Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Are the Effects of Science Lesson Planning in Peers?—Analysis of Attitudes and Knowledge Based on an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focuses on the effects of collaborative lesson planning by science pre-service teachers on their attitudes and knowledge. In our study, 120 pre-service teachers discussed a preparation for a science inquiry lesson in dyads. The teacher with the lesson preparation had the role of the coachee, while the other was the coach. We investigated the following research questions: (1) Does learning occur between the two peers? and (2) Is the competency in lesson planning affected by the attitude and knowledge of coach and coachee? Based on an actor–partner interdependence model (APIM), we could clarify the relations of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and attitudes (ATT) between and within the dyads of coach and coachee, as well as their development over time. Furthermore, the APIM allowed the inclusion of a mediator (lesson planning competency). Both PCK and ATT increased slightly but significantly during our project. ATT and PCK seemed to converge between coach and coachee at the end of the project. However, we could not find any cross-lagged effects, meaning there was no effect of coach on coachee or vice versa over time. Further, preceding PCK showed a significant effect on the competency of lesson planning, but planning competency did not influence succeeding PCK or attitude. Finally, these results are discussed with respect to science teacher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. doi:10.1002/tea.21036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & de Graaff, R. (2012). How to foster collaborative learning in communities of teachers and student teachers: introduction to a special issue. Learning Environments Research, 1–6.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 357–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: opportunities and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395–409. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00159.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., Doerr, G., Fräfel, U., Kocher, M., Küster, O., Larcher, S., & . . . Wyss, C. (2009). Competences and standards in teacher education in Switzerland and Germany—do prospective teachers become more competent through teacher training. In F. Achtenhagen, F. Oser & U. Renold (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development: Aims, Modules, Evaluation (pp. 145–174). Rotterdam: Sense.

  • Bowman, C. L., & McCormick, S. (2000). Comparison of peer coaching versus traditional supervision effects. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 256–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, L. R., & Anderson, K. A. (2010). Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: examining an underutilised concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 306–314. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938–962. doi:10.1002/tea.20110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A. (2012). Research on science teacher beliefs. In J. B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & J. C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 477–495). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13(1991), 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A.L., & Garmston, R.J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools: ERIC.

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. doi:10.1002/tea.20157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann, S., & Krüger, D. (2010). Evaluation eines Aufgabeninventars zur Ermittlung von Schülervorstellungen zum Sehen [Evaluation of a task inventory for assessing students’ concepts of eyesight]. In U. Harms & I. Mackensen-Friedrichs (Eds.), Lehr- und Lernforschung in der Biologiedidaktik, Band 4 (pp. 137–154). Innsbruck: Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651. doi:10.3102/00346543076004607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLay, D., Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Learning from friends: measuring influence in a dyadic computer instructional setting. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(2), 190–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169. doi:10.1002/tea.20399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltos, L. (2013). Peer coaching: Unlocking the power of collaboration. Thousand Oakes: Corwin Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, C. T., & Zint, M. (2010). Elementary teachers’ beliefs about, perceived competencies for, and reported use of scientific inquiry to promote student learning about and for the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 14–27). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2012). Dyadic data analysis. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, 3, 439–450.

  • Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). “Experiments” and the inquiry emphasis conflation in science teacher education. Science Education, 95(5), 908–926. doi:10.1002/sce.20446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. Trieste: Global Network of Science Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartl, A. C., DeLay, D., Laursen, B., Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2015). Dyadic instruction for middle school students: liking promotes learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744–1751. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(1), 2–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through self-development: Fundamentals of school renewal. White Plains: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366. doi:10.1037/a0019651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis: Guilford Press.

  • Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645. doi:10.1002/tea.1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreis, A., & Staub, F.C. (2011). Fachspezifisches Unterrichtscoaching im Praktikum. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(1), 61–83.

  • Kreis, A., Engeli, E., Wagner, S., & Musow, S. (2015). Qualities of interaction in co-planning dialogues of student teachers - An intervention study. Paper presented at the Presentation in the symposium “Peer Mentoring as a mediator for pre-service teacher qualification”. EARLI-Conference 2015, Limassol, Cyprus, 26th August 2015.

  • Laursen, B., Popp, D., Burk, W. J., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Card, N. (2008). Incorporating interdependence into developmental research: examples from the study of homophily and homogeneity. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & D. L. Todd (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 11–37). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.607099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. J. (1999). Relationships between prospective secondary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83(3), 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J.M. (2013). A user’s guide to FACETS Rasch-model computer programs (version 3.71.0) Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com.

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347. doi:10.1002/tea.20191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on preservice teachers’ views of inquiry and nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 553–582. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, H.-L. (2010). Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher education—a review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 748–753. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: a comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, E. A., & Neubert, G. A. (1995). New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication and EDINFO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B.O. (2010). Bayesian analysis in Mplus: A brief introduction. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/IntroBayesVersion3.pdf.

  • Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. doi:10.1037/a0026802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus: statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, K., Fischer, H. E., & Kauertz, A. (2010). From PISA to educational standards: the impact of large-scale assessments on science education in Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 545–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941. doi:10.1002/tea.21022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pell, A., & Jarvis, T. (2003). Developing attitude to science education scales for use with primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1273–1295. doi:10.1080/0950069022000017289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peugh, J. L., DiLillo, D., & Panuzio, J. (2013). Analyzing mixed-dyadic data using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 314–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegle-Crumb, C., Morton, K., Moore, C., Chimonidou, A., Labrake, C., & Kopp, S. (2015). Do inquiring minds have positive attitudes? The science education of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 99(5), 819–836. doi:10.1002/sce.21177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P. (2015). Peer coaching to enrich professional practice, school culture, and student learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24. doi:10.1080/0950069022000070261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 999–1008. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. Y., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, R. (2015). Attitudes and knowledge of pre-service biology teachers planning science inquiry lessons. Paper presented at the Earli Conference, Limmasol, Cyprus, 25.-29.8.15.

  • Tesch, M., & Duit, R. (2004). Experimentieren im Physikunterricht - Ergebnisse einer Videostudie [Experiments as part of physics instruction - results of a video study]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement on the science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful. IERI Monograph Series, 2, 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960. doi:10.1002/tea.20032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, D. T., & Blankenship, K. L. (2007). Ecological validity. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 275–277). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, A., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 367–392. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, R., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T. C., & Bolhuis, S. (2007). Experienced teacher learning within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The presented project was funded by the International University of Lake Constance (IBH) (585113). The KUBeX project research team included Christine Bieri, Robert Blank, Christian Brühwiler, Eva Engeli, Annelies Kreis, Stephanie Musow, Florian Rietz, Stefanie Schnebel, Robbert Smit, Josiane Tardent, Sandra Wagner, Holger Weitzel, and Corinne Wyss.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Teacher Education, St. Gallen, Rorschach, Switzerland

    Robbert Smit & Florian Rietz

  2. Institute for Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Annelies Kreis

Authors
  1. Robbert Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Rietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annelies Kreis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robbert Smit.

Appendix: Scales and sample test items

Appendix: Scales and sample test items

ᅟ Scale ‘General scientific method’ (Pell and Jarvis 2003) – Scientific inquiry attitudes part I
Full size table
ᅟ Scale ‘Pupil-centred science’ (Pell and Jarvis 2003) – Scientific inquiry attitudes part II
Full size table
ᅟ ‘PCK’ sample item (please tick the appropriate boxes)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smit, R., Rietz, F. & Kreis, A. What Are the Effects of Science Lesson Planning in Peers?—Analysis of Attitudes and Knowledge Based on an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Res Sci Educ 48, 619–636 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9581-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9581-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation