Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a teacher professional development program on the classroom teaching practices of the participants. This particular professional development program included an intensive summer institute, 8 monthly follow-up sessions, informal participant-professor mentoring and peer networking. The majority of participants were teachers (grades 4–8) in rural school districts. Qualitative and descriptive measures were used to assess the impact of this program in terms of participants’ science content learned, teacher self-efficacy, classroom teaching performance and an informal program survey.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, W., Ellis, J., & Kuerbis, P. (1989). ENLIST micros: Training science teachers to use microcomputers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 587–598.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Bauch, P. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221.
Bell, G. L. (1999). An investigation of a professional development model in science education: A systems approach. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas-Austin, 1999). UMI Dissertation Services , 9947171.
Bell, G. L. (2001, January). Reflective journal writing paired with inquire-based science instruction: Effects on elementary pre-service teachers’ science and science teaching beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Educators of Teachers in Science. Costa Mesa, CA.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.
Downing, J. E., & Filer, J. D. (1999). Science process skills and attitudes of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 57–64.
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control of preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.
Eppley, K. (2009). Rural Schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No Child Left Behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education 24(4).
Feuerborn, L., Chinn, D., & Morlan, G. (2009). Improving mathematics teachers’ content knowledge via brief in-service: A U.S. case study. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 531–545.
Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.
Haney, J., & Lumpe, A. (2003). Constructive beliefs about the science classroom learning environment: Perspective from teachers, administrators, parents, community members and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 366–377.
Key, D. L. (1998). Teacher interns’ changing perceptions during internship. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Keys, C., & Bryan, L. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.
Klein, B. S. (2001). Guidelines for effective elementary science teacher inservice education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 13(2), 29–40.
Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., Appeldoorn, K., & Sun, T. (2002). Classroom observation handbook: CETP core evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
Lydon, S., & King, C. (2009). Can a single, short continuing professional development workshop cause change in the classroom? Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 63–82.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
Naizer, G. L., Bell, G. L., West, K., & Chambers, S. (2003). Inquiry science professional development with a science summer camp for immediate application. The Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 31–37.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. In S. Olson & S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
O’Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 422–426.
Plano Independent School District (2009). Job posting. [On-line]. Available: http://www.pisd.edu/employment/jobs/index.html.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.
Shriner, M., Schlee, B., Hamil, M., & Libler, R. (2009). Creating teachers’ perceptual, behavioral, and attitudinal change using professional development workshops. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 13(2), 125–134.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Stump, S. L., & Miller, D. R. (1999). The impact on instructional practice of a teacher change model. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 2(32), 69–82.
Texas Education Agency. (1997). Texas essential knowledge and skills. Austin: Author.
Thompson, D. (2009). Characteristics of a good teacher: What it takes to make the grade. [On-line]. Available: http://www.associatedcontent.com/.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001). PL 107–110: No child left behind act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–2009. Washington, DC: Author.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., Crawford, R. A., & Overstreet, C. M. (2003). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement, year eight cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Representative comments used to determine the emergent categories
Appendix 1: Representative comments used to determine the emergent categories
Knowledge
-
I actually learned more about teaching science than what I expected.
-
I learned a lot about earth science (earthquakes, volcanoes and plate motion), fossils, chemical and physical changes and more!
-
This institute gave me tons of information about subject areas in which I was lacking.
-
I was scared of science, but now I am more comfortable → I still need to learn a lot.
-
I have learned and experienced so much more than I ever expected.
-
This institute has helped me because I haven’t taught science and so it has made me feel very comfortable with the concepts and how to put them into a hands on approach for my students.
Pedagogy
-
I will break out of the boring textbook-based science I have done in the past!
-
They have to see it, touch it, hear it to comprehend.
-
I can effectively teach a science lesson.
-
Definitely use hands-on approach.
-
I present more hands-on activities in class.
-
Inquiry based is the preferred teaching method.
-
I am now more comfortable with inquiry-based science teaching.
-
My own experience with the inquiry base examples allowed me to become more confident to teach science in this matter.
Collegial Sharing
-
I basically can’t wait to revamp my curriculum and tell other teachers at my campus about it.
-
Wow, I learned so much and I have shared with everyone I know!
No changes
-
No changes needed.
-
It is great as it is.
Positive results (confidence and/or motivation)
-
I feel more confident.
-
Makes me enthusiastic for the next year to begin.
-
It has re-energized me–I am ready to begin my year with science activities.
-
I learned a lot about the different areas of science and how to teach it. Before the institute, I hated science!
About this article
Cite this article
Sinclair, B.B., Naizer, G. & Ledbetter, C. Observed Implementation of a Science Professional Development Program for K-8 Classrooms. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 579–594 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z