Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Observed Implementation of a Science Professional Development Program for K-8 Classrooms

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a teacher professional development program on the classroom teaching practices of the participants. This particular professional development program included an intensive summer institute, 8 monthly follow-up sessions, informal participant-professor mentoring and peer networking. The majority of participants were teachers (grades 4–8) in rural school districts. Qualitative and descriptive measures were used to assess the impact of this program in terms of participants’ science content learned, teacher self-efficacy, classroom teaching performance and an informal program survey.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baird, W., Ellis, J., & Kuerbis, P. (1989). ENLIST micros: Training science teachers to use microcomputers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauch, P. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G. L. (1999). An investigation of a professional development model in science education: A systems approach. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas-Austin, 1999). UMI Dissertation Services , 9947171.

  • Bell, G. L. (2001, January). Reflective journal writing paired with inquire-based science instruction: Effects on elementary pre-service teachers’ science and science teaching beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Educators of Teachers in Science. Costa Mesa, CA.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, J. E., & Filer, J. D. (1999). Science process skills and attitudes of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control of preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppley, K. (2009). Rural Schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No Child Left Behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education 24(4).

  • Feuerborn, L., Chinn, D., & Morlan, G. (2009). Improving mathematics teachers’ content knowledge via brief in-service: A U.S. case study. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, J., & Lumpe, A. (2003). Constructive beliefs about the science classroom learning environment: Perspective from teachers, administrators, parents, community members and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 366–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Key, D. L. (1998). Teacher interns’ changing perceptions during internship. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

  • Keys, C., & Bryan, L. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, B. S. (2001). Guidelines for effective elementary science teacher inservice education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 13(2), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., Appeldoorn, K., & Sun, T. (2002). Classroom observation handbook: CETP core evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lydon, S., & King, C. (2009). Can a single, short continuing professional development workshop cause change in the classroom? Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naizer, G. L., Bell, G. L., West, K., & Chambers, S. (2003). Inquiry science professional development with a science summer camp for immediate application. The Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. In S. Olson & S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plano Independent School District (2009). Job posting. [On-line]. Available: http://www.pisd.edu/employment/jobs/index.html.

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shriner, M., Schlee, B., Hamil, M., & Libler, R. (2009). Creating teachers’ perceptual, behavioral, and attitudinal change using professional development workshops. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 13(2), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Stump, S. L., & Miller, D. R. (1999). The impact on instructional practice of a teacher change model. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 2(32), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency. (1997). Texas essential knowledge and skills. Austin: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. (2009). Characteristics of a good teacher: What it takes to make the grade. [On-line]. Available: http://www.associatedcontent.com/.

  • Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Department of Education. (2001). PL 107–110: No child left behind act. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–2009. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., Crawford, R. A., & Overstreet, C. M. (2003). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement, year eight cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA

    Becky Barton Sinclair & Gilbert Naizer

  2. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

    Cynthia Ledbetter

Authors
  1. Becky Barton Sinclair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gilbert Naizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia Ledbetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Becky Barton Sinclair.

Appendix 1: Representative comments used to determine the emergent categories

Appendix 1: Representative comments used to determine the emergent categories

Knowledge

  • I actually learned more about teaching science than what I expected.

  • I learned a lot about earth science (earthquakes, volcanoes and plate motion), fossils, chemical and physical changes and more!

  • This institute gave me tons of information about subject areas in which I was lacking.

  • I was scared of science, but now I am more comfortable → I still need to learn a lot.

  • I have learned and experienced so much more than I ever expected.

  • This institute has helped me because I haven’t taught science and so it has made me feel very comfortable with the concepts and how to put them into a hands on approach for my students.

Pedagogy

  • I will break out of the boring textbook-based science I have done in the past!

  • They have to see it, touch it, hear it to comprehend.

  • I can effectively teach a science lesson.

  • Definitely use hands-on approach.

  • I present more hands-on activities in class.

  • Inquiry based is the preferred teaching method.

  • I am now more comfortable with inquiry-based science teaching.

  • My own experience with the inquiry base examples allowed me to become more confident to teach science in this matter.

Collegial Sharing

  • I basically can’t wait to revamp my curriculum and tell other teachers at my campus about it.

  • Wow, I learned so much and I have shared with everyone I know!

No changes

  • No changes needed.

  • It is great as it is.

Positive results (confidence and/or motivation)

  • I feel more confident.

  • Makes me enthusiastic for the next year to begin.

  • It has re-energized me–I am ready to begin my year with science activities.

  • I learned a lot about the different areas of science and how to teach it. Before the institute, I hated science!

About this article

Cite this article

Sinclair, B.B., Naizer, G. & Ledbetter, C. Observed Implementation of a Science Professional Development Program for K-8 Classrooms. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 579–594 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation