of Science Teacher Education , 19, 574 564. DOI 10.1007/s10972 008 9108 5 Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). L inking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 (6), 643 658. DOI : 10.1016/s0742 051x(03)00059 3 Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4 th Ed.). Thousand Oa ks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

PAGE 380

380 Furman, J.S. (2008). Tensions in multicultural teacher education research: Demographics and the need to demonstrate effectiveness. Education and Urban Society, 41 (1), 55 79. Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science thro ugh urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (8), 860 877. DOI : 10.1002/tea.1036 Fusco, D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 337 35 4. Galperin, P. I. (1992). Stage by stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology , 30, 60 80. Gamoran, A. (2008). Persisting social class inequality in US education. In L. Weiss (Ed.), The Wa y Class Works (pp. 169 179). New York, NY: Routledge. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C, Desimone, L., Birman, B.F, & Yoon, K.S. (2001). what makes professional development effective ? Results from a national sample of teachers . American Educational Research Journa l, 38 (4), 915 945. DOI : 10.3102/00028312038004915 behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44 (3), 297 321. Gay, G. (2009). Preparing cultural ly responsive mathematics teachers. In B. Greer, S. Mu khopadhyay, A.B. Powell, & S. Nelson Barber (Eds.) Culturally responsive mathematics education (pp. 189 206). New York, NY: Routledge. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gee, J.P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin & J. P. Gee (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunities to learn (pp. 76 108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. González, N., Moll, L.C., Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gray, D.S., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio scientific issue s in science education: Implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education , 36(2), 171 192.

PAGE 381

381 Greenleaf, C.L., Litman, C., Hanson, T.L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C.K., Herman, J., & Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (3), 647 717. doi: 10.3102/0002831210384839 Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual process model of teachers' cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. E ducational Psychology Review, 15 (2), 147. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75 91. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evalua tion . Newburg Park, CA: Sage. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hammerness, K., Darling Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers lea rn and develop. In L. Darling Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358 389). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Harris Willcuts, M. (2009). Scientist teacher partnerships as pro fessional development: An action research study (3382136 Ed.D.), Washington State University, United States Washington. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305020410?accountid=10920 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text database. Hatch , J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hewson, P.W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Educ ation (pp. 1179 1203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hjalmarson, M.A., & Diefes Dux, H. (2008). Teacher as designer: A framework for teacher analysis of mathematical model eliciting activities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem based Learnin g, 2 (1), 57 78. Hondo, C., Gardiner, M.E., & Sapien, Y. (2008). Latino dropouts in rural America: realities and possibilities . Albany, NY: State University of New York. Howard, T.C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African American students' per ceptions of culturally relevant teaching. Urban Review, 33 (2), 131 149.

PAGE 382

382 Howard, T.C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: closing the achievement gap in America's classrooms . New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Howard, T.C., & Aleman, G.R. (2008). Teacher capacity for diverse learners: What do teachers need to know? In M. Cochran Smith, S. Feiman Nemser, D. J. McIntyre & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3r d ed., pp. 157 174). New York: Routledge. Isoda, M. (2010). Lesson study: Japanese problem solving approaches . Paper presented at the APEC Conference on Replicating Exemplary Practices in Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://www.apec.org Jackson, J.K., & Ash, G. (2012). Science achievement for all: Improving science performance and closing achievement gaps. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 , 723 744. DOI 10.1007/s10972 011 9238 z Jackson, P.W. (2009). Th e daily grind. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (3 rd Ed.) (pp. 114 122). New York: Routledge. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in s econdary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (6), 668 690. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Educatio n , 40 (3), 237 269. Johnson, C.C. (2009). Appropriate practice for linguistically diverse science learners. In J. Gess Newsome, J.A. Luft, & R.L. Bell (Eds.) Reforming secondary science instruction . Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Johnson, C.C. (2011). The ro ad to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48(2), 170 198. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson Holubec, E. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the cl assroom and school . Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real world context. Educational Psychologist, 39 (4), 235 242. Judson, E. & Lawson, A.E. (2007) . What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 44(3), 490 505.

PAGE 383

383 Keeley, P. (2005). Science curriculum topic study: Bridging the gap between standards and practice . Thousand Oaks , CA: Corwin Press; NSTA Press. Kelly Jackson, C.P., & Jackson, T.O. (2011). Meeting their fullest potential: The beliefs and teaching of a culturally relevant science teacher. Creative Education, 2 (4), 408 413. Kelly, A.E. (2004). Design research in ed ucation: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 115 128. Ladson Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African American children . San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Ladson Billings, G. (1995). Tow a rd a theory of culturally relevant pedago gy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465 491. Laughter, J.C, & Adams, A.D. (2012). Culturally relevant science teaching in middle school. Urban Education, 47 (6), 1106 1134. Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (1), 65 93. DOI : 10.1002/tea.10125 Lee, O. & Buxton, C.A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Res earch, policy, and practice . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lee, O., & Fradd, S.H. (1998). Science for All, including students from non E nglish language backgrou nds. Educational Researcher, 27 (4), 12 21. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science educa tion and student diversity: race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 171 197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuev as, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry based science for elementary teachers of diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 41(10), 1021 1043. Lehr, C.A., Johnson, D.R., Bremer, C.D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (200 4). Essential tools Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. A manual for policymakers, administrators, and educators. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). Lemke, J.J. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (1), 65 93.

PAGE 384

384 Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher led instructional improvement . Philadelphia: Research for Bet ter Schools. North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (4), 273 281. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lloyd, G.M. , & Behm, S.L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers' analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26 (4), 48 62. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lotter, C. , Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 17, 185 216. Loucks Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewso n, P.W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Loughran, J.J. (2007). Science teacher as learner. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science edu cation (pp. 1043 1065). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lucas, T. & Grinber g , J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran Smith, S. Feiman Nemser, D.J . Mc Intyre, & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3 rd ed., pp. 606 636). New York, NY: Routledge. Luft, J.A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry based pro fessional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (5), 517 534. DOI : 10.1080/09500690121307 Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and developmen t of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95 132). Boston , MA : Kluwer. Mallory, K. & Saccacyn , T. (2012) Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Self Assessment. Unpublished instrument, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

PAGE 385

385 Malo Juvera, V. Powell, R., & Cantrell, S. (2013). Development, validation, and factor analysis of the C ulturally R e sponsive I nstruction O bservation P rotocol . Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, San Francisco, CA (April 27, 2013 May 1, 2013). Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Classro om characteristics and instruction TIMSS 2003 International Science Report (pp. 281 231). Lynch School of Education, Boston College: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. ( 2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development McCollough, C.A. (2011). Creating a college going culture. Science Teacher , 78(3) , 51 55. McKenney, S. & Reeves, T.C. (2012). Conducting educational design research . New York, NY: Routledge. Mensah, F.M. (2009). Confronting assumptions, biases, and stereotypes in preservice use of book club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 46(9), 1041 1066. Mensah, F.M. (2011). A case for culturally relevant teaching in science education and lessons learned for teacher education . Journal of Negro Education, 80 (3), 296 309. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2 nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and clas srooms. Theory Into Practice, 31 (2), 132 141. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 18, 773 794. DOI 10.1007/s10972 007 9066 3 Morrison, K.A., Ro bbins, H.H., & Rose, D.G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy : A synthesis of classroom based research . Equity & Excellence in Education, 41 (4), 433 452. DOI : 10.1080/10665680802400006

PAGE 386

386 Mutch Jones, K., Puttick, G., & Minner, D. (2012). L esson study for accessible science: Building expertise to improve practice in inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (8), 1012 1034. National Academy of Sciences [NAS]. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm : Energizin g and employing america for a brighter economic future . Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP].(2009). Nations Report Card Science Assessment . Washington, D.C. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2007). The condition of education 200 7 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES](2010). Condition of education 2010: Indication 10 reading achievement gaps & Indicator 12 mathematics achievement gaps . Washington, D.C. National Counci l of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM ] ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics . Reston, VA: NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematic s. Reston, VA: NCTM National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council [NRC] . (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning . Committee on the Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. . In S. Olson & S. Loucks Horsley (Eds.). Wash ington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K 12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K 12 Science Education Standards. Bo ard of Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

PAGE 387

387 National Science Foundation [NSF], Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with di sabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11 309. Arington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2006). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: Figure H 7. Retrie ved February 23, 2011, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figh 7.htm National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2006). NSTA position statement: professional development in science educa tion. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/profdev.aspx No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001). Retrieved from http://www 2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml Norton Meier, L.A., Hand, B., Ardasheva, Y. (2013) Examining teacher actions supportive of cross disciplinary science and literacy development among elementary students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Scien ce, and Technology, 1(1), 43 55. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., Grace, M.M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education , 26(4), 411 423. Park, S., Jang, J Y., Chen, Y C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedag ogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching? Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education , 41, 245 260. Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (8), 773 789. DOI : 10.1002/(sici)1098 2736(199710)34:8<773::aid tea2>3.0.co;2 s Patchen, T., & Cox Petersen, A. (2008). Constructing cultural relevance in science: A case st udy of two elementary teachers. Science Education, 92 (6), 994 1014. DOI : 10.1002/sce.20282 Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementatio n. American Educational Research Journal , 44(4), 921 958. Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) reference manual (ACET Tech. Rep. No. IN00 3). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teach ers, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://www.public.asu.edu/~anton1/AssessArticles/Assessments/Chemistry%20A ssessm ents/RTOP%20Reference%20Manual.pdf

PAGE 388

388 Plano Clark, V.L. , & Creswell, J.W. (2010). Understanding r esearch: A c onsumer's g uide . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill. Powell, R. (2011). Classroom climate/physical environment: Creating an inclusive communi ty. In R. Powell & E.C. Rightmyer (Eds.) Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp.35 48). New York, NY: Routledge. Powell, R. & Rightmyer, E.C. (2011). Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap . New York, NY: Routledge. Powell, R., Cantrell, S., Gallardo Carter, Y., Cox, A., Powers, S., Rightmyer, E.C., . . . Wheeler, T. (2011). Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol . New York, NY: Routledge. Powell, R., Cantrell, S., Ga llardo Carter, Y., Cox, A., Powers, S., Rightmyer, E.C., . . . Wheeler, T. (2012). Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (revised) . Lexington, KY: Collaborative Center for Literacy Development. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do n ew views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher , 29(1), 4 15. Raval, H. McKenney, S., Pieters, J. (2010). A conceptual model for supporting para teacher learning in an Indian non governmental organ ization (NGO). Studies in Continuing Education , 32(3), 217 234. Remillard, J.T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A Curriculum Inquiry , 29(3), 315 342. Riegle Crumb, C. , Moore, C., & Ramos Wada, A. (2010). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents' future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education . DOI 10.1002/sce.20431. Rightmyer, E.C. (2011). Classroom caring and teacher dis positions: The heart to teach all students. In R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 13 34). New York: Routledge. Rodriguez, A.J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 589 622. DOI : 10.1002/(sici)1098 2736(199808)35:6<589::aid tea2>3.0.co;2 i Rodriguez, J.L., Jones, E.B., Pang, V.O., & Park, C.D. (2004). Promoting academic achievement and identity development among diverse high school students. High School Journal, 87 , 44 53.

PAGE 389

389 Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influ ence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883 907. Ross, D.D., Bondy, E., & Kyle, D.W. (1993). Reflective teaching for student empowerment: Elementary curriculum and methods . New York: Macmillan Publishing. Sadler , T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., Allspaw, K.M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 43(4), 353 376. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science , 18, 119 144. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Development and validation of the Beliefs About Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) questionnaire. School Science and Mathemati cs , 113(1), 3 15. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Seitz, K. (2011). Parent collaboration: Developing partnerships with families and caregivers. In R. Powell & E. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 57 86). New York: Routledge. Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council: Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Shimizu, Y. (2002). Lesson study: What, why, and how? In H. Bass, Z. Usiskin & G. Burrill (Eds.), Studying classroom teaching as a medium for professional development: Proceedings of a U.S. Japan workshop. U.S. National Commission on Mathematics Instruction, Board on International Scientific Organizations, Policy and Global Affairs Division. National Research Council (pp. 53 57). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4 14. Sleeter, C. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy . Urban Education, 47 (3), 562 584. DOI : 10.1177/0042085911431472

PAGE 390

390 Sleeter, C., & Stillman, J. (2009). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 303 317 ). New York, NY: Routledge. Song, K. H. (2006). Urban teachers' beliefs on teaching, learning, and students: A pilot study in the United States of America. Education and Urban Society, 38 (4), 481 499. Songer, N.B. . (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversa tion on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (pp. 355 369). Thousand Oaks, CA: Cambridge University Press. Squire, K.D., MaKinster, J.G., Barnett, M., Lue hmann, A.L., & Barab, S.A. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87 (4), 468 489. Stanley, K.R., & Plucker, J.A. (2008). Improving high school graduation rates. Center for Evaluat ion and Educational Policy, 6 (7), 1 12. Stolk, M.J., De Jong, O., Bulte, A.M.W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a framework for professional development in curriculum innovation: Empowering teachers for designing context based chemistry education. Researc h in Science Education, 41 , 369 388. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11165 010 9170 9 Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2 nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Tate, E .D., Clark, D.B., Gallagher, J.J., & McLaughlin, D. (2008). Designing science instruction for diverse learners. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 6 5 93). New York, NY: Teachers College. Tatum, B.D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education agenda : An update of state actions . Washington, D.C.: N ational Governors Association Tobin, K. (2000). Becoming an urban science educator. Research in Science Education, 30 (1), 89 106.

PAGE 391

391 Tutweiler, S.W. (2007). How schools fail Afr ican American boys. In S. Books (Ed.), Invisible children in the society and its schools (3rd ed., pp. 141 156). New York, NY: Routledge. Valdes, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., & Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the L. Darling Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126 168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Valenzuela, A. (2005). Subtractive schooling, caring relations, and social capit al in the schooling of U.S. Mexican youth. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader . New York, NY: Routledge. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R.M. Branch, K. Gu stafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.) Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1 14). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Veal, W.R. (1999). The TTF model to explain PCK in teacher development . Paper presented at the National Assoc iation for Research in Science Teaching, Boston. Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: a coherent approach . Albany, NY: State University of New York. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of high er psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (1999). Design based research and technology enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development , 53(4), 5 23. Wei, R.C., Darling Ham mond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Teacher professional development in the United States : National Staff Development Council. Weinstein, C.S., Tomlinson Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journ al of Teacher Education, 55 (1), 25 38. Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., McCloskey, E.M., Ketelhut, D.J., & Dede, C. (2006). An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professiona l development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 13 30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

PAGE 392

392 Wiggins, R.A., Follo, E.J., & Eberly, M.B. (2007). The impact of a field immersion program on pre ulturally diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education , 23, 653 663. Wilson, S.M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledg e: An examination of research on contemporary professlonal developm ent. Review of Res earch in Education, 24 (1), 173 209. DOI : 10.3102/0091732x024001173 Yerrick, R., & Beatty Adler, D. (2011). Addressing equity and diversity with teachers through informal science institutions and teacher professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22 (3), 229 253. DOI : 10.1007/s10972 011 9226 3 Yore, L.D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html Zozakiewicz, C., & Rodriguez, A.J. (2007). Using sociotransformative constructivism to create multicultural and gender inclusive classrooms . Educational Policy , 21 (2), 397 425. DOI : 10.1177/0895904806290126

PAGE 393

393 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Julie C. Brown received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Animal & Veterinary Sciences from the University of Rhode Island in 2003 and a Master of Education Degree in Science Education fro m the University of Florida in 2006. Dr. Brown has taught high school biology, physics, and integrated science; undergraduate and graduate courses in science and mathematics education; and coordinated the elementary science program at the P.K. Yonge Develo pmental Research School in Gainesville, FL. She entered the science education Ph.D. program at the University of Florida in 2010. the design, development, and evaluation of learning environments that prepare culturally resp onsive science and mathematics teachers . She has made numerous presentations at international science education conferences and has publications in the Journal of Science Teacher Education, Research in Science Education, The American Biology Teacher , and S cience Scope . In the fall of 2014, Dr. Brown will join the faculty of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities as an Assistant Professor of STEM Education.