Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring a Model of Situated Professional Development: Impact on Classroom Practice

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

A hallmark of current science education reform involves teaching through inquiry. However, the widespread use of inquiry-based instruction in many classrooms has not occurred (Roehrig and Luft in Int J Sci Educ 26:3–24, 2004; Schneider et al. in J Res Sci Teach 42:283–312, 2005). The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of a professional development program on middle school science teachers’ ability to enact inquiry-based pedagogical practices. Data were generated through evaluation of teacher practice using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada et al. in School Sci Math 102:245–253, 2002) at three distinct junctures, before, during, and after the professional development treatment. Analysis of teacher-participant post-institute reflections was then utilized to determine the perceived role of the various institute components. Statistical significant changes in RTOP scores indicated that the teachers were able to successfully transfer the enactment of the inquiry-based practices into their classrooms. The subsequent discussion provides connection between these pedagogical changes with use of professional development strategies that provide a situated learning environment.

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

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. M. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, A., & Atkins, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P. M., & Zucker, A. A. (1998). The SSIs and professional development for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappn, 76, 597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1987). Abandoning the scientific legacy of science education. Science Education, 22, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2002, April). A design approach to professional development: Linking teacher and student learning in systemic reform. In Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • 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, 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, H. (2008). Middle school science teachers’ perspectives and practices of teaching through inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., Borko, H., Schneider, C., Pittman, M. E., Eiteljog, E., Bunning, K., & Frykholm, J. (2007). The problem-solving cycle: A model to support the development of teachers’ professional knowledge. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 273–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, H., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1318–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry based science in middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 667–680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C. (2002). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 4, 272–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munby, H. M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84, 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual. (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-3). Retrieved July 29, 2007 from http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/AZTEC/rtop/RTOP_full/PDF/.

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, S., Harris, I., & Tshirner, U. (2001). Student peer teaching: An innovative approach to instruction in science and engineering education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 331–350.

    Article  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, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, L. (2007). Impacts of project-based science in middle school classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Russell, B., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 33, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina State Department of Education. (2007). School accountability data. Retrieved July 29, 2007 from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Accountability/Data-Management-and-Analysis/QuickDataPortal.html.

  • Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://www.nsdc.org/library/authors/NSCDCPlan.cfm.

  • Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C., & 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, 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The “filtering effect” of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The National Science Foundation Teacher Professional Continuum Program (DESIE-0455811) provided funding for the research described in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Academic IV, A wing, Room 418, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD, 21250, USA

    Jonathan Singer

  2. Department of Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education, University of South Carolina, 820 S. Main Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Christine Lotter

  3. Center for Science Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Robert Feller

  4. School District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties, 1020 Dutch Fork Road, Irmo, SC, 29063, USA

    Harry Gates

Authors
  1. Jonathan Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Lotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Feller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harry Gates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Singer.

About this article

Cite this article

Singer, J., Lotter, C., Feller, R. et al. Exploring a Model of Situated Professional Development: Impact on Classroom Practice. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 203–227 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9229-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9229-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation