Applying an Ecology Metaphor in a Mixed Methods Analysis of High School Science Program Infrastructure

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 86 - 97, 31.01.2022

Niyazi Erdogan Carol L. Stuessy

https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1029468

Öz

A sequential exploratory mixed methods approach guided research on the science program infrastructures (SPI) of a sample of 28 high schools representing 1,370 high schools in a large southwestern state. Comparisons of SPI were made between and among schools representing highly successful schools of low (n=9) and high diversity (n=10) with less successful, high-diversity high schools (n=9). We include a discussion of the implications for including SPI as an important mediating layer within the ecology of high schools. The science program layer links administration with classrooms by employing efficient, equitable, and effective practices to advance the goals of science achievement and college readiness established at national and state levels for all high school graduates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science program infrastructure, Ecology, Secondary analysis, Rubric development

Kaynakça

• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research, (4rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 325–336.
• Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.
• Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School Restructuring in Historical Perspectives. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1–29.
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
• Irwin, J. W., & Farr, W. (2004). Collaborative school communities that support teaching and learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 20, 343-363.
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
• MacNeil, J. A., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 73-84.
• National Research Council. (1996). Chapter 7, Science education program standards. In National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National science education standards (pp. 209-225). Washington DC: National Academies Press.
• PRISE Research Group. (2011). Policy and research initiative in science program-II research manual: School, program, and teacher instruments. Retrieved from http://prise.tamu.edu
• Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2009). Establishing a Collaborative School Culture Through Comprehensive School Reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 58–74.
• Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 153-167.