Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 415–436 | Cite as

Teaching for Understanding in Earth Science: Comparing Impacts on Planning and Instruction in Three Professional Development Designs for Middle School Science Teachers

  • William R. Penuel
  • Harold McWilliams
  • Carla McAuliffe
  • Ann E. Benbow
  • Colin Mably
  • Margaret M. Hayden
Article

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts the impacts of three professional development designs aimed at middle school Earth science teachers on how teachers plan and enact instruction. The designs were similar in their alignment to research-based practices in science professional development: each design was of an extended duration and time span, included follow-up support to teachers, and incorporated active learning approaches in the professional development. In addition, the designs had a high level of coherence with other reform activities and with local standards. The main difference among the designs was in the roles of teachers in designing, adopting, or adapting curriculum materials. Evidence from teacher survey and observation data indicated that all programs had positive impacts on how teachers planned and enacted teaching for understanding, but differences among programs was more evident in their impacts on instructional planning.

Keywords

Teaching for understanding Professional development Earth science Middle school 

References

  1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1015171124982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from new American schools’ scale-up phase. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  5. Boone, W. J., & Kahle, K. B. (1998). Student perceptions of instruction, peer interest, and adult support for middle school science: Differences by race and gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 333–340.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J. L. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–338. doi:10.3102/0002831207302501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X034003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. doi:10.3102/01623737024002081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner, H., & Dyson, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96(2), 198–218.Google Scholar
  22. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & L. M. Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education (pp. 51–94). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers’ needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 1573–1847. doi:10.1007/BF02614642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(6), 668–690. doi:10.1002/tea.20069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, C. C. (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 1573–1847. doi:10.1007/s10972-007-9043-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kubitskey, B., & Fishman, B. J. (2006). A role for professional development in sustainability: Linking the written curriculum to enactment. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 363–369). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. C. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., Lewis, E. L., & Stern, J. (1993). Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science (pp. 5–60). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 185–216. doi:10.1007/s10972-005-9002-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275–292. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37:3<275::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marek, E. A., & Methven, S. B. (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41–53. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patton, M. Q. (1979). Evaluation of program implementation. In L. Sechrest (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual (Vol. 4). Newbury Park: Sage.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. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2008). Comparing three approaches to preparing teachers to teach for deep understanding in Earth science: Short-term impacts on teachers and teaching practice. Menlo Park: SRI International.Google Scholar
  41. Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: An analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Penuel, W. R., Shear, L., Korbak, C., & Sparrow, E. (2005). The roles of regional partners in supporting an international Earth science education program. Science Education, 89(6), 956–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73–88. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<73::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Rivet, A. (2006). Using transformative research to explore congruencies between science reform and urban schools. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 578–584). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297. doi:10.3102/0002831207302498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 40–68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245. doi:10.1023/A:1016569117024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  51. Singer, J. E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–179. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143–175. doi:10.1080/002202799183205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitous pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449–481.Google Scholar
  55. Supovitz, J. A., & May, H. (2004). A study of the links between implementation and effectiveness of the America’s Choice comprehensive school reform design. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk JESPAR, 9(4), 389–419. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr0904_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 963–980. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Treagust, D. F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J. L., & Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Science Education, 85(2), 137–157. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200103)85:2<137::AID-SCE30>3.0.CO;2-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tushnet, N. C., Millsap, M. A., Abdullah-Welsh, N., Brigham, N., Cooley, E., Elliott, J., et al. (2000). Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Instructional Materials Development Program. San Francisco: WestEd.Google Scholar
  59. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  62. Wiske, S. (1997). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Penuel
    • 1
  • Harold McWilliams
    • 2
  • Carla McAuliffe
    • 2
  • Ann E. Benbow
    • 3
  • Colin Mably
    • 3
  • Margaret M. Hayden
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Technology in LearningSRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.TERCCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.American Geological InstituteAlexandriaUSA
  4. 4.Duval County Public SchoolsJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations