This paper describes the analysis of teachers’ journal reflections during an inquiry-based professional development program. As a part of their learning experience, participants reflected on what they learned and how they learned. Progress of subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge was assessed though surveys and pre- and posttests. We found that teachers have difficulties reflecting on their learning and posing meaningful questions. The teachers who could describe how they reasoned from evidence to understand a concept had the highest learning gains. In contrast those teachers who seldom or never described learning a concept by reasoning from evidence showed the smallest learning gains. This analysis suggests that learning to reflect on one’s learning should be an integral part of teachers’ professional development experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform; science, mathematics, and technology education: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daloglu, A. (2001). Fostering reflective teaching from the start: Journal keeping in preservice teacher education. In J. Burton & M. Carroll (Eds.), Journal writing (pp. 87–100). Alexandria, VA: Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 76, 597–604.
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. (1999). Ideas that work: Science professional development (ENC 99-004). Columbus, OH: Author (Digest of science portion of Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1997).
Etkina, E. (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84, 594–605.
Etkina, E. (2004). What did I learn and why do I believe it? In Proceedings of the American Institute of Physics (Vol. 720, pp. 27–31). Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
Etkina, E., & Harper, K. A. (2002). Closing the feedback loop in large enrollment physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 476–480.
Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (1997). Introduction to mixed method evaluations. In L. Sharp & J. Frechtling (Eds.), User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, NSF 97-153. Accessed 5 January, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97153/start.htm.
Garmon, M. A. (2001). The benefits of dialogue journals: What prospective teachers say. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 37–50.
Garret, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). New directions for evaluation, advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (Vol. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Hake, R. (2001). Suggestions for administering and reporting pre/post diagnostic tests. Accessed 29 December 2005, from http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/.
Hammer, D. M. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.
Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for facilitators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 776–791.
Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 19–26.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 23–38). London: The Falmer Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Luft, J. A. (1999). Teachers’ salient beliefs about problem-solving demonstration classroom in-service program. Research in Science Teaching, 36, 141–158.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
May, D., & Etkina, E. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. American Journal of Physics, 70, 1249–1258.
McMahon, S. I. (1997). Using documented written and oral dialogue to understand and challenge preservice teachers’ reflections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 192–213.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2003). GEPA state summary March 2002 (PUBCODE – J0301O). Trenton: New Jersey Department of Education Division of Information and Management Services.
Phipps, J. J. (2005). E-journaling: Achieving interactive education online. Educause Quarterly, 28(1). Accessed 10 February 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqm0519.asp?print=yes.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 163–197). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision of staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, C. L., Zeuli, J. S., & Borman, J. (1997). The science reforms: Mapping the progress of reform and multiple contexts of influence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Tilleman, H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge beliefs of teachers: A training study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291–318.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39–49.
Appendix A: Representative survey items to determine a participant’s orientation toward science teaching
|Representative survey item|
|Based on your own views of what is important in teaching science, rate the following statements using the following scale: (1) not at all important, (2) of little importance, (3) quite important, (4) very important|
|Example expository [E] and an inquiry [I] survey item:|
|[E] Asking students’ questions to hold them accountable for knowing the facts|
|[I] Encouraging students to ask questions|
Appendix B: Pre- and posttest sample questions
|Test section||Topic of focus||Sample test question|
|1||Teachers’ knowledge about the FOSS Earth History science curriculum||Directions: Use the photograph of Chuar Butte (page 18 of the Earth History Resource Book) to answer the following questions:|
|Which kinds of rocks tend to form the cliffs, and slopes of Chuar Butte? And why?|
|2||Teachers’ knowledge about students understanding of earth science topics||Listed below are the three main types of weathering processes. Beneath each type, make a list of concepts you think your students will need to learn in order to have an in-depth understanding of this topic|
|3||Teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies for teaching the FOSS Earth History science curriculum||Describe what instructional strategies you would use in order to facilitate student learning. Be sure to include any learning materials, and or pedagogical skills that would aid students in developing an understanding of specific concepts or relationships|
Appendix C: Rubric for scoring open-ended test questions
|4||The response demonstrates understanding of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching science or a topic-specific concept beyond the Mastery level|
|3||Mastery level—Response demonstrates a fundamental understanding of PCK for teaching science or a topic-specific concept that is being addressed in question|
|2||The response has essentially correct elements; only minor mistakes or minor information is left out|
|1||The response contains related information but significant information has been left out|
|0||No response is given, or information does not apply|
Appendix D: Equations of normalized gain
|Symbol||Definition and formula|
The single-student normalized gain
Defined: g = % Gain/% Gain max|
Formula: g = (% posttest − % pretest)/(100 − % pretest)
The class (course) average normalized gain
Defined: The actual average gain, %〈Gain〉, divided by the maximum possible actual average gain, %〈Gain〉max where %〈posttest〉 and %〈pretest〉 are the final (posttest) and initial (pretest) class percentage averages|
Formula: 〈g〉 = %〈Gain〉/%〈Gain〉 max
〈g〉 = (% 〈posttest〉 − % 〈pretest〉)/(100 − % 〈pretest〉)
Appendix E: Coding for question #1: “What Did You Learn?”
|Code indication||Description and example|
|Vocabulary||A teacher defines a geologic term|
|Example: “I learned that hardness is the resistance of a given mineral to scratching”|
|Concept||A teacher describes or mentions a concept, idea, relationship or limitations of these|
|Example: “I learned that the hardness of quartz is much greater than calcite”|
|Science kill (Topic-specific)||A teacher describes or mentions skills|
|Example: “I learned how to do a hardness test”|
|Teaching skill (Topic-specific)||Teacher describes or mentions a method or topic specific techniques for teaching Earth science|
|Example: “I learned how to use fieldtrips (weathering rate of tombstones in the local cemetery) to help my students understand how acid rain effects the local environment”|
|I learned about…||A teacher does not say explicitly what it was that she/he learned|
|Example: “I learned about terminology used to describe mineral properties”|
Appendix F: Coding for question #2: “How Did You Learn It?”
|Code indication||Description and example|
|Learned from authority||A teacher describes learning a concept by instructor, textbook, handouts, and or reference material (FOSS Earth Science CD)|
|Example: “I learned through reading assorted compiled texts”|
|Learned by doing||A teacher describes learning a concept or process by performing or practicing it|
|Example: “I learned about the contour map activity by actually doing it”|
|Collaborative learning||A teacher describes learning a concept or process through discussion, activity or investigation with a small group of peers|
|Example: “I learned by sharing (in a small group) different ways of explaining topographic maps and how important these skills are especially for the standardized tests”|
|Learned by reasoning from evidence||A teacher describes learning a process or concept by performing or practicing it while reasoning from evidence|
|Example: “I learned this by performing this hands-on activity with dilute HCL. If the rock began to bubble than it contained calcium carbonate which is a mineral”|
|Learned by applicability||A teacher describes learning a concept by relating it to an everyday experience or activity|
|Example: “I learned the information by actually relating what I have been doing with my students to the discussion we had in class. Example: “I learned about erosion by making observations on a trip around the campus”|
Appendix G: Coding (by topic) for question #3: “What Concepts Remain Unclear?”
|Code category||Description and example|
|Concept||The student is concerned with the meaning of a concept or the extension of the concept into a different area and tries to make sense out of it|
|Example: “I am confused about the concept of uplift”|
|Application||The student tries to relate the concepts to her everyday experience|
|Example: “How to determine the elevation along a contour line on a NJ map?”|
|Knowing||The student is interested in how a particular piece of knowledge was constructed by scientists|
|Example: “How do scientists know the age of rocks?”|
|Pedagogy||The student (teacher) needs clarification on how to teach the concept, or process to students|
|Example: “How do I explain crossbedding to my students?”|
Appendix H: Coding (by difficulty) for question #3: “What Concepts Remain Unclear?”
|Level of difficulty||Definition/example from participants’ journal||Similar to Bloom’s taxonomy|
|Minimal level||Questions that are seeking factual knowledge||Knowledge|
|Example: “What is crossbedding?”|
|Low level||Questions that are seeking comprehension of what was previously learned||Comprehension|
|Example: “As I tried to determine what was the sequence of plateau, river, canyon, some ideas are not completely clear”|
|Medium level||Questions that are seeking a better understanding of the data, processes, or skills needed to complete a task or problem (application). Or, questions that are seeking to distinguish, classify, and relate assumptions hypotheses, and evidence (analysis)||Application and analysis|
|Example: “How do I relate the contour mapping activity to elevation differences in the Grand Canyon?”|
|High level||Questions are those seeking to synthesis ideas into a problem or idea that is new (synthesis)||Synthesis and evaluation|
|Question that is related to the assessment or critique of a specific standard, topic or science processes (evaluation)|
|Example: “How does this (classifying rocks) help us understand the history of the area that the rock came from?”|
About this article
Cite this article
Monet, J.A., Etkina, E. Fostering Self-Reflection and Meaningful Learning: Earth Science Professional Development for Middle School Science Teachers. J Sci Teacher Educ 19, 455–475 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9106-7
- Self reflection
- Meaningful learning
- Middle school
- Professional development
- Earth science
- Science teaching