Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics
Teachers play a critical role in successfully implementing science education reforms in the United States to provide high‐quality science learning opportunities to all students. However, the differentiated ways in which teachers make decisions about their science teaching are not well understood. Th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of research in science teaching 2020-08, Vol.57 (6), p.911-942 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 942 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 911 |
container_title | Journal of research in science teaching |
container_volume | 57 |
creator | Bae, Christine L. Hayes, Kathryn N. DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan |
description | Teachers play a critical role in successfully implementing science education reforms in the United States to provide high‐quality science learning opportunities to all students. However, the differentiated ways in which teachers make decisions about their science teaching are not well understood. This study takes a person‐centered approach by applying latent profile analysis to examine how cognitive (pedagogical content knowledge) and motivational (instructional goal orientations, self‐efficacy beliefs, and reform values) characteristics combine to form science teacher profiles in middle school. Predictors of profile membership (bachelor's degree, school %FRL) and both teacher (science instructional practices) and student (science achievement, engagement, and self‐efficacy) outcomes related to the teacher profiles were also examined. Five science teacher profiles were identified (severely discouraged but reform oriented, discouraged but reform oriented, conventional, confident and mastery oriented, and confident with multiple goal approaches) that represented unique configurations of cognitive and motivation characteristics. Additionally, findings showed that the teacher profiles were significantly related to three dimensions of science instructional practice including communication, discourse, and reasoning. Finally, the teacher profiles were significantly related to student science achievement and motivational outcomes. Implications for differentiated approaches to teacher professional learning and supports for science instruction are discussed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/tea.21617 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2418964594</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2418964594</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-82715ef41036e4602148b227b6f0f0809a165c80b37c358518c4c3d16ddbe3e03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EEqVw4B9Y4sQhrV9xHG5VVR5SJTiUs-U469ZVGhc7BfXfYyhXTrPSfjvaGYRuKZlQQth0ADNhVNLqDI0oqVXBKi7P0SjvWCE4UZfoKqUtIYTXtB4heIvB-Q4SDg7vfNt2gJPdhNBl8dBbwNnSbiCmBzyzNhz6wfdr7ELENqx7P_hPwKZv8S7k0Qw-9KbDdmOisQNEnwZv0zW6cKZLcPOnY_T-uFjNn4vl69PLfLYsLKurqlCsoiU4QQmXICRhVKiGsaqRjjiiSG2oLK0iDa8sL1VJlRWWt1S2bQMcCB-ju5PvPoaPA6RBb8Mh5oeSZoKqWoqyFpm6P1E2hpQiOL2PfmfiUVOif1rUObL-bTGz0xP7lUs6_g_q1WJ2uvgGEetzyg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2418964594</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Bae, Christine L. ; Hayes, Kathryn N. ; DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</creator><creatorcontrib>Bae, Christine L. ; Hayes, Kathryn N. ; DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</creatorcontrib><description>Teachers play a critical role in successfully implementing science education reforms in the United States to provide high‐quality science learning opportunities to all students. However, the differentiated ways in which teachers make decisions about their science teaching are not well understood. This study takes a person‐centered approach by applying latent profile analysis to examine how cognitive (pedagogical content knowledge) and motivational (instructional goal orientations, self‐efficacy beliefs, and reform values) characteristics combine to form science teacher profiles in middle school. Predictors of profile membership (bachelor's degree, school %FRL) and both teacher (science instructional practices) and student (science achievement, engagement, and self‐efficacy) outcomes related to the teacher profiles were also examined. Five science teacher profiles were identified (severely discouraged but reform oriented, discouraged but reform oriented, conventional, confident and mastery oriented, and confident with multiple goal approaches) that represented unique configurations of cognitive and motivation characteristics. Additionally, findings showed that the teacher profiles were significantly related to three dimensions of science instructional practice including communication, discourse, and reasoning. Finally, the teacher profiles were significantly related to student science achievement and motivational outcomes. Implications for differentiated approaches to teacher professional learning and supports for science instruction are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4308</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2736</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/tea.21617</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Cognitive style ; Education reform ; Educational Change ; Educational Practices ; Efficacy ; latent profile analysis ; Learning ; Middle schools ; Motivation ; Pedagogical Content Knowledge ; professional development ; Professional Training ; Profiles ; Science Achievement ; Science education ; Science Instruction ; Science teachers ; Student Motivation ; teacher cognition ; teacher motivation and beliefs ; Teachers ; Teaching ; Teaching Methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of research in science teaching, 2020-08, Vol.57 (6), p.911-942</ispartof><rights>2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-82715ef41036e4602148b227b6f0f0809a165c80b37c358518c4c3d16ddbe3e03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-82715ef41036e4602148b227b6f0f0809a165c80b37c358518c4c3d16ddbe3e03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3492-7598</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Ftea.21617$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Ftea.21617$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,30999,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bae, Christine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Kathryn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</creatorcontrib><title>Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics</title><title>Journal of research in science teaching</title><description>Teachers play a critical role in successfully implementing science education reforms in the United States to provide high‐quality science learning opportunities to all students. However, the differentiated ways in which teachers make decisions about their science teaching are not well understood. This study takes a person‐centered approach by applying latent profile analysis to examine how cognitive (pedagogical content knowledge) and motivational (instructional goal orientations, self‐efficacy beliefs, and reform values) characteristics combine to form science teacher profiles in middle school. Predictors of profile membership (bachelor's degree, school %FRL) and both teacher (science instructional practices) and student (science achievement, engagement, and self‐efficacy) outcomes related to the teacher profiles were also examined. Five science teacher profiles were identified (severely discouraged but reform oriented, discouraged but reform oriented, conventional, confident and mastery oriented, and confident with multiple goal approaches) that represented unique configurations of cognitive and motivation characteristics. Additionally, findings showed that the teacher profiles were significantly related to three dimensions of science instructional practice including communication, discourse, and reasoning. Finally, the teacher profiles were significantly related to student science achievement and motivational outcomes. Implications for differentiated approaches to teacher professional learning and supports for science instruction are discussed.</description><subject>Cognitive style</subject><subject>Education reform</subject><subject>Educational Change</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>latent profile analysis</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Middle schools</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Pedagogical Content Knowledge</subject><subject>professional development</subject><subject>Professional Training</subject><subject>Profiles</subject><subject>Science Achievement</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Science Instruction</subject><subject>Science teachers</subject><subject>Student Motivation</subject><subject>teacher cognition</subject><subject>teacher motivation and beliefs</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><issn>0022-4308</issn><issn>1098-2736</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EEqVw4B9Y4sQhrV9xHG5VVR5SJTiUs-U469ZVGhc7BfXfYyhXTrPSfjvaGYRuKZlQQth0ADNhVNLqDI0oqVXBKi7P0SjvWCE4UZfoKqUtIYTXtB4heIvB-Q4SDg7vfNt2gJPdhNBl8dBbwNnSbiCmBzyzNhz6wfdr7ELENqx7P_hPwKZv8S7k0Qw-9KbDdmOisQNEnwZv0zW6cKZLcPOnY_T-uFjNn4vl69PLfLYsLKurqlCsoiU4QQmXICRhVKiGsaqRjjiiSG2oLK0iDa8sL1VJlRWWt1S2bQMcCB-ju5PvPoaPA6RBb8Mh5oeSZoKqWoqyFpm6P1E2hpQiOL2PfmfiUVOif1rUObL-bTGz0xP7lUs6_g_q1WJ2uvgGEetzyg</recordid><startdate>202008</startdate><enddate>202008</enddate><creator>Bae, Christine L.</creator><creator>Hayes, Kathryn N.</creator><creator>DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3492-7598</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202008</creationdate><title>Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics</title><author>Bae, Christine L. ; Hayes, Kathryn N. ; DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-82715ef41036e4602148b227b6f0f0809a165c80b37c358518c4c3d16ddbe3e03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Cognitive style</topic><topic>Education reform</topic><topic>Educational Change</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>latent profile analysis</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Middle schools</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Pedagogical Content Knowledge</topic><topic>professional development</topic><topic>Professional Training</topic><topic>Profiles</topic><topic>Science Achievement</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Science Instruction</topic><topic>Science teachers</topic><topic>Student Motivation</topic><topic>teacher cognition</topic><topic>teacher motivation and beliefs</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bae, Christine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Kathryn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bae, Christine L.</au><au>Hayes, Kathryn N.</au><au>DeBusk‐Lane, Morgan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics</atitle><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle><date>2020-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>911</spage><epage>942</epage><pages>911-942</pages><issn>0022-4308</issn><eissn>1098-2736</eissn><abstract>Teachers play a critical role in successfully implementing science education reforms in the United States to provide high‐quality science learning opportunities to all students. However, the differentiated ways in which teachers make decisions about their science teaching are not well understood. This study takes a person‐centered approach by applying latent profile analysis to examine how cognitive (pedagogical content knowledge) and motivational (instructional goal orientations, self‐efficacy beliefs, and reform values) characteristics combine to form science teacher profiles in middle school. Predictors of profile membership (bachelor's degree, school %FRL) and both teacher (science instructional practices) and student (science achievement, engagement, and self‐efficacy) outcomes related to the teacher profiles were also examined. Five science teacher profiles were identified (severely discouraged but reform oriented, discouraged but reform oriented, conventional, confident and mastery oriented, and confident with multiple goal approaches) that represented unique configurations of cognitive and motivation characteristics. Additionally, findings showed that the teacher profiles were significantly related to three dimensions of science instructional practice including communication, discourse, and reasoning. Finally, the teacher profiles were significantly related to student science achievement and motivational outcomes. Implications for differentiated approaches to teacher professional learning and supports for science instruction are discussed.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/tea.21617</doi><tpages>32</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3492-7598</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-4308 |
ispartof | Journal of research in science teaching, 2020-08, Vol.57 (6), p.911-942 |
issn | 0022-4308 1098-2736 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2418964594 |
source | Wiley Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | Cognitive style Education reform Educational Change Educational Practices Efficacy latent profile analysis Learning Middle schools Motivation Pedagogical Content Knowledge professional development Professional Training Profiles Science Achievement Science education Science Instruction Science teachers Student Motivation teacher cognition teacher motivation and beliefs Teachers Teaching Teaching Methods |
title | Profiles of middle school science teachers: Accounting for cognitive and motivational characteristics |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T10%3A21%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Profiles%20of%20middle%20school%20science%20teachers:%20Accounting%20for%20cognitive%20and%20motivational%20characteristics&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20research%20in%20science%20teaching&rft.au=Bae,%20Christine%20L.&rft.date=2020-08&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=911&rft.epage=942&rft.pages=911-942&rft.issn=0022-4308&rft.eissn=1098-2736&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/tea.21617&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2418964594%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2418964594&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |