Teachers' Customizations of Storyline Science Curriculum

Adapting for Their Students and Instructional Contexts

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21392669
AutoresKatherine L Mcneill (0000-0003-3673-6637, Boston College Chestnut Hill Massachusetts USA, autor de correspondencia), Caitlin G Mcc Fine (0000-0002-8605-7264, Metropolitan State University of Denver Denver Colorado USA), Benjamin R Lowell (0000-0001-5716-6173, University of Albany Albany New York USA), Renee Affolter (OpenSciEd Everett Massachusetts USA)
Año2026
Volumen110
Número3
Páginas739-755
Fecha de publicación2026-05-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaScience Education (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0036-8326 • E-ISSN: 1098-237X
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/sce.70035
OpenAlexW4416230418
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas59

Curriculum materials can play an essential role to help teachers shift their instruction. However, curricular enactment does not look identical in every classroom, because teachers need to be responsive to their students. In this study, we investigated the customizations teachers made while enacting storyline science curriculum. Specifically, we collected two data sources: a teacher survey and interviews. The survey was completed by 169 participants and included 20 follow‐up interviews with middle school science teachers enacting the OpenSciEd curriculum across the United States. Teachers reported frequently making changes to the curriculum, particularly small changes, which were made daily or almost daily. The frequency of these changes illustrates that enactment is jointly constructed by the curriculum, teacher and students in a specific context. The teachers’ goals motivating these changes stemmed from wanting to be more responsive to their students and constraints within their school systems. In terms of being responsive, the customizations focused on the goals of student engagement and participation as well as more support for students. While many of these changes aligned with the overarching vision of the curriculum, others appeared to potentially be in tension, particularly in relation to student epistemic agency and coherence. The other two most frequent goals for customizations were a lack of time and logistics (e.g., space, resources) highlighting the importance of the organizational context. Future research needs to develop tools, examples and professional learning experiences to support teachers in customizing for their students and context while aligning with the overarching instructional vision in curriculum

Agency (philosophy) · Context (archaeology) · Curriculum · Professional development · Relation (database) · Science education · Semi-structured interview · Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies · Innovative Education and Learning Practices · Science Education and Pedagogy