Abstract
A group of teachers’ meaning-making when they are collaboratively analyzing artifacts from practice in local science classrooms in a school-based professional development (PD) project is examined through repeated interviews and represented as meaning-making maps. The interpretation of the teachers’ meaning-making includes both their reference to outcomes from the project and their expressed ideas about teaching and learning of science. All four teachers refer to experiences from experimenting in their classrooms and interpret the collected artifacts in relation to students’ learning. Furthermore, they all felt encouraged to continue collaboration around science. During the interviews, the teachers emphasize various elements apparently connected to concrete challenges they each experience in their professional work. Implications in relation to the design of PD are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adey, P., Shayer, M., & Yates, C. (2001). Thinking Science: The curriculum materials of the CASE project (3rd ed.). London: Nelson Thornes.
Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20, 533–548.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 948–967.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers′ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.
Ebenezer, J. V. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meaning-making in science instruction: a case study in Manitoba. International Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 93–105.
Edwards, A. (2001). Researching pedagogy: A sociocultural agenda. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(2), 161–186.
Feinam-Nemser, S. (2001). From Preparation to Practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
Fishmann, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Shih, J., Biagetti, S., & Battey, D. (2010). Changing teachers’ professional work in mathematics: One school’s journey. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters. New York: Routledge.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., 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.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(3), 191–209.
Hiebert, J., Galimore, R., & Stiegler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31, 3–15.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterView (2nd ed.). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities—professional strategies to improve students achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Meirink, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161–181.
Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82(2), 197–214.
Nichols, S. E. (1997). A toolkit for developing critically reflective science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 77–106.
Nielsen, B. L. (2011). A cohort of novice Danish science teachers: Background in science and argumentation about science teaching. NorDiNa, 7(2), 202–218.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collings, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction: The SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303–327.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Putman, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking has to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Rocard, M. (Chair) et al. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection. Harward Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Roth, K. J. (2007). Science teachers as researchers. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Students conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities- divergence, depth and dilemmas. New York: Open University Press.
van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.
Van Driel, J. (2010). Model-based development of science teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the International Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York.
Van Driel, J., & Beijaard, D. (2003). Enhancing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through collegial interaction. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in Science Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Van Es, E. A. (2009). Participants roles in the context of a video club. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 18, 100–137.
Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers′ learning to notice in the context of a video-club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice—learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind—a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Codebook, Meaning-Making Model
Step 1
Codes referring to the five domains in the meaning-making model. The teachers’ utterances in this step of analysis might have reference to more than one domain.
Code | Description |
|---|---|
External Domain (ED) | Reference to new information, materials, and stimulus from the facilitator; for example, new teaching materials, tools to be used in classrooms to examine students’ preconceptions, and facilitation connected to video-recording and choice of clips to use in workshops. |
Domain of Practice (DoP) | Reference to purposefully trying something new in practice; for example, trying a new tool or teaching a new subject matter area or using a new pedagogical approach in the teacher’s own classroom. |
Domain of Collaboration (DoCoI) | Reference to collegial interactions in the PD workshops; for example, discussion with colleagues, seeing something in colleagues practice, or presentation of artifacts from own class. |
Domain of Consequence (DoCon) | Reference to something the teacher sees as an outcome from the project when being asked directly and something the teacher spontaneously refers to as an outcome. |
Personal Domain (PD) | Reference to the teachers’ ideas and interpretations of experience concerning the nature and content of science, science subjects and curriculum, the learners and learning of science, and decisions and planning in relation to teaching science. |
Step 2
Codes referring to how change in one domain is connected to other domains, with reflection (R) and enactment (E) as mediating factors (see arrows in Fig 1). Coding is used on utterances where more than one code is attached in step 1.
Code | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
PD E ED | The teacher refers to personal request and search for new information from ED. | No examples |
ED R PD | The teacher reflects on personal use of input from ED. | Yes concept cartoons [..] I have to try it out (Teacher A) this is the best sparring you can get (Teacher C) |
ED E DoP | The teacher refers to trials based on input from ED or supported in other ways by facilitator. | This electrics as we used it (Teacher B) I actually think you can use these video recordings, I have to admit it (Teacher D) |
PD E DoP | The teacher refers to the ideas behind an initiation of experimentation in practice. | Now when I have 6th grade, I try to challenge the students to combine concepts and discuss (Teacher C) |
DoP R PD | The teacher reflects on personal experiences from experimentation in the classroom—experiences which may have verified or potentially changed ideas. | Like for example in this electrics, to work with students’ preconceptions, how they catch the point (Teacher B) how you can remain asking question [..] it is easier to give the answers (Teacher C) |
ED E DoCoI | The teacher refers to input or support by facilitator in relation to collegial interactions in the workshops. | I think it was a good refinement in the approach made after the first workshop [..] and E tried it out [..] It is where you can see that things is now really on the track (Teacher C) |
DoCoI E ED | Collaborative request and search for new “information” from ED when involved in collegial interaction. | No examples |
DoCoI E PE | The teacher refers to how discussions in workshops lead to/induced/started professional experimentation (or might do so, looking forward). | This [a method seen on C’s video] I would really like to use, I think it is a really good approach (Teacher A) |
DoP R DoCoI | The teacher reflects on how experiments from the classroom were used in the workshops. | Something, where I could contribute [..] it was more my field (Teacher B) |
DoCon E DoCoI | The teacher refers to salient outcomes and how these entail (or might entail) new/changed/more/less collegial interactions. | I think it could be fine, if we could carry on with this in the team. (Teacher B) We are going to make this project next year. (Teacher C) |
DoCoI R DoCon | The teacher reflects on something that happened in collegial interactions as being a salient outcome. | I think it was really good to see how it was done in other classes. (Teacher A) |
DoCon E DoP | The teacher refers to salient outcomes and how these entail (or might entail) new/changed/more/less professional experimentation. | Try new approaches, like this electrics, and work with students’ preconceptions (Teacher B) |
DoP R DoCon | The teacher reflects on professional experimentation, things that happened during experimentation, and/or results of experimentation as being salient outcomes. | I think it has been really good teaching electrics. (Teacher B) Students could discuss scientifically, use the concepts and stay on task (Teacher D) |
DoCon R PD | The teacher refers to what is a salient outcome and when reasoning directly reflects on—or indirectly refers to personal ideas. | It makes them talk and think a lot. (Teacher A) I think this is a good approach in 3rd grade, before I used this guy from the energy-center, this was a show [..] focus on entertainment. (Teacher B) |
PD R DoCon | The teacher uses ideas about teaching and learning science directly in reflection on what she sees as salient outcomes. | I think it is best that you [as a teacher] see it yourself, instead of just being told. (Teacher C) |
DoColR PD | The teacher reflects on personal development, ideas about teaching and learning science, based on discussions in collegial interactions. | I think I have been thinking as a resource teacher in the workshops, the things we have discussed, I have gained a really good sense of where the colleagues are. (Teacher C) |
PDE DoCol | The teacher refers to ideas about teaching and learning science and uses these as an argument for new/changed/more/less collegial interactions. | No examples |
Appendix 2: Codebook, Utterances About the Teaching and Learning of Science
Codes | Code description | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|
Category: teacher—science | |||
Teacher’s relation to science | Utterances about the teacher’s relation to science as a subject matter field; the teacher’s experience of the subject matter knowledge in science | Feels secure | Oh this, I feel I know and can handle (Teacher D in 1. Interview) |
Feels a lack of subject matter knowledge | Physics and chemistry this is not what I am strongest in (Teacher A in 1. interview) | ||
Teacher’s reference to planning—subject logic as the starting point | Utterances about how and what the teacher plans with reference to the logic of the science sub-content field | Earlier this year we had a theme about the geological circuit [..] and worked with various stones. (Teacher D in 1. Interview) | |
See also the code “Teacher’s reference to planning- students thinking” as the starting point’ below | |||
Science as a school subject | Utterances about science as a subject in the school system in general or at the local school | Positive comments | I like teaching science [..] it is a subject where they have to touch and experience themselves. (Teacher B in 1. Interview) |
Negative comments | In Science and Technology there are questions in south and north. (Teacher A in 1. Interview) When you want to make an experiment you can use really long time to find some of the things. (Teacher A in 1. Interview) | ||
Science curriculum | Utterances referring to the Danish science curriculum: “Faelles Maal” | I would like us to follow “Faelles Maal 2”, where it is actually stated that you must teach interdisciplinary themes. (Teacher D in 2. Interview) | |
Category: teacher–student | |||
Classroom management | Utterances about how the teacher copes with classroom management (and why) and problems with handling classroom management | Is a big problem in science teaching | And then there is some, ruining the teaching (Teacher A in 1. Interview) |
Is an issue, but works ok for me | It can still be a little hard, but it works and maybe you cannot avoid this. (Teacher A in 2. Interview) You have to be really structured (Teacher B in 1. Interview) | ||
Students’ self-regulation | Utterances about students deciding (or co-deciding) themselves how to approach something and/or what to do in science lessons (or teacher wanting/not wanting them to do that) | Freedom is important | I want it to be as free as possible. (Teacher A in 1. Interview) |
Regulation is important | I would never start a project like that, so unregulated, I would make a structured manual of a kind. (Teacher D in 1. Interview) | ||
Category: student–science | |||
The teacher refer to as being important: | |||
Students doing/activities in science | Utterances about students’ activities: their hands-on experiences, experiments etc. (or lack of activities) | Science and technology is about, they feel, touch, experience. (Teacher B in interview 1) | |
Students thinking in science | Utterances about how students understand/misunderstand science concepts and which concepts are easy/difficult for students | To get their preconceptions on the table (Teacher C in 1. Interview) | |
Students talking science | Utterances about students talking and discussing in science (or lack of it) | Bring the things inside and put some words on, about science [..] symbolic language (Teacher B in 1. Interview) It is important to make them talk [..] about what they know, before starting. (Teacher B in 2. Interview) | |
Students learning science | Utterances about students’ learning or lack of learning in science (this code will often be used together with the codes above, in utterances about, for example, how students learn through talking or doing science) | Along the year [..] taking pictures, 4th grade, they were not able to make those connections (Teacher C in 1. Interview) This about the lungs and the two circulatory systems was a little hard for them. (Teacher A in 2. Interview) | |
Students’ interest and motivation | Utterances about what interest and motivate students | Students who discovered some things [..] and were interested (Teacher A in 1. Interview) | |
Category: teacher relating to student–science | |||
Teacher’s reference to planning—students’ thinking as the starting point | Utterances about how teachers plan and/or refine teaching based on knowledge of or considerations about students’ thinking and learning See also the code “Teacher’s reference to planning—subject logic as the starting point” above | I have planned it using the same groups again [..] because when you want them to express their thinking [..] there is an enormously span [..] in abstraction. (Teacher C in 1, interview) | |
Teacher’s reference to other actions supporting students’ learning | Other utterances about how teachers can support students’ learning processes | Photosynthesis [..] all the time a poster with a great leaf was hanging in class, and this is what they refer to now (Teacher C in 2. Interview) | |
About this article
Cite this article
Nielsen, B.L. Science Teachers’ Meaning-Making When Involved in a School-Based Professional Development Project. J Sci Teacher Educ 23, 621–649 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9300-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9300-5