• Susan Gomez ZwiepEmail author
  • Babette M. Benken


This paper examines upper elementary and middle school teachers’ learning of mathematics and science content, how their perceptions of their disciplines and learning of that discipline developed through content-rich learning experiences, and the differences and commonalities of the teachers’ learning experiences relative to content domain. This work was situated within a larger professional development (PD) program that had multiple, long-term components. Participants’ growth occurred in 4 primary areas: knowledge of content, perceptions of the discipline, perceptions about the learning of the discipline, and perceptions regarding how students learn content. Findings suggest that when embedded within an effective professional development context, content can be a critical vehicle through which change can be made in teachers’ understandings and perceptions of mathematics and science. When participants in our study were able to move beyond their internal conflicts and misunderstandings, they could expand their knowledge and perceptions of content and finally bridge to re-conceptualize how to teach that content. These findings further indicate that although teachers involved in both mathematics and science can benefit from similar overall PD structures, there are some unique challenges that need to be addressed for each particular discipline group. This study contributes to what we understand about teacher learning and change, as well as commonalities and differences between teachers’ learning of mathematics and science.


content knowledge in-service professional development teacher beliefs teacher development teacher knowledge teacher learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary teachers’ orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(2), 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (2000). Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D., Lubienski, S. & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benken, B. M, & Brown, N. (2008a). Integrating teacher candidates’ conceptions of mathematics, teaching, and learning: A cross-university collaboration. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers: The Journal, Volume 1.Google Scholar
  6. Benken, B. M. & Brown, N. (Fall, 2008b). Moving beyond the barriers A re-defined, multi-leveled partnership approach to mathematics teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 63–82.Google Scholar
  7. Benken, B. M., & Brown, N. (January, 2010). Reflections on a cross university-urban school partnership: The critical role of humanizing the process. In Slater, J. & Ravin, R. (Eds.), Collaboration in education (p. 95-101). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Benken, B. M. & Wilson, M. R. (1996). Developing problem-solving conceptions of mathematics: One preservice teacher’s experiences. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (#ED401133).Google Scholar
  9. Borman, K. M., et al (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W. & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooney, T. J. & Wilson, P. (1995). On the notion of secondary preservice teachers’ ways of knowing mathematics. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (#ED389594).Google Scholar
  14. Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children’s ideas. In R. Osborne & F. P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 101–111). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, E. A., Petish, D. & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiRanna, K., Topps, J., Cerwin, K., & Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2009). Teaching Learning Collaborative: A Process for Supporting Professional Learning Communities (Chapter). In S. Mundry & K.E. Stiles (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities for Science Teaching: Lessons > From Research and Practice. (pp. 35–54). Arlington, VA: NSTA press.Google Scholar
  17. Dreon, O. & McDonald, S. P. (May, 2010). New science teachers’ descriptions of inquiry enactment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  18. Farmer, J. D., Gerretson, H. & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: Cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(4), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. & Yoom, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective: Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grossman, P. & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guillaume, A. M. & Kirtman, L. (2010). Mathematics stories: Preservice teachers’ images and experiences as learners of mathematics. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 121–143.Google Scholar
  23. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heid, M. K. & Blume, G. W. (2008). Algebra and function development. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 55–108). Charlotte, NC: Info. Age.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K. & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khourey-Bowers, C. & Fenk, C. (2009). Influence of constructivist professional development on chemistry content knowledge and scientific model development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Lloyd, G. & Wilson, M. R. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L. & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K–12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall, J. A., Petrosino, A. J. & Martin, T. (2010). Preservice teachers’ conceptions and enactments of project-based instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, C. & Harper, B. (2006). A pedagogy of difficulty: Preparing teachers to understand and integrate complexity in teaching and learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 7–21.Google Scholar
  36. Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and accommodation: Towards a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S. & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Redish & Hammer (2009). Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 77(7), 629–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W. & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  44. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., Smith, M. S. & Henningsen, M. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  46. Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, M. & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Töerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 127–147). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics & StatisticsCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations