Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Contextual Factors on the Sustainability of Professional Development Outcomes

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This study investigated how contextual factors influenced the sustainability of outcomes from a 3-year, state-funded professional development program that provided science assistance for K-2 teachers in small, rural school districts. The research used a case-study approach with a purposive sample of five elementary schools that varied in instructional time in science several years after the funding period. The primary data sources were teacher surveys and interviews conducted 2 and 3 years after the end of the professional development program. The findings highlight variations across schools and the influence of principal support, resources, collegial support, personal commitment, and external factors. The research holds practical implications for enhancing long-term sustainability of professional development outcomes in science education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basista, B., & Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, (2011). High hopes- few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvberg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czeriak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, D. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Crawford, R. A. (2006). LSC teacher questionnaire study: A longitudinal analysis of data collected between 1997 and 2006. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Monk, M., & Swain, J. (2000). Constraints on development and change to science teachers’ practice in Egyptian classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 26, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics and science in the classroom. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (2002). NSTA position statement: Elementary school science. Arlington, VA: NSTA. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx

  • National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. Arlington, VA: NSTA. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

  • National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards for staff development (revised). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council (NSDC).

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, S., & Labov, J. (2009). Nurturing and sustaining effective programs in science education for grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H. & Ringstaff, C. (2011).  Reversing the downward spiral of science instruction in K-12 classrooms.  Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(6), 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H. & Ringstaff, C. (2013).  Assessing the impact of teacher professional development on science instruction in the early elementary grades in rural US schools. Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 678–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Matlen, B. (in press).  Temporary fix or lasting solution? Investigating the longitudinal impact of teacher professional development on K-2 science instruction.  The Elementary School Journal.

  • Sherry, L. (2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, D. F. (2001). The interfacing of preservice and inservice experiences of reform-based teaching: A longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 139–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan-Watts, B. K., Nowicki, B. L., Shim, M. K., & Young, B. J. (2013). Sustaining reform-based science teaching of preservice and inservice elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 879–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symington, D., & Tytler, R. (2004). Community leaders’ views of the purposes of science in the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1403–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, Y. (2013). The impact of a novel curriculum on secondary biology teachers’ dispositions toward using authentic data and media in their human impact and ecology lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 833–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-1119589. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. A version of this paper was presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 3200 Education Building, Irvine, CA, 92697-5500, USA

    Judith Haymore Sandholtz

  2. WestEd, 400 Seaport Court, Suite 222, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA

    Cathy Ringstaff

Authors
  1. Judith Haymore Sandholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Ringstaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Haymore Sandholtz.

Appendix: Coding Categories for Teacher Interviews

Appendix: Coding Categories for Teacher Interviews

Instructional time

 Time spent on science instruction

 Changes in instructional time on science

 Factors influencing instructional time

Science curriculum

 Changes in curriculum

 Factors influencing curricular decisions

Instructional strategies in science

 Strategies used

 Changes in strategies

 Factors influencing instructional strategies

 Scaffolded-guided inquiry (SGI)

 Student notebooks

Integration strategies

 English language strategies/science

 Math/science

Resources/supports

 Administrator support

 Support from other teachers

 Available supports/resources

 Needed supports/resources

Teacher collaboration

 With participating teachers at own school

 With other teachers at own school

 With participating teachers at other schools/districts

Teacher leadership

Barriers

 Not enough time

 Not fully understanding how to use strategy or tool

 Lack of alignment

 Lack of support

Self-efficacy in teaching science

Content knowledge

 Knowledge of science

 Pedagogical content knowledge

Impact on students

Sustainability of changes

Lack of (added as double code to any category)

Other

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. The Influence of Contextual Factors on the Sustainability of Professional Development Outcomes. J Sci Teacher Educ 27, 205–226 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9451-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9451-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation