• Christine LotterEmail author
  • Jan A. Yow
  • Thomas T. Peters


In this study, we investigated the impact of teaming school-based instructional coaches with science or mathematics middle school teachers to build a community of practice around inquiry instruction. This professional development model began with a 2-week summer institute and continued with four follow-up sessions during the academic school year for the teacher and instructional coach participants. The teachers’ participation in this professional development program with (1) content instruction through inquiry lessons, (2) practice teaching to middle school students, and (3) coach-led reflection improved their understanding of inquiry-based practices and the quality of their classroom inquiry implementation. Professional development experiences that prepare teachers and coaches simultaneously in inquiry and content may help build a shared language for reform and accelerate inquiry instructional changes.

Key words

coaching communities of practice inquiry middle school professional development 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2012_9391_MOESM1_ESM.doc (122 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 122 kb)


  1. Akerson, V., Cullen, T. & Hanson, D. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1090–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E. & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S., Carter, R. & Richards, J. (1999). Dilemmas of constructivist mathematics teaching: Instances from classroom practice. In B. Jarworski & T. Wood & S. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education: Critical international perspectives. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  8. Costa, A. L. & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd ed.). Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dempsey, N. (2007). 5 elements combine in a formula for coaching. National Staff Development Council, 28(2), 10–13.Google Scholar
  11. Education Development Center, Inc (EDC) (2005). MathScape: Seeing and thinking mathematically. New York: McGraw-Hill Glencoe.Google Scholar
  12. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D. & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90, 522–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, A. M., Green, L. S. & Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Developmental coaching for high school teachers: Executive coaching goes to school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(3), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, T. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches. National Staff Development Counsel. Retrieved September 1, 2005 from
  16. Gunstone, R. F. & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hepburn, G. & Gaskell, P. J. (1998). Teaching a new science and technology course: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 777–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jaworkski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematic teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesnick, J., Jiang, J., Sporte, S., Sartain, L. & Hart, H. (2010). A study of Chicago new teacher center induction coaching in Chicago public schools: 2009–2010. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  22. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacIsaac, D. & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L. & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGatha, M. (2008). Levels of engagement in establishing coaching relationships. Teacher Development, 12(2), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeil, K. & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. A. Luft, R. L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington: NSTA press.Google Scholar
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (NRC) (2011). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, T. (2008). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be optimistic? Science Education, 93, 548–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peters, T. T. & Dew, T. R. (2011). Virtual mentoring: A response to the challenge of change. In D. A. Scigliano (Ed.), Telementoring in the K-12 Classroom: Online Technologies for Learning (pp. 173–185). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  32. Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth, K., Garnier, H., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K. & Wickler, N. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science professional development for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruby, A. (2006). Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools. Science Education, 90, 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rushton, G., Lotter, C. & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of a professional development model on beliefs and practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 22(1) 23–52.Google Scholar
  36. Savasci, F. & Berlin, D. F. (2012). Science teachers beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Russell, B., et al (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40 (1), 4–10.Google Scholar
  39. Singer, Singer, J., Lotter, C., Gates, A. & Feller, R. (2011). Exploring a model of situated professional development: Impact on classroom practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 22, 203–227.Google Scholar
  40. Vogt, F. & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1051–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, S., Banilower, E. R. & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, T., Bolhuis, S. & Bergen, T. C. M. (2008). Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 982–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Lotter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan A. Yow
    • 1
  • Thomas T. Peters
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Education, University of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.South Carolina’s Coalition for Mathematics & ScienceClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations