Berg 2014 de marginalizing science

Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 12/2/2013
Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 5/13/2014
Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 5/25/2014
SPECIAL ISSUE
Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring
Programs
education policy analysis
archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
Arizona State University
Volume 22 Number 57 June 23rd 2014 ISSN 1068-2341
De-Marginalizing Science in the Elementary Classroom by
Coaching Teachers to Address Perceived Dilemmas
Alissa Berg
Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL)
&
Felicia Moore Mensah
Teachers College, Columbia University
USA
Citation: Berg, A., & Mensah, F.M. (2014). De-Marginalizing Science in the Elementary Classroom
by Coaching Teachers to Address Perceived Dilemmas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (57).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n57.2014. This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special Issue
on Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs, Guest Edited by Dr. Sarah Woulfin.
Abstract: This study identifies and explores the dilemmas experienced by three first-grade teachers
in teaching elementary school science. The impact of coaching and teachers’ career stages on how
teachers reconcile their dilemmas was examined. Results of this comparative case study indicate
teachers perceived tensions between focusing instructional practice on science versus the other
school subjects, tensions between their responsibility to teach science and their lack of a science
background, and tensions between using their curriculum as a script, supplement, starting point, or
not all. Participants reconcile their common dilemmas in different ways. Extent of teaching
experience; comfort level with teaching reading, writing, and mathematics; and the sense of
accountability teachers feel to teach science are related to how effectively dilemmas are addressed.
The amount of time spent with the science coach-researchers is tied to the amount of time science is
epaa aape

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 22 No. 57 2
taught and the extent to which teachers address dilemmas in reform-oriented ways.
Keywords: Science coach; elementary science; dilemmas; professional development
De-marginanalizando la ciencia en el aula de primaria entrenando a los docentes para
abordar los dilemas percibidos
Resumen: Este estudio identificó y exploró los dilemas experimentados por tres maestros de primer
grado en la enseñanza de ciencias en la escuela primaria. Se examinó el impacto del
entrenamiento/coaching y las etapas de la carrera de los docentes y sobre cómo reconciliaron los
dilemas. Los resultados de este estudio comparativo de casos indican que, cuando se trata de
enseñanza de la ciencia, los profesores perciben tensiones entre centrarse en la práctica de
instrucción en ciencia versus otras materias escolares, las tensiones entre su responsabilidad de
enseñar la ciencia, la falta de una formación en ciencias, y las tensiones entre el uso de su plan de
estudios como un guión, suplemento, punto de partida, o ninguna de esas alternativas. Los
participantes reconciliaron los dilemas de diferentes maneras. Los niveles de experiencia en la
enseñanza; nivel de comodidad con la enseñanza de lectura, escritura y matemáticas; y el sentido de
responsabilidad que los maestros sentían para enseñar ciencias se relacionan con el grado de eficacia
con los cuales abordaron los dilemas. La cantidad de tiempo que pasa con las entrenadores/coaches
de ciencias se relaciona con la cantidad de tiempo que se enseñó ciencia y el grado en que los
profesores abordan los dilemas con orientación reformista.
Palabras clave: entrenamiento/coaching científico; ciencia elemental; dilemas; desarrollo
profesional.
De-marginanalizando a Ciência na formação de professores em sala de aula elementares
para enfrentar os dilemas percebidos
Resumo: O presente estudo identificou e explorou os dilemas vividos por três professores de
ensino de ciências na escola primária. Se analisou o impacto do treinamento e do momento na
carreira dos professores em como eles reconciliaram os dilemas. Os resultados deste estudo
comparativo de casos indicam que, quando se trata de ensino de ciências, os professores perceberam
a tensão entre enfocar a prática educacional em ciência versus outras disciplinas escolares, tensões
entre sua responsabilidade de ensinar ciência, a falta de conhecimentos científicos, e as tensões entre
o uso do currículo como um script, suplemento, ponto de partida, ou nenhuma destas alternativas.
Os participantes reconciliaram essos dilemas de maneiras diferentes. Os níveis de experiência de
ensino; nível de conforto com o ensino da leitura, escrita e matemática; e o sentido de
responsabilidade que os professores sentem para ensinar ciência se relacionam com a eficácia com
que abordaram os dilemas. A quantidade de tempo com a treinadores/coaches científicos está
relacionada com a quantidade de tempo do ensino da ciência e a medida em que os professores
lidam com os dilemas com uma orientação reformista.
Palavras-chave: treinamento/coaches científicos; ciência fundamental; dilemas; desenvolvimento
profissional.
Introduction
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) permeate every facet of our
lives. In our increasingly interconnected and technologically-advanced world, it is now more
important than ever that every student become literate in these fields in order to make responsible
decisions. “Given that future innovation, global finance, and our very standard of living depend on
mathematics and science knowledge, our students’ unacceptable performance in these subjects

Coaching to address dilemmas 3
constitutes nothing short of a national crisis” (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson,
2010, p. 6). With the release of the Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] (Achieve, 2013),
students, and thus their teachers, are being held to increasingly high standards. To develop a
scientifically literate populace, students must acquire the motivation and foundational skills needed
for success in science beginning at as early an age as possible. Unfortunately, in the current era of
high-stakes testing, reading, writing, and mathematics dominate instructional time in the elementary
classroom at the expense of science and social studies (Appleton, 2007; Center on Educational
Policy, 2008; Crocco & Costigan, 2007). Further compounding the issue of making time for science
is the fact that elementary teachers tend to have a limited content and pedagogical background in
science (Fulp, 2002; Tilgner, 1990), which has an adverse impact on their confidence to teach this
subject (Cochran & Jones, 1998; Gunning & Mensah, 2010).
It is widely agreed that professional development (PD) is the key to reform and that ongoing
support situated in teachers’ classroom practice is the optimal form of professional development
(Davis, 2003; Putnam & Borko, 2000), especially given the complexity of decision-making that most
elementary school teachers must confront in their daily practice. Teachers are not only faced with
decisions about what to teach and how to teach it as they plan their instruction, but they encounter
situations in-the-moment that require them to determine how best to proceed (e.g., classroom
management issues, last-minute changes to the schedule for the day, and so on). Science coaches
appear to be a sustainable and effective way to provide elementary teachers with the immediate and
individualized professional development they require. However, there remains much to learn about
what effective coaches do and how they impact what teachers do (Vandenburg & Stephens, 2010;
Walpole & Blarney, 2008), particularly considering the apparent lack of due attention in the
literature. To contribute to the research on science coaches and how they can best support
elementary teachers at various stages of their careers, this study identifies and explores the dilemmas
perceived by a novice teacher (i.e., less than 3 years of teaching experience), a teacher just emerging
from the induction stage (i.e., three years of teaching experience), and a veteran teacher (i.e., more
than 10 years of teaching experience). Moreover, it investigates how each teacher reconciled
dilemmas related to teaching elementary school science.
Literature Review
Coaching as Professional Development in the Elementary Science Classroom
The elementary school is a unique context for the teaching and learning of science (Mensah,
2010). Unlike high school and middle school teachers, elementary teachers are responsible for
teaching all the core subjects, have limited instructional time allotted to science, tend to lack an
adequate background in science (Fulp, 2002; Shulman, 1986), and, consequently, many elementary
teachers have low confidence in teaching science (Cochran & Jones, 1998). To cope, elementary
teachers avoid teaching science, teach only the topics with which they are most comfortable, or
focus on expository teaching rather than discussion and questioning (Harlen, 1997). Even when
elementary teachers do not shy away from teaching science, their pre-existing belief systems may
filter new pedagogical ideas in complex ways impacting their practice (Pajares, 1992; Richardson,
1996; Tilgner, 1990).
Teaching science in reform-oriented ways offers another layer of complexity. While there
have been many cycles of reform over the years, several ideas have remained constant—although the
wording may have changed. The most recent era of reform, referred to as the standards-based
reform movement, began with the publication of Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American
Association for the Advancement of science [AAAS], 1993) and a number of other documents have

followed since (National Research Council [NRC], 1996, 2000, 2007, 2011). These documents
advocate several reform-oriented strategies teachers of science should implement in their
classrooms, although it is understood that teaching science in reform-oriented ways is a much more
complex and interrelated process than enumerating strategies implies. Keeping this in mind, some
examples of reform-oriented science instructional approaches include: teaching unifying themes
(NRC, 1996) or crosscutting concepts, such as patterns, cause and effect, and systems (NRC, 2011);
implementing inquiry-based lessons that engage students in the practices of science and engineering
(AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2011); focusing on depth over breadth in terms of content; alignment of
lessons with students’ interests and prior experiences (Tal, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2006); teaching
about the nature of science (NOS) (e.g., McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, 2002); integrating science
and the other core disciplines (e.g., Howes, Lim, & Campos, 2009); and engaging students in
argument to develop their ability to make evidence-based claims (e.g., Bricker & Bell, 2008, NRC
2011). The newest science education reform, the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, Inc.,
2013), highlights all of these reform-oriented practices and overlays engineering design, which offers
an additional consideration in teaching elementary science. Thus, studies have shown that even if
teachers possess reform-oriented beliefs this is not a sufficient condition for ensuring that their
beliefs align with their practices (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; King, Shumow & Lietz, 2001). For
example, teachers may believe that studying less material in more depth is ideal for students to build
robust understandings. However, their practice may not reflect their belief when being held
accountable to state-mandated tests that cover a broad range of material superficially. In some cases,
this can lead teachers to suppress their commitment to a constructivist approach, where instruction
is focused on learners building their own understanding through social interaction and independent
reflection (Smith & Southerland, 2007).
Science curricula also play a role in influencing teacher practice. Kit-based materials have
become increasingly widespread in the elementary grades as a means of enhancing the inclusion of
science in the classroom. Full-Option Science System (FOSS) is a curriculum developed at the
Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California at Berkeley. It has been widely adopted by
districts across the United States. The activities in these kits have been designed to align with
students’ cognitive levels and what we know about how students learn. The FOSS kits aim to
promote active learning, multisensory methods, peer interaction, discussion, reflective thinking, and
interdisciplinary connections (Delta Education, 2011), yet teachers may enact them in such a manner
that they do not promote rich learning for students (NRC, 2000). Therefore, teachers require
professional development, such as coaching or other supportive programs to learn how to
implement curricula in reform-oriented ways.
Commonly used one-shot workshops and short courses have been shown repeatedly that
they do not improve teacher practices (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss & Shapley, 2007). When
teachers return to their school, they are typically on their own to figure out how to take their new
learning and implement it in practice. Coaching provides the potential for situated and content-
based learning. Although the most effective means of coaching for teachers is not well-defined
(Walpole & Blarney, 2008), several roles have been delineated. These include “change coaches,” who
work primarily with the principal and concentrate their efforts at the school-level, and “content
coaches,” who work with and support teachers in a particular subject area (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Researchers have also differentiated between coaching as a supervisory approach versus a side-by-
side method. In the former approach, the coach provides only feedback; in the latter, the coach may
teach a lesson in order to show the teacher how a new strategy or change can be enacted (Kretlow &
Bartholomew, 2010). While coaching is increasingly being used by schools for professional

development in the areas of literacy and mathematics (Antsey & Clarke, 2010), science coaches are
much less common.
This research study aims to uncover elementary teachers’ thinking about teaching and
learning science as they work with science educators in the role of science coach to implement a new
curriculum. Since the FOSS kit-based curriculum was adopted district wide, it is crucial to uncover
teachers’ perceived dilemmas related to implementing the kits and how teachers go about reconciling
these tensions. The conceptual framework of the study focuses on the dilemmas of teaching and the
professional learning continuum of teaching. Specifically, this study identifies and examines how
three teachers at various career stages navigate the tensions they experience in teaching elementary
school science using a kit-based elementary science curriculum.
Conceptual Framework
Teacher or Teaching Dilemmas
Teachers encounter dilemmas on a daily basis that impact how they translate their
knowledge and skills into practice. However, “we seldom examine these below-the-surface conflicts
even though [teachers] cope with them continually in [their] work” (Cuban, 1992, p. 6). How
teachers address dilemmas is an area of research that requires further investigation, in order to
deepen our understanding of the complexities of teaching and learning (Gort & Glenn, 2010). This
is particularly relevant for this study as we look at elementary science teaching.
A dilemma is a situation presenting a minimum of two alternative courses of action, neither
of which is optimal. While Berlak and Berlak (1981) viewed dilemmas as solvable, most other
researchers believe dilemmas can only be managed or addressed through compromise (Cuban, 1992;
Katz & Raths, 1992). Taking the latter stance, Lampert (1985) contended that instead of focusing on
solving problems, teachers assume the role of active negotiator. The teacher has a host of interests
that must be balanced in the classroom, and in doing so, “She debates with herself about what to do,
and instead of screening out responsibilities that contradict one another, she acknowledges them,
embraces the conflict, and finds a way to manage” (p. 190). Dilemmas characterize the internal
struggles teachers go through with regards to the external problems they perceive (Gort & Glenn,
2010). Focusing solely on external barriers or constraints does not provide the whole picture, since
“much of the difficulty is internal to the teacher, including beliefs and values related to students,
teaching, and the purposes of education” (Anderson, 2002, p. 7).
Professional Learning Continuum
Researchers commonly categorize and account for differences among teachers based on
their years of experience when discussing the challenges and successes of learning to teach (e.g.,
Davis, Petish & Smithey, 2006). Although teachers encounter unique challenges based on their
individual dispositions, experiences, and contexts, there are some general stages that teachers tend to
go through as they gain experience and knowledge related to teaching. At the same time, it is
important to note that teachers do not necessarily progress through these stages linearly, nor do they
necessarily advance through all stages.
Researchers have proposed different, yet overlapping models for the stages of the teaching
career. For example, Feiman-Nemser (2001) described a professional learning continuum that begins
with pre-service education, extends through the induction period (the first three years in the
classroom), and continues until retirement. Ryan (1986) delineated four stages: (1) pre-service
teachers envision themselves being like their most effective teachers (fantasy stage); (2) upon
assuming the role of classroom teacher they realize the challenges of fulfilling their responsibilities

and working within the confines of their school context (survival mode); (3) with experience teachers
develop a repertoire of knowledge and strategies (mastery stage); and (4) some eventually reach a level
of proficiency where they can share their wisdom with their colleagues (impact phase). While teachers
may be in the mastery stage in some aspects of their practice, they may not have attained mastery in
other respects.
Huberman’s (1989) model is more detailed and consists of several stages. He described new
teachers as in a stage of survival and discovery, characterized on the one hand by “continuous trial and
error…wide discrepancies between instructional goals and what one is actually able to do in the
classroom…[and] concerns with discipline and management that eat away at instructional time” (p.
349). On the other hand, the challenge of learning to teach can be perceived as exciting due to “the
sharp learning curve [and] the headiness of having at last one’s own pupils” (p. 349). Teachers may
enter the stabilization phase as successes with their instructional practices begin to accrue and their
concerns shift from issues of survival to the quality of their instruction, after which some teachers
enter an experimentation and diversification phase where they seek out new knowledge and ideas to try
out in their classroom. Beyond this point, teachers may enter a phase where they question
themselves as teachers. If they have tried to diversify their practice unsuccessfully (stock-taking), some
pass through a “self-accepting” period where they exert less effort on improving their practice and
take on a mechanical approach perceived as successful (serenity). Still, others may go through a time
where they become more prudent in their practice and more dubious of reforms (conservativism). The
final stage in Huberman’s model is disengagement, which involves a gradual process of withdrawal and
a refocusing of one’s efforts outside of the classroom and school.
Research Questions
This research study aims to uncover elementary teachers’ thinking about teaching and
learning science as they work with researchers in the role of science coach to implement a new kit-
based curriculum. The research questions are:
1. What dilemmas did three teachers at various stages of the professional learning continuum
perceive related to teaching and learning science?
2. How did the teachers reconcile the dilemmas they perceived related to science teaching?
a) What were the differences and similarities in how the teachers at different stages of their
careers reconciled the dilemmas they perceived related to teaching science?
b) What impact, if any, did the researchers—in the role of science coach—have on the
teachers’ reconciliation of their dilemmas?
Method
In order to provide “a complex, detailed understanding of the issue” (Creswell, 2007, p. 40),
this research study employed a case study approach. Rich, thick descriptions (Merriam, 1998) were
developed to describe how three first-grade teachers addressed the dilemmas they perceived related
to teaching science.
Context and Participants
This study took place over the course of a school year (August 2010-June 2011) at
Morningview Elementary (all proper names in the study are pseudonyms). This pre-kindergarten
through eighth grade school is located in a large urban district in the northeast and served
approximately 600, primarily African American (75%) and Latin@ (24%) students, with 75%

qualifying for free or reduced lunch.1
The school district had recently changed their science program
and the teachers at Morningview received their new FOSS kits mid-way through the year prior to the
commencement of this study.
Monita, Jenny, and Angela were on the first-grade team in the school and served as the
participants for this study. None of the teachers on the first-grade team had a science degree;
however, they were certified K-6 teachers and had completed a graduate-level elementary science
methods course at the time of their certification. Monita is an Indian woman in her mid-twenties
who possessed one year of teaching experience when this research began. Monita had no prior
experience with the FOSS curriculum before this school year. Jenny is a White woman in her mid-
twenties, with three years of teaching experience. Jenny had used the FOSS kits when she student
taught in college and had tried out nine lessons from the Solids and Liquids kit the year before this
study. Angela is an African American woman in her sixties and had 25 years of teaching experience.
Angela had taught two lessons from the Solids and Liquids kit the year prior to this study. She had
gained some additional experience with the FOSS lessons by attending a five-day science institute
that took place the summer before this study began. Angela was one of 36 teachers who attended
this professional development opportunity and one of 6 teachers (of different grade levels) who
attended from her school. The second author (Felicia) coordinated the summer science institute
which was led by a team of FOSS PD providers. The institute aimed to familiarize teachers with
their FOSS kits. Both authors attended the full institute and participated alongside the teachers.
Researchers as Participant Observers
This research was the result of a school-university partnership. Neither researcher was a staff
member hired by the school or school district and neither worked for FOSS. At the time of the
study, the first author (Alissa) was a doctoral student in science education. She completed her
undergraduate degree in chemistry and her master’s degree in secondary science education. She is a
former high school chemistry teacher. Alissa served a dual role, working both as science coach and
participant observer. By integrating these roles, a participant observer “become[s] capable of
understanding the program as an insider while describing the program for outsiders” (Patton, 1990,
p. 128). As the science coach, Alissa facilitated meetings with the first-grade teachers, helped out in
their classrooms as a co-teacher, and offered constructive feedback and support with respect to
lesson planning and instruction. This enabled her to live through the reality of teaching first-grade
science at Morningview (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In addition, she collected video recordings of
the teachers’ science lessons and was present at regular grade-team planning meetings.
To ensure that data analysis remained as objective as possible, the second author (Felicia)
maintained a role of non-participant observer during the data collection (Merriam, 1998). At the
same time, Felicia had a deep understanding of the school and its context through her longstanding
relationship with Morningview and several years of prior work with other groups of teachers on the
school’s science team. Felicia is an assistant professor of science education and a former high school
biology, physics, and earth science teacher. As part of her role as professor, she teaches the science
methods courses to elementary and secondary preservice teachers and conducts monthly
professional development workshops with teachers. At Morningview, Felicia served as a science
coach for other teachers in the school, working mainly with the science cluster teacher, Ms. Warren,
but did not work with the first-grade team during the study period. Guba and Lincoln (1981)
explained that when acting as an observer, one is “responsible to persons outside the milieu being
observed” (p. 190). At the same time, they state that when acting as a participant, one “has a stake in
1 Data obtained from the school’s Quality Review Report for the 2007-2008 academic year.

the group’s activity and the outcomes of that activity” (p. 190). Both researchers were invested in
assisting to develop a strong elementary science program across all grade levels at the school.
In working with the first-grade teachers at Morningview, a supervisory coaching role was
used to gain insight into their practices and needs. In addition, a side-by-side role was employed to
model how new strategies could be implemented. Coaching took many forms, including stepping-in
during lessons to demonstrate certain strategies or helping to respond to students’ questions when
the teachers requested assistance with the content. The authors created documents to support the
teachers in carrying out new strategies in context (Appendix A). These included discussion prompts
to assist the teachers in probing student thinking and templates with sentence stems to assist the
children in designing and carrying out investigations, analyzing their data, and reporting conclusions
grounded in evidence. Various modes of feedback were employed, including providing immediate
suggestions during enactment of a lesson, as well as providing support prior to and after teaching
lessons.
Data Collection
Multiple forms of data were collected and used to construct the cases of Monita, Jenny, and
Angela. Two interviews each were conducted with the three participants. The questions aimed at
elucidating their dilemmas in teaching science and the reasons they ascribed to instructional changes
(Appendix B). The principal and assistant principal participated in an interview to establish
information about the school context and to assist in triangulation of the data. Monita, Jenny, and
Angela’s science lessons were observed and videotaped 3, 5, and 25 times, respectively. The number
of observations and co-planning meetings varied due to the voluntary nature of this study and the
regularity with which each teacher taught science. Co-planning meetings took place twice with
Monita (both were recorded and transcribed), four times with Jenny (two were recorded and
transcribed), and 18 occasions with Angela (four were recorded and transcribed). Debriefing
sessions took place after observed lessons (at the teacher’s discretion). A semi-structured approach
was used during these meetings to illuminate how the teacher felt the lesson went and what if
anything she would change moving forward (Appendix C). Monita participated in one (which was
recorded and transcribed), Jenny participated in three (one was recorded and transcribed), and
Angela participated in 12 of these meetings (10 were recorded and transcribed).
In addition, 12 science-focused teacher meetings were held over the course of the school
year. Attendance at these meetings varied due to outside commitments, and the format of the
teacher meetings varied based on teacher needs. Meetings took place during a planning period,
afterschool, or during lunch. These 30-45 minute meetings served as opportunities to cultivate
collaborative, trusting relationships among all the teachers and researchers. Teachers shared how
their lessons were going, suggestions for their colleagues, and what they planned to teach next. At
times, Alissa in the role as coach worked with the teachers to setup equipment or discuss the
sequencing of lessons. The 12 science-focused teacher meetings were audio recorded and
transcribed. For the purpose of triangulation, a research journal was used to record field notes
regarding classroom observations, interviews, teacher meetings, and the summer institute.
Data Analysis
Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), an inductive, multistage approach, was
used to analyze the data. Transcripts of lessons, teacher meetings, and one-on-one discussions and
interviews with teachers were entered into ATLAS.ti (Muhr, 1997/2005). During initial coding,
transcripts and field notes were coded line-by-line, while remaining open to ideas that surfaced from
the data. A more selective approach, called “focused coding” (Charmaz, 2006), was taken during a
second pass through the data. This time the lens of teacher dilemmas was used to write interpretive

memos and codes. Codes were compared to codes to identify relationships, and codes were
eventually condensed into themes. From this process, three overarching teaching dilemmas emerged
(see Figure 1). Specifically, the teachers struggled with whether to spend time and effort on science
or the other core subjects, how to go about teaching science with the lack of a background in
science, and whether to use the curriculum materials as a script, starting point, supplement, or not at
all. The data was examined a third time to focus on how each teacher reconciled these tensions,
paying specific attention to the impact of coaching as a form of professional development and the
impact of the teachers’ levels of teaching experience, or career stage. Through memo-writing, the
researchers were able to “synthesize and explain larger segments of data” with our attention on
career stages, reconciliation of dilemmas, and the role of coaching to support elementary science
teaching (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57).
Figure 1. Emergence of three dilemmas related to science teaching.
While bias is a concern for both qualitative and quantitative approaches alike, Creswell
(2007) and others (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989) make several suggestions for addressing this
potential issue. Through prolonged engagement with the participants in their school context, we
worked to enhance the reliability of our study. Moreover, we collected and analyzed multiple sources
of data. Triangulation enabled us to view the participants’ beliefs and practices from multiple angles
(Yin, 2003) and allowed for fine-grained, rich, thick descriptions to substantiate our findings. From
these detailed descriptions, readers can evaluate the findings for themselves and determine
transferability. Brickhouse and Bodner (1992) declared, “The degree to which these or any other
research findings are generalizable to other situations is dependent on the similarities between the
two contexts” (p. 474). Peer review (Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1989) throughout the stages
of this research study provided an additional layer of reliability.

Findings
Due to the fact that this study was voluntary and the teachers had the option to participate
in coaching sessions and meetings as often or infrequently as they liked, the results achieved in this
study are likely to be less powerful than if the teachers had been required by their administrators to
work with a science coach with a similar approach and level of expertise. Nonetheless, the findings
revealed pertinent information regarding dilemmas, career stage, and the use of the coaching model
for elementary science education.
Dilemma #1: Spending Time and Effort on Science or Other Subjects
All three teachers found time to be their biggest constraint in terms of teaching science as a
result of a number of school-wide initiatives, such as Talent Tuesday2
and Studio in the School3
;
monthly assessments of each student’s reading levels; regular meetings with the literacy and
mathematics coaches; field trips; and afterschool literacy PD. All three teachers articulated that
when time was lacking, science was the first subject to go. Angela asserted, “There are so many
things … that are demanded of us like reading number one, math number two … we’re observed in
those areas.” None of the teachers were required to be observed teaching science. While student
promotion was tied to students’ reading levels, and progress in mathematics and literacy was
carefully monitored, there was no such accountability for science. Jenny explained, “Since first-grade
is the big year for reading…a lot of time is spent ... planning my reading lessons, my small groups,
making intervention groups. …I won’t have a job if they don’t advance in their reading levels.”
The teachers stated that as long as their students were progressing in reading, they felt their
administrators would not take issue with them going several weeks without teaching science. In an
interview, the Assistant Principal (AP) admitted she did not focus her efforts on observing and
developing teachers’ science teaching practices as she did not feel she had the knowledge and skills
to “speak to it in depth.” Science made her feel “uncomfortable” and, consequently, it “has gone
pretty much unrecognized” at Morningview. The AP’s background was in literacy and that was
where she felt she could best support her teachers. For instance, since Monita was new to first grade,
the principal and AP told her to focus her efforts on developing her knowledge and skills related to
teaching literacy:
Everyone says that if I were to focus on one thing and get really good at one thing this year it’s
reading…So, even if we don’t teach anything else, it doesn’t matter. And it stinks that it’s like that.
We’re not building a whole child like that.
Monita felt conflicted about not teaching science because of her desire to develop “well-rounded”
students who would “grow up and want to pursue science.” She felt that all subjects should receive
the same level of emphasis in elementary school, as they do in high school. In an effort to partially
reconcile this tension, Monita relied on the science cluster teacher, Ms. Warren, as her students’
main source of science instruction: “I have no time. That’s why I’m using Ms. Warren as my savior
for science.” Neither Jenny nor Angela viewed the cluster teacher in this way, since Ms. Warren only
saw their students for 40 minutes per week.
2 Talent Tuesday is a (one afternoon a week) project-based enrichment program where each teacher teaches a cluster of
mixed-grade students who elect to join a particular group based on their interests. For example, one group collected
food and books for a local food bank.
3 Studio in the School is a 20-week visual arts program for students and teachers. The artist spends one afternoon a week
in the classroom and works with the teacher to connect art experiences to literacy.

Monita made time to teach five FOSS lessons over the course of the year, including two in
the fall, when there were more regular team meetings. This approach to coaching, such as holding
regular team meetings served as a form of accountability for Monita to teach science:
To see how far the other teachers have gotten in their experiments, it makes me feel the pressure of
like I have to catch up. I have to do it…’cause if we didn’t have those meetings, we would never talk
about science and I would never know and I wouldn’t care to try to incorporate it.
Monita also taught two FOSS lessons for her administrative observations (January 2011). She
explained her motivation: “I want to be able to show [the principal] that we do science in here. Not
just for show, for the fact that these kids still need that.” After these two lessons, Monita did not
teach a FOSS lesson again until the insects arrived for her third and final unit later in the year (April
2011). She explained:
I do feel like I taught more towards the end [of the school year], especially with the insects because
we had to go with the process of the way things were happening and I feel like that was very good.
It made us have to do it.
Monita expressed the desire to teach more science; however, she felt this would only come with
experience. She stated, “I know that next year I’m not going to do the same thing…I’m not going to
be learning everything for the first time. I’ll know how to balance things.” In the interim, Monita
employed an additive approach to teaching science by slipping it in when she felt she could. She
would relate her morning meeting to science, point out connections to science while on field trips,
and bring out science books during reading centers. Monita explained: “I’d rather have that than not
anything,” even though this was not her preference. She believed, “Science isn’t just talking about it,
it’s doing.” However, she was unable to enact her beliefs due to limited time to plan for science, her
lack of experience, and science not being a priority, as messaged to her by the administrators to put
literacy first.
Jenny and Angela also found science to require more effort and time to teach than any of the
other subjects. If Jenny felt like she was running behind schedule, she would say to herself:
I know the science lesson is long…once in a while, I’m like, oh my god, maybe we shouldn’t do this.
I don’t want to [split and teach science over] two days and then we’re going to have to skip a read
aloud…So, it’s about managing everything.
Both Monita and Jenny carefully planned and monitored how much time they spent on
activities during the day. In planning for science, they each carefully read through the FOSS
teacher’s guide and wrote outlines, in their own words, to guide their enactment. As a more
experienced teacher, Jenny felt ready to commit to taking on science: “I’m more comfortable in first
grade…I’m not as overwhelmed with all the other subjects…I can put more time and effort into
science.” Jenny felt motivated to teach science from meeting with the Alissa and felt that the team
meetings allowed her “to realize that we need to put more time into [science].” As a result of the
meetings, Jenny commented, “It’s important for them [students] and we’re all feeling more
comfortable and confident and feeling more secure to just try it out.”
On days where Angela taught science, she was comfortable dedicating as much of the
afternoon as needed to the lesson. Her feeling was, “You have to spend that time for quality.”
While Angela spent more time than her colleagues teaching science each week, she did not spend as
much time as they did planning and preparing for each lesson. As a veteran teacher, Angela felt
comfortable teaching off the cuff in subjects in which she felt skilled and knowledgeable. Angela
claimed, “Reading, writing—I can just do it with my eyes closed.” Despite admitting it was not ideal,
this approach carried over into science. Angela reflected, “[my students] were missing out…when I
don’t know what I should know before going into [the science lesson].” To reconcile this tension,
Angela met with Alissa during lunch to plan. She also began referring to the FOSS teacher’s guide
during her lessons to ensure she did not miss key aspects of the lesson.

Over the course of the year, Monita taught five FOSS lessons. Angela and Jenny each taught
20 FOSS investigations, plus several lessons that extended beyond the kits during the FOSS Insects
unit, although Angela’s lessons were significantly lengthier. Angela attributed her consistency in
teaching science to working with Alissa on a regular, weekly basis, which “motivated” her and
created a sense of accountability to teach science. Angela also developed a passion for teaching
science as she found herself as engaged in the FOSS lessons as her students. She believed that
teachers prioritize the things they care about: “You know time is so limited around here…but I find
if your heart is in something you will find the time.” However, she acknowledged, “I do have to
push something else to the side to get that science in and…social studies is suffering.”
Engaging with the science coach in the meetings, both Jenny and Angela began integrating
literacy and mathematics into their science teaching as one means of reconciling their dilemma of
time and science teaching. For example, they practiced literacy skills by pointing out text features,
such as headings and table of contents when using science texts. While carrying out an investigation
into whether a mealworm or beetle is faster, Jenny reviewed the mathematics concept of doubles
(the beetle had traveled approximately twice as far as the mealworm in the same amount of time). At
the end of the year Angela’s students were learning about poetry in their reading and writing lessons.
Thus, while studying insects in science, Angela had her students to write a song about the life cycle
of a beetle using the information and vocabulary they learned during their investigations.
Dilemma #2: Teaching Science without a Science Background
All three teachers had concerns about teaching science, given their limited knowledge of the
discipline. Monita stated, “I do feel like I’m the least confident teaching science because there’s so
[much to teach]… am I going to be wrong?” Jenny found that “sometimes science is hard.” Angela
expressed, “I’m afraid of giving wrong information…because these kids are like sponges and I don’t
want them going home [with the wrong information].” To address this dilemma of limited science
knowledge, the teachers positioned themselves as learners. Monita stated: “I like showing the kids
that I don’t know everything, that I’m learning with them.” Angela made the comment, “I’m
learning along with my students.”
The teachers also encouraged their students to assume the role of teacher. During
observations in Monita’s class, she prompted students to describe their personal experiences related
to the lesson to the class. With her students, Jenny explained, “I’m having them learn that we all
don’t know everything…Your parents might not know clouds. You can go home and teach them.”
During investigations, Angela invited students to come to the front of the class to share their
findings. Leveraging the role of student-as-teacher, Monita, Jenny, and Angela addressed their
insecurities related to content knowledge and science teaching by sharing with students the role of
teacher and learner.
Another way Monita and Jenny worked around their lack of knowledge about science and
science teaching was to carefully read through the FOSS teacher’s guide and write their own lesson
outlines to follow during enactment. At the beginning of the spring semester, Monita met with
Jenny to plan a lesson, which she felt increased her confidence and knowledge of science. Monita
shared the following in an interview:
We’re both the same way where we have to write it on paper to say like okay bring the kids to the
rug, like a step-by-step thing…so to have a clear outline…I feel like it calmed my nerves to be like,
after this they’re going to do this.
While writing out lesson plans, notes, and questions helped Monita, it was not enough to erase her
nerves, as the following dialogue illustrates. This excerpt was from a lesson on the three states of
matter:

Monita: Who can tell me what this bag is [Ziploc bag containing a wooden block
in the shape of a cube]?
Student 1: A cube.
Monita: A cube. [Teacher refers to her outline.] We call this a solid. It doesn’t…
[Teacher looks toward the researcher.] … it doesn’t change its shape? I
don’t want to say the wrong thing.
Researcher: [Motions to continue.]
Monita: [Looks back toward the students:] Okay the solid doesn’t change the
shape.
(…)
Monita: Raise your hand if you don’t know what one of these words [on your
handout] means. Just say the word and I’ll explain.
Student 3: Rigid.
Monita: Rigid is like … [addresses the researcher:] hard? Is that…how could I
describe?
From the excerpt and observations of Monita, she was noticeably unsure and did not feel
comfortable trying to explain the concept of solids to her first-graders.
Similarly, Jenny explained how writing her own lesson plans from the FOSS teacher’s guide
was helpful: “Just making my own routine this year has helped me feel more comfortable [teaching
science]…So, now I’m like I know what I’m doing each time. I have this down pat. I can just do it.”
To deepen her science content knowledge, Jenny researched topics on the internet. As suggested by
the science coach, Jenny watched the FOSS teacher preparation videos as needed. She explained:
Definitely looking at the videos has been so helpful because I’m a visual person. So, getting to see it,
I’m like, oh my gosh, I could definitely do this…I feel like[it] gives me a good model, even though I
have my own style of questioning and everything.
Jenny articulated that the more FOSS lessons she taught, the more comfortable she felt teaching
science: “Now I feel pretty confident, especially because [the lessons] are building on each other and
we’re always reviewing. I actually learned through this [teaching the consecutive lessons] also.”
In addition, Jenny found discussing the lessons with her colleagues and the science coach during
meetings to be helpful. Consequently, she began to seek them out informally to receive the
immediate support she needed as she prepared for upcoming lessons. She shared, “If I know Angela
already did the lesson, I’ll run into her room…I definitely try to communicate with my colleagues
about how their lessons went or how they’re planning on implementing it.” Knowing what the
enacted curriculum might look like and how students might respond, Jenny felt more prepared to
teach the unfamiliar content and scientific practices.
Angela was usually ahead of her colleagues in teaching science lessons and addressed her
lack of science content knowledge by committing to work with the science coach on a weekly basis.
When she had the opportunity to co-plan a lesson on clouds with Jenny, Angela found that the
process also boosted her confidence and content knowledge:
I felt a little bit more confident doing it with someone or talking to someone about what I was going
to do, because you really don’t know what you’re doing if you don’t talk to someone. And that’s
what was great about having you [the science coach] also because you are a science person.
While Angela did not feel like she became a science person, stating “I am the farthest from being a
science person”, she felt trying out the lessons and reflecting with the science coach and her
colleagues made her feel more prepared to teach the FOSS science lessons. Having the FOSS
lessons to guide her practice and discussing the lessons and content ahead of time improved her
confidence and enjoyment in teaching science: “I’m happy about science… It’s not one of those

things I’m dreading like, oh what are we going to do now? And, I don’t know that much about
that.”
Akin to Jenny, Angela believed the FOSS teacher preparation videos led to increased content
knowledge and science pedagogical knowledge: “I have more knowledge about the content area.
That’s for sure! Ha! You know, just from watching the films, and reading a little bit about it, and
then listening to the things that you [the science coach] have to say.” She was comfortable with the
idea that improving her practice would take time, and it was okay to get things wrong because such
experiences were beneficial in helping to move her practice forward:
I always like to be laid-back. I don’t like to be tense and really nervous about it because it’s just the
lesson and I could always do it again and that’s the benefit of learning from this…And each time
that I tweak it I should be able to get a little bit better…If I can learn from whatever mistakes I
make, then I think I’ll get better and better as the years go on.
Therefore, being a veteran teacher, Angela had a more organic approach to instruction and was
comfortable with taking risks, trying new things, and re-teaching a lesson or concept if the first
attempt did not achieve the desired learning outcomes.
Dilemma #3: Using the FOSS Kits as a Script, a Supplement, a Starting Point, or Not at
All
The three teachers started off the academic school year teaching the lessons the first-grade
team had designed and used in previous years. Jenny stated that she enjoyed these lessons and felt
comfortable enacting them. Being new to the first-grade team, Monita followed her team’s lead.
Angela had less of an attachment to the old lessons. She felt that they were “getting kind of boring.”
Angela described one of the lessons from the unit on the seasons, explaining students would fold a
sheet of paper in four and draw pictures to illustrate the appropriate clothing for each time of year.
Angela, however, described herself and her students as more engaged in the FOSS lessons and felt
they led to deeper learning:
[The students] really feel like scientists. I know. I’ve taught science for many years…and I never had
children really feel like scientists…It’s a good thing when I can ask a child what is a cloud and they
can say it’s made of drops of water.
Once the science coach began working with Angela on a more consistent basis and
scheduling meetings with the first-grade team, Jenny and Monita began teaching from the FOSS
curriculum as well. However, Jenny took breaks from the kit from time to time to teach old lessons
she enjoyed or ones she felt addressed standards that the FOSS lessons did not. Swapping between
the FOSS curriculum and the first-grade team lessons in this manner was a source of tension for
Monita. She was a novice teacher and wanted to stick with the team, but she felt it was challenging
to move back and forth between the two sets of lessons. Monita was unfamiliar with both curricula;
therefore, she was not aware of how they could be used to connect and build on each other. Still,
Monita’s initial experiences with FOSS were positive:
I did my lesson with the parachutes last week…they got it…They’re like the air is pushing the
parachute up…I was like gosh that’s perfect. So, they were really into it and…they enjoyed it.
Despite her students’ engagement in and learning from the investigations in the FOSS kit, this was
the second and final FOSS lesson Monita taught during the fall semester. She felt overwhelmed with
teaching first grade for the first time and regularly referred to being held accountable in reading,
writing, and mathematics, as mentioned earlier. Consequently, Monita generally resorted to an
additive approach to teaching science, rather than investing her time in the FOSS kits. At her end of
the fall semester interview, Monita maintained her favorable perception of the FOSS curriculum. “I

love it…It’s child-friendly and they seem to enjoy it.” Moreover, she expressed a desire to catch up
with her colleagues:
I especially want [to teach more FOSS lessons] because in the older grades they’re so clueless…. I
want to create memorable lessons, things that they’ll remember. ‘In first grade we did this,’ or ‘I
remember talking about this.’
In January, Monita taught two more FOSS lessons, which she planned and implemented following
the teacher’s guide. In debriefing sessions with the science coach, she began to articulate areas where
there was room for improvement with the FOSS lessons. After teaching a lesson on the properties
of solids, Monita explained:
I wish they had sandpaper as one of the [items], something that shows a good example of [the
property] rough…if there was something that was definitely each of these properties it would be
easier for them to understand these properties.
Despite only teaching a few FOSS lessons, Monita had a new conception of the FOSS curriculum,
describing it as “almost like a one-dimensional way of thinking.” Monita’s impressions of the kit-
based curriculum continued to transform as she pursued and eventually secured a teaching position
at another school for the following year. She stated, “At my new school, I know they use FOSS, but
they just use it as a guideline. Not so much like we have to do this lesson.”
Jenny, who had two years of experience implementing the old lessons that the first-grade
tam developed, felt that using these lessons as a supplement complemented the FOSS curriculum.
Similar to Monita, Jenny described her approach to using the kits as following the teacher guide
step-by-step. The materials were there, and Monita and Angela wanted to make sure they were
enacting lessons with fidelity. Jenny believed that FOSS was written by experts in the field and they
knew best. However, with the experience that came with implementing lessons over the course of
the year and reflecting with her team and the science coach, Jenny began to see room to improve the
FOSS curriculum. Reflecting with the science coach, Jenny stated:
I think once we spoke about that, the time when you came in [to observe]…I was like-- Why didn’t I
do this? Why didn’t I do that? I need to learn that it’s okay to use my own ideas and not just stick
with FOSS.
Jenny’s belief that she could effectively modify the lessons slowly increased over the course of the
year; however, she stuck to the script much, like Monita. In the following example, Jenny showed
the students the inside cover of a book with different bridges and discussed with students the role of
an engineer and the types of information engineers need to know to build a bridge:
Jenny: I hear a lot of you saying that an engineer is someone who’s going to build
something like a bridge using all of their thoughts and knowledge that they have
about solids, and they’re thinking about all the properties like…shape and the
size and if it’s bumpy or smooth, the texture.
Student: Also, how do they build a bridge if they can’t get over there [across the water]?
Jenny: So, maybe they’d have to take a boat. [Looks at clock.] Okay, so today you are
all going to be engineers and you’re going to get to use what you know about
solids especially the solids at your seats to build a tower. ….
Student: Also, how would they get down to the bottom of the ocean [to build the
bridge]?
Jenny: Oh that’s definitely for another lesson.
Student: For that, sometimes they might use a submarine.
Jenny: Exactly. Alright signals up, I’m going to set the timer for about 15 minutes and
you’re going to get to make your tower.

Therefore, adhering to the curriculum so tightly and not knowing how to address the students’
inquiries, Jenny missed opportunities to engage her students in a very relevant discussion of
engineering and bridges, the topic of her lesson.
Angela, the veteran, was comfortable veering off from the first-grade team’s plans and
moving ahead with the FOSS lessons. Angela, similar to Jenny, stated the kits were better than what
she could come up with on her own in terms of science lessons and thus trusted the curriculum.
She stated, “You know they’ve tested this stuff. You know it’s going to be somewhat better than
what you could do.” Angela followed the FOSS lessons in order, explaining “this way I’ll know
which ones to pick and choose from because if you don’t do them all then you don’t know.”
However, she did not always use the teacher’s guide like a script, even though she stated this was the
best way to enact new material. Sometimes, Angela relied on the teacher’s guide to structure the
conversation with her students. Other times she would leave the guide aside and delve into students’
ideas or her own questions, where “a lot of my questions come from what they say, so a lot of my
questions come from the direction the lesson is going.”
In her interview, the assistant principal (AP) commented she thought Angela had reached a
plateau when it came to her instructional practice. The AP explained that despite providing Angela
with feedback around increasing the level of critical thinking and student-centered instruction, she
had not seen any change. The AP explained that after Angela spent time with the science coach
teaching the FOSS lessons, not only was there a change in the depth of conversation in teaching
science, but there was also a change in Angela’s practice. For example, during science investigations
and discussions, Angela elicited more conversations and interactions from her students, and these
practices permeated the other subjects that Angela taught as well.
While Angela’s lessons were more student-centered than her colleagues’, her lack of planning
and her experience teaching off the cuff led sometimes led to missed opportunities to bring
students’ attention to key learning goals. For example, when the students made parachutes, she
omitted the part of the FOSS lesson where students were to compare releasing parachutes with one
versus two “passengers,” which were represented by paperclips. After meeting with the science
coach to reflect on how the lesson went, like Jenny, Angela realized the missed opportunities in her
science teaching for further student engagement and learning. After a few such instances, she began
referring to the teacher’s guide more frequently while enacting her science lessons.
Jenny and Angela engaged their classes in two student-driven lessons using the handouts
created by the science coach to scaffold the process. Students designed and conducted their own
experiments to answer questions they were interested in regarding the FOSS insect lessons. Some
questions were: “Do beetles climb better on bumpy or smooth paper?” “Do mealworms like
pretzels, Pirate’s Booty snack, or cereal better?” And, “which is faster a beetle or a mealworm?”
After this experience, Jenny saw the FOSS lessons in a new light: “Everything is kind of setup for
[the students]…whereas the last [student-driven] investigation they got to choose what they wanted
to do.” In response, Jenny setup a permanent interest center in her classroom where students
worked in pairs to plan and conduct investigations related to any other questions they had about the
insects. Jenny explained that the purpose of these interest stations was to “leave it open-ended and
[students] could go around the room to get what they need and kind of just letting them figure it out
for themselves.”
Angela also took the experience of student-driven investigations a step further. During an
Olympic themed school day, she had her students plan and carry out an investigation to determine
how to increase the speed of their beetles during a race (i.e., by narrowing the track, by providing a
trail of food). Both Angela and Jenny expressed a desire to incorporate student-driven investigations
into other FOSS units moving forward.

Discussion
In order to contribute to the literature on defining the work of coaches and how they
support teachers (Vandenburg & Stephens, 2010), this study identifies and explores three elementary
teachers’ perceptions of the impact of their relationship with the science coach on their ability to
address their dilemmas and enact reform-oriented science teaching practices. Three common
dilemmas emerge from this study. First, elementary teachers feel a tension between spending their
time and energy on science or on the other core subjects. Second, they struggle to manage their lack
of science knowledge and skills with their responsibility to teach the subject. Third, elementary
teachers grapple with whether to use their kit-based curriculum as a script, a starting point, a
supplement to their previous curriculum, or not at all. The results of this study support the
viewpoint that dilemmas are not solved, but rather addressed through compromise. Therefore,
Lampert’s (1985) vision of teachers as dilemma managers seems apt, noting that teaching is an
inherently uncertain task (Lortie, 1975). Teachers encounter a plethora of uncertainties throughout
their daily practice “due to the complex nature of their work, which is centered on human
relationships and involves predicting, interpreting and assessing others’ thoughts, emotions, and
behavior” (Helsing, 2007, p. 1317). How teachers navigate their uncertainties appears to be related
to their career stage, their sense of accountability to teach science, and opportunities to collaborate
with reform-minded colleagues and coaches.
Non-linear Pathways for Science Teaching
Ryan (1986) points out teachers progress through a non-linear pathway as they move
through their careers. In some respects, the participants in this study can be considered to be in the
novice stage. At the outset of this research, the science content and the FOSS kits are relatively
unfamiliar to them. They may be in the mastery stage in some aspects of their practice (literacy and
mathematics teaching), while they may not have attained mastery in other respects (science
teaching). Monita, Jenny, and Angela show signs of being in Huberman’s (1989) initial survival and
discovery stages, as they are acclimating themselves to their new science curriculum. None of the
teachers have a catalog of strategies built up for teaching science. However, Jenny and Angela have a
repertoire of general pedagogical knowledge and skills that help them with their classroom
management and enable them to focus on the discovery aspect of this phase. Monita, on the other
hand, is in survival mode. Compared to her colleagues, Monita spends much less time and energy
exploring and discovering the FOSS curriculum and developing her science teaching practices. In
addition to learning to teach science, Monita has the task of familiarizing herself with teaching first-
grade more broadly. Therefore, teaching the FOSS investigations requires a commitment in time and
effort that Monita, at her early stage, is not ready to make. This is reasonable in light of the fact that
Jenny had not been ready to make this commitment until she had three years of experience under
her belt.
In the current elementary school culture, mastery in the areas of literacy and mathematics
teaching appears to open the door for teachers to focus on improving other areas of their teaching
practice, such as science. As Jenny moves out of the induction phase, she feels more comfortable.
She is confident in aspects of her instructional practice she deems a priority, and her concerns shift
from issues of day-to-day survival to the quality of her instruction. Jenny is ready to tackle her
science teaching practice as she sees it impacting the quality of her instructional practice as a whole.
While Jenny is moving into the experimentation stage, she is conservative in trying out new things and
feels a need to stick closely to the teacher’s guide that accompanies the kit. Since she has not gone
through the self-accepting serenity phase, Jenny is more preoccupied with keeping to a schedule.

Angela has been ready for a change for a while, but she did not have the capacity and
support she needs to move her science teaching practice forward. At the outset of this study, she is
in the serenity phase—her practice being routine and mechanical. The assistant principal (AP) has
noticed very little change in Angela’s practice over several years, despite her feedback encouraging
Angela to enact more student-centered approaches to instruction. After originally believing that
Angela’s practice hit a plateau, the AP reports seeing drastic improvement in the quality of
discussion Angela is able to elicit from her students toward the end of this study, which she
attributes to Angela working with the science coach. It is evident that Angela feels re-invigorated to
improve her practice through a combination of supports, including participating in the summer
institute which sparks initial interest in science, looking at the science curriculum as a usable model
to guide her change, and working with the science coach who creates a sense of accountability for
her to change. Instead of refocusing her efforts outside of school, which is typical of teachers
nearing the end of their career (the disengagement phase), Angela refocuses her efforts at the classroom
level and gives more attention and time for science instruction. In terms of teaching science, she
moves back to the more productive stage of experimentation. Angela is more inclined to allow the
lesson to follow the students’ lead. The findings of this study support Ryan’s (1986) claim that
teacher development is a complicated and nonlinear journey.
Science Coach for Accountability
In addition, this study highlights the positive impact a science coach can have on how
teachers manage their dilemmas; nevertheless, teachers may not make the most of their access to this
more-knowledgeable other without a strong sense of accountability to do so. What elementary
teachers want from a science coach and how intrinsically motivated they are to accept support from
a science coach may depend on teachers’ comfort levels in literacy and mathematics, which, in turn,
may be tied to their career stage. Experienced teachers—who have had time to build up their
knowledge, pedagogy, and management skills in the core subject areas deemed most crucial by the
elementary school culture (i.e., mathematics and literacy)—appear to be more open to focus their
efforts on science. When science is not a priority in elementary school settings, administration and
teachers, who are under tremendous pressure to maintain and improve students’ reading, writing,
and mathematics skills, science is “ripped out of the curriculum in terms of time, access and quality”
(Mensah, 2010, p. 981). When there are so many aspects of one’s practice that require attention,
science instruction risks being relegated to the margins. However, from this study there is evidence
that accountability for science from administrators, fellow grade-level teachers, and a science coach
can lead to greater efforts on the part of the elementary teacher to improve her science instructional
practice at all stages along the professional learning continuum. The overall findings suggest that
having a coach regularly on-site can create a sense of accountability for teachers to improve their
science teaching practice. Science cannot so easily be swept under the rug. Opportunities for
teachers to talk about and consider ways to address their challenges with teaching science are highly
recommended and supports need to be put in place to ensure effectiveness.
If educational policy continues to make literacy and mathematics a priority, science will
continue to suffer. In New York State, yearly testing begins in the third grade, although teachers are
expected to keep annual progress records of students in the lower grades as well. In elementary
schools, emphasis in the core testing subjects, namely mathematics and literacy, has adversely
affected instructional time in science. The Center on Educational Policy (2008) reports that 28% of
U.S. districts in a representative sample noted a decrease in science instructional time as a result of
NCLB, from an average of 226 scheduled minutes per week to 152 scheduled minutes per week.
Similarly, Marx and Harris (2006) found that science instructional time was only 6% of the total

instructional time for third grade classes. This “narrowing of the curriculum” is indicative of urban
and low-performing schools and is mainly a consequence of intense pressure to boost test scores
(Crocco & Castigan, 2007; Spillane & Callahan, 2000; Upadhyay, 2009); unfortunately, in many
states, science test scores are not part of the accountability equation. However, in states that include
science in their accountability measures, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data
reveals that fourth-grade students perform significantly higher in science without detriment to their
performance in mathematics and reading (Judson, 2012). We agree with Judson (2013) who
contends that, “while including science in accountability formulas appears to be a step toward
gaining more classroom attention for the subject, a great deal more consideration must be paid to
developing the habits of mind promoted by the NGSS; allocation of classroom time is but one
important step in this direction” (p.635).
As our study shows, there are other sources of accountability that support science teaching
and learning. Working with a science coach may lead teachers to feel a stronger sense of
responsibility (to their colleagues and students) to make science a more substantial part of their
efforts and to engage their students in the practices representative of the work of scientists, as
outlined in the NGSS (e.g., designing and carrying out investigations). Clearly, there is a need for
empowering policies that support elementary science teaching, both in terms of time for science
instruction, quality of science instruction, and professional development for teachers in science
(Judson, 2013; Mensah, 2010).
State accountability measures may be the impetus for schools to carve out increased time for
science, while science coaches may be the ticket to ensuring quality instruction through facilitating
team meetings, co-planning, and following up with individualized, one-on-one support. Working
with a more-knowledgeable other, such as a science coach, can bring teachers’ attention to reasons
why they should or should not omit lessons in their curriculum, modify them, or follow them more
closely. With minimal prior experience in science teaching, elementary teachers need support to
develop and facilitate authentic science learning experiences. A science coach can problematize
teachers’ practices in productive ways and support them in effectively navigating teaching dilemmas.
Without reflecting on their practice with a more-knowledgeable other, Kretlow and Bartholomew
(2010) state, “teachers may not be aware they are implementing a strategy incorrectly and may
continue doing it because they or their students like it” (p. 281). Alternatively, it could be that
“teachers may not have success with a strategy and discontinue it because they do not feel it works
or do not have access to help” (p. 281). To move to more reform-oriented teaching practices,
teachers need to know these practices exist and what they involve, see a need for them, and learn
how to incorporate them into their classroom (Berg, 2012). Science coaches can serve not only to
create new dilemmas or uncertainties, but also to provide teachers with tools to assist them in
moving from viewing dilemmas as immobilizing their science teaching practice to viewing them as
opportunities to enhance their instruction. As Helsing (2007) asserts, identifying and describing the
conditions that move teachers from the former to the latter form of uncertainty has crucial
implications for those who educate and provide PD for teachers, as well as administrators.
Coaching Teachers at Various Stages of Their Careers
Approaches to coaching teachers who are in different stages of their careers need to look
different. This connects to Moore’s (2008) argument for teacher-centered professional development
models that are designed to meet the personal and professional needs of individual teachers at
different phases of their careers. Novice teachers, like Monita, are often in survival mode, so it is
especially crucial for coaches to be cognizant of their time constraints and feelings of anxiety. These
teachers have everything to learn about teaching in a classroom of their own. Novices not only have
to build up their content knowledge and management skills in teaching science, but also have to do

so in other subjects. The more coordinated the coach’s efforts are with the vision of the school and
supports in other subjects areas, the more helpful the coach can be. Scaffolding from the science
coach may need to be greater at this stage. This may entail spending more time on building teacher
confidence to teach science, for example, through direct modeling in the classroom followed by the
teacher trying out the skills on her own. Furthermore, coaches need to work closely with
administrators to ensure a clear and unified vision for the novice’s development that prioritizes the
most crucial aspects of her practice. The particular area of support will depend on the teacher. While
a coherent plan for PD is helpful for all teachers, regardless of their stage, it may be most crucial for
those just embarking on their teaching careers.
Teachers who are just exiting the induction phase, like Jenny, may be more intrinsically
motivated to try new things than either novices or veterans. At this stage, teachers may be more
comfortable with their daily routines and thus feel ready to begin expanding their repertoire and
refining it. These teachers, however, need to learn how to loosen the reins they held so tightly in
their novice years. Coaches may need to focus their efforts on supporting these teachers to take risks
and learn strategies that will help them relinquish some of their control, allowing students to guide
the direction of the lesson to a greater extent. Co-planning and co-teaching may work quite well with
teachers at this career stage.
Veterans, like Angela, who are nearing the end of their careers, may be more comfortable
with their practice and less inclined to put in the effort to change than teachers earlier in their
careers. In order to move from the serenity or disengagement stages back to the more active stages of
diversification and experimentation, veteran teachers may need to have their interest and motivation
sparked. Coaching veterans may involve showing them how teaching in more-reform oriented ways
can breathe life back into their practice and give them a renewed sense of excitement for teaching.
Veterans may be more comfortable and confident in their general teaching practice and teaching off
the cuff. These teachers may be open to veering off course from the curriculum and more confident
trying new things with less scaffolding than those with less teaching experience. It may be beneficial
for coaches to focus their efforts with veteran teachers on how to diverge from the curriculum in
ways that align with learning goals for students and reform-oriented practices. Again, co-planning
and co-teaching may work well with this group, in addition to encouraging them to take more risks
and to teach science with more rigor, such as “high-leverage practices”, which are teaching practices
that “lead to comparatively large advances in student learning” and “when done well, give teachers a
lot of capacity in their work” (Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009, pp. 460-461). From this study, it is
evident that “one-size fits all” professional development will not meet the needs of teachers at
different career stages.
Conclusion
A key finding of this study is that the dilemmas and constraints that teachers view as
priorities, such as those related to literacy and mathematics, may need to be addressed before
teachers are ready to focus on other aspects of their practice, such as science. However, with
effective support and accountability it may be possible to speed up the readiness process by instilling
in teachers the need and motivation to expand their efforts, and arming them with the tools to do
so. Creating a culture in schools where avoidance is not possible (i.e., through open and candid
discourse with the support of a science coach) may be a viable means of de-marginalizing science in
elementary classrooms.
Having access to and support from a “science person” (as Angela puts it), who is regularly
on-site at the school, has an education background, is knowledgeable of reform-oriented science

teaching, and possesses deep pedagogical and content knowledge, has the potential to impact
teachers’ abilities to reconcile the dilemmas they perceive in ways that are more consistent with
reform-oriented teaching. Working with a science coach can positively impact teachers’ content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge for science teaching (Shulman, 1986), their sense of
accountability to teach science, their ability to manage their time and efforts, and their capacity to
use curricula in productive ways. At the same time, we must keep in mind that teachers may
experience these benefits to a greater or lesser extent depending on their prior knowledge and
experiences, their comfort levels in other areas of teaching, their career stage, and the culture of their
school. Research that investigates the applicability of these findings to larger pools of teachers to
determine their generalizability is suggested.
The purpose of this research is not to place the blame on teachers for the lack of science
instruction in elementary classrooms, but to inform teacher educators, administrators, education
researchers, and policymakers of the encumbering tensions educational policies may place on
teachers and how teachers at different stages in their careers may reconcile these tensions with
support from a science coach. If we are serious about our nation’s vision of moving to the top of
the heap in science, then schools need to be equipped in science through the same policies and
resources that are in place for literacy and mathematics (Mensah, 2010). The fact that so many
elementary schools do not employ a single person with a science background is inexcusable.
Providing schools with a science coach, who possesses both a science background and expertise in
science education, has the potential to be a scalable form of much needed support. Literacy coaches
have become ubiquitous, thus hiring science coaches might be a feasible and effective approach of
ensuring ongoing, job-embedded support for elementary science teaching and learning.
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington DC: Achieve Inc. Retrieved
from www.nextgenerationsciencestandards.org
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A
project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 10.
Antsey, L., & Clarke, B. (2010). Leading and supporting mathematics teacher change: The case of
teaching and learning coaches. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 12(2), 5-
31.
Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman, Handbook of
Research on Science Education (pp. 493-535). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and
the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5),
458-474.
Berg, A. (2012). De-marginalizing science in the early elementary classroom: Fostering reform-based
teacher change through professional development, accountability, and addressing teachers’
dilemmas (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3507600)
Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social change. London:
Methuen.
Bricker, L.A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the
learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science
Education, 92(3), 473–498.

Brickhouse, N.W., & Bodner, G.M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of
convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471-485.
Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at
changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cochran, K., & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B.
J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707–718).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of
accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational
Researcher, 21(1), 4–11.
Davis, E., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new teachers face. Review of Educational
Research, 76(4), 607-651.
Davis, K.S. (2003). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher
learning on innovative practices? Science Education, 87(1), 3–30.
Delta Education. (2011). What is FOSS? Retrieved from:
http://www.deltaeducation.com/science/foss/whatisfoss.shtml
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Fulp, S.L. (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research,
Inc.
Gort, M., & Glenn, W.J. (2010). Navigating tensions in the process of change: An English educator’s
dilemma management in the revision and implementation of a diversity-infused methods
course. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(1), 59-86.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gunning, A.M., & Mensah, F.M. (2010). One pre-service elementary teacher’s development of self-
efficacy and confidence to teach science: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 22(2), 171-185.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding in science and its impact in the classroom.
Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.
Helsing, D. (2007). Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23(8), 1317–1333.
Howes, E.V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science:
Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93(2), 189–217.
Huberman, M. (1989). On teachers' careers: Once over lightly, with a broad brush. International
Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 347-362.
Judson, E. (2012). When science counts as much as reading and mathematics: An examination of
differing state accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(26). Retrieved
from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/987.
Judson, E. (2013). The relationship between time allocated for science in elementary schools and
state accountability policies. Science Education, 97(4), 621-636.

Katz, L.G., & Raths, J. (1992). Six dilemmas in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
43(5), 376-385.
King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case
studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85(2), 89-110.
Kretlow, A.G., & Bartholomew, C.C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-
based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 279–
299.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice.
Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–194.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P.W. (2010). Professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd Ed.). Corwin Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities,
challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-478.
McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of
science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science
education: Contemporary trends and issues in science education (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mensah, F.M. (2010). Toward the mark of empowering policies in elementary school science
programs and teacher professional development. Cultural Studies of Science Education,
5(4), 977-983.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Moore, F.M. (2008). Positional identity and science teacher professional development. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 684-710.
Muhr, T. (1997/2005). Atlas.ti (Version 5.2 for Windows). Berlin: Atlas.ti Scientific Software
Development GmBh.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for
teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity—
promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Program on Education and
the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury, CA: Sage
Publications.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about
research on teacher learning? American Educational Research Association, 29(1), 4-15.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4-21.
Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S.A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary
teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3),
396–423.
Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What
district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5),
401-425.
Tal, T., Krajcik, J.S., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722 – 745.
Tilgner, P. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421-431.
Upadhyay, B. (2009). Negotiating identity and science teaching in a high-stakes testing environment:
An elementary teacher’s perceptions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 569-586.
Vandenburg, M., & Stephens, D. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches. What teachers value and
how teachers change. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 141–163.
Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The
Reading Teacher, 62(3), 222–231.
Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on
how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers
Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf

APPENDIX A
Discussion Prompts
Like scientists, students should… Possible Guiding Prompts:
Become aware of their prior
conceptions
- What do you already know about ________?
(record students’ ideas on chart paper)
Propose and design investigations
that are meaningful to them
- What do you want to know about ________?
- How could you find out?
Carefully collect and organize data -How will you keep track of your observations/data?
Develop logical explanations
(justify their claims with evidence)
- What did you find out about ________?
- How do you know?
Welcome constructive feedback
from peers and engage in debate
based on strength of evidence
- Who agrees/disagrees with that? Why?
- Does anyone want to add on to that?
- Why do you think that?
- How can we find out?
- Is that a fair test? (controlling variables)
Reflect on their practice
(consider how prior ideas fit with
newly generated ideas)
(revise students’ original ideas on chart paper)
- Any lingering questions?
- Can anyone answer that?
- What could we do to find out?

Student-Driven Investigations (Teacher Handout)
(1) Before the investigation:
(a) What do you know about _____________________?
“I think that…”
(b) What do you want to know about _____________________?
“I want to know…”
(c) How can you find out?
“I can find out by…”
*some types of questions can be answered with reading materials, some with observations, and some
with collecting experimental data
*for the purposes of this activity students should investigate testable questions where they collect
experimental data as evidence for findings
(d) What do you predict will happen during your experiment?
“I predict that…”
(2) After the investigation:
(a) Title:
(b) What do I want to find out?
“I want to find out…” or
Question: “Who/Which/What/When/Where/Why/How…”
(c) How did I find out? [list the steps in the procedure or write a paragraph]
(d) Data collected: [table, chart, and/or diagram]
(e) What did I find out?
“I found out that…”
“I think this because…”
[use data collected as evidence]
(f) Discussion and debate as a class:
Who agrees/disagrees with this student’s findings? Why?
“I agree with _____. I also think that… I think this because…”
“I respectfully disagree with _____. I think that… I think this because…”
Was this a fair test? Why or why not?
What problems did you have during the investigation?
How would you improve this investigation next time?
Any lingering questions?
Can anyone answer that?

Student-Driven Investigations (Student Handout)
Before the science investigation:
1. What do I want to find out? (Underline your prediction.)
_I want to find out…______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. What steps will I take to find out?
_First I will…__________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
During the investigation:
3. Data: What am I seeing or measuring?
(Example: Draw a diagram and/or make a chart with measurements or tally marks)
After the science investigation:
4. What did I find out?
_I found out that…_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. How do I know? (Look back at your data to explain your findings.)
_I think this because…_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B
Teacher Interview Protocol
(I) Teachers’ perceptions of their views and practices:
1. How would you describe your approach to teaching science? Examples?
2. How do you think your students learn best? How do you maximize student learning?
3. How often did you teach science at the beginning of the school year? Why?
4. How often have you been teaching science throughout the current unit? Why?
5. How comfortable do you think you are with the science content you are currently teaching?
6. How often do you teach lessons from your FOSS kit? What other science resources do you or have
you used?
-How closely have you been sticking to the FOSS curriculum?
-How have you been deciding which FOSS lessons to teach and not to teach?
-What do you find to be the pros and cons of FOSS? What are your impressions of this
curriculum?
-What are your impressions of the student-driven investigations? (Second interview only)
-What changes would you like to make to your science teaching practice?
-What is your plan for teaching science next year? (Second interview only)
(II) Professional Development and Support
7. Who do you talk to about science?
Prompts: Who do you turn to for advice? Who has influenced your thinking about science
instruction? Who has influenced your science teaching practice? How often do you interact with
these people?
-Why do you talk to some people and not others about science instruction?
8. Do you find it beneficial to interact/collaborate with your colleagues? Why or why not?
-What factors facilitate/hinder your ability to interact/collaborate with your colleagues?
9. Do you have any desire to receive science PD or support?
-What kind of support would you like to receive for science, if any?
-Have you sought out any support for science?
10. Are you currently registered for any upcoming PD (any of the content areas)?

(III) Challenges & Dilemmas
11. What constraints do you think inhibit your science instructional practice? Examples?
Prompts: What do you think are your biggest concerns/challenges when it comes to teaching
science?
12. How do you think these constraints can be addressed?
(IV) Working with Colleagues and Coach
13. How have your discussions about science during your teacher planning meeting changed over the
course of the year, if at all? Changed from last year? In what ways? Whether I am there or not?
14. What do you think you have gained/learned from working with me? With your colleagues this year?
15. What aspects of working together this year have been most beneficial to you, if any?
16. In what ways do you think our time together would be more beneficial?
17. Do you think the teachers on your grade-level team have a shared vision of effective science
instruction? Explain.
18. Since you have been participating in this research study, has there been any change in your patterns
of interaction with other teachers and colleagues at your school?
(e.g., Do you interact more/less often? Have the types of things you talk about changed over
time? If so, in what ways?)

APPENDIX C
Post-Lesson Reflection Prompts
1. How did you feel the lesson went?
2. What do you think the students got out of the lesson? What don’t you think the students got out
of the lesson?
3. What was your purpose or goal for the lesson (what did you really want the students to come
away with)?
4. What, if anything, would you do differently next time?

About the Authors
Alissa Berg
Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL)
abb2142@tc.columbia.edu
Alissa Berg is the Science Coordinator at the Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL), a
Chicago nonprofit that focuses on developing highly effective teachers and transforming educational
outcomes for students in the lowest performing schools. AUSL currently manages 29 neighborhood
Chicago Public Schools serving more than 17,000 students. She holds a doctorate in Science
Education from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Felicia Moore Mensah
Teachers College, Columbia University
fm2140@tc.columbia.edu
Felicia Moore Mensah is an Associate Professor of Science Education at Teachers College,
Columbia University. She also serves as the Program Coordinator for the Science Education
Program. Her research centers on improving the teaching and learning of science in urban schools.
She teaches elementary and middle/secondary science methods courses and conducts professional
development with K-12 teachers. Her work in science teacher education includes publications in the
Journal of Science Teacher Education, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and Cultural
Studies of Science Education.
About the Guest Editor
Sarah Woulfin
University of Connecticut
Sarah.Woulfin@UConn.edu
Sarah Woulfin is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Connecticut,
Storrs. She studies the relationship between education policy, leadership, and instructional reform.
Using lenses from organizational sociology, she investigates how leaders influence teachers’
responses to reform efforts. In her doctoral work at the University of California, Berkeley, she
focused on institutional theory, policy implementation, and coaching. She has published in the
American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) and Reading Research Quarterly. Currently, she is
an associate editor for Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ). She is also on the executive
steering committee of the Districts in Research and Reform SIG at AERA. From 2009-2012, Dr.
Woulfin served as the program chair for AERA’s Organizational Theory Special Interest Group. As
a former urban public school teacher and reading coach, she was dedicated to strengthening
students’ reading and writing skills to promote educational equity. As a scholar, her commitment to
raising the quality of instruction motivates her research on how policy influences—and is influenced
by—administrators and teachers.

SPECIAL ISSUE
Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring
Programs
education policy analysis archives
Volume 22 Number 57 June 23rd 2014 ISSN 1068-2341
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More
details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil),
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China).
Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to
Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter
feed @epaa_aape.

education policy analysis archives
editorial board
Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley)
Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University)
Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Gary Anderson New York University Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley
Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington
David C. Berliner Arizona State University William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder
Robert Bickel Marshall University Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London
Henry Braun Boston College Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley
Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder
Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss University of Melbourne
Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio
Arnold Danzig Arizona State University Noga O'Connor University of Iowa
Antonia Darder University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts,
Dartmouth
Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University
John Diamond Harvard University John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles
Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates A. G. Rud Purdue University
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University
Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State
University
Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley
Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University
Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY
Gene V Glass Arizona State University Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University
Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut
Harvey Goldstein Bristol University Cally Waite Social Science Research Council
Jacob P. K. Gross Indiana University John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs
Eric M. Haas WestEd Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder
Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern
California
Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder
Aimee Howley Ohio University Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University
Craig Howley Ohio University John Willinsky Stanford University
Steve Klees University of Maryland Kyo Yamashiro University of California, Los Angeles
Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo * Members of the New Scholars Board

archivos analíticos de políticas educativas
consejo editorial
Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria)
Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM México
Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú
Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones
Economicas – UNAM, México
Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia,
Venezuela
Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España
Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales,
Chile
Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín,
Argentina
Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la
Evaluación de la Educación, México
Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia
María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte,
Chile
Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España
Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León,
España
Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario
Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá
Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica
Nacional, Colombia
Inés Dussel FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de
Colombia
Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de
Madrid, España
Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de
Tamaulipas, México
Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre
la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México
Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez
Autónoma de Tabasco, México
José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo,
España
Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla,
España
Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja
California, México
Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España
Alma Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones
Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios
Avanzados, México
Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña,
España
Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM México
Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam,
Holanda
José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of
California Los Angeles, USA
Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación
Estratégica, Bolivia

arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas
conselho editorial
Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin
(Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)
Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais, Brasil
Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta
Grossa, Brasil
Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal
de Minas Gerais, Brasil
Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia
Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil
Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho,
Portugal
Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana
do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil
Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo,
Brasil
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina, Brasil
António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal
Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento,
U.S.A
Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de
Pernambuco, Brasil
Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil
Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade
Federal de São Carlos, Brasil
Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas,
Brasil
Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio
Grande do Sul, Brasil
Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal
José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil
Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade
Estadual de Campinas, Brasil
Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos,
Brasil

Berg 2014 de marginalizing science

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Berg 2014 de marginalizing science

Recently uploaded

Berg 2014 de marginalizing science