Abstract
Improvements in teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge are critical in improving science education but may be insufficient to support and sustain instructional changes. This chapter describes how contextual factors influenced teachers’ use of research-based instructional strategies learned in professional development. The research draws on survey, observational, and interview data collected from 135 teachers who participated in four different intensive professional development programs that were situated in small, rural school districts with high-need student populations and that extended over 3 years. Each program had a slightly different STEM focus, but all four programs aimed to improve teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in science and to foster their use of research-based instructional strategies in science. Across programs, teachers’ science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and self-efficacy increased over the course of the professional development. Overall, teachers more frequently used research-based practices for teaching science. But contextual factors varied substantially across schools and districts and both fostered and hindered teachers’ science instruction. The most influential contextual factors included time for planning and collaboration, time for science instruction, administrator support, access to resources, and regional constraints. Identifying the contextual factors that influence teachers’ use of pedagogical content knowledge gained through professional development is the first step for formulating strategies for supporting and sustaining teacher change.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.
Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Boyer, P. (2006). Building community: Reforming math and science education in rural schools. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.
California Council on Science and Technology. (2010). The preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science in California. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42–50.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, and Education, 7(3), 252–263.
Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High hopes, few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689.
Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Harmon, H., Gordanier, J., Henry, L., & George, A. (2007). Changing teaching practices in rural schools. The Rural Educator, 28(2), 8–12.
Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement science teacher questionnaire. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/tq_k8sci.php.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE), 9(1), 60–70.
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–466.
McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at the changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.
National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Revised). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council (NSDC).
Olson, S., & Labov, J. (2009). Nurturing and sustaining effective programs in science education for grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an efficacy belief instrument for elementary teachers. Science Education, 74, 625–637.
Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. (2017). Teacher professional development by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sherry, L. (2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J.H. (2018). From Budgets to Bus Schedules: Contextual Barriers and Supports for Science Instruction in Elementary Schools. In: Uzzo, S., Graves, S., Shay, E., Harford, M., Thompson, R. (eds) Pedagogical Content Knowledge in STEM. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97474-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97475-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)