Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 185–216

Overcoming a Learning Bottleneck: Inquiry Professional Development for Secondary Science Teachers

  • Christine Lotter
  • William S. Harwood
  • J. José Bonner

This paper examines the summer component of a year-long professional development program. The program was developed based on recent models of effective professional development that indicate that teachers should guide the direction and focus of the professional development program. Specific activities in the summer program were adapted from a long-running, successful program for university faculty development. In this study we explore the conceptions of inquiry teachers developed during the program, as well as the products teachers created. The discrepancies between program goals and the teachers’ products and conceptions are described and reasons for these differences explored. The results suggest that engaging teachers in identifying key issues in their own professional development is an effective strategy.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K., & Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and mathematics professional development program. Education, 121 15–624.Google Scholar
  5. Bazler, Jw. A. (1991). A middle school teacher summer research project. Schoolscience and Mathematics, 91, 322–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from scienceeducation. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rded.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Bonner, J. J. (2004). The biology of food. The Science Teacher, 71(8), 30–34.Google Scholar
  9. Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for scienceteachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? Theinfluence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, A. (2002). Multiple perspectives for the study of teaching: Knowledge, reason, understanding, and being. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1032–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flick, L., Keys, C. W., Westbrook, S. L., Crawford, B. A., & Carnes, G. N. (1997, April). Perspectives on inquiry-oriented teaching practices: Conflict andclarification. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Scienceteaching, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  15. Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, S., & Howard, K. (1997). Changing teacher behavior through staff development: Implementing the teaching and content standards in science. School Science andMathematics, 97, 302–310.Google Scholar
  17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  18. Harwood, W. S. (2004). An activity model for scientific inquiry. Thescience Teacher, January, 44–46.Google Scholar
  19. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professionaldevelopment: A new consensus. In G. Sykes (Ed.), Teaching as the Learningprofession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges, andexperiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 193–211.Google Scholar
  21. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. ew York: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science withteachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Scienceteaching, 38, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: Acase study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehman, J. D., George, M., Rush, M., Buchanan, P., & Averill, M. (2000, April). Preparing teachers to use project-based science: Lessons from a four-year project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  25. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designingprofessional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.Google Scholar
  26. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development forteachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science andMathematics, 99, 258–271.Google Scholar
  27. Luft, J. A. (1999). Assessing science teachers as they implement inquiry lessons: Theextended inquiry observational rubric. Science Educator, 8(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
  28. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of aninquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondaryscience teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching andlearning. Stanford, CA: CRC.Google Scholar
  30. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications ineducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education Series.Google Scholar
  31. Middendorf, J., & Pace, D. (2002). Overcoming cultural obstacles to new ways ofteaching: The Lilly Freshman Learning Project at Indiana University. To Improvethe Academy, 20, 208–224.Google Scholar
  32. Nazier, G., Bell, G. L., West, K., & Chambers, S. (2002, April). Inquiry scienceprofessional development combined with a science summer camp for immediateapplication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature ofscience. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, andschool. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science educationstandards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professionaldevelopment for science education reform. Journal of Research in Scienceteaching, 35, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002, January). A scientific methodbased upon research scientists’ conceptions of scientific inquiry. Paper presented atthe meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Greenville, NC. Available at:
  40. Sandoval, W. A., Deneroff, V., & Franke, M. L. (2002, April). Teaching, aslearning, as inquiry: Moving beyond activity in the analysis of teaching practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  41. Schwab, J. J. (1966). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvarduniversity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development onscience teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Scienceteaching, 37, 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thiessen, D. (1992). Classroom-based teacher development. In A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 85–109). New York: TeachersCollege Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Tobin, K. (2000). Interpretive research in science education. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enactedcurriculum. Science Education, 80, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role ofinquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westerlund, J. F., Garcia, D. M., Koke, J. R., Taylor, T. A., & Mason, D. S. (2002). Summer scientific research for teachers: The experience and its effect. Journal ofScience Teacher Education, 13, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westerlund, J. F., & Stephenson, A. L. (2002). Phasing in future teachers: Amultidisciplinary teaching technique. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32, 171–175.Google Scholar
  50. Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change withoutdifference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16, 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zuckerman, J. T. (1996). Novice science teachers: Making the choice between coveringthe curriculum and fostering their students’ understanding. Science Educator, 5(1), 24–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Lotter
    • 1
  • William S. Harwood
    • 2
  • J. José Bonner
    • 3
  1. 1.Instruction and Teacher EducationUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and InstructionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonU.S.A.
  3. 3.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations