Advertisement

Coping with constraints: Longitudinal case studies of early elementary science instruction after professional development

  • Judith Haymore SandholtzEmail author
  • Cathy Ringstaff
  • Bryan Matlen
Article

Abstract

Professional development holds significant potential in promoting science education, but that potential is undermined if instructional changes are not sustained. For professional development, sustainability refers to the continuation of outcomes over an extended period of time after the program ends and is an issue across international contexts. This longitudinal research, part of a larger research project funded by NSF, investigated sustainability of early elementary science instruction after teacher participation in a 3-year professional development program and the factors that influenced teachers’ decisions about instructional time and strategies. The research used a case-study approach to obtain an in-depth understanding of why instructional shifts occurred over a period of 7-years. The primary data sources were teacher surveys, self-efficacy assessments, and interviews. The findings highlight how school level factors changed over time and affected teachers’ science instruction in both positive and negative ways. The research illustrates the connection between contextual constraints and science instruction and holds implications for sustaining meaningful instructional changes after professional development ends.

Keywords

Elementary education Longitudinal research Teacher professional development School context Science instruction Sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, M., Gaddy, B., & Dean, C. (2004). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.Google Scholar
  3. Avery, L. M. (2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(3), 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Bowes, A. S., & Banilower, E. R. (2004). LSC observational study: An analysis of data collected between 1998 and 2003. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42–50.Google Scholar
  9. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Farmer, T. A. (2009). Unique rural district politics. The Rural Educator, 30(2), 29–33.Google Scholar
  12. Flyvberg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(3), 653–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaikhorst, L., Beishuizen, J., Zijlstra, B., & Volman, M. (2017). The sustainability of a teacher professional development programme for beginning urban teachers. Cambridge journal of education, 47(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gess-Newsome, J. (2001). The professional development of science teachers for science education reform: A review of the research. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Professional development: Planning and design (pp. 91–100). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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(3), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harmon, H., Gordanier, J., Henry, L., & George, A. (2007). Changing teaching practices in rural schools. The Rural Educator, 28(2), 8–12.Google Scholar
  20. Harmon, H., & Smith, K. (2007). A legacy of leadership and lessons learned: Results from the rural systemic initiatives for improving mathematics and science education. Charleston, WV: Edvantia Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Hayes, K. N., & Trexler, C. J. (2016). Testing predictors of instructional practice in elementary science education: The significant role of accountability. Science Education, 100(2), 266–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heck, D. J., & Crawford, R. A. (2004). LSC teacher questionnaire study: A longitudinal analysis of data collected between 1997 and 2003. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement science teacher questionnaire. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/tq_k8sci.php.
  26. Jimerson, L. (2005). Special challenges of the “No Child Left Behind” Act for rural schools and district. The Rural Educator, 26(3), 1–4.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Judson, E. (2013). The relationship between time allocated for science in elementary schools and state accountability policies. Science Education, 97(4), 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, M., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council (NSDC).Google Scholar
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Pea, C. H. (2012). Inquiry-based instruction: Does school environmental context matter? Science Educator, 21(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  35. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., & Lopez-Prado, B. (2008). Is alignment enough: Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93, 656–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school Earth science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. (2017). Teacher professional development by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  40. Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2013a). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2013b). Does professional development make a difference? Results of a 3-year study of K-2 science instruction and student learning. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2016). The influence of contextual factors on the sustainability of professional development outcomes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America’s urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Settlage, J., Southerland, S., Smetana, L., & Lottero-Purdue, P. (2017). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherry, L. (2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238.Google Scholar
  46. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  47. Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the Hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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(5), 879–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching and practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanosdall, R., Klentschy, M., Hedges, L. V., & Weisbaum, K. S. (2007). A randomized study of the effects of scaffolded guided-inquiry instruction on student achievement in science. Paper presented at the conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  53. 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(5), 833–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Zehetmeier, S., & Krainer, K. (2011). Ways of promoting the sustainability of mathematics teachers’ professional development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Haymore Sandholtz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cathy Ringstaff
    • 2
  • Bryan Matlen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.WestEdRedwood CityUSA

Personalised recommendations