Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meeting the Demands of Science Reforms: A Comprehensive Professional Development for Practicing Middle School Teachers

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preparing teachers to teach science consistent with current reforms in science education is a daunting enterprise given a lack of high-quality science professional development (PD) adaptable across various contexts (Wilson 2013). This study examines the impact of a comprehensive professional development program on middle school teachers’ disciplinary content knowledge and instructional practices. In this mixed methods investigation, data sources included classroom observations, content knowledge assessments, surveys, and a range of interviews. The teachers in the program showed significant improvements in their disciplinary content knowledge and demonstrated through their enactment of a reform-based curriculum, a range of ability levels to translate their knowledge into instructional practices consistent with the principles espoused in the PD. We conclude that programs that attend to elements of effective PD identified in the literature can positively impact middle school science teachers’ enactment of reform-based science teaching. Our findings extend these elements to include the strategic engagement of school and district leadership and the provision of a safe learning space for teachers to collectively engage in reciprocal learning and critical practice. This study has worldwide implications for designing PD for science teachers and for extending our understanding of the impact of each element.

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

  • Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Heck, D., & Weiss, I. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of 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(3), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: what does research tell us? (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bismack, A. A., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriculum materials and teachers: elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 489–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bismack, A. A., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013a). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013b). Inquiry-based professional development: what does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science? International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947–1978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. K. H., & Yung, B. H. W. (2015). On-site pedagogical content knowledge development. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1246–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordingly, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L., & Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. London: Teacher Development Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Corwin Press.

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: what science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forestier, K., & Crossley, M. (2015). International education policy transfer–borrowing both ways: the Hong Kong and England experience. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(5), 664–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2008). Curriculum implementation and sustainability. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillon (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 113–122). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2002). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2012). The rules of evidence. Journal of Staff Development, 33(4), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P. L., Ling, C., Shehab, R. L., Nanny, M. A., Nollert, M. U., Refai, H., et al. (2013). Teachers in an interdisciplinary learning community: engaging, integrating, and strengthening K–12 education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research, Inc. (2011). Assessing teacher learning about science teaching (ATLAST) force and motion. Chapel Hill: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research, Inc. (2014). Assessing the impact of the MSPs: K–8 science; classroom observation protocol: user guide. Chapel Hill: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teacher’s classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). Effective teaching results in increased science achievement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Yang, J. E. (2017). Science teachers taking their first steps toward teaching socioscientific issues through collaborative action research. Research in Science Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9614-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. B., Baker, D. R., & Helding, B. A. (2015). Science teaching reform through professional development: Teachers’ use of a scientific classroom discourse community model. Science Education, 99(5), 896–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

  • Lowe, B., & Appleton, K. (2015). Surviving the implementation of a new science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 841–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 889–909). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K–8 classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2003). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki, B. L., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M. K., Young, B., & Pockalny, R. (2013). Factors influencing science content accuracy in elementary inquiry science lessons. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1135–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: an international perspective on teaching and learning. OECD Publishing.

  • Oliviera, A. (2009). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth science: a comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, R. M., Mesa, J., & Hayes, L. (2017). Professional development for middle school science teachers: Does an educative curriculum make a difference? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., & Banner, I. (2011). Multiple aims in the development of a major reform of the national curriculum for science in England. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., & Banner, I. (2013). School teachers’ experiences of science curriculum reform. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 490–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., Banner, I., & Homer, M. S. (2014). Teachers’ experiences of science curriculum reform. School Science Review, 95(352), 126–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: a review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (2015). The impact of a professional development programme on primary teachers’ classroom practice and pupils’ attitudes to science. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia. Lab-talk, 51(3), 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Bernal, B., Mellado, V., Jiménez-Pérez, R., & Leñero, M. (2012). The process of change in a science teacher's professional development: a case study based on the types of problems in the classroom. Science Education, 96(2), 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, B. A., & Chiu, J. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: the missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers: a review. Science, 340(6130), 310–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007—No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1050166. The 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Rose M. Pringle

  2. Department of Teacher Education and Educational Leadership, University of West Florida, 11000 University Pkwy., Pensacola, FL, 32514, USA

    Jennifer Mesa

  3. P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Lynda Hayes

Authors
  1. Rose M. Pringle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Mesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lynda Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rose M. Pringle.

Appendices

Appendix A

Sample Cadre Meeting Plan

Planning for Discourse in Science Lessons

Learning Goal:

Develop discourse plans to guide productive discussion consistent with IQWST curriculum.

Introduction:

Surfacing STLS use of discourse strategies during the enactment of the IQWST curriculum:

  1. 1.

    Which of the discourse types have you used in your science teaching since August?

  2. 2.

    What one word best describes how your students reacted to the discourse(s)?

Development

A. Task: In teams of threes, watch the video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5Odw91KIw&feature=related

  • As a group: Make two claims about the discourse type observed in the video

  • Write at least four specific evidence (observation) from the video to support each of the claims made.

B. Developing the Discourse Plan

In groups, discuss and devise a plan to extend the teaching activity to represent any two IQWST discourse types other than the one the teacher is using in the video. That is, negotiate with your group members and redesign that section of the lesson to reflect teacher questions and possible student responses consistent with the discourse type.

  • Summarize the content in the video to ensure all group members are familiar with the science content knowledge

  • Identify the discourse type, purpose of that lesson segment (What do you hope students do and learn), teacher questions, and possible student responses.

  • Your group response should be sequenced and show logical development of the science concept.

  • Include: Much specificity and attention to detail and clarity to best communicate the features of the discourse type you have selected.

C. Group Pairing—(6 groups reduced to 3)

  • Share and discuss commonalities, issues, and concerns.

  • Select one of the discourse types, and negotiate and combine ideas for whole group sharing.

D. Debriefing

Questions to guide sense-making:

  • To what extent should you pre determine the discourse type to be used in your lesson?

  • What are some of the factors to be considered in making a choice about the discourse type used in your science lesson?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pringle, R.M., Mesa, J. & Hayes, L. Meeting the Demands of Science Reforms: A Comprehensive Professional Development for Practicing Middle School Teachers. Res Sci Educ 50, 709–737 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9708-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9708-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation