Best Practices Professional Development - CADRE

3 downloads 22 Views 1MB Size Report
For customer service inquiries, please call 800-277-5300. ... personal devices but are prohibited from posting the files to third-party servers or websites, or from.

T h e

E x e m p l a r y

S c i e n c e

M o n o g r a p h

E

S e r i es

Revised Second Edition

“This book will help the reader to design and evaluate varying professional development options, thereby making better and more efficient use of limited professional development dollars.” —The editors of Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development, Revised Second Edition If you want to make the most of your precious professional development budget—and who doesn’t?—look for inspiration in this updated edition from the Exemplary Science series. This essay collection is designed to spark new ideas while encouraging high-quality learning opportunities for teachers at all grade levels. The book features: • An overview of current research on quality professional development and how it aligns with the National Science Education Standards. • Fourteen professional development programs that provide real-life models of how to train current or future teachers to carry out the constructivist, inquiry-based approach recommended by the Standards. End-of-chapter questions help you relate the material to your own situation.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

Best Practices inProfessional Development

e

m

p

l

a

r

y

S

c

i

e

n

c

Exemplary Science: Best Practices inProfessional Development

Revised Second Edition

• A reader’s guide that includes suggestions for using the book in professional learning communities and other collaborative settings.

Grades K–College

Koba Wojnowski

Some of the collection’s authors contributed to the first edition and have updated their chapters to share additional data and communicate what they’ve learned that might support your work. Additional chapters describe programs and approaches new to this edition. Whether you’re a teacher, staff development provider, administrator, or preservice science methods instructor, you’ll find this collection to be a fresh and highly useful professional learning tool.

e

Revised Second Edition

Exemplary Science:

x

PB192X4E2 ISBN: 978-1-936959-07-5

Edited by Susan Koba and Brenda Wojnowski Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices inProfessional Development

Revised Second Edition

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices inProfessional Development

Revised Second Edition

Edited by Susan B. Koba and Brenda S. Wojnowski, with Robert E. Yager

Arlington, Virginia

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Claire Reinburg, Director Jennifer Horak, Managing Editor J. Andrew Cooke, Senior Editor Wendy Rubin, Associate Editor Agnes Bannigan, Associate Editor Amy America, Book Acquisitions Coordinator

Art and Design Will Thomas Jr., Director Printing and Production Catherine Lorrain, Director Nguyet Tran, Assistant Production Manager

National Science Teachers Association Gerald F. Wheeler, Executive Director David Beacom, Publisher 1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201 www.nsta.org/store For customer service inquiries, please call 800-277-5300. Copyright © 2013 by the National Science Teachers Association. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. 16 15 14 13  4 3 2 1 NSTA is committed to publishing quality materials that promote the best in inquiry-based science education. However, conditions of actual use may vary and the safety procedures and practices described in this book are intended to serve only as a guide. Additional precautionary measures may be required. NSTA and the author(s) do not warrant or represent that the procedure and practices in this book meet any safety code or standard or federal, state, or local regulations. NSTA and the author(s) disclaim any liability for personal injury or damage to property arising out of or relating to the use of this book including any recommendations, instructions, or materials contained therein. Permissions Book purchasers may photocopy, print, or e-mail up to five copies of an NSTA book chapter for personal use only; this does not include display or promotional use. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers may reproduce forms, sample documents, and single NSTA book chapters needed for classroom or noncommercial, professional-development use only. E-book buyers may download files to multiple personal devices but are prohibited from posting the files to third-party servers or websites, or from passing files to non-buyers. For additional permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this NSTA Press book, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) (www.copyright.com; 978-750-8400). Please access www.nsta.org/permissions for further information about NSTA’s rights and permissions policies. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Exemplary science : best practices in professional development / edited by Susan Koba and Brenda Wojnowski, with Robert E. Yager. — Revised 2nd edition. pages cm. — (Exemplary science monograph series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-936959-07-5 1. Science—Study and teaching. 2. Science teachers—Training of. I. Koba, Susan, editor of compilation. II. Wojnowski, Brenda, editor of compilation. III. Yager, Robert Eugene, 1930- editor of compilation. Q181.E83 2013 507.1'1—dc23 2012042764

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Contents Foreword Treating Professional Development Programs as a Science........... vii Robert E. Yager

Introduction....................................................................................... ix Brenda S. Wojnowski and Susan B. Koba



About the Editors.............................................................................. xi

Chapter 1

Less and More Emphases and Supporting Research for Professional Development................................................................. 1 Susan B. Koba and Brenda S. Wojnowski

Chapter 2

Environmental Economics Program................................................. 11 Matthew A. Johnson and Charles G. Tansey

Chapter 3

Professional Development and Authentic Science Education: Monitoring Local Populations of Reptiles and Amphibians.......... 21 Catherine E. Matthews and Terry M. Tomasek

Chapter 4

MyOnlineFair: Stem 21st-Century Educational Transformation.... 35 Carmela R. Minaya and Nathan D. Robinson

Chapter 5

“Doing Science” in Middle Grades: Instructional Coaching and Modeling of a Learning Cycle Approach to Promote Scientific Practices............................................................................................. 51 Pradeep M. Dass, Lori Wilbanks, John Goforth, Luanne Graham and Jill Francis

Chapter 6

A Professional Development Model for High School Science Teachers Focusing on Guided Inquiry Labs........................................................... 83 Anil C. Banerjee

Chapter 7

Reorienting Professional Development for Improving InquiryBased Science Teaching in Elementary Classrooms........................ 93 Rose M. Pringle, Michelle L. Klosterman, and Lynda Fender Hayes

Chapter 8

The Road to Scientific Literacy: How Target Inquiry Is Improving Instruction and Student Achievement in High School Chemistry........ 111 Ellen J. Yezierski and Deborah G. Herrington

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Chapter 9

Rethinking the Continuing Education of Science Teachers: An Example of Transformative, Curriculum-Based Professional Development.................................................................................. 131 Joseph A. Taylor, Janet Carlson, and Kim Bess

Chapter 10 Ramps and Pathways Early Physical Science Program: Preparing Educators as Science Mentors........................................................ 143 Shelly Counsell, Jill Uhlenberg, and Betty Zan Chapter 11 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program (MiTEP): Using Lesson Study for Professional Development ...................................................... 157 Carol A. Engelmann, Kdmon Hungwe, and Mark F. Klawiter Chapter 12 Building Professional Learning Communities............................... 179 Brenda G. Weiser Chapter 13 Quality Elementary Science Teaching: A Professional Development QUEST.............................................................................................. 187 Deborah Hanuscin, Delinda van Garderen, Deepika Menon, Jeni Davis, Eun Lee, and S. Renà Smith Chapter 14 Professional Development Based on Conceptual Change: The Wyoming TRIAD Process................................................................ 199 Joseph I. Stepans, Barbara Woodworth Saigo, and Joan Gaston Chapter 15 Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science: The School as the Locus of Change to Impact Teaching and Learning.......... 221 Susan B. Koba and Carol Taylor Mitchell Chapter 16 Reader’s Guide: Suggestions for Use of This Book in Professional Learning Communities and Other Collaborative Settings........... 245 Brenda S. Wojnowski and Susan B. Koba Endword.......................................................................................... 249 Robert E. Yager

Contributors.................................................................................... 253



Index ............................................................................................... 257

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Foreword Treating Professional Development Programs as a Science Robert E. Yager University of Iowa

T

his is the first of the NSTA Exemplary Science Program (ESP) monographs to result in a second edition. It is also the first to have a sponsoring organization—the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), an affiliate of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)—adopt the monograph as its own. The plan is to update the Professional Development monograph effort every four or five years. Having this NSELA publication as a first endeavor indicates the importance of helping science teachers continue to learn. State and district leaders must continue to stimulate all teachers to learn while also ensuring greater learning of science for all K–12 students. Science teachers must ask questions (and attempt to answer them) while always looking for added evidence that the ideas are valid. Such a sequence will assure that teachers will continue to grow and produce results that illustrate advancement and success with the needed changes in education (reform effectiveness). These factors match what science is when practiced by scientists. The sequence should mirror the same sequence. Should not evaluations of new attempts to produce better student learning be considered in the same way? The 1996 National Science Education Standards (NSES) offer four goals (reasons) for teaching science. Too often such goals are also formulated in states and school districts—but they often have no effect on what is taught nor how it is taught. As the Next Generation Science Standards are developed to replace the 1996 Standards, the focus is on new visions of content. The leaders involved indicate that they do not plan to alter the four goals of the 1996 Standards. These four areas of NSES from the 1996 Standards are: (1) goals, (2) teaching, (3) professional development, and (4) assessment. All of these were developed and appear in the Standards before any consideration of content. Goal 1 begins with what is widely considered most important. This goal merely indicates that every student must experience “doing science.” This means questioning the objects and events found in nature and proposing ideas that explain them. These are then shared with others to discuss and decide on their validity. Goals 2 and 3 deal with the use of science by students in resolving personal and societal problems. The fourth goal deals with encouraging careers in science-related fields. The goals seem clear and appropriate. Unfortunately, though, they are seldom used in discussing needed reforms. After the goals are formulated, the ways teaching should be changed is considered. There are but nine ways that the Standards advocate for achieving teaching excellence in science. These

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

vii

Foreword

nine features of emphasis call for teachers who: (1) understand and respond to an individual student’s interest, strengths, experiences, and needs; (2) select and adapt the curriculum; (3) focus on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes; (4) guide students in active and extended scientific inquiries; (5) provide opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students; (6) continuously assess student understanding (and involve students in the process); (7) share responsibility for learning with students; (8) support a classroom community with cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect; and (9) work with other teachers to enhance the science program. These nine features were embraced by all who followed the development of the 1996 Standards; there was virtually no debate or concerns expressed. But, they are vastly different from what students experience in most classrooms, where there is usually no concern for unique or personal contexts for learning. It is important to note the work of Wiggins and McTighe and their “Backward Design” efforts. They urge discussion and agreement on vital evidence that could indicate success with the varying ideas visualized for instruction. “Backward Design” calls for defining assessment strategies before actual teaching, before considering content, or before considering curriculum frameworks. This is what should be practiced in every Professional Development effort. The 16 chapters comprising this ESP monograph exemplify well what reforms are needed. Unfortunately, though, many Professional Development efforts continue to model typical teacher transmissions of content for improved teaching with no preassessments and no postassessments concerning actual successes with the material and techniques advocated. The new efforts in the attempts being made in this second edition of Professional Development efforts are important, as new standards are being formulated. Hopefully they will be structured in ways that goals are set and followed. Hopefully this will be a review of the ways science teaching should change; those related specifically to Professional Development efforts. The 16 chapters for this ESP effort indicate how such reforms should be planned and carried out. Many exciting ideas and programs are offered for ways exemplary teaching is accomplished! Readers are offered many rich and interesting ideas—all designed to gain greater successes with unique Professional Development efforts.

viii

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Introduction Brenda S. Wojnowski Wojnowski and Associates, Inc. Susan B. Koba National Science Education Leadership Association

T

he Exemplary Science Program monographs began their lives in 2005, with the initial editions of Exemplary Science in Grades 9–12: Standards-Based Success Stories and Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development. These were the first of a series of monographs envisioned by Dr. Robert E. Yager. Each monograph chapter describes an exemplar that models expected practices as outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES), describing change in practice from the Less Emphasis to More Emphasis conditions outlined in the Standards. There are currently seven different monographs, an eighth is in press, and two more are in the works. However, Dr. Yager does not rest on these accomplishments and sees, instead, second editions and ongoing editions of each monograph, to keep them current and useful for practitioners. He approached the National Science Education Leadership Association leadership about working with him on the first of these second editions, and the result of those conversations is this book. This second edition builds on the earlier monograph format. Some chapter authors were contributors in the first edition but updated their chapters to share additional data and communicate how what they have learned might support the work of others. Additional chapter authors describe programs and approaches new to this edition. Finally, this monograph includes reflective questions at the end of each of the chapters and a readers guide in Chapter 16, making this edition more useful as a professional learning tool. Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of the need for quality professional development, the recent research on professional development, the alignment of the research with the Less and More Emphases outlined in the NSES, and what we have learned since the release of the first edition of Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development. Chapters 2–15 provide exemplars of professional development. The first three describe professional development programs that model authentic learning for teachers. Chapter 2 focuses on an environmental economics program, Chapter 3 on monitoring local populations of reptiles and amphibians, and Chapter 4 on an online science fair. Chapters 5–8 provide examples of professional development that focus on enhancement of inquiry or science practices. Chapter 5 uses a learning cycle approach to promote scientific practices, Chapter 6 describes a high school focus on guided inquiry, Chapter 7 describes professional development to improve elementary classroom inquiry-based science, and Chapter 8 models target inquiry in a high school chemistry classroom.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

ix

Introduction

The next series of chapters approaches professional development through various strategies, providing models from which you might choose for use in your context. Each leverages a different strategy to promote change. These strategies include a curriculum-based focus (Chapter 9), preparing science mentors using a physical science focus (Chapter 10), lesson study (Chapter 11), professional learning communities (Chapter 12), and a unique summer workshop for teachers that provides a practicum experience where teacher-learners apply what they learn by teaching in a summer science outreach program (Chapter 13). Chapters 14 and 15 model more systemic approaches to teacher learning and change processes. Chapter 14 describes a long-term professional development program with a focus on conceptual change, which is dependent upon partnerships and flexibility of approach. Chapter 15 provides a model that focuses on the school as the locus of change and teacher choice of professional development path. The book closes with Chapter 16, which serves as a readers guide to the book for PLCs, university classrooms, and other collaborative settings. This chapter, coupled with the reflective questions found at the end of each chapter, makes this book a viable tool for science leaders, professional developers, and university instructors. Special thanks to Dr. Robert Yager, who initiated the Exemplary Science monograph series and worked to begin the series of second editions. Dr. Yager shares, through the foreword and endword, his perspectives of the ongoing work found in the first of these second editions.

x

National Science Teachers Association Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

About the Editors Susan B. Koba Susan Koba—a science educator in the Omaha Public Schools for 30+ years, taught middle and high school science before moving into district leadership and closing her OPS career as Project Director for the district’s Urban System Program. She currently consults for a variety of organizations including NSTA. Dr. Koba has contributed to NSTA through service on the board, committees and task forces, and is a Past-President of her state chapter. She is currently Retiring President and Interim Executive Director of NSELA and serves on several national advisory boards. Koba has published and presented on various topics that include school and teacher change, equity in science, inquiry, and action research. She has developed curriculum from the local to national level and served as Curriculum Specialist for a USDOE Technology Innovation Challenge Grant. Dr. Koba has contributed to several NSTA Press efforts including Hard-to-Teach Biology Topics and Hard-to-Teach Science Concepts: A Framework to Support Learners, Grades 3–5, as well as a chapter in the NSTA Exemplary Science Monograph Series. Her years in public education were recognized through various awards that include Outstanding Biology Teacher, Tandy Technology Scholar, Genentech Access Excellence Fellow, Christa McAuliffe Fellow, and the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science Teaching. She earned a bachelor’s degree in biology and secondary education from Doane College, masters in biology from the University of Nebraska–Omaha and PhD in science education from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Brenda S. Wojnowski Brenda Shumate Wojnowski is president of a Dallas-based education consulting firm geared toward nonprofit and university clients. She is a Past-President of the National Science Education Leadership Association and past chair of the NSTA Alliance of Affiliates. Dr. Wojnowski edits the NSELA journal, Science Educator, and chaired the 2010 NSTA STEM Task Force. She has been engaged in university- and foundation-based programs for over 25 years, with prior experience in public schools. During her career, she has served as senior program officer for a nonprofit foundation and president of a museum-based nonprofit. Wojnowski has held a variety of university positions, including teaching graduate-level courses in educational leadership and researching and supporting STEM areas. An award-winning K–12 teacher, she has taught at the middle and secondary levels as well as having served as a high school curriculum administrator. She holds a doctorate in curriculum and teaching with post-doctoral work in educational administration, a Master of Arts in middle grades education, an undergraduate degree in biology with a minor in secondary education, and teaching and supervision licensures in eight areas. She has presented numerous workshops and invited talks as well as having served in a senior level capacity on many grants and contracts from public agencies and private foundations. Dr. Wojnowski has numerous publications to her credit. Her research interests are in STEM areas, school reform, and the mentoring of beginning teachers.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

xi

About the Editors

Robert E. Yager Robert E. Yager—an active contributor to the development of the National Science Education Standards—has devoted his life to teaching, writing, and advocating on behalf of science education worldwide. Having started his career as a high school science teacher, he has been a professor of science education at the University of Iowa since 1956. There Dr. Yager created a New Center for Science Education—initially situated in a laboratory school. He has headed one of the largest graduate programs in science education and has chaired 130 PhD dissertations. Yager has also served on numerous boards and committees and as president of seven national organizations, including NSTA, and has been involved in teacher education in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and several European countries. He has authored over 700 research and policy publications and directed over 100 NSF projects for teachers. Among his many publications are several NSTA books, including Focus on Excellence and two issues of What Research Says to the Science Teacher. Dr. Yager also heads the NSTA Exemplary Science Programs resulting in monographs describing and evaluating science programs that illustrate the visions elaborated in the National Science Education Standards. Yager earned a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Northern Iowa and master’s and doctoral degrees in plant physiology from the University of Iowa.

xii

National Science Teachers Association Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

The Road to Scientific Literacy: How Target Inquiry Is Improving Instruction and Student Achievement in High School Chemistry Ellen J. Yezierski Miami University Deborah G. Herrington Grand Valley State University

U

Context: Target Inquiry

nfortunately until now I have not found a program like this for chemistry. The reason I am so excited about the program is that, even though I believe in inquiry-based learning, adopting it in the chemistry classroom has been difficult for me.... I was never taught how to teach chemistry in an inquiry-based atmosphere.... No teacher is an island. This master’s program will not only help the teachers that go through the program but as the word spreads about the units that are developed, more and more chemistry teachers will start using inquiry-based learning. —Preprogram, Brian Brethauer, High School Chemistry Teacher, Allendale, MI Like Brian, many of today’s teachers’ science learning experiences consisted of lectures and “cookbook” labs. This “traditional” approach to educating teachers has resulted in teacher content knowledge that is often fragmented, and a view of science as an objective body of knowledge generated using a linear process, often referred to as the “scientific method” (Abd-El-Khalick and BouJaoude 1997; Brickhouse 1990; Gallagher 1991). As such, it is not surprising that many teachers struggle to meet the call from the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC 1996) for the use of inquiry-oriented approaches and thus rely primarily on lecture/discussion with occasional verification laboratory activities (Banilower 2002; Smith 2002; Weiss 2002; Wood 2002).

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

111

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

The obvious mechanism for reforming instruction, professional development (PD), falls short of expectations (AASCU 2001; Borko 2004; NRC 2006) and does little to improve teachers’ instructional skills and content knowledge (NRC 2001). Sykes (1996) claims that “[PD is] the most serious unsolved problem for policy and practice in American education today” (p. 495), demonstrating the status of PD in current education policy. Fortunately, the research literature cites core activities which have been shown to positively impact teachers and their students (Berlin 1996; Blanchard, Southerland, and Granger 2009; Dixon and Wilke 2007; Grove and Dixon 2007; Keys and Bryan 2001; see review in Roth, 2007; Silverstein et al. 2009; Westerlund et al. 2002) as well as provide definitive features of effective high-quality and transformative PD programs (Garet et al. 2001; Thompson and Zeuli 1999). Simply put, for PD to have a positive effect on teachers and students, it must be aligned with these proven practices, thus challenging the tradition of fragmented approaches lacking intellectual and practical rigor.

Ties to Standards and Reform Efforts The NSES (NRC 1996) emphasize the importance of inquiry-based instruction, where students make observations, collect data, reflect on findings, and analyze firsthand events and phenomena, as well as critically analyze secondary sources such as media and books. This is a critical transition for science education, as an inquiry approach to instruction improves student achievement (Blanchard et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2010) and scientific ways of thinking and communicating, particularly for students from groups who are underserved and underrepresented in science (Adamson et al. 2003; Kahle, Meece, and Scantlebury 2000; Rosebery, Warren, and Conant 1992; Scruggs et al. 1993; Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport 1983; Wise and Okey 1983). Moreover, inquiry approaches can further improve students’ science process skills, habits of mind, problemsolving skills, and understanding of the nature of science (Hofstein and Lunetta 2003), thus improving what the NSES Goal 4 calls “scientific literacy.” Additionally, Wilson and coworkers (2010) found that the inquiry approach did not produce an achievement gap by race as did the commonplace science instruction. However, the NSES (NRC 1996) also indicate that this type of teaching requires a teacher to have, “theoretical and practical knowledge and abilities about science, learning, and science teaching” (p. 28). Furthermore, the NSES recognize that helping teachers construct this knowledge base requires a shift in how PD is delivered. Table 8.1 summarizes how the Target Inquiry (TI) program addresses this shift in PD delivery by focusing on PD elements aligned with those on which the NSES call for more emphasis (p. 72). The following section describes the theoretical basis for the TI model and how the aspects of the TI experience highlighted in Table 8.1 have been incorporated into a coherent PD program.

Major Features of the Program Target Inquiry (TI) Professional Development Model The Target Inquiry (TI) model is a coherent two-and-a-half-year program built upon research literature in the areas of professional development and inquiry instruction:

112

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Table 8.1. Target Inquiry Program Alignment With NSES PD Standards Change in Emphases LESS EMPHASIS ON

MORE EMPHASIS ON

Target Inquiry Experience

Transmission of teaching knowledge and skills by lectures

Inquiry into teaching and learning

Teachers engaged in the science education literature

Learning science by lecture and reading

Learning science through investigation and inquiry

Teachers conduct and present chemistry research project

Separation of science and teaching knowledge

Integration of science and teaching knowledge

Focus on key aspects of teaching chemistry

Separation of theory and practice

Integration of theory and practice in school settings

Teachers conduct and write up action research project

Individual learning

Collegial and collaborative learning

Cohort program

Fragmented, one-shot sessions

Long-term coherent plans

2 ½-year coherent program

Courses and workshops

A variety of professional development activities

Chemistry research, materials development, action research

Reliance on external expertise

Mix of internal and external expertise

Collaboration of teachers and faculty (science education and chemistry)

Staff developers as educators

Staff developers as facilitators, consultants, and planners

Courses model good inquirybased practices; teachers and faculty collaborate on course content

Teacher as technician

Teacher as intellectual, reflective practitioner

Teachers develop, pilot, revise, implement, and evaluate inquirybased materials

Teacher as consumer of knowledge about teaching

Teacher as producer of knowledge about teaching

Teachers conduct action research in their classrooms

Teacher as follower

Teacher as leader

Teachers lead workshops and present at conferences

Teacher as an individual based in a classroom

Teacher as a member of a collegial professional community

Cohort model including collaborations between teachers and faculty

Teacher as target of change

Teacher as source and facilitator of change

Teachers design, test, and disseminate inquiry-based materials

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

113

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8



Inquiry instructional strategies require a well-developed knowledge of content and pedagogy (Gess-Newsome 1999; NRC 1996; Smith et al. 2007).



Changes in teachers’ content knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, and pedagogical knowledge are required for instructional change (Anderson 1996; Borko and Putnam 1995; LoucksHorsley and Stiegelbauer 1991; Phelps and Lee 2003; Shumba and Glass 1994).



Effective PD addresses barriers to inquiry instruction including lack of access to inquiry materials and assessments (Anderson 2007; Caton, Brewer, and Brown 2000; Straits and Wilke 2002), curriculum constraints (Flick et al. 1997; Keys and Bryan 2001; Tretter 2003), and inadequate in-service education (Anderson 1996).



Central characteristics of high-quality PD include duration, collective participation, active learning, coherence, and content-focus (Garet et al. 2001; Liu, Lee, and Linn 2010; Smith et al. 2007) and critical features of transformative PD (Thompson and Zeuli 1999) must be integrated into the PD.

Figure 8.1. TI Model

Inquiry is at the center of the TI model (Figure 8.1), as it is the heart of teaching and learning. Built on the foundation of social constructivism (Driver 1995; Vygotsky 1978), TI employs a cohort model with multiple opportunities for individual and co-construction of meaning. Core experiences—research experience for teachers (RET), materials adaptation (MA), and action research (AR)—in the TI program incorporate key support features (reflection, cohort membership, and teacher-faculty collaboration) with the goal of affecting the factors that drive teachers’ decision making (shown in white in Figure 8.1). These elements of the TI model have been thoughtfully aligned toward the goal of encouraging and improving inquiry instruction as well as providing adequate resources and materials to promote change.

114

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Although many teachers associate inquiry with the activities of research scientists, the underlying habits of mind by which one actively acquires new knowledge are the same for a scientist in a research laboratory, a student in a science classroom, or a teacher assessing student understanding (Llewellyn 2005; AAAS 1993). The six-week RET allows teachers to further develop habits of mind central to inquiry such as curiosity, persistence, reflection, skepticism, and creativity while gaining firsthand experience in how scientific research is conducted. However, without a contemporary understanding of teaching and learning and clear connections to classroom practices, many teachers have difficulty translating the RET to instruction that promotes these same inquiry habits of mind (Blanchard, Southerland, and Granger 2009; Gess-Newsome 2001). During the RET teachers begin to examine and articulate the disconnect between the process of science inquiry, their beliefs about teaching and learning science, and their classroom practices, which Thompson and Zeuli (1999) have identified as critical for transformative PD programs. The other core experiences and supporting features of TI build upon the RET, addressing other critical features of transformative PD by providing teachers with opportunities to resolve this disconnect, facilitating connections between the research laboratory and classroom, and supporting teachers in the development of new practices that effectively engage students in meaningful inquiry. Teachers’ instructional choices are heavily influenced by their beliefs about content and pedagogy (Jones and Carter 2007; Nespor 1987; Pajares 1992; Richardson 1996). Thus, lasting instructional reform requires more than introducing teachers to new teaching methods and providing them with well-designed materials. Implementation of well-designed materials is often unsuccessful when teachers do not understand the rationale behind the curricula design, have no say in the adoption process, and are not personally invested in successful implementation (Cohen 1995; McLaughlin 1990; Roehrig and Kruse 2005; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall 1996). Instead, teachers find ways to adapt new materials to fit into their current instructional practices, often undermining the intended benefits to student learning embedded in new materials. Teachers are more likely to implement and sustain successive, incremental changes as these allow them to improve their instructional practice by making important changes to aspects of their teaching while retaining effective elements of their instructional repertoire (Huberman 1992; Knapp 1997; Louis, Marks, and Kruse 1996; McLaughlin 1990). The TI model combines the RET with guided MA to ensure that teachers are comfortable with and personally invested in the adaptations and that products foster inquiry instruction. Finally, to produce sustainable instructional change, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning must be examined and challenged. This requires teachers to continually reflect on the connections between their research experiences, their classroom practices, and the education literature. As teachers view learning from their classrooms as more important than learning from outside experts (Smylie 1989), reflection that focuses on teaching and student learning is critical. This is supported in a recent study by Gerard, Spitulnik, and Linn (2009), which showed that teachers using evidence from student work to customize curriculum led to improved teacher and student learning. This along with research literature indicating that AR can positively sway teacher attitudes toward inquiry instruction, facilitate the implementation of innovative teaching methods or materials, and improve teaching and learning (Bencze and Hodson 1999; Berlin 1996; see review in Roth 2007) support the AR and reflection components of TI.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

115

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Moreover, through the yearlong AR project, teachers make connections between the inquiry process and teaching as they once again engage in the inquiry process as they collect and analyze data to answer their questions about student learning and reflect on these findings to deepen their understanding of student learning and inform changes in their instructional approaches.

Target Inquiry Program Description The goal of the TI PD program is to improve the frequency and quality of inquiry instruction in high school chemistry classrooms by immersing teachers in experiences shown to improve instruction and student outcomes. The three TI core experiences (RET, MA, AR) are delivered in six discrete components. This delivery sequence ensures that teachers are (1) prepared for each experience; (2) have time and opportunities to reflect on their learning; and (3) may apply what they have learned in their classrooms (Table 8.2). The TI program is delivered over two and a half years, as shown in the course sequence in Table 8.3 (p. 118). The timeline provides TI course titles and credits along with key teacher recruitment events.

Evidence for Success Teachers’ Beliefs About the Process of Scientific Inquiry When teachers beliefs about scientific inquiry were compared using a paired samples t-test before and after the RET, it was found that after the RET, teachers’ Beliefs about Scientific Inquiry (BSI) scores were significantly higher (mean = 8.5, SD = 3.89) than before (mean = 5.5, SD = 3.41) at the p = 0.37 level for 9 teachers (Kennedy, Yezierski, and Herrington 2008). Over the course of the TI program, teachers were able to transfer their new learning about the process of scientific inquiry from the chemistry research lab into their beliefs about inquiry instruction.

Teachers’ Beliefs About Inquiry Instruction (ITB paper) In postprogram interviews, all the teachers indicated that the TI program helped them develop a better understanding of inquiry instruction. This was consistent with findings from the Inquiry Teaching Beliefs (ITB) instrument (Harwood, Hansen, and Lotter 2006) analysis indicating teachers’ beliefs about inquiry instruction changed throughout the program (Herrington et al. 2011). The ITB instrument is a blended qualitative and quantitative instrument designed to capture teachers’ beliefs about inquiry science teaching. Qualitative analysis of the ITB data indicated that after the RET experience teachers were all reasonably good at separating instructional activities supporting inquiry instruction from those that did not support inquiry instruction. However, classroom observations using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada et al. 2002) suggested that not all teachers were able to translate these beliefs into practice after the RET experience alone. Analysis of subsequent years of ITB and RTOP data indicate that teachers were able to reform their practices in alignment with the NSES, but teachers who made the largest instructional gains were ones who held a more personalized definition of inquiry instruction as opposed to those who held a more theoretical definition.

116

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Table 8.2. TI Components, Including Preparatory, Core, and Application Experiences

Pre-RET

Teachers read an accessible communication from the Journal of the American Chemical Society & wrote summaries identifying problem, background, methods, findings, & conclusions. Summaries critiqued by peers & instructors.

RET

Projects require teachers to review relevant literature, master laboratory techniques, collect & analyze data, & present their findings at regional or national science conferences. Close working relationships with chemistry mentors developed during RET connect teachers with chemistry content resources during & after TI. Teachers learn about process of science inquiry and deepen science content knowledge.

Past RET projects: Improvements in a tunable diode laser spectrometer to measure 13C/12C isotope ratios in CO2; Investigation into mechanism of 1, 2-cyclohexanediol conversion on metal catalysts; Kinetic & X-ray crystal structure analysis of boronic acids as inhibitors of ampC beta-lactamase.

RET Application

Teachers debrief their RETs by analyzing their tasks & actions using the Activity Model (Harwood, 2004) & begin to identify small changes to make to existing classroom activities to better model processes of science. Reflect on ideas about inquiry & how those change throughout RET. Modify 2 activities to pilot in classroom.

Sample modifications: provided students with a scrambled procedure, rather than an ordered one, to help develop experimental design skills; removed data table from an existing lab & required stdts to design data table as pre-lab.

Teachers read & discuss science education literature & begin to look at theory & research on teaching & learning. They study quant & qual research methods (including basic inferential statistics, theoretical frameworks, coding, instrument selection, validity, reliability, ethical considerations, & HS-IRB) focusing on AR to consider how they can use theory & data to improve student learning in the secondary science classroom. Teachers begin to design their own AR projects.

Teachers examined a variety of brief “cases” describing AR projects in HS science classrooms & the quantitative data collected. Teachers worked in pairs & use whichtest.info to determine important design & data analysis considerations in addition to how to modify the designs to strengthen the validity of the conclusions.

Teachers adapt instructional materials to include inquiry, pilot the activities with peers & receive feedback to guide revisions. Tchr & student guides are published on the TI web site (www. gvsu.edu/targetinquiry). Teachers strengthen connections between science & science teaching, & improve pedagogical knowledge.

Sample guided inquiry activity: students examine sets of beads glued together representing dissociated & undissociated acids to construct the concepts of percent ionization, strong v. weak acids, & acid strength v. concentration.

Teachers enhance pedagogical knowledge by evaluating new materials using AR. Project requires teachers to formulate research questions, review relevant education literature, collect & analyze data, reflect on how findings inform practice, & present findings. Teachers write up projects for journal submission or as theses.

Sample project: Using a published concept inventory & interviews, teacher is investigating the effect of new inquiry based laboratory activities designed to improve students’ conceptions about the particulate nature of matter.

Pre- AR

PreMA

Teachers find, read & summarize research papers, engage in lab safety training, attend presentations given by potential research mentors, get matched mentors/projects of interest, determine gaps in content knowledge, begin reading in specific field of future RET, & teach lessons to classmates about requisite content for RET.

MA

Examples from GVSU Pilot

AR

Description

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

117

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

CHM 633: Applications of Chemistry Education (1) CHM 6332: Inquiry Colloquium (0.5) CHM 6332: Inquiry Colloquium (0.5) CHM 631: Inquiry Curriculum Adaptation (4) CHM 621: Education Research in Chemistry (3)

June-Aug Jan-April Aug-Dec June-Aug Jan-April

Winter Fall Summer Winter

CHM 612: Applications of Research to Teaching (1)

Select Qualified Teachers

CHM 610: Graduate Research Seminar (2)

CHM 611: Research Experience for Teachers (3) Identify Interested Teachers

Winter

Interview Interested Teachers

June-Aug Jan-April

Fall

Materials Adaptation

Fall

Summer

Chemistry Research

Fall

Summer

Teacher Recruitment

Table 8.3. TI Program Delivery 118

Winter

Action Research

Summer

chapter 8

Classroom Instruction: Observational Data To determine if changes in beliefs about inquiry translated into improved inquiry instruction, teacher practice was measured by observational data collected before, during, and after the TI program. Results show that TI caused significant improvement in instructional quality (Yezierski and Herrington 2011). Teachers and their students were videotaped each year, and each lesson was then independently scored by three trained raters using the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) instrument (Sawada et al. 2002). The RTOP is designed to measure the degree to which classrooms have been aligned with science and mathematics reforms. In particular there is a strong relationship between the RTOP items and the content and pedagogy standards outlined in the NSES (NRC 1996) and the Benchmarks (AAAS 1993). The RTOP has 25 items, each evaluated on a 5-point scale, subdivided into three categories. High scores in each of these three categories signify a lesson structure focused on exploration before explication (design), the development of conceptual understanding and students engaged in experimental design and reflection (content), and a classroom rich with diverse types of communication with the teacher in a facilitator role (culture). The RTOP’s inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, face validity, and construct validity have been determined (Sawada et al. 2002). Here, the scores from the three independent raters were compared, and if the scores

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

differed by more than five points, the scores were then negotiated. As it was not always possible to observe each teacher more than once, we asked the teachers to invite us to videotape their class on the day when they would be doing their best inquiry or student-centered activity. As such, the classroom observation served not only as a measure of their classroom practice but also as a measure of their current beliefs about what constitutes inquiry-based instruction. The mean teacher RTOP scores and subscores increased as the TI program proceeded and then leveled out after teachers completed the program (Yezierski and Herrington 2011) as shown in Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2. TI Teacher Mean RTOP Scores and Subscores for Each Year Beginning With Baseline and Ending Postprogram.

The results of a repeated-measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction along with the determination of significant pairwise comparisons where applicable are shown in Table 8.4, (p. 120). Following a Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure, the alpha for the comparisons with the smallest p-value was set at 0.05/6 or 0.083. The next lowest p-value’s alpha was set at 0.05/5, and so on to control the familywise error rate. These results indicate that all three subscale scores (design, content, and culture) as well as the overall RTOP score post-MA were significantly higher than the baseline scores. More importantly, only one significant increase (year two to year three) occurred over a one-year interval in TI. In fact, almost all of the increases took two years, indicating that both the RET and MA experiences are critical to influence teachers’ instructional practices. More generally, these results show that the TI program as a whole, and not one particular component of the program, has produced a significant positive impact on instructional reform.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

119

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Table 8.4. Results of RTOP Analysis: p-values and Effect Sizes for Significant Gains (No Significant Decreases)

N=6

Omnibus Test (Rptd Meas ANOVA)

Pairwise Comparisons (paired samples t-test)

Y 1-4

Y 1-2

1-Year Intervals

2-Year Intervals Y 2-3

Y 3-4

3-Year Interval

Y 1-3

Y 2-4

Y 1-4

RTOP Total

p = 0.001 η2 = 0.80

p = 0.003

p = 0.006

p = 0.009

Design

p = 0.001 η2 = 0.80

p = 0.006

Content

p = 0.001 η2 = 0.84

Culture

p = 0.002 η2 = 0.72

p = 0.003

p = 0.005

p = 0.001

p = 0.001

p = 0.001

p = 0.004

p = 0.002

p = 0.002

Note: Shaded boxes indicate differences not found to be statistically significant.

Classroom Instruction: Materials Design Although classroom observations provide the best measure of teaching practice, unfortunately time and resources make multiple observations of multiple teachers over an extended period of time difficult if not impossible. Therefore, in addition to classroom observations, classroom activities developed by teachers in the TI program were evaluated using a revised version of the Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument (SLPAI) (Jacobs, Martin, and Otieno 2008). The SLPAI was designed to analyze teachers’ lesson plans as a measure of changes in teaching practices. The instrument is aligned with the NSES science teaching standards (NRC 1996), which focus on inquiry-based science instruction, and scores obtained using the instrument were validated through triangulation with other measures of teaching practice: a teacher questionnaire, the Standards-Based Teaching Practice Questionnaire (Scantlebury et al. 2001) and classroom observation analysis using the RTOP (Sawada et al. 2002). A sample of 24 of the 33 activities designed by the teachers had an average score of 82% with a standard deviation of 3.3. A subsequent study compared the activities developed by teachers in the TI program to ones developed by teachers in more traditional RET programs (those focused primarily on research without a rigorous materials development/adaptation component) (Herrington, Yezierski, and Luxford 2012). All activities evaluated in this study focused on chemistry content and were posted on program websites, available to other teachers to download and use. As such we expected they would provide sufficient information so that other teachers could successfully implement them in their classrooms and so that key elements of their enactment could be evaluated using the revised SLPAI instrument (SLPAIR). Reliability for the lesson plan scores were established using inter-rater reliability with external raters trained on the instrument. The

120

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

lesson score distributions for each of the RET programs included in the study are shown in Figure 8.3, where TI is RET 1. A Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney U pairwise comparisons indicated the typical SLPAIR score for RET site #1 (TI program) was significantly greater than those of each of the remaining sites. This suggests that supplementing an RET with a materials development experience greatly improves the alignment of teacher-developed lessons with inquiry-based practices. There are numerous RET programs across the country and the benefits of such programs for teachers and their students have been supported by a number of recent studies (Blanchard, Southerland, and Granger 2009; Dixon and Wilke 2007; Grove and Dixon 2007; Silverstein et al. 2009; Westerlund et al. 2002). Given that combining such programs with a rigorous and supported materials development/adaptation experience appears to result in teaching practices more aligned with the research-proven practices called for in the NSES (NRC 1996), this seems to be a relatively simple mechanism for enhancing many programs already in existence. Furthermore, as some RET programs already require a two-summer commitment from teachers, following an RET with a summer of materials adaptation/development asks no more of teachers’ time and may result in greater effects for involved teachers, their students, and students whose teachers access and use the program’s resulting web-published activities. Furthermore, replacing a second year in an RET with a materials adaptation/development course would also help cut program costs, since such courses are less expensive that RETs.

Figure 8.3. Distribution of Chemistry Lesson SLPAIR Scores by RET Program. Boxes Are bounded by First and Third Quartiles and Banded at the Median. Whiskers Indicate the Maximum and Minimum for Each RET Site's Data Set. Outliers Are Indicated by the Open Circles. TI is RET 1.

Reprinted (adapted) with permission from Herrington, D., K. Luxford, and E. Yezierski (2012). Target Inquiry: Helping teachers use a research experience to transform their teaching practices, Journal of Chemical Education, Articles ASAP. DOI: 10.1021/ed1006458. Copyright 2012 American Chemical Society.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

121

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Student Achievement To determine how students were affected by their teachers’ participation in TI, annual student achievement data were collected using American Chemical Society high school chemistry exams published by the ACS Examinations Institute. TI teachers’ students took the ACS High School Exam at the beginning and end of each academic year of chemistry. Although three different tests were used to align different chemistry curricula with the appropriate achievement measure (Chemistry in the Community, Chemistry I, and Advanced Placement Chemistry), only the Chemistry I courses produced enough longitudinal data for analysis. Many of the teachers using the other two curricula either did not have large enough classes for analysis or they did not teach that particular course for enough consecutive years. ACS exam scores were collected from the students of 14 teachers in two TI teacher cohorts (N1 = 1926, N2 = 1484). Students were tested one year prior to, the two years during, and the three years (cohort 1) or one year (cohort 2) after their teachers participated in TI. To analyze the resulting student effects of the PD, a hierarchical linear mixed model was used to account for students nested within teachers and teachers within cohorts. Hake’s normalized gain was calculated for each student [(post – pre) × 100% / (100% – pre)] and then treated as the dependent variable in the hierarchical model with year in the study as the primary independent variable. A significant increase in mean student normalized gain from the baseline year to the post-TI year was found for cohort 1 (p < 0.001) as shown in Figure 8.4 (Yezierski et al. forthcoming).

Figure 8.4. Means (+/- one SE) of TI Program on Student ngains for Cohort 1 Teachers as Predicted by HLM. The Only Consecutive Years Without a Statistically Significant Relationship Was From PostTI1 to PostTI2 and From PostTI2 to PostTI3.

Alternatively, no differences among years were found for cohort 2 (p = .2803) as shown in Figure 8.5 (Yezierski et al. forthcoming).

122

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Figure 8.5. Means (+/- One SE) of the TI Program on Student ngains for Cohort 2 Students as Predicted by HLM. Although This plot Is Shown, It Is Important to Note That no Years (Consecutive or Otherwise) Hold a Significant Relationship to Each Other Between the Effect of the TI Program and Student ngains.

It is important to note that gains made by cohort 1 were sustained an additional two years following the program. The results suggest that TI can produce significant increases in student achievement; however, future work must be done to better understand the nature of TI PD on students’ achievement, given the differences between the student results of the two teacher cohorts. It is hypothesized that other factors, perhaps related to cohort teacher interaction and measurement, affect the extent to which teacher participation in TI can influence student achievement. Two such factors relate to teacher experience and the role of the ACS test in TI teachers’ classrooms. The average number of years of teaching experience at the start of TI for cohort 1 was 10.4 years and only 6.9 years for cohort 2. Although this difference was included in the analysis model, there was not sufficient power to detect if it was a significant predictor of student achievement. With respect to measurement, three of the cohort 1 teachers used the ACS exam as their course final exam. The test scores from these teachers may be a more accurate measure of students’ achievement in chemistry, given the higher stakes status of the test in those particular classrooms.

Suggestions for Professional Developers After the TI program, the teacher quoted in the introduction to this chapter stated: But what TI did for me is bridge the gap between what I think and believe and what I practice…And it also not only started to bridge that gap, it’s given me the tools that I can see one of these days, they may actually meet each other, and that’s exciting to me.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

123

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

The positive outcomes of TI for teachers and their students can be attributed to the key features of transformative professional development. The findings from this project emphasize the importance of moving away from the traditional short-term, fragmented, workshop model of PD to long-term, supported, and coherent approaches. Perhaps some of the most convincing evidence in support of this is what the teachers who have completed the program have to say. TI teachers report that this program has done more for them than any other prior PD experience. They specifically identify aspects of the TI program, which tightly align with the key features of effective PD. Table 8.5 maps TI teacher comments to effective PD program features. These comments clearly demonstrate that teachers valued this program because it had a substantial, positive effect on their teaching and their students. However, sustained transformation of instructional practice is not easy. It requires adequate time and support. As the goal of all PD programs should be improving instructional practices, in developing effective PD program it is imperative that designers: (1) have a clear goal and plan a coherent program where each course fits together and builds on the previous experience; (2) provide adequate time and support for teachers to make meaningful changes; (3) hold teachers accountable for making these changes; and (4) focus on treating teachers as professionals—providing them with the tools to continue to improve their teaching and recognizing them for the quality work they can do.

Table 8.5. Teacher Identified Key Features of TI program Effective PD Program Feature

TI Teacher Quotation

Cohort membership

• It definitely made a difference to be doing that change with other people who were also doing the change, because you’d get to talk to other people who are doing it and you’re all at kind of the same spot, you can share your successes as well as the struggles. • I think because we had the relationships with our class where you could expect honest feedback from people… I think that honest feedback is built off of having a relationship with other people in the cohort.

Collaboration with faculty

• I think one of the benefits was that when you asked us does this need to be changed or you got the feeling that something wasn’t right, you changed it. And so I feel like we had a lot of ownership of the program also.

Duration

• I think time is key factor here. … And I think one thing that you have done very, very well in your patience has been to remind us that what we are doing is hard and it’s ok if we feel like it’s hard, but that we are going to get there eventually. I am not sure that any of us feel like we’re there. But I know that we have all grown so much… • Sitting and listening to somebody talk for three hours and then make a lesson using this… Sometimes I can take pieces away from other PD opportunities and use little pieces in my classroom… But nothing compares to this whole change, and the change in instruction, and the tools that we’ve gained, and the resources. Continued on next page

124

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Continued from previous page Effective PD Program Feature

TI Teacher Quotation

Rigor

• This was a very rigorous program, but there was big payoff in the end. I felt like I went through a bunch of hoops and wrote a bunch of papers for my Master’s degree.

Support

• [TI instructors] were so supportive, I mean yes we had to get to this top step, but you didn’t just say jump 20 feet. You said here’s this step, here’s this step, here’s this step

Treated as professionals

• I think that this program has done probably more for my teaching than anything has ever done ever. I often touched on this in class of the whole idea of doing really good work and being appreciated for the work that you do.

Accountability

• So in interactions with other teachers you got to see other people doing it and so there was an encouragement piece to continue on and an expectation that you would be trying new things, so an accountability group really is part of it.

Reflection

• I still feel like I’ve got a lot to learn and implement, and I really appreciated being involved in the program and just even having somebody to reflect my teaching with has been helpful, and I hope that, you know, that continues. I don’t want to just drop it.

RET

• I was glad that I did the chem research piece because I had never done that before, but at the same time I don’t know that I learned a ton of inquiry from it although there were some really important lessons that I can now share with kids and that’s a really important piece is being able to talk about what is happening in chemical research.

Materials development

• The summer where we actually put together our own labs, or modified labs, and then did the peer evaluation with them, I think that’s the most essential thing, because without that, … You can talk about all sorts of things in theory, and you can practice modifying things and stuff, but until you actually get the application, and you get the feedback from doing it, it makes a huge world of difference, I think that’s probably number one, that can’t change, I think that that’s very important.

Action Research

• I think being exposed to [action research] and how you would use that information, I think has been good, especially the way that things are moving in education … being able to use the data to support what it is I’m doing in the classroom.

Coherence

• It was certainly the most organized [PD program I have been involved with] and … a program that was focused on inquiry for several years and had different pieces to it, but that was the goal and it changed how I think and how I do things in a way that certainly no 1 week or a 2 day or a conference is going to do because it’s a mindset and you don’t change a mindset in 1 day or 1 afternoon or 1 45 minute session all you can give is little pieces that somebody might plug into their current curriculum.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

125

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

References ACS DivCHED (n.d.). Composite norms: General chemistry exam 2001. www3.uwm.edu/dept/chemexams/ stats/norms/gc01.cfm Abd-El-Khalick F., and S. BouJaoude. 1997. An exploratory study of the disciplinary knowledge of science teachers. In Proceedings of the 1997 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Science Teachers, ed. I. P. Rubba, P. Keig, and J. Reys, 89–133. Pensacola, FL: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Adamson, S. L., D. Banks, M. Burtch, F. Cox III, E. Judson, J. B. Turley, R. Benford, and A. E. Lawson. 2003. Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (10): 939–957. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). 2001. To create a profession. Report of the AASCU task force on the professional development for teachers. Washington, DC: AASCU. Anderson, R. D. 1996. Study of curriculum reform. www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/CurricReform/title.html Anderson, R.D. 2007. Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 808–830. New York: Routledge. Banilower, E. 2002. The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school physics teaching. www.horizon-research.com Bencze, L., and D. Hodson. 1999. Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (5): 521–539. Berlin, D. 1996. Teacher action research: The impact of inquiry on curriculum improvement and professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Blanchard, M. R., S. A. Southerland, and E. M. Granger. 2009. No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education 93 (2): 322–360. Blanchard, M. R., S. A. Southerland, J. W. Osborne, V. D. Sampson, L. A. Annetta, and E. M. Granger. 2010. Science Education 94 (4): 577–616. Borko, H. 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher 33 (8): 3–15. Borko, H., and R. Putnam. 1995. Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In Professional development in education: New paradigms and practice, ed. T. Guskey and M. Huberman, 35–61. NY: Teachers College Press. Brickhouse, N. W. 1990. Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3): 52–62. Caton, E., C. Brewer, and F. Brown. 2000. Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics 100 (1): 7–15. Cohen, D. K. 1995. What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher 24 (9): 11–17, 31. Dixon, P., and R. A. Wilke. 2007. The influence of a teacher research experience on elementary teachers’ thinking and instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education 19 (1): 25–43. Driver, R. 1995. Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In Constructivism in education, ed. L.P. Steffe and J. Gale, 385–400. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flick, L., C. Keys, S. Westbrook, B. Crawford, and N. G. Carnes. 1997. Perspectives on inquiry-oriented teaching practice: Conflict and clarification. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for the Research of Science Teaching, Oakbrook, IL.

126

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Gallagher, J. J. 1991. Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education 75 (1): 121–133. Garet, M., A. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Birman, and K. Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 915–945. Gerard, L. F., M. Spitulni, and M. C. Linn. 2010. Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (9): 1037–1063. Gess-Newsome, J. 1999. Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and its impact on instruction. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, ed. J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman, 51–94. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Publishing. Gess-Newsome, J. 2001. The professional development of science teachers for science education reform: A review of the research. In Professional development planning and design, ed. J. Rhoton and P. Bowers, 91–100. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Grove, C. M., and P.J. Dixon. 2007. Research experiences for teachers: Influences related to expectancy and value of changes to practice. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Education. New Orleans, LA. Harwood, W. S., J. Hansen, and C. Lotter. 2006, Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: A blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education & Technology 17 (1): 71–82. Herrington, D., E. Yezierski, and K. Luxford. 2012. Target Inquiry: Helping teachers use a research experience to transform their teaching Practices. Journal of Chemical Education (January). Herrington, D. G, E. J. Yezierski, K. M. Luxford, and C. J. Luxford. 2011. Target inquiry: Changing teachers’ beliefs about inquiry instruction and their classroom practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 12 (2): 74–84. Hofstein, A., and V. Lunetta. 2003. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education 88 (1): 28–54. Huberman, M. 1992. Teacher development and instructional mastery. In Understanding teacher development, ed. A. Hargreaves and M. G. Fullan, 122–142. New York: Teachers College Press. Jacobs, C. L., S. N. Martin, and T. C. Otieno. 2008. A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science Education 92 (6): 1096–1126. Jones, M. G., and G. Carter. 2007. Science teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 1067–1104. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kennedy, L. M., E. J. Yezierski, and D. G. Herrington. 2008. Whose science is it anyway? Models of science according to chemistry students, faculty, and teachers. Science Educator 17 (1): 1–9. Keys, C., and L. Bryan. 2001. Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (6): 631–645. Kahle, J. B., J. Meece, and K. Scantlebury. 2000. Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (9): 1019– 1041. Knapp, M. S. 1997. Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research 67 (2): 227–266. Liu, O. L., H. S. Lee, and M. C. Linn. 2010. An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (7): 807–819. Llewellyn, D. 2005. Teaching high school science through inquiry: A case study approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

127

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Loucks-Horsley, S., and S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. Using knowledge to guide staff development. In Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives, ed. A. Lieberman and L. Miller, 15–36. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K. S., H. M. Marks, and S. Kruse. 1996. Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal 33 (4): 757–798. McLaughlin, M. S. 1990. The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspective and micro realities. Educational Researcher 19 (9): 11–16. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Educating teachers of science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). 2006. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nespor, J. 1987. The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4): 317–328. Pajares, M. F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62 (4): 307–332. Phelps, A., and C. Lee. 2003. The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education 80 (7): 829–832. Richardson, V. 1996. The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Handbook of research on teacher education, ed. J. Sikula, 102–119. New York: Macmillan. Roehrig, G. H., and R. A. Kruse. 2005. The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics 105 (8): 412–422. Roseberry, A. S., B. Warren, and F. R. Conant. 1992. Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2 (1): 61–94. Roth, K. J. 2007. Science teachers as researchers. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 1203–1259. New York: Routledge. Sawada, D., M. Piburn, E. Judson, J. Turley, K. Falconer, B. Russell, and I. Bloom. 2002. Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics 102 (6): 245–253. Scantlebury, K., W. Boone, J. Butler-Kahle, and B. J. Fraser. 2001. Design, validation, and use of an evaluation instrument for monitoring systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (6): 646–662. Scruggs, T. E., M. A. Mastropieri, J. P. Bakken, and F. J. Brigham. 1993. Reading versus doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education 27 (1): 1–15. Shumba, O., and L. Glass. 1994. Perceptions of coordinators of college freshman chemistry regarding selected goals and outcomes of high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31 (4): 381–429. Shymansky, J. A., W. C. Kyle, and J. M. Alport. 1983. The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20 (5): 387–404. Silverstein, S. C., J. Dubner, J. Miller, S. Glied, and J. D. Loike. 2009. Teachers’ participation in research programs improves their students’ achievement in science. Science 326 (5951): 440–442. Smith, S. 2002. The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school chemistry teaching. www.horizon-research.com

128

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Smith, T. M., L. M. Desimone, T. L. Zeidner, A. C. Dunn, M. Bhatt, and N. L. Rumyantseva. 2007. Inquiryoriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 29 (3): 169–199. Smylie, M. A. 1989. Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal 89 (5): 543–558. Sprinthall, N., A. J. Reiman, and L. Thies-Sprinthall. 1996. Teacher professional development. In Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd. ed.), eds. J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, and E. Guyton, 666–703. New York: Macmillan. Straits, W., and R. Wilke. 2002. Practical considerations for assessing inquiry-based instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching 31 (7): 432–435. Sykes, G. 1996. Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan 77 (7): 465–467. Thompson, C. L., and J. S. Zeuli. 1999. The frame and tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, ed. L. DarlingHammond and G. Sykes, 341–375, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tretter, T. 2003. Relationships between inquiry-based teaching and physical science standardized test scores. School Science and Mathematics 103 (7): 345–350. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weiss, I. 2002. The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of secondary school earth science teaching. www.horizon-research.com Westerlund, J. F., D. M. Garcia, J. R. Koke, T. A. Taylor, and D. Mason. 2002. Summer scientific research for teachers: The experience and its effect. Journal of Science Teacher Education 13 (1): 63–83. Wilson, C. D., J. A. Taylor, S. M. Kowalski, and J. Carlson. 2010. Relative effects and equity of inquirybased and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (3): 276–301. Wise, K. C., and J. R. Okey. 1983. A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20 (5): 419–435. Wood, K. 2002. The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school biology teaching. www.horizon-research.com Yezierski, E. J., and D. G. Herrington. 2011. Improving practice with Target Inquiry: High school chemistry teacher professional development that works. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 12 (3): 344–354.

Reflective Questions for Readers 1. What are barriers to the implementation of more widespread teacher PD models such as TI? 2. How can school districts effectively partner with institutions of higher education to facilitate the delivery of more rigorous, long-term, and content-focused PD experiences such as TI? 3. What role can building administrators play in supporting inquiry-based approaches in classrooms? 4. What lessons learned from the study of the TI PD model can be applied to the earliest phase of the teacher PD continuum—preservice teacher education?

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

129

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

chapter 8

Acknowledgments We sincerely appreciate TI teachers’ participation in the program as well as the five-year study of the TI model. We also wish to thank the TI instructors, Julie Henderleiter, Sherril Soman, Caryn King, and Nathan Barrows and the TI undergraduate and graduate research students. This material is based upon research supported by the National Science Foundation DRL-0553215 and implementation support from the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation 2005 Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences and Grand Valley State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, or Grand Valley State University.

130

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

A

Index

Page numbers printed in boldface type refer to tables or figures. Accountability, 19, 124, 125, 195, 197, 245, 246 Active Physics in San Diego City Schools (SDCS), 131–142

context of, 131 evidence for success of, 137–140 from BSCS research, 140, 140 implementation fidelity, 137–139, 138, 139 implementation scope, 137, 138 student learning, 139–140 inquiry emphasis of, 132 major features of, 132–136 common planning periods at building level, 135–136 content courses for out-of-discipline teachers, 135 curriculum support materials, 136 5E Instructional Model, 134, 135 summer institutes and monthly follow-up meetings, 133133–134 support from behind the scenes, 136 reflective questions related to, 141–142 suggestions for use by professional developers, 141 ties to standards and reform efforts, 132

Adaptability skills, 49 Agility skills, 49 American Chemical Society Examinations Institute, 122 American Chemical Society High School Exam, 122–123 An American Imperative: Transforming the Recruitment, Retention, and Renewal of Our Nation’s Mathematics and Science Workforce, 3 Andree, A., 4 Annual Growth, Catch-Up Growth, 14 Appalachian State University (ASU), 52, 57, 58, 60 Assessment(s), viii

in “Backward Design” process, viii international, 1, 158, 201 in National Science Education Standards, vii, viii in Project QTL, 51–52 seamless, in Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 190, 191–192

ASU (Appalachian State University), 52, 57, 58, 60

Atkin, J. M., 54 Authentic learning opportunities, ix

Environmental Economics program, 11–19 MyOnlineFair program, 35–48 Slip Slidin’ Away program, 21–33 B

“Backward Design,” viii Ball, D. L., 206–207 Banerjee, Anil C., 83–91 Banneker 2000, 221. See also Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science Battle Creek Science Kit curriculum, 11, 15 Beerer, K. M., 96 Bernacchio, C., 247 Bess, Kim, 131–142 BHEF (Business Higher Education Forum), 3 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), 136

5E Instructional Model, 54, 54, 134, 135 compared with “doing science,” 55 use in Project QTL, 51, 53–56, 58, 59, 61–62 use in Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 190–193, 191–192, 194 use in San Diego City Schools, 134 professional development program with San Diego City Schools design of, 132 evidence for success of, 137–140, 138–140

Birman, B. F., 4 Blackburn Consulting Group, 52 Block, A., 47 Bodzin, A. M., 96 Brethauer, Brian, 111, 123 BSCS. See Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Burroughs Wellcome Student Science Enrichment Program (SSEP), 25, 33 Business Higher Education Forum (BHEF), 3 Bybee, Rodger, 250

C

C-E-R (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning) protocol, 161, 163 California Achievement Test (CAT), 230 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 135 Canada, Geoffrey, 14

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

257

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Carlson, Janet, 112, 131–142 Carnegie Corporation, 3 Carolina Herp Atlas, 16 CASES model for Let’s Talk Science! program, 96–99, 97 CAT (California Achievement Test), 230 CCM. See Conceptual Change Model CEMS. See Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science Changing Emphases for Professional Development, 1, 2

in MyOnlineFair program, 38, 38 in Project QTL, 56, 57 relationship between research and, 6–7, 6–8 research support for, 6–7, 6–8 in Target Inquiry model, 112, 113 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 203

Chung Wei, R., 4 Citizenship in the digital community, in MyOnlineFair program, 37, 46 Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R) protocol, 161, 163 Classroom Instruction That Works, 14 Co-teaching

in Let’s Talk Science! program, 98 in Michigan Teacher Excellence Program, 175

Coherence of professional development initiatives, 2, 5, 7, 7, 8, 24, 56, 57, 106, 112, 113, 114, 124, 125, 136, 160–161, 202, 202, 203, 223 Collaboration, professional, 5, 249

for Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 132, 134, 136 in Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 223–225, 227, 233, 242 in Conceptual Change Model, 206 in 5E Instructional Model, 135 emphasis in standards, 2, 7, 24 in Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 85, 86 in Let’s Talk Science!, 94, 96, 97, 98–99, 101–106 in Michigan Teacher Excellence Program, 157, 158, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176 in MyOnlineFair program, 35, 37, 41, 42 in Project QTL, 57, 62 in Quality Elementary Science Teaching program, 188, 190, 193,

258

194, 197 in Ramps and Pathways program, 144, 154, 155 in Slip Slidin’ Away program, 26 in Target Inquiry model, 113, 114, 124 in University of Houston–Clear Lake (UHCL) Science Collaborative, 179–185 use of this monograph in settings for, 245–248 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 200, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210–213, 217, 219

Collaboration skills, 47, 49

in MyOnlineFair program, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46 Communication skills, 49

in MyOnlineFair program, 36, 45, 46

Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science (CEMS) (Nebraska), 221–243

context of, 221 evidence for success of, 225–241 classroom student achievement data, 230–233, 232, 233 school student achievement data, 233–241, 234–241 teacher change, 226–229, 226–230, 231 funding for, 221 major features of, 223–225 learning plans, 224 modifications since the first edition, 225 optional pathways for teacher learning, 224, 224 professional development model, 223, 223 Professional Development Specialists, 224–225 program description, 223–225 reflective questions related to, 243 suggestions for use by professional developers, 241–242 ties to standards and reform efforts, 222–223

Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), 221 Conceptual Change Model (CCM), 206, 206

relationship with effective professional development, 206–207, 207 in Wyoming TRIAD process and,

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

206–214, 207, 209–210

Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards, 53 Constructivist teaching and learning

in Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 226 key elements of, 145 in Let’s Talk Science!, 96 in Ramps and Pathways, 144–148, 156 in San Diego City Schools, 132, 133, 139 in Target Inquiry, 114 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 200, 202, 204, 206, 213

Counsell, Shelly, 143–156 CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement), 221 Creativity, in MyOnlineFair program, 37, 45, 46 Critical thinking, 48

in MyOnlineFair program, 36

Curiosity, 31, 49, 93, 115, 135, 152, 152, 212

D

Darling-Hammond, L., 4 Dass, Pradeep M., 51–82 Davis, Jeni, 187–198 Desimone, L., 4 DeVries, Rheta, 143, 145, 146, 148 DIBELs (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills), 14 Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA), 14 Disciplinary literacy (DL), 157, 161, 163 Disequilibrium

role in science education, 146 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 207, 207–208

DL (disciplinary literacy), 157, 161, 163 “Doing science,” vii. See also Inquiry-based science

vs. computer simulations and videos, 83 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 83–91 learning cycle approach to, 51–65

DRTA (Directed Reading Thinking Activity), 14 DuFour, R. B., 246 DuFour, Richard, 246 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELs), 14

E

Eaker, R., 246 Edison Environmental Science Academy (EESA), 11–18. See also Environmental Economics program Edperformance, 14 Engelmann, Carol A., 157–177 Entrepreneurialism, 49 Environmental Economics program (Michigan), 11–19

accessing curriculum for, 11 assessments in, 14 Community Nights of, 13, 15 components of, 13 context of, 11 Curriculum Integration Teacher for, 15 data collection tools used by staff for, 14 development of units for, 11 essential questions for units of, 11, 12 evidence for success of, 16–17 school’s ranking within district, 17, 18 student achievement scores, 16, 16–17 Film Festival of, 13 funding for, 11, 12, 14 Garden Club of, 13, 14 lesson study process of, 15 major features of, 12–15 how theme will contribute to thinking-based curriculum, 15 how theme will support student achievement, 15 intellectual research and discussion, 13–15 narrow and focused program design, 15 partnership with Pretty Lake Vacation Camp, 13 Pfizer Science Club of, 13 professional development for, 13–15 reflective questions related to, 19 School Wide Magnet Curriculum Team meetings for, 15 sequence for development of, 18 suggestions for use by developmental educators, 18 summer Garden Camp of, 13 ties to standards and reform efforts, 11 Video Journalism Club of, 13

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

259

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Error-informed experimentation, 146 ESP (Exemplary Science Program) monographs, vii, viii, ix, x Evidence for program success

Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 137–140, 138–140 Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 225–241, 226–229, 232–241 Environmental Economics, 16–17, 16–18 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 86–90, 89 Let’s Talk Science!, 99–103, 100–102, 104 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program lesson study process, 165–176, 167– 168, 173, 174 MyOnlineFair, 43–47, 45–46 Project QTL, 52, 60–64, 63–64 Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 194–196, 195, 196 Ramps and Pathways, 150–154, 151, 152 Slip Slidin’ Away, 27–31 Target Inquiry (TI) model, 116–123, 119–123 University of Houston–Clear Lake Science Collaborative, 182, 182–184 Wyoming TRIAD process, 212–216

Exemplary Science Program (ESP) monographs, vii, viii, ix, x

F

5E Instructional Model, 54, 54, 134, 135

compared with “doing science,” 55 use in Project QTL, 51, 53–56, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61–62, 51, 53–56, 58, 59, 61–62 use in Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 190–193, 191–192, 194 use in San Diego City Schools, 134

Francis, Jill, 51–82 Future directions, 250–251

G

Graham, Luanne, 51–82 Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS), 157–177. See also Michigan Teacher Excellence Program lesson study process Guided inquiry labs, ix, 83–91. See also LearnTeach-Assess Inquiry model Guskey, T. R., 4

H

HAIS (Hawaii Association of Independent Schools), 38 Hanalani Schools (Hawaii), 35–48. See also MyOnlineFair program Haney, J. J., 94 Hanuscin, Deborah, 187–198 Harlem Children’s Zone, 14 HaSTA (Hawaii Science Teachers Association), 41 Hawaii Academy of Science, 41 Hawaii Association of Independent Schools (HAIS), 38 Hawaii Community Foundation (HCF), 36, 38 Hawaii Schools for the Future (SOTF), 36, 38–43, 46–48. See also MyOnlineFair program Hawaii Science Teachers Association (HaSTA), 41 Hayes, Lynda Fender, 93–109 HCF (Hawaii Community Foundation), 36, 38 Head Start programs, 143 Herpetology Education in Rural Places and Spaces, 26, 29 Herpetology field science. See Reptile and amphibian monitoring program Herrington, Deborah G., 111–125 Hewson, P. W., 4, 196, 222 Hirshberg, Gary, 14 Hoover, L. A., 94 Horizon Research, 59 Hungwe, Kdmon, 157–177

I

IFL (Institute for Learning), 161 Imagination, 49 Information access and analysis skills, 49 Initiative, 49 Innovation, in MyOnlineFair program, 37, 45, 46 Inquiry-based science, viii, 249–250

Garet, M. S., 4 Gaston, Joan, 199–219 Georgia Performance Standards, 84 Giacobbe Spelling Inventories, 14 Goforth, John, 51–82

Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 132–133 challenges for elementary school teachers, 93–94 emphasis in National Science

260

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Education Standards on, 83, 93–94, 111, 112, 144 essential practices of, 53 impact on student achievement, 112 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 83–91 Let’s Talk Science! program, 93–106 Project QTL, 51–82 Target Inquiry model, 111–125 teacher knowledge required for, 112 teachers’ engagement in, 83–84

Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol, 59 Institute for Advanced Study, 3 Institute for Learning (IFL), 161 Instructional coaching model, for Project QTL, 51, 58–60, 65 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF), 41 International assessments, 1, 158, 201

J

Johnson, Matthew A., 11–19

K

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, 35 Karplus, R., 54 Kennedy, M. M., 4 Klawiter, Mark F., 157–177 Klosterman, Michelle L., 93–109 Koba, Susan B., ix–xi, 1–8, 221–243, 245–248 Kowalski, S. M., 112 Kwang, S. Y., 4

L

Leading Lesson Study: A Practical Guide for Teachers and Facilitators, 161, 166 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model (Georgia), 83–91

context of, 83–84 evidence for success of, 86–90, 89 major features of, 84–86 guided inquiry labs, 85, 86–88 instruments used in program, 85 postlab discussion, 86, 88 professional development model, 84–85 reflective questions related to, 91 suggestions for use by professional

developers, 90 ties to standards and reform efforts, 84

Learning Walk, 161–162 Lee, Eun, 187–198 Less and more emphases, ix, 1–8

background of, 1–3 Changing Emphases for Professional Development, 1, 2 in Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 222–223 in Michigan Teaching Excellence Program lesson study process, 161 in MyOnlineFair program, 38, 38 in Project QTL, 56, 57 research support for, 6–7, 6–8 in Target Inquiry model, 112, 113 what research says about, 4–6 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 203

Lesson study process

effectiveness of, 159 of Environmental Economics program, 15 history of, 158–159 implementation in United States, 158–159 Japanese model of, 158 of Michigan Teacher Excellence Program, 157–177 professional learning communities and, 159, 160

Let’s Talk Science! program (LeTaS!) (Florida), 93–106

context of, 93–95 curriculum and, 106 evidence for success of, 99–103, 100– 102, 104 goals of, 94, 95, 99 major features of: CASES model, 96–99, 97 asynchronous collaboration, 98 content immersion, 97, 104 evaluation, 98–99, 106 school structure modifications, 98 support, 99, 105 partnership for, 95 reflective questions related to, 109 suggestions for use by professional developers, 104–106 ties to standards and reform efforts, 95–96

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

261

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Lewis, Catherine, 158, 159, 163 Local Systemic Change (LSC) initiative, 4, 199 Loucks-Horsley, S., 4, 96, 196, 222 Love, N., 4, 196, 222 LSC (Local Systemic Change) initiative, 4, 199 Lumpe, A., 94

M

Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP), 11, 12, 14 Many, T., 246 Marzano, R. J., 14 Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP), 51, 157, 211 Matthews, Catherine E., 21–33 McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning), 224, 226 McTighe, Jay, viii, 14 MEAP (Michigan Education Assessment Program), 14, 15–17, 16–18 Menon, Deepika, 187–198 Metacognition, 102, 162 MI (Modeling Instruction) program, 41 Michigan Citizenship Curriculum, 11, 15 Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP), 14, 15–17, 16–18 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program (MiTEP) lesson study process, 157–177

context of, 157–158 evidence for success of, 165–176 compiled data from multiple sources, 172, 174 conclusions about, 172, 175–176 from focus group discussions, 172, 173 research questions, 165–166 from survey results, 166–169, 167– 168, 174 from written reports, 169–172, 174 goals of, 157 history of, 158–159 major features of, 161–163 Claim-Evidence-Reasoning protocol, 161 Disciplinary Literacy and Principles of Learning, 157, 161 expectations for final report/ presentation, 163, 165 Learning Walk, 161–162 organization and action plan, 162, 163

262

planning the research lesson, 163, 164 Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol, 162 reflective questions related to, 177 suggestions for use by professional developers, 176 ties to standards and reform efforts, 160–161

Michigan Technological University (MTU), 157 Michigan’s Grade Level Content Expectations, 11, 15 Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), 224, 226 Minaya, Carmela R., 35–49 Missouri Department of Higher Education Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ) grants, 187 Mitchell, Carol Taylor, 221–243 MiTEP. See Michigan Teacher Excellence Program lesson study process Modeling Instruction (MI) program, 41 MOF. See MyOnlineFair program MSAP (Magnet School Assistance Program), 11, 12, 14 MSP (Mathematics and Science Partnership), 51, 157, 211 MTU (Michigan Technological University), 157 Mundry, S., 4, 196, 222 MyOnlineFair (MOF) program (Hawaii), 35–48

classroom technology for, 42, 45 contact and resource information for, 48 context of, 35–36 display board format for, 39, 40 evidence for success of, 43–47 STEM inquiry, 44, 46–47 21st-century learning, 43–44, 45–46 focus on teaching 21st-century skills, 35, 36–37, 42, 45–46, 47–48 funding for, 36, 38–39 at Hanalani Schools, 36 history of, 39–41 major features of, 38–42 Navigation Page for, 40 organizational partnerships for, 41 professional development for, 42–43 reflective questions related to, 48–49 suggested expansions of, 41 suggestions for use by professional developers, 47–48 ties to standards and reform efforts, 36, 37–38, 38 National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

use of Modeling Instruction program by, 41 use of Project-Based Learning in, 42–43 vision for, 36, 39, 41, 47, 48, 49 N

NAAMP (North American Amphibian Monitoring Program), 22 NACL (National Academy for Curriculum Leadership), 136 NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools), 41 National Academy for Curriculum Leadership (NACL), 136 National Academy of Sciences, 2–3 National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), 41 National Research Council, 3 National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), vii, ix, 250 National Science Education Standards (NSES), ix, 1, 3, 27

Changing Emphases for Professional Development, ix, 1, 2, 38 research support for, 6, 6–7 Changing Emphases for Systems, 7 emphasis on inquiry in, 83, 93–94, 111, 112, 144 goals for school science, vii, 27 program ties with Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 132 Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 222–223 Environmental Economics, 11 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 84 Let’s Talk Science!, 95–96 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program lesson study process, 160–161 MyOnlineFair, 36, 37–38, 38 Project QTL, 53–56 Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 188 Ramps and Pathways, 144 Slip Slidin’ Away, 24 Target Inquiry, 112, 113 University of Houston–Clear Lake

Science Collaborative, 179–180, 182 Wyoming TRIAD, 202, 202–203 ways to achieve teaching excellence, vii–viii

National Science Foundation (NSF), 136, 157, 221

funding for Herpetology Education in Rural Places and Spaces, 26, 29 funding for Ramps and Pathways early physical science program, 143–156 Local Systemic Change initiative, 4, 199 Project PRIME, 140

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), vii, 41, 250

position statement on professional development, 24 standards for science teacher preparation, 24

National Staff Development Council, 132, 160, 204 NCSCOS (North Carolina Standard Course Of Study), 52, 53 Needs-based professional development, 4, 7–8 Next Generation Science Standards, vii, 1, 53 Nolan, J. J., 94 North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP), 22 North Carolina Environmental Education Center, 26 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 27 North Carolina Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC), 27 North Carolina Standard Course Of Study (NCSCOS), 52, 53 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), 27 NSELA (National Science Education Leadership Association), vii, ix, 250 NSES. See National Science Education Standards NSF. See National Science Foundation NSTA. See National Science Teachers Association

O

Omaha Public Schools (OPS), 221, 223, 224, 239. See also Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science Oregon Teacher Observation Protocol, 102 Orphanos, S., 4

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

263

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

P

PARC (North Carolina Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation), 27 Pasley, J. D., 4 PBL (Project-Based Learning), in MyOnlineFair program, 42–43 PD. See Professional development Physics by Inquiry, 135 Physics for Educators, 135 Piaget, Jean, 145, 146 Pickering, D. J., 14 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), 1, 158 P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School, 95, 103. See also Let’s Talk Science! program PLCs. See Professional learning communities PLT (Project Learning Tree), 182 POL (Principles of Learning), 157, 161 Pollock, J. E., 14 Porter, A. C., 4 Principles of Learning (POL), 157, 161 Pringle, Rose M., 93–109 Problem-solving skills, 49

impact of inquiry approaches on, 112 in MyOnlineFair program, 37, 41, 45, 46 Professional development (PD)

approaches to, 94 changing emphases for, 1–8, 2 coherence of initiatives for, 2, 5, 7, 7, 8, 24, 56, 57, 106, 112, 113, 114, 124, 125, 136, 160–161, 202, 202, 203, 223 current focus on, 2–3 effective traits of, 4 future directions for, 250–251 inquiry-embedded, 21, 32 leadership for, 5 in National Science Education Standards, vii needs-based, 4, 7–8 NSTA position statement on, 24 participation in, 1 practice-embedded, 5 recommendations for, 4–5 research on, 4–6 specific programs for Environmental Economics, 11–19 Learn-Teach-Assess Inquiry model, 83–91 Let’s Talk Science!, 93–106 MyOnlineFair, 35–48 Project QTL, 51–82

264

Slip Slidin’ Away, 21–33 Target Inquiry, 111–125 status in current education policy, 112 of STEM teaching workforce, 2–3 strategies for, x, 4, 5–6, 8 Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 131–142 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program, 157–177 professional learning community, 179–185 Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 187–198 Ramps and Pathways early physical science program, 143–156 student achievement and, 1, 4 systemic approaches to, x, 7, 8 Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 221–243 Wyoming TRIAD process, 199–219 time allotted for, 1

Professional Development Design Framework, 5, 6, 8, 9 Professional learning communities (PLCs), x, 245–248

effect on student achievement, 246 lesson study process and, 159, 160 in postsecondary settings, 247 for Project QTL, 59–60, 62 reflective questions for use in, 247–248 in school and school district settings, 245–247 University of Houston–Clear Lake Science Collaborative, 179–185 using this monograph in, 247–248

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 1, 158 Project-Based Learning (PBL), in MyOnlineFair program, 42–43 Project Learning Tree (PLT), 182 Project PRIME, 140 Project QTL (North Carolina), 51–82

appendices for, 68–82 Classroom Observation Form, 59, 73–77 Coach’s Log of Individual Teacher Conference, 59, 78 Coach’s Schedule, 59, 79 MSP Monthly Coaches Meeting, 60, 81–82 National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

PLC Agenda/Minutes, 60, 80 Teacher Survey, 58, 68–73 context of, 51–52 evidence for success of, 52, 60–64 development of teacher leadership, 62 student performance, 62–63, 63, 64 teacher content knowledge enrichment, 51–52, 60–61, 61 teacher use of 5E-based, inquiryoriented pedagogy, 61–62 funding for, 51 goals of, 53 impact on student learning, 52 major features of, 56–60 academic year mentoring and implementation, 58–60 program structure, 51, 56, 58 summer institutes, 58, 59 participants in, 52–53 premises for professional development in, 56 Professional Learning Communities in, 59–60, 62 reflective questions related to, 66–67 suggestions for use by professional developers, 64–65 ties to standards and reform efforts, 53–56 use of 5E learning cycle model, 51, 53–54, 54, 58, 59 compared with “doing science,” 54–56, 55 Q

Quality Elementary Science Teaching program (QUEST) (Missouri), 187–198

context of, 187 evidence for success of, 194–196, 195, 196 funding for, 187 goal of, 187 major features of, 189–194 follow-up support, 194 format of summer institute, 189 integration of pedagogical strategies, 190–193, 191–192 Summer Science Program for Kids, 193–194 week one: teachers as learners,

189–193 week two: teachers as facilitators, 193–194 reflection of key principles of best practice for professional development, 196, 197 reflective questions related to, 198 staff of, 187 suggestions for use by professional developers, 196 ties to standards and reform efforts, 188 R

Race to the Top (RttT) program, 3 Ramps and Pathways: A Constructivist Approach to Physics with Young Children, 150 Ramps and Pathways (R&P) early physical science program, 143–156

evidence for success of, 150–154 children’s learning, 153–154 classroom implementation, 151–152 Inquiry Checklist, 153–154 Ramps and Pathways Implementation Checklist, 152, 152 Ramps Interview, 153 Science Teaching Environment Rating Scale, 151, 151 teachers’ understanding of physics content, 152–153 field testing of, 150–151 goals of, 143, 150 major features of, 144–150 science learning cycle, 147–148 structure of professional development, 146–150 theoretical grounding, 144–146 materials for, 154 reflective questions related to, 156 resource materials for, 150 settings for, 143, 156 suggestions for use by professional developers, 154–155 ties to standards and reform efforts, 144

Readers guide, xi, x, 245–248 Reflective questions for readers, ix, x, 19, 33, 48, 66, 91, 109, 129, 141–142, 156, 177, 185, 198, 219, 243, 247–248 Reform of science education, vii–viii, 2, 8 Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP), 118–120, 119–120

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

265

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Reptile and amphibian monitoring program, 21– 33. See also Slip Slidin’ Away (SSA) program (North Carolina) Rhoton, J., 2 Richardson, N., 4 Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 3 Robinson, Ken, 41 Robinson, Nathan D., 35–49 Ross, F., 247 R&P. See Ramps and Pathways early physical science program RTOP (Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol), 118–120, 119–120 RttT (Race to the Top) program, 3

S

Saigo, Barbara Woodworth, 199–219 Sales, C., 145, 146, 148 San Diego City Schools (SDCS). See Active Physics in San Diego City Schools San Diego State University, 135 School culture, viii, 19, 38, 39, 41, 43, 48, 76, 94, 98, 158, 161, 162, 185, 194, 204, 210, 215, 222, 242, 246, 247 Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, 250

improving teaching workforce for, 2–3 MyOnlineFair (MOF) program, 35–48

Science & Children, 22 “Science Educator,” 250 Science journals, 75, 103, 184, 203, 230, 232 Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument (SLPAI), 120 Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument–Revised (SLPAIR), 120–121, 121 Science practices, 53 Science Teaching Environment Rating Scale (STERS), 151, 151 Scientific discussion and debate, viii Scientific literacy, 65, 112 Scientific method, 28, 111 SDCS (San Diego City Schools). See Active Physics in San Diego City Schools Seamless assessment, in Quality Elementary Science Teaching, 190, 191–192 Shane, P., 3 Slip Slidin’ Away (SSA) program (North Carolina), 21–33

context of, 21–23 evidence for success of, 27–31 student success over three years, 28–29 teacher success as SSA assistants,

266

30–31 teacher success in first year at miniworkshop, 29–30 faculty for, 27 follow-up sessions after participation in, 26 forms of professional development experiences in, 26–27 funding for, 25, 29, 33 goals of, 23 as immersion experience for teachers, 21, 22–23, 23, 25, 26–27, 29 inquiry questions for, 25, 28–29 lessons learned from, 32 major features of, 22, 25–27 monitoring site for, 26 organizational partners for, 27 reflective questions related to, 33 sharing data from, 26 student participation in, 22–23, 25–27 suggestions for use by professional developers, 31–32 ties to standards and reform efforts, 24

SLPAI (Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument), 120 SLPAIR (Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument–Revised), 120–121, 121 Smith, S. Renà, 187–198 SOFT (Hawaii Schools for the Future), 36, 38–43, 46–48. See also MyOnlineFair program Southern Regional Education Board, 59 SSA. See Slip Slidin’ Away (SSA) program SSEP (Burroughs Wellcome Student Science Enrichment Program), 25, 33 Standards for Staff Development, 132 STEM. See Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education Stepans, Joseph I., 199–219 STERS (Science Teaching Environment Rating Scale), 151, 151 Stiles, K. E., 4, 198, 222 Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World, 14 Strategies for professional development, x, 4, 5–6, 8

Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 131–142 Michigan Teacher Excellence Program, 157–177 professional learning community, 179–185 Quality Elementary Science Teaching, National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

187–198 Ramps and Pathways early physical science program, 143–156

Student learning/achievement, 1, 4, 249, 250

in Active Physics in San Diego City Schools, 139–140 in Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science (CEMS) (Nebraska), 230–241, 232–241 effect of professional learning communities on, 246 in Environmental Economics program, 16, 16–17 impact of inquiry approaches on, 112 on international science assessments, 1 in MyOnlineFair program, 43–47 in Project QTL, 62–63, 63, 64 in Ramps and Pathways program, 153–154 in Slip Slidin’ Away program, 28–29 in Target Inquiry model, 122–123, 122–123 in Wyoming TRIAD process, 212–213

Supovitz, J. A., 4 Sustainable learning culture, 4, 19, 115, 157, 159, 176, 215 Sykes, G., 112 Systemic approaches, x, 7, 8

Community of Excellence in Mathematics and Science, 221–243 Wyoming TRIAD process, 199–219 T

Taking Science to School, 3 Tansey, Charles G., 11–19 Target Inquiry (TI) model, 111–125

context of, 111–112 evidence for success of, 116–123 classroom instruction: materials design, 120–121, 121 classroom instruction: observational data, 118–119, 119, 120 student achievement, 122–123, 122–123 teachers’ beliefs about inquiry instruction, 116 teachers’ beliefs about process of scientific inquiry, 116 goal of, 116, 124 major features of, 112–116

core experiences, 114–116 professional development model, 112–116, 114 program description, 116, 117 sequence and timeline for program delivery, 116, 118 reflective questions related to, 129 teacher comments about, 124, 124–125 ties to standards and reform efforts, 112, 113

Taylor, Joseph A., 112, 131–142 Teachers

authentic learning opportunities for, ix Environmental Economics program, 11–19 MyOnlineFair program, 35–48 Slip Slidin’ Away program, 21–33 collaboration among, viii, 5 importance of improving STEM teaching workforce, 2–3 knowledge required for inquiry teaching, 112 NSTA standards for preparation of, 24 participation in professional learning, 1 student achievement related to preparation of, 1, 4 (See also Student learning/achievement) ways to achieve teaching excellence, vii–viii

Teacher’s Guide to Ramps and Pathways, 150 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), 181, 183 Texas Regional Collaboratives for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching (TRC), 180 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Race to the Top program, 3 The future of work (YouTube video), 47 The Global Achievement Gap, 35 The Opportunity Equation, Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy, 3 Thinking Maps, 14 Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol (TTLP), 162, 163 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1, 158, 201 TI. See Target Inquiry model TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study), 1, 158, 201 Tomasek, Terry, M., 21–33 Tough, Paul, 14 TRC (Texas Regional Collaboratives for

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

267

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

index

Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching), 180 TTLP (Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol), 162, 163 Turner, H. M., 4 21st-century skills/training, 48–49

in MyOnlineFair program, 35, 36–37, 42, 43–44, 45–46, 47–48 U

UDL (Universal Design for Learning), 187, 190, 191–192 UHCL. See University of Houston–Clear Lake Science Collaborative Uhlenberg, Jill, 143–156 Understanding by Design, 14 Universal Design for Learning (UDL), 187, 190, 191–192 University of California–Berkeley Science Center, 41 University of Florida, 95 University of Houston–Clear Lake (UHCL) Science Collaborative, 179–185

W

Wagner, Tony, 35 Washburn, K., 247 Weiser, Brenda G., 179–185 Weiss, I. R., 4 WestEd, 136 Whatever It Takes, 14 Whitney, J., 247 Wiggins, Grant, viii, 14 Wilbanks, Lori, 51–82 Wildlife Action Plan (North Carolina), 22 Wilson, C. D., 112 Wojnowski, Brenda S., ix–xi, 1–8, 245–248 Wood, D., 247 WRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), 27 Wyoming TRIAD (WyTRIAD) process, 199–219

context of, 199–201 development of, 199 evidence of impact of, 212–216 evidence collected at end of 2010, 216 impact on students, 212–213 impact on teachers, 213–215 funding for, 211 major features of, 204–212 administrative participation and support, 204 challenging assumptions, fostering conceptual change, 204–208, 205–207 nature of exemplary teachers, students, and classrooms, 204 philosophy and process, 204–212 recent experiences and modifications, 208–212 structure, 208, 209–210 professional components of, 199, 200 recommendations for use by professional developers, 216–217 reflective questions related to, 219 sites where process has been implemented, 199–201, 200 ties to standards and reform efforts, 202, 202–204

context of, 179 evidence for success of, 182, 182–184 funding for, 180–181 goals of, 181 leadership development by, 182 major features of, 180–182 professional development academies of, 181 professional development presenters for, 181 Science Teacher Mentors for, 181, 183 selection of professional development topics for, 180 suggestions for use by professional developers, 184–185 summer institutes of, 180, 181–182 teacher participants in, 181 ties to standards and reform efforts, 179–180, 182

University of Missouri, 187, 189 University of Northern Iowa, 143, 154, 155 University of Wyoming, 199, 201 Urban Systemic Program (USP), 221

Y V

van Garderen, Delinda, 187–198 Videoconferencing, 98, 105, 106 Virtual Science Fair (VSF), 41

268

Yager, Robert E., vii–viii, ix, x, xii, 83, 249–251 Yezierski, Ellen J., 111–125

Z

Zan, Betty, 143–156

National Science Teachers Association

Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

T h e

E x e m p l a r y

S c i e n c e

M o n o g r a p h

E

S e r i es

Revised Second Edition

“This book will help the reader to design and evaluate varying professional development options, thereby making better and more efficient use of limited professional development dollars.” —The editors of Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development, Revised Second Edition If you want to make the most of your precious professional development budget—and who doesn’t?—look for inspiration in this updated edition from the Exemplary Science series. This essay collection is designed to spark new ideas while encouraging high-quality learning opportunities for teachers at all grade levels. The book features: • An overview of current research on quality professional development and how it aligns with the National Science Education Standards. • Fourteen professional development programs that provide real-life models of how to train current or future teachers to carry out the constructivist, inquiry-based approach recommended by the Standards. End-of-chapter questions help you relate the material to your own situation.

Exemplary Science: Best Practices in Professional Development

Best Practices inProfessional Development

e

m

p

y

S

c

i

e

n

c

e

Revised Second Edition

PB192X4E2 ISBN: 978-1-936959-07-5

Edited by Susan Koba and Brenda Wojnowski Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

r

Best Practices inProfessional Development

Koba Wojnowski

Grades K–College

a

Exemplary Science:

• A reader’s guide that includes suggestions for using the book in professional learning communities and other collaborative settings. Some of the collection’s authors contributed to the first edition and have updated their chapters to share additional data and communicate what they’ve learned that might support your work. Additional chapters describe programs and approaches new to this edition. Whether you’re a teacher, staff development provider, administrator, or preservice science methods instructor, you’ll find this collection to be a fresh and highly useful professional learning tool.

l

Revised Second Edition

Exemplary Science:

x

Suggest Documents