Professional Development Programs for Teaching with Visualizations

  • Libby Gerard
  • Ou Lydia Liu
  • Stephanie Corliss
  • Keisha Varma
  • Michele Spitulnik
  • Marcia C. Linn
Chapter
Part of the Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies book series (LSIS)

Abstract

Previous research suggests the value of technology-enhanced materials that guide learners to use dynamic, interactive visualizations of science phenomena. The power of these visualizations to improve student understanding depends on the teacher. In this chapter we provide two exemplars of professional development programs that focus on teaching with visualizations. The programs differ in intensity but follow the same basic philosophy. We show that the more intense professional development approach results in more effective teacher implementation of visualizations and greater student learning gains. We identify specific strategies that other educators can use to improve students’ knowledge integration with interactive visualizations.

Keywords

Dioxide Sorting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant numbers 0455877 and 0334199. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors gratefully acknowledge support and feedback from participating MODELS and TELS teachers and the members of the Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science Center.

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (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, 46, 1090–1113. doi: 10.1002/tea.20303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (2012). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualization. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition and science education: Trends in current research (pp. 133–164). London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu, J. L. (2009). The impact of feedback on student learning and monitoring with dynamic visualizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerard, L., Varma, K., Corliss, S., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development in technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81, 408–448. doi:  10.3102/0034654311415121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1037–1063. doi:  10.1002/tea.20367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe [Special issue]. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1321–1342. doi:  10.1080/09500690802187017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 71–90. doi:  10.1002/tea.20304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050. doi:  10.1126/science.1131408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Orchestrating inquiry using the knowledge integration framework. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 48–68). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Sato, E. (2011). Developing criteria for explanations in science: Scaffolding peer critique and feedback in technology-enhanced instruction. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  16. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. doi:  10.3102/00346543072003387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zertuche, A., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (in press). How do Openers contribute to student learning? International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education.Google Scholar
  18. Zhang, Z., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198. doi:  10.1002/tea.20443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Libby Gerard
    • 1
  • Ou Lydia Liu
    • 2
  • Stephanie Corliss
    • 3
  • Keisha Varma
    • 4
  • Michele Spitulnik
    • 5
  • Marcia C. Linn
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Division of Instructional Innovation and AssessmentUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  4. 4.College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Contra Costa Jewish Day SchoolLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations