The mediating role of coherence in curriculum implementation

Implementation of inquiry-based curriculum materials has been a challenge in science education. Recent research points to the importance of coherence in professional development as a means to improving implementation. Policy researchers have defined coherence in terms of alignment of standards, curriculum, and assessment is key to supporting implementation, while teacher learning researchers have analyzed coherence as an aspect of teachers’ perception influenced by features of their professional development. This paper presents an expanded model of coherence that focuses on teachers’ perception of alignment of curriculum materials that are the focus of professional development and on the fit of the materials to their local school context. Using empirical data from a state-wide systemic inquiry science reform effort targeting students from kindergarten to eighth grade, we describe how these two factors influenced teachers’ global perceptions of the coherence of their professional development activities and subsequent implementation of curriculum materials. The science education community has long promoted the use and development of curriculum materials that emphasize student inquiry. Over the decades, there has also been another, problematic, consistency across these curricula: difficulties in implementation. This paper focuses on the topic of curriculum implementation, using empirical data from a state-wide systemic science reform effort targeting students from kindergarten to eighth grade. In particular, we examine the construct of coherence and how teachers’ understanding of their local school context and of the particular curricular innovation within their local context influences curriculum implementation by individual teachers. The idea that curriculum innovations must fit within their local context has been a central concept in two areas of research that have received significant attention in the past decade. A number of scholars who have examined the failures of implementation in past reforms in science education have pointed to the need for better alignment among national and state policies, standards, curriculum, and assessments (e.g., Smith & O'Day, 1991). Without good alignment, teachers face a conflicting configuration of demands on their practice that is difficult for them to interpret and act upon (Fuhrman, 1993a). Other researchers have focused on the need for quality professional development that is coherent with their own goals and their school’s goals for student learning (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). An alternative perspective is that failures of coherence and implementation can arise from teacher autonomy and local school capacity. When teachers have autonomy in choosing from an array of curriculum materials to teach a particular set of standards, they may not use guidance professional developers provide them about what activities align to particular standards. In addition, when perceived and observed demands of curricula exceed schools’ capacity to support implementation, teachers may not judge their professional development experiences to be coherent. In contrast to earlier policy and teacher learning models of coherence, our model of what contributes to teachers’ perceptions of the coherence of their professional development activities related to a specific curriculum and to higher levels of curriculum implementation emphasizes problems of agency inherent in reform activities (Rowan & Miller, 2007) and the fit of an innovation to the capacity and constraints of a local school (Blumenfeld et al., 2000). We illustrate our model empirically by focusing on professional development activities related to an inquiry science program being promoted by a state department of education. In the context for this study, reformers “did everything right” with respect to aligning policies, standards, and curricula and with respect to providing high-quality professional development to teachers, but rates of curriculum implementation were low. In a multi-level analysis of 225 teachers who participated in workshops in summer 2006, we found that what predicted teachers’ implementation rates were teachers’ own interpretations of what standards could be taught using the curriculum materials. These interpretations, as well as teachers’ perceptions of school-level barriers and resources predicted teachers’ judgments of coherence of the innovation within their local teaching context. Background and Theoretical Framework The Construct of Coherence in Educational Policy Research Policy researchers have often attributed the failure of policies to impact classroom practice on a lack of coherence across the educational system. Part of the incoherence stems from the fact that education is a complex system in which decision-makers at different scales of the system do not always share common goals (Fuhrman, 1993a) or facilitate the flow of knowledge about policies throughout the system (O'Day, 2002). Many policies address only one aspect of the system (e.g., testing but not curriculum) and thus fail to take into account the different levels of the system and timescales of educational change (Knapp, 1997). As a result, teachers face a configuration of demands that often contradict one another and thus do not provide clear guidance for action (Fuhrman, 1993b). This type of coherence might be called policy alignment, since scholars pointing to the need for greater coherence within the system have argued that improving coherence requires better alignment among national and state policies, standards, curriculum, and assessments (Herman & Webb, 2007; Knapp, 1997). In fact, a defining feature of standards-based reform in education is that it does not just seek to define standards but also seeks to create and implement assessments and accountability structures that are aligned to those standards (Herman & Webb, 2007). A core assumption behind efforts to improve alignment is that it will result in guidance to teachers that they can follow, leading to impacts on teacher cognition and practice. The Construct of Coherence in Teacher Learning Research In research on teacher learning from professional development, a different definition of “coherence” has been defined and measured largely from the teacher’s point of view. For example, Garet and colleagues (2001) define coherence in terms of teachers’ interpretations of their professional development experiences. Their six-item scale for coherence includes questions about teachers’ perceptions of how well aligned activities are to their own goals for and trajectories of professional development, reform ideas in their school, and frameworks for curriculum, instruction, and assessment at the district and state level. As such, their measure of what we would call global perceptions of coherence encompasses the two definitions of coherence from policy research but foregrounds teachers’ interpretations of alignment and program coherence at the school level. In their study of what constitutes effective professional development, Garet and colleagues (2001) found global perceptions of coherence to be related to self-reported changes in knowledge and practice in mathematics and science instruction. In addition, three features of professional development were related to perceptions of coherence in their model: time span, total hours, and collective participation. The longer the time span over which activities were spread, the more hours teachers participated, and the greater degree of coparticipation in activities with other teachers from their school or district, the more likely teachers were to see professional development activities as coherent. An Integrated Model of the Coherence of Professional Development The perspective we explore in the current study seeks to unpack or explain coherence in a way that includes elements of the policy and teacher learning research definitions and models, as well as two other factors: teacher agency and the fit of innovations within their local context. Just as teacher learning research examines context from the point of view of teachers, we take teachers’ perspectives on the innovation as our starting point. But we also hypothesize that policy alignment has an important contributing role to play in fostering perceptions of coherence. Third, we consider that the array of materials teachers have available to teach particular standards can act as a potential constraint on coherence and implementation. Finally, we include in our model of what contributes to coherence measures of how the fit of the innovation within the constraints and capacities of schools, such as accountability pressures and structured time for implementation planning, can contribute to coherence (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Integrated Model of Coherence. Our reason to begin with teachers’ perspectives on coherence derives both for our appreciation of the mediating role of teachers’ interpretation of reforms on implementation described above and from our acknowledgment that teachers in science education today still have considerable autonomy in selecting curriculum materials. Even if there is good alignment among instruction, curriculum, assessment, and professional development and the professional development that teachers receive is aligned with research on best practice, teachers may still choose not to implement a particular program or curriculum. Because teachers may not share the same goals as those interested in reform, reformers face what can be called a problem of agency (Rowan & Miller, 2007). In contexts where there are agency problems, so called “principals” (in this case, reformers) must develop means to persuade or coerce “agents” (in this case, teachers) to carry out their goals. Where teachers have a choice in the materials they use, either because they draw on textbooks purchased through their school districts, on worksheets and materials obtained from competing materials, or even on activities they design themselves, it may be particularly challenging for any particular reform organization (including a state or district) to convince a teacher to adopt a particular program. Policy alignment and professional development can be related to one another in such a way as to enhance or reinforce messages to teachers about the legitimacy of implementing a particular innovation. An example would be when a state or district, in adopting a particular instructional reform, supports implementation with extensive professional development paid for and sanctioned by the state or district. In this particular paper, we focus on such an example at the state level, and since all teachers received professional development with the features Garet et al. (2001) identified as contributing to coherence, we focus principally on elements of professional development designed specifically to influence teachers to believe the particular innovation we are studying is aligned to state standards. These elements include documents and artifacts that demonstrate linkages between standards and particular activities. We also recognize other resources (e.g., materials, equipment) that professional development providers can offer teachers may be essential features that contribute to coherence, insofar as the allocation of adequate resources to a curriculum signals its legitimacy and value. Beyond agency, the fit of an innovation within the constraints and capacity of schools to adopt particular instructional practices and curricula are likely to influence global perceptions of coherence in our model (Blumenfeld et al., 2000). One such constraint may be accountability systems, which influence the pressures on schools to adopt particular curricular remedies for low achievement. Another constraint may be requirements and demands of new instructional practices themselves. Sometimes the nature of those demands conflicts with the organization of the school. Inquiry curricula in science often require extensive planning and preparation, something that is often lacking. Innovations that make extensive use of technology require sufficient access to technology and capacity to support that technology. Therefore, teachers’ judgments of coherence are likely to be influenced by the interaction between the demands placed on them by curricula and the resources they have available to them.