Understanding How Educators Make Sense of Content Standards

Eugene Judson^1, , Kathryn N. Hayes² and Kristi Glassmeyer¹

¹Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States

²Calfornia State University East Bay, Hayward, California, United States

Cite this paper:
Eugene Judson, Kathryn N. Hayes and Kristi Glassmeyer. Understanding How Educators Make Sense of Content Standards. American Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8(11):812-821. doi: 10.12691/education-8-11-1

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new conceptual framework that depicts how educators make sense of content standards and the changes that content standards engender. The Sensemaking of Content Standards (SoCS) Framework brings together different models that have been used in the literature to understand how content standards are framed by sensegivers, filtered through sensemaking processes, and implemented in classrooms. We begin by offering a rationale for the need for such a framework. Following, we build the framework by introducing each of its major research-based components. Finally, we test the framework by applying it to the cases of two state-level science education leaders in the United States reflecting on the changes that new K-12 science standards will bring to classrooms and their concerns about resistance to change.

Keywords:
academic standards change Common Core content standards NGSS science standards sensemaking sense-making standards

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74-95.
[2]	Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers' views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1050-1075.
[3]	Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965-995.
[4]	Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
[5]	Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
[6]	National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. National Academies Press.
[7]	Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
[8]	Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136-149.
[9]	Spillane, J. P. (2009). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Harvard University Press.
[10]	Walls, J. H. (2017). Sensemaking and School Failure: Lessons from Two Cases. Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, 2(1), 1-26.
[11]	Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431.
[12]	Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
[13]	Woulfin, S. L., Donaldson, M. L., & Gonzales, R. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110-143.
[14]	Education Commission of the States (2017). Accountability and Reporting: ESSA plans. Retrieved from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbQuest5E?rep=SA172.
[15]	Davis, J., Choppin, J., McDuffie, A. R., & Drake, C. (2013). Common core state standards for mathematics: Middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions. Rochester, NY: The Warner Center for Professional Development and Education Reform: University of Rochester.
[16]	Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 56.
[17]	Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability programs. Science Education, 94(5), 888-902.
[18]	Filstad, C. (2014). The politics of sensemaking and sensegiving at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(1), 3-21.
[19]	Judson, E., Bowers, N. L., & Glassmeyer, K. (2019). Recruiting and encouraging students to complete Advanced Placement (AP) courses and exams: Classroom policies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 42(3), 243-265.
[20]	Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 301-318.
[21]	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), 1-26.
[22]	Judson, E. (2013). The relationship between state accountability practices and time allocated for science in elementary schools. Science Education, 97(4), 621-636.
[23]	Abdullah, A. A., & Wan, H. L. (2013). Relationships of non-monetary incentives, job satisfaction and employee job performance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(4), 1085-1091.
[24]	Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2004). Resigned compliance: Teacher attitudes towards performance-related pay in schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 81-104.
[25]	Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual. Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
[26]	Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber's types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145-1179.
[27]	Eisen, A. (1978). The meanings and confusions of Weberian 'rationality'. British Journal of Sociology, 29(1), 57-70.
[28]	Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.
[29]	Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 1-23.
[30]	Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations. Los Angeles: Sage.
[31]	Smylie, M. A., & Evans, A. E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity, 187-208.
[32]	Berends, M. (2004). In the wake of A Nation at Risk: New American Schools' private sector school reform initiative. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 130-163.
[33]	Metz, M. H. (2003). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
[34]	Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501-530.
[35]	Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2011). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. London: Taylor & Francis.
[36]	Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137.
[37]	Wenner, J. A., & Settlage, J. (2015). School leader enactments of the structure/agency dialectic via buffering. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 503-515.
[38]	Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). Managing institutional and sociocultural challenges through sociotransformative constructivism: A longitudinal case study of a high school science teacher. Journal of research in science teaching, 52(4), 448-460.
[39]	Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of education, 77(3), 211-244.
[40]	Hayes, K. N., Wheaton, M., & Tucker, D. (2019). Understanding teacher instructional change: The case of integrating NGSS and stewardship in professional development. Environmental Education Research, 25(1), 115-134.
[41]	Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949-965.
[42]	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.
[43]	Armstrong, A., & Muenjohn, N. (2008). The ethical dimension in transformational leadership. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 3(3), 21-35.
[44]	Hayes, K. N., & Trexler, C. J. (2016). Testing predictors of instructional practice in elementary science education: The significant role of accountability. Science Education, 100(2), 266-289.
[45]	Ryder, J. (2015). Being professional: accountability and authority in teachers’ responses to science curriculum reform. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 87-120.
[46]	Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249.
[47]	Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American journal of Education, 103(4), 377-405.
[48]	Peressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual framework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 67-96.
[49]	Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, S6-S32.
[50]	National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
[51]	Judson, E., Hayes, K. N., & Glassmeyer, K. (2020). What influences development of science standards? Science Education, 104(1), 50-74.
[52]	Cheek, D. W., & Quiriconi, M. (2011). The role of state education departments in science education policy development. In, G. E. DeBoer (Ed.), The role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp. 173-210). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
[53]	Harlen, W. (Ed.) (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Trieste, Italy: Science Education Programme of IAP. Retrieved from https://www.ase.org.uk/documents/working-with- the-big-ideas-in-science-education/1working-with-big-ideas-of- science-education-print-version-2-.pdf.