Contemplating criteria for science education reform: The case of the Olympia school district

School Science and Mathematics, Nov 1998 by Tippins, Deborah, Weiseman, Katherine, Nichols, Sharon E

The research team consists of three members, two of whom were participants on the district's SCC from the university science education department. Accordingly, they acted as participant-observers throughout the duration of this study. The third member of the research team, not a member of the SCC, provided a perspective independent of a designated role in the reform initiative.

Data Sources

Multiple data sources enabled triangulation to enhance data analysis: field notes, documents (i.e., state and district curriculum policies), the Criteria for Reform Questionnaire, interviews (semistructured and informal), memos of casual conversations between members of the research team and SCC participants, audio recordings of SCC planning meetings, and teacher-generated reflective letters. Several of these served as primary data sources: SCC teachers' letters of reflection, in-house evaluation reports for a statewide systemic initiative, and transcripts from semistructured interviews with SCC members based on their responses to the Criteria for Reform Questionnaire.

Reflection Letters. At the conclusion of the summer 1-week meeting (described later), SCC teachers were asked to write a letter regarding their experience with the SCC. The letter writing served two purposes: (a) it would help teachers share with their colleagues at school about their experiences with the SCC and their plans for reform, and (b) it served as a research tool to elicit teachers' reflections on their involvement in this reform process. Many teachers actually sent these letters to faculty at their respective schools, while some chose to share their letters only with the research team during an interview session.

Criteria for Reform Questionnaire. All members of the SCC responded to the Criteria for Reform Questionnaire, in which they were asked to rank 10 criteria for reform of schooling according to (a) their personal beliefs about the criteria regarding processes and reasons for science education reform and (b) their perceptions of how the district values these same criteria for reform. The list of 10 items (see Appendix A) was adapted from a list of 13 criteria described in Kincheloe, Steinberg, and Tippins' (1992) book entitled The Stigma of Genius: Einstein and Beyond Modern Education. The criteria reflect a postmodern view of education which is compatible with the theoretical assumptions underpinning this study. The dual process of ranking enabled comparison and contrast of participants' perceptions of issues relative to their position as teacher, administrator, RESA representative, etc. Additionally, participants were asked to define their meaning of district to provide a sense of participants' point of reference.

Procedures of the Study

Three distinct phases marked the Olympia district's science curriculum reform initiative: a) Dream Team phase, b) SCC learning about the Framework, and c) intensive 1-week summer meeting involving all members of the SCC. Data collection for the study paralleled these phases of the district's reform initiative. The Dream Team phase focused on developing networks for collaboration, reviewing the district's strategic plan, and creating a design for the SCC based upon the need for a shared vision of science teaching and learning at the district level. The second phase was initiated with the formation of the SCC and spanned a period of 6 months. During this phase, the research team conducted interviews with teacher members of the SCC regarding their understanding of the Framework and its usefulness for science curriculum reform.