Effect of Peer Coaching on Teachers’ Practice and Their Students’ Scientific Competencies

  • Fu-Pei Hsieh
  • Huann-shyang Lin
  • Shu-Chiu Liu
  • Chun-Yen TsaiEmail author


This study aimed to explore the effect of peer coaching on science teachers’ practice and their students’ scientific competencies. The mixed method approach and static group comparison design were adopted. The participants in this study consisted of four science teachers and 132 high school students. The results showed that the students in the peer-coached group teachers’ classes demonstrated more positive perceptions of their teachers’ teaching practice than those in the comparison group. The students in the peer-coached group teachers’ classes outperformed their counterparts in terms of their scientific competencies. From the teachers’ perception, peer coaching workshops encouraged them to use science literacy-based instruction and improve their assessment knowledge. These workshops also guided them to carry out reflections and provided them with the support and opportunities for interactions. These results indicated that the peer coaching model may improve science teachers’ teaching practice and their students’ scientific competencies.


Peer coaching Scientific competencies Scientific literacy Teacher practice 



The work reported here was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grants MOST 104-2511-S-110-013-MY3. The authors also greatly appreciate the valuable suggestions of the journal reviewers and editors.


  1. Averill, R., Drake, M., Anderson, D., & Anthony, G. (2016). The use of questions within in-the-moment coaching in initial mathematics teacher education: enhancing participation, reflection, and co-construction in rehearsals of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 486–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avikasari, A., Rukayah, R., & Indriayu, M. (2018). The influence of science literacy-based teaching material towards science achievement. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 7(3), 182–187.Google Scholar
  3. Barendsen, E., & Henze, I. (2017). Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observation. Research in Science Education, Online First.
  4. Britton, L. R., & Anderson, K. A. (2010). Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: examining an underutilised concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: an assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, S. (2005). An alternative approach of instructional supervision: peer observation in educational practicum. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 13(1), 11–24.Google Scholar
  8. Chiapetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doppelt, Y., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E. M., Mehalik, M. M., Reynolds, B., & Ward, E. (2009). Evaluating the impact of a facilitated learning community approach to professional development on teacher practice and student achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: a Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education.
  14. Glesne, C. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Halim, L., Abdullah, A. I. S. S., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2014). Students’ perceptions of their science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B.-S., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kovic, S. (1996). Peer coaching to facilitate inclusion: a job-embedded staff development model. Journal of Staff Development, 17, 28–31.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, O., & Choi, E. (2013). Utilizing peer coaching to facilitate pre-service physical education teachers’ reflection. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin, H. S. (2008). Results report of Taiwan participated in PISA 2006 (Report No. NSC 95–2522-S-026-002). Taipei: National Science Council.Google Scholar
  21. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Huang, T. C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Yang, K. K., & Lee, S. T. (2013). The impact of collaborative reflections on teachers’ inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3095–3116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370–371.Google Scholar
  24. Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. M. (2016). Attitudes and language use in group discussions on socio-scientific issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 283–301.Google Scholar
  25. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu, H. L. (2010). Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher education—a review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 748–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McNew-Birren, J., & van den Kieboom, L. A. (2017). Exploring the development of core teaching practices in the context of inquiry-based science instruction: an interpretive case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2014). Pre-service teachers undertaking classroom research: developing reflection and enquiry skills. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meschede, N., Fiebranz, A., Moller, K., & Steffensky, M. (2017). Teachers’ professional vision, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs: on its relation and differences between pre-service and in-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mthethwa-Kunene, E., Onwu, G. O., & de Villiers, R. (2015). Exploring biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching of genetics in Swaziland science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1140–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coaching program. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  36. Rozenszajn, R., & Yarden, A. (2014). Mathematics and biology teachers’ tacit views of the knowledge required for teaching: varying relationships between CK and PCK. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(11), 1–12.Google Scholar
  37. Shih, C. L., & Chuang, H. H. (2013). The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education, 63, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–17.Google Scholar
  39. Sickel, A., & Friedrichsen, P. (2018). Using multiple lenses to examine the development of beginning biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching natural selection simulations. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 29–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soisangwarn, A., & Wongwanich, S. (2014). Promoting the reflective teacher through peer coaching to improve teaching skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2504–2511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suh, J. K., & Park, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Supino, P. G. (2012). Fundamental issues in evaluating the impact of interventions: sources and control of bias. In P. G. Supino & J. S. Borer (Eds.), Principles of research methodology: a guide for clinical investigators (pp. 79–110). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swafford, J. (1998). Teachers supporting teachers through peer coaching. Support for Learning, 13(2), 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thijs, A., & van den Berg, E. (2002). Peer coaching as part of a professional development program for science teachers in Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2014). The role of feedback and social presence in an online peer coaching program for student teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 326–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Improving students’ PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tuan, H. L., Chang, H. P., Wang, K. H., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang, K.-H., Tuan, H.-L., & Chang, H. P. (1998). Secondary school student perceptions of science teacher’s knowledge. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 35–470.Google Scholar
  50. Waugh, R. F., & Addison, P. A. (1998). A Rasch measurement model analysis of the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science Education & Environmental EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Center for General EducationNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiung CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Institute of EducationNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiung CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Institute of EducationNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations