The role of a teacher study group in negotiating constructivist science teaching in an elementary school.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study arose from the frustrations expressed by elementary teachers in a mid-size, urban school district who were involved in implementing a new district-wide science curriculum. The new curriculum was designed to meet the recommendations for constructivist teaching espoused in the current science education reform movement. As a fifth-grade teacher in the district as well, as a member of the science curriculum committee that wrote the new curriculum, I was in the position to hear the frustrations vented by fellow teachers as they struggled to make the shift from a loosely-supervised, textbook-based curriculum to one which emphasized hands-on instruction through four in-depth units at each grade level.
In response to teachers' frustrations, I conducted an action-research study designed to provide a sustained, personalized, professional development opportunity for a group of elementary teachers in the building in which I taught. The study group of five teachers met during the course of the 1996–97 school year to work on familiarizing ourselves with the tenets of constructivist science teaching and learning and incorporating this type of teaching into our own practice. Activities engaged in included: reading relevant literature, viewing videotapes of teachers practicing constructivist science teaching, attending physics workshops, working with the intermediate school-district science consultant, and videotaping our own science lessons for the purposes of sharing with the other group members and studying our practice. During the year, I conducted individual interviews with the teacher participants and audiotaped all group meetings in an effort to learn if this experience held value as a means of helping the group members become more constructivist science teachers.
During the year, it became clear that the teachers continued to face many obstacles as they worked to improve their science teaching. While the participants felt they made progress and all agreed that the initiative was of much value, the teachers also felt that they needed to meet more frequently and for a longer period of time. As the study group was a relatively intensive effort compared to one-time workshops, it illustrated the need for ongoing professional development and district support responsive to teachers' needs.
The teachers also valued the study group for the support and collegiality it provided them. It became a means of breaking through the isolation that the teachers felt as they went about their day-to-day business as the only adult within the four walls of their classrooms. The study group created a non-threatening forum for reflection, support, and sharing as each teacher learned she not alone in the struggles and challenges they experienced in negotiating constructivism and the new science curriculum.