Abstract
Research into teacher inservice in primary science generally focuses on evaluating the objectives of each program in terms of the immediate outcomes. Little research appears to have been conducted into the long term effects of interactive inservice programs on the classroom practice of the participants. During 1993 the long term effects of participation in the Primary Science/Technology Project (Sci-Tec), as perceived by the teacher participants, were investigated. Focus teachers who had participated in Sci-Tec between 1988–1991 were asked to provide information about their current science teaching practice, and about the influence that Sci-Tec had had on their current practice. Six of these teachers were then interviewed to determine which specific aspects of the project they believed had most influenced the development of their current classroom practice in teaching science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aubusson, P., Relich, J., & Wotherspoon, D. (1991). Professional development and perceived needs of science teachers.Research in Science Education, 21, 10–19.
Baird, J.R. (1988). Teachers in science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.)Development and dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer Press, 55–72.
Bell, B. (1993).I know about LISP but how do I put it into practice? Final report of the learning in science project (teacher development). Hamilton, NZ: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1993, April). Teacher development as professional, personal and social development.Teaching and Teacher Education.
Bell, B., Kirkwood, V., & Pearson, J. (1990). Learning in Science Project (teacher development): The framework.Research In Science Education, 20, 31–40.
Bell, B., & Pearson, J. (1993).The teacher development that occurred: A report of the Learning In Science Project (teacher development). Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Crawford, G., & Zeegers, Y. (1993). Sci-Tec: Evaluating a non deficit model of in-service.Research in Science Education, 23, 10–14.
Department of Education and Science. (1990–1991).Designated courses in Mathematics and Science for primary teachers. London: HMI.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science.Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
Fensham, P. (1988). Familiar but different: some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer Press, pp. 1–27.
Fensham, P. (1990). What will science education do about technology?Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(3), 8–21.
Hardy, T., Bearlin, M., & Kirkwood, V. (1990). Outcomes of the Primary and Early Childhood Science and Technology Education Project at the University of Canberra.Research in Science Education, 20, 142–151.
Johnston, K. (1987, September). CLIS in the Classroom: Constructivist approaches to teaching.Education in Science, 29.
Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (1990). The constructivist paradox: Teachers' knowledge and constructivist science teaching.Research in Science Education, 20, 181–190.
Osborne, R. (1982). Conceptual change—for pupils and teacher.Research in Science Education, 12, 25–31.
Scarino, A., & Vale, D. (1988, October). An Activities Based Language Curriculum: The ALL Model.Curriculum Australia, 7, 31–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Specializations: inservice and preservice in primary science and technology.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zeegers, Y. Teacher professional development: Which aspects of inservice do teachers believe influence their classroom practice?. Research in Science Education 24, 358–365 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356363
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356363