This study describes an elementary science model of professional development through mentoring by university science education professors working with teachers at a private elementary school in a regional city in Queensland, Australia. A cross-cultural collaboration involving professors from the United States and Australia resulted in the socially constructed image of the science education mentor. While there is no generic model for elementary science mentoring, results of data collection reveal that (a) one-to-one mentoring has short-term implications for implementing constructivist science teaching practices; (b) successful mentoring models include facilitating the understanding of science content, exploring elementary science pedagogical content knowledge through modeling, and off-site professional development workshops; and (c) understanding and working from the predispositions of the teachers is an essential component of effective professional development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, M. F. (2000). Provision of professional development & training to all employees within government schools in Queensland. Unpublished manuscript, Rockhampton, Australia.
Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 357–369.
Appleton, K. (2004, April). Mentoring elementary teachers in science: A bridge for developing their science pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented as part of the multiple paper set, Professional Development for Elementary Teachers: Mentoring in Science and Technology, at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Appleton, K. (2005). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education.
Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1997). Research monograph: Beginning teachers’ practices in primary science in rural areas. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University, Faculty of Education.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press.
Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1994, April). A longitudinal study of preservice elementary teachers personal and science teaching efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Grossman, P. (2003). Teaching: from “A Nation at Risk” to a profession at risk.Harvard Educational Newsletter, September/October, p. 3.
Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by science education reform policies, teachers’ needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 187–196.
Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1991, July). Challenging and developing teachers’ conceptions of science education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Gold Coast, Australia.
Harland, J., & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers’ continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-service Education, 23(1), 71–84.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379–385.
Klapper, M. H., Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). Professional development: Starting point for systemic reform. Cognosos, 3(3), 1–5.
Koch, J. (2005). Science stories: Science methods for elementary and middle school teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & 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.
McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (2002). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (3rd. ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
National Academy of Science. (2003). Teacher professional development. Retrieved July 20, 2003, from http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4.htm
National Science Foundation. (2003). Math and science teachers testify before science committee. Retrieved December 5, 2003 from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/congress/107/hs_mathsciteachers.htm
Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science years 1–10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Queensland School Curriculum Council (now Queensland Studies Authority).
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, J., Pedersen, J., & Finson, K. (2001). Validating the draw-a-science teacher-test checklist: Exploring mental models and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 295–310.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1997). An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 51–69.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. London: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Student Survey
Your name: ___________________________ Date: __________________
This is not a test. We are interested in the way you think about things, so please write down your ideas in the spaces provided.
-
1.
Some people like to add some sugar to their tea or coffee. What do you think happens to the sugar when it is in the tea or coffee?
-
2.
Uncle John was visiting Sam and Sally. Dad accidentally filled his cup of tea right to the top. Uncle John likes two teaspoons of sugar in his tea. If he adds them carefully, do you think the tea will or will not overflow from the cup? __________________
Why do you think that?
-
3.
A lot of people stir their tea or coffee after they put the sugar in. Why do you think they do that?
-
4.
Would it make any difference if they did not stir it? _____________
Why do you think that?
Sam and Sally were washing up the tea cups when they found one that had been left on a shelf. It was left over from Uncle John’s visit a week ago. He had rushed off without finishing his cup of tea. Sam was about to put the cup in the washing up water, when he noticed some hard stuff stuck to the bottom of the cup. What do you think the stuff might be?
Why do you think that?
Do you think the stuff would come out when Sam put it in the water? _____________
Why do you think that?
-
5.
Imagine that you were given two white powders and you were told one was salt and one was a harmful powder. How would you decide which one was salt?
-
6.
Sam and Sally were playing tennis. Sally reckoned that one of the balls was a dud because she thought it was not bouncing very well. They decided to check out the balls by each hitting their ball toward a brick wall and seeing which ball bounced the farthest.
Do you think this is a good way to find out? _____________________
Why or why not?
If you think it is not a good way to find out, what would you suggest they could do to be absolutely sure if one ball is a dud?
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, J., Appleton, K. The Effect of a Mentoring Model for Elementary Science Professional Development. J Sci Teacher Educ 18, 209–231 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9036-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9036-1