See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256455486

Research on Teacher Professional Development in Science

Chapter · August 2014

DOI: 10.4324/9780203097267

CITATIONS READS
181 7,814

2 authors, including:

Peter W. Hewson
University of Wisconsin–Madison
66 PUBLICATIONS   8,473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Out-of-Field Teaching in the First Five Years: Science Education View project

SCAFFOLD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julie Luft on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Research on Teacher Professional Development Programs in Science

Julie A. Luft, University of Georgia

Peter W. Hewson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

For inclusion in Abell, S.K. and Lederman, N.G. (Eds.)

Handbook of Research on Science Education (Second Edition)

Contact information:
Julie A. Luft
Athletic Association Professor
Department of Mathematics and Science Education
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
[email protected]
 2

Research on Teacher Professional Development Programs in Science

Julie A. Luft, University of Georgia

Peter W. Hewson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Science teachers are an essential link between the scientifically oriented

citizens of the present and the future. In order to prepare students for the scientific

and technological changes of the 21st century, teachers will need ongoing science

professional development opportunities. Educational programs that are as

dynamic as the societies in which teachers and students live will require new

approaches—and research—on professional development. This research should

suggest ways in which science teachers can enhance, refine, or reconstruct their

practice in powerful and purposeful ways.

A goal of this chapter is to guide science teacher educators who are

involved in developing, enacting and studying professional development

programs (PDPs). In order to accomplish this, we review recent research on

teacher PDPs in science. Based on this review, we outline a model that links

policy, PDPs, teachers and students, and suggests areas in which research should

and could be conducted in order to advance teacher professional development.

This model recognizes not only the relationships between these key components,

but also that PDPs are situated within dynamic contexts.

 3

There are several key sections in this chapter, beginning with a discussion

of the most important characteristics of PDPs in science. Next, we discuss prior

research on PDPs in general, and PDPs in science; studies of PDPs; and the

process of finding studies for this review. After this overview, there is a

discussion of the reviewed research in light of the Policy, PDPs, Teachers, and

Students model. Within each section, salient articles are discussed and approaches

to further avenues of study are offered. This chapter concludes with a discussion

of the ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973) in PDPs for science teachers,

as well as suggestions for conducting and sharing future research.

Teacher PDPs in Science

Professional development can be viewed as the ongoing learning

experience of a teacher. It can begin prior to working in a classroom and continue

until the final year of one’s career in education. For science teachers, the specific

character of science is an essential ingredient of teacher practice, of teacher

learning, and thus of programs designed to facilitate these outcomes. The entire

process of professional development is ultimately influenced by policy and

concerned with student learning.

Among those who engage in PDPs, there is an emphasis on professional

learning. This emphasis strives to eliminate the uni-directional notion that PDPs

provide teachers with skills and knowledge. Early definitions of professional

learning suggested that teachers learned as they worked alone, or in collective

 4

groups, and that their learning was directed by the context in which they worked.

Lieberman (1995), as an early advocate of professional learning, suggested that

learning “is both personal and professional, individual and collective, inquiry

based and technical (p. 592).” More recently, the notion of professional learning

is being advanced as a complex and iterative interaction of the teacher, the school,

and the learning activity (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Professional learning provides

an important framework for conceptualization and enactment of PDPs.

In this review, we focus on an area of the professional learning process:

PDPs for science teachers. As an important component of a teacher’s career,

PDPs are purposefully constructed learning opportunities for science teachers that

follow initial teacher preparation programs. These programs are focused on

important content, attend to the context that supports and guides teacher learning,

and consist of a process that supports teacher learning (Darling-Hammond, Chung

Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). As we discuss later in the review,

PDPs are influenced by policy and concerned with the learning of students.

When focusing on PDPs, it is important to reject the notion that these

programs and the developers who run them are active providers, while the

teachers are passive recipients. On the contrary, it is of the utmost importance to

recognize that teachers themselves are responsible for their own professional

development (Kennedy, 1999; Shapiro & Last, 2002; Wilson & Berne, 1999).
 5

Any activity should have the purpose of supporting teachers to take responsibility

for their own learning, and to be active learners.

Science PDPs have unique requirements. The content, context and process

of the program should be clearly defined. The content of PDPs for science

teachers should focus on a discipline, and consist of domains and knowledge.

According to Gardner (1972), disciplines are specialized areas of study that “span

the alphabet from aerodynamics to zoology (p. 26),” while domains consist of the

objects that are studied or explored, such as living things or elements. Subject

matter knowledge is produced by the discipline, and can sometimes cross

disciplines.

Subject matter knowledge has a substantive structure, which is an

“interrelated collection of powerful ideas that guide research in a discipline”

(Gardner, 1972; p. 27). In science, this consists of theories, laws, facts and

concepts that are important in studies in the discipline. Subject matter knowledge

also consists of syntactical structure (Schwab, 1964), the way in which knowledge

is generated by the discipline (Gardner, 1972). In science, this consists of the

logic and reasoning used by scientists in the process of inquiry.

The context of PDPs for science teachers can range from the school

environment to national policies. At the school level, context decisions relate to

supporting the learning of science teachers. This can connect to the design of the

PDP, which can consist of teachers in a school participating in a learning

 6

community (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Local contextual elements should

also be considered in the design of a PDP, which may include the cultural

background of the students, the language needs of the students, or the content

knowledge of the teachers.

National context is also important to consider, as there is a global call for

scientifically oriented citizens in our ever-changing world (e.g., National

Research Council, 2007). For policy makers, the professional learning of science

teachers has become increasingly important. Emerging policy documents across

the globe articulate the need for science teachers to receive ample professional

development opportunities in order to enhance and improve their knowledge and

practices (e.g., National Research Council, 2009; National Science Board, 2012;

Eurydice, 2011). Often the national context is influenced by a nation’s orientation

towards science. National contexts may emphasize the applied side of science

knowledge, the social implications of science, or scientific practices.

The process within a PDP for science teachers includes setting goals,

planning, enacting, looking at outcomes, and reflecting on the entire process

(Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010). Goals may vary in a

PDP for science teachers. For instance, science teachers can look at student

learning, revise curriculum, learn to use curriculum, or refine instructional

practices (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Throughout the PDP, the collection of

 7

data is essential in order to revise the program. This results in an adaptive PDP

that ultimately supports teacher and student learning.

It is not clear how PDPs for science teachers are enacted across the globe.

However, in general, the access that teachers have to such programs is uneven and

the programs vary in their structure (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Hendriks,

Luyten, Scheerens, Sleegers, & Steen, 2010). Teachers from the United States of

America (US) have fewer opportunities to participate in extended PDPs and fewer

opportunities to work together than do some of their international peers (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2012).

Research in Teacher Professional Development in Science

Most Recent Review of Research

Our review of recent research on teacher professional development in

science is based on Hewson’s (2007) chapter in the first edition of this Handbook

(Abell & Lederman, 2007). That review only included studies with an explicit

focus on the two central elements: a comprehensive description of the PDP, and a

focus on practicing teachers of science. A subset of these studies also included

students. Since the publication of the first edition, the field has progressed in

various ways. Some research areas are now saturated, while others, not considered

in the previous review, hold out exciting and challenging possibilities.

Hewson’s (2007) review was guided by three focal points. The first

addressed how teachers developed professionally. The Learning in Science

 8

Project (Teacher Development) in New Zealand (Bell & Gilbert, 1996) served as

the basis for this discussion. Researchers Bell and Gilbert (1996) identified the

personal development, social development, and professional development of

science teachers as they worked with 48 teachers over three years. This

description of how teachers developed professionally has served as a theoretical

framework for researchers exploring the professional development process.

The second focal point addressed how successful professional developers

plan and implement PDPs. The books by Loucks-Horsley and her colleagues

(1998; 2003) guided this discussion. These books drew on the practice of

experienced professional developers to conceptualize a model PDP. The model

offered specific suggestions about the process of planning PDPs, the knowledge

and beliefs underlying effective PDPs, the context in which PDPs can exist, the

critical issues that need to be considered in the PDP process, and the strategies

that can be used in the PDP process. For those interested in planning PDP, these

books, now in a third edition (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010) are essential guides.

The final focal point addressed the relationship between teachers and

PDPs. The section drew upon the work of Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal (2003) to

explore the relationship between PDPs and science teachers’ practice. Their

process of PDP design had much in common with Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles,

Mundry, and Hewson (2003), but it went further in its explicit focus on teacher

enactment in the classroom and the resulting student learning and performance.
 9

The remainder of the chapter explored different studies in the midst of

these focal points. These studies were grouped in two ways: studies that only

considered the influence of PDPs on the teachers who participated in them, and

studies that included student outcomes from classes taught by teachers who

participated in PDPs. After reviewing these studies, several conclusions were

reached and suggestions were offered about how to better understand the field of

science teacher professional development. One major conclusion was the need to

consider not only the people and programs involved in science teacher

professional development, but also the systems in which these programs are

embedded.

Types of Studies Informing PDP Research

Several types of studies provide direction for those involved in PDPs for

teachers. Synthesis studies, for example, draw upon the work of others in order to

make compelling conclusions about PDP structure and function (e.g., Capps,

Crawford, & Constas, 2012; Gerard, Varma, Corliss, & Linn, 2011). Capps et al.

(2012), for example, specifically examined research on PDPs that supported the

use of inquiry instruction among science teachers. From their review, they

concluded that few empirical studies looked at PDPs focused on inquiry

instruction, and that more empirical studies were needed in this area. They also

suggested that more research programs should study the connections between the

PDP supporting the use of inquiry, and teacher knowledge, practices and beliefs.
 10

Another type of study in the area of professional development draws upon

the analysis of large sets of teacher data in order to make important conclusions

about the professional development process (e.g., Banilower, Heck, & Weiss,

2007; Garet et al., 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Banilower et al. (2007), in a

study of 42 projects associated with the US National Science Foundation’s Local

Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative, concluded that high

quality K-8 PDPs resulted in teachers developing positive attitudes towards

science, and feeling more prepared in terms of pedagogical skills and content

knowledge. They also reported that the longer the PDP, the more likely teachers

were to implement the associated instructional materials.

A third type of study that contributes to our knowledge of professional

development is one that carefully examines various aspects of the teacher

professional development process. These types of studies vary greatly and utilize

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Each study is designed to

answer a specific question or to highlight a certain aspect of professional

development. For instance, Penuel, Gallagher, and Moorthy (2011) studied 53

middle school Earth science teachers who were randomly assigned to different

PDPs. They used hierarchical linear modeling to determine the impact of the PDP

on teachers and students. They concluded that explicit instruction and effective

modeling played an important role in the learning of the students and the teacher.

In contrast, Watson, Steele, Vozzo, and Aubusson (2007) captured the

 11

experiences of 12 teachers through interviews and artifacts during a PDP. The

program was designed to help non-physics teachers learn to teach physics. In this

study, the well-intentioned and well-configured PDP was no match for the lack of

discipline knowledge of the teacher and the teacher’s school community.

Certainly there are other forms of research conducted on PDPs. For this

chapter, however, these general categorizations were important in our

contemplation of the research involving PDPs. Synthesis studies, the analysis of

data sets, and small scale studies each provided different insights into the

professional development process.

Studies Examined in this Review

There were numerous steps involved in conducting this research review.

First, parameters were articulated in order to identify potential studies. One

parameter was the focus of the articles. We considered only studies that described

or were situated within a PDP for science teachers. Lengthy descriptions of the

PDP were not necessary, but the program’s inclusion in the study was a key

factor. As a result, we excluded studies that only considered teacher learning, or

that considered teachers who crafted their own professional development

experiences outside of a structured program. Both of these categories of study are

considered elsewhere in this Handbook.

Another parameter was that only research studies focusing on practicing

teachers, as distinct from studies of initial teacher education, were considered for
 12

this review. Studies of prospective teachers involved in initial teacher education

are discussed elsewhere in this volume. While this convenient division reflects the

reality that initial teacher education and inservice teacher PDPs are different

enterprises, it is still acknowledged that teacher learning should continue

throughout the professional life of a teacher (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Certainly,

the emphasis and intensity of teacher learning changes as teachers move from

initial certification to an experienced professional in the field.

A third parameter involved selection of studies that had an explicit focus

on teachers of science. This requirement arises from the nature of the present

volume. While science may appear to be a straightforward concept, it varied

among the different studies. Science could exist as learning about the nature of

science, learning key concepts in the different disciplines, or even learning how

students learned about various aspects of science. These dimensions, and many

more, were accounted for in this review. Additionally, the focus on science had

the practical effect of limiting the number of reviewed studies.

To find these studies, we searched a number of science education and

education journals that use a peer-review process. Most of the journals were in the

field of science education, while a few journals were focused on the broad field of

education. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Research in Science

Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, the International Journal of

Science Education, Science Education, and the American Educational Research

 13

Journal were the primary journals of interest in this review. Since this review

complements Hewson’s (2007) review, articles between 2002 and 2012 were of

interest.

Our initial search by hand resulted in over 200 potential articles. Each

article was read to assess the rationale of the study, the research methods, and the

stated conclusions. These three areas were accounted for concurrently, as they are

often relate to each other in published research. This approach did not favor

qualitative or quantitative methods, but instead identified studies that were in

aligned with the AERA standards for empirical research (American Educational

Research Association, 2006).

The rationale for the study was important because it situated the study

within some area related to a PDP. Studies that did not have a clear connection to

PDPs were eliminated. In examining the study methods, evidence was required

suggesting that the appropriate data collection methods were used in reference to

the study question, and that the analysis of data were complete and aligned with

the methods selected in the study. Studies with limited or incorrect descriptions of

the data collection and analysis methods were eliminated. In terms of stated

conclusions, it was important that the findings did not overstep the collected data.

Conclusions that reached beyond the data were not eliminated, but the appropriate

conclusions were noted.

 14

In the remaining studies, we looked for research groups or authors who

used the same data set in several publications and that arrived at similar

conclusions. For instance, a large-scale PDP may have resulted in multiple

publications over several years that addressed the same topic, or the data from a

small PDP may have been examined differently and still had similar findings.

These studies were examined side by side, and the most salient study of the

collection was included in this review. By being selective, it was possible to

highlight the most representative study within a group of studies.

By the end of the review process, over 50 research studies were selected

for inclusion in this chapter review. During article selection, an attempt was made

to include research from around the world. Unfortunately, the number of studies

about PDPs in science outside of the US was limited. This is likely the result of

the significant amount of local/national funding sources for PDPs in science and

mathematics in the US. This funding can also support the reporting of research on

PDPs. It is also possible that PDPs in science outside of the US were published in

local/national journals we didn’t consider, or in languages other than English.

Science Teacher Professional Development Research

What is known from Research about PDPs

Research studies in the field of science education reveal several important

qualities pertaining to the design, enactment, and need for PDPs. These qualities

are often the result of findings from studies that draw upon existing data sets,
 15

studies that examine a group of individuals, or studies that synthesize published

research articles. The conclusions reached from these studies can guide those who

are crafting PDPs, and those who are designing research programs in the field of

professional development.

Teachers experience different degrees of change in the midst of PDPs.

It is widely accepted that teachers need to engage in professional development

activities in order to improve their instructional practice and student learning. This

is evident in numerous policy documents about teacher professional development,

and in the many professional development activities that exist for science

teachers. With a view towards teacher growth, there are compelling discussions

about how teachers can change (e.g., Banilower et al., 2007; Garet et al., 2001;

Supovitz & Turner, 2000). For example, Supovitz and Turner (2000), in an

analysis of the US National Science Foundation’s Local Systemic Change through

Teacher Enhancement Initiative data, concluded that the quality of teacher

instruction is related to the number of hours of professional development.

Specifically, in order for teachers to achieve the level of investigative culture

desired by professional developers, they reported that teachers needed more than

160 hours of professional development programming.

In another study focused on teacher change, Dori and Herscovitz (2005)

followed and documented the change experienced by 50 science teachers over

three years as they participated in a PDP in Israel. The teachers drew upon
 16

different program attributes in order to support their different instructional needs.

While this study revealed the impact of the program on the teachers, its

underlying contribution was the portrayal of how the teachers changed in different

ways over time.

These findings, along with the research of others, suggest that more

difficult changes in practice take additional professional development time. In

addition, these findings suggest that teachers change in different ways over time

and need different forms of instructional support in order to modify their

instruction. Attending to the individual instructional requirements of teachers,

including the context in which they work, is essential throughout a PDP.

Collaboration is important in supporting teacher growth. When

teachers work collaboratively, they reinforce, build, expand, and challenge their

notions about teaching science. Wilson and Berne (1999), in their review of

professional development research, found that successfully supporting the use of

new practices among teachers required collaboration among peers and within

educational communities. Similarly, in a later analysis of science and mathematics

teacher data from the US Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education

program, Garet et al. (2001) found that collective participation within a school,

grade level or subject was an important supporting feature of PDPs. They stressed

that collective participation was a necessary, but not sufficient feature in PDPs in

order for teachers to change their classroom practices.

 17

The notion that collaboration is conducive to professional growth is

worthy of further investigation. Nelson (2009), for instance, in a study of US

science teachers involved in a professional learning community (PLC), reported

on the complexity of working collaboratively in order to enhance teacher learning.

In her study, sustained dialogue helped teachers move towards the instruction

valued in the PDP, but the process of having teachers hold professional

discussions about practice was both challenging and rewarding. Similarly,

Richmond and Manokore (2011) explored the dialogue of US science teachers

who were involved in a PLC. They found that the dialogue within the PLC was

important as teachers negotiated external constraints; dialogue enhanced their

knowledge and confidence.

Coherency is important in science teacher PDPs. The coherency of a

PDP is essential for supporting teacher learning. Coherency is often considered to

be the way in which PDPs offer focused learning opportunities related to local or

national standards. The studies by Garet et al. (2001) and Supovitz and Turner

(2000) demonstrate the importance of coherence in a PDP in order to support

teacher learning. Both of these studies concluded that teachers who experienced a

coherent program, along with other factors, were more likely to improve their

instruction.

The support for creating coherency in teacher learning has continued over

the years. In one study, attention to coherence was important within the PDP and
 18

between the PDP and preservice coursework. In a small-scale study of beginning

US science teachers, Roehrig and Luft (2006) followed 16 secondary science

teachers from a preservice program into their first years of teaching. They found

that when a coherent focus on reform-based instruction existed between a

teacher’s preservice program and induction support program, the new teachers

were likely to enact reform-based instruction in their classrooms.

Content knowledge is an important component of a PDP. Over time,

there has been a notable shift in the importance of content knowledge in a PDP.

Early PDPs focused on helping teachers learn scientific processes or general

instructional practices. More recent studies by Garet et al. (2001) and Supovitz

and Turner (2000) reinforce the importance of science content knowledge in

PDPs for science teachers. Supovitz and Turner (2000) even suggested that the

content knowledge of a teacher was a powerful predictor of the use of

investigation oriented instruction.

Capps et al. (2012), in an empirical review of inquiry PDPs, also

concluded that content knowledge should be a core feature in PDP design. They

further suggested that a focus within the PDP on the content knowledge that a

teacher will need to teach, or the content knowledge the student should learn,

enhances the content knowledge of a science teacher. In their review, they

included the nature of science and science as inquiry as separate forms of content

knowledge.
 19

Summary. These four areas should guide the planning and enactment of

PDPs: 1) incorporating adequate support for teacher change; 2) opportunities for

collaboration; 3) a coherent program; and 3) a focus on content knowledge. For

those involved in the research of PDPs, these areas should not be the focus of a

study. However, carefully reasoned and supported explorations into the nuances

within these areas may be fruitful.

Examining the Research in Science Teacher PDPs

In the examination of PDP studies in science, four organizing components

emerged: Policy, PDPs, Teachers, and Students. Policy includes federal, regional,

state, local and school policies and standards that help determine the quantity and

quality of the PDPs. PDPs include, among other areas, those who offer the

program, the process within the program, and the content within the program.

Teachers are the participants in the programs, with most research examining

teacher learning, teacher change, or teacher practice. Students are the ultimate

beneficiaries of any PDP for teachers, and student learning outcomes are an

important measure of success. Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the four

organizing components, with the lines representing existing and potential research

between them.

[Insert Figure 1 Here]

Policy, in the model, is an anchoring component and was found in several

of the studies on PDPs. Often this orientation emphasizes student learning, since it
 20

is the intended outcome of science teachers engaged in PDPs. Policy documents

from several countries articulate the need for science teachers to receive ample

professional development opportunities in order to enhance and improve their

instructional knowledge and practices (e.g., National Research Council, 2009;

Eurydice, 2011). With additional learning opportunities, according to policy

makers, science teachers will successfully prepare their students for the 21st

century.

PDPs, in the model, refers to the content within the program, the context

that supports and guides teacher learning, and the process that supports teacher

development (National Staff Development Council, 2001). These elements are

situated in a professional development process that generally includes setting

goals, planning, enacting, looking at outcomes, and reflecting on the entire

process (Loucks et al., 2010).

This is an important area of study, as the current state of science teacher

PDPs can be improved across the globe. The access that teachers have to PDPs is

currently uneven and the programs differ greatly in their structure (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2009; Hendriks et al., 2010). Furthermore, science teachers

participate in professional development activities in varying degrees. For

example, in a survey of 3000 science educators conducted by the US National

Science Teachers Association, a majority of science teachers reported having

more opportunities for non-science PDPs than they did for science PDPs (Luft,
 21

Wong, & Ortega, 2009). Additionally, an analysis of the 2007-2008 US Schools

and Staffing Survey data revealed that when science teachers did participate in

PDPs, only 29% engaged in more than 33 hours (National Science Board, 2012).

Science teachers, in this model, are the beneficiaries of PDPs. They are

professionals who have an extensive knowledge base of conceptions, beliefs, and

practices that they bring to bear on the unique complexities of their daily work

lives, a knowledge base that is shared within a professional community. They are

also adult learners who have an interest in and control over the continuing

development of their professional practice. As such, they come into PDPs with the

intent of integrating their new learning into their practice in order to be more

effective teachers of their students.

Students, who have equal importance to teachers in this model, are the

ultimate recipients of science teacher PDPs. In some instances, student learning is

mediated through their teachers, who are transforming their own learning into a

revised teaching practice. In other instances, teacher and student learning are

mutualistic and dependent upon each other. The position of teachers and student

learning in a PDP is dependent upon the assumptions and design of the PDP.

Within the model there are different characterizations of the connections.

For instance, between Policy and PDPs, there is a directive or influential

character. Policy with respect to science teacher education is about setting goals,

creating incentives, providing resources, and establishing accountability

 22

measures. Illustrations of the influential or directive impact of policy are found in

this chapter. The connections between PDPs, Teachers and Students are

characterized differently. In considering what it means to teach and learn science,

there are different orientations towards the research, focusing on exploring how

programs support the teaching and learning of science instruction, and of science

itself. Illustrations of different teaching and learning characterizations are also

found in this chapter.

This model is important because it can guide the exploration of the

components (Policy, PDPs, Teachers, Students), and of the connections between

them. In following this model, all research on PDPs should address two or more

of these components, which should be evident in the research report. By

acknowledging components, researchers will gain greater clarity into which lines

of research have developed over time, and thus contribute to our fund of

knowledge. For instance, with extensive research in an identified area, researchers

may realize the need to conduct synthesis studies. Additionally, by clearly

emphasizing what type of research exists in science teacher PDPs, researchers

will be able to identify the research questions that need to be pursued in order to

contribute to the field.

This model will be used to guide the discussion of research conducted

over the last 10 years in the area of science teacher PDPs.

Components: Policy, PDPs, and Teachers

 23

Few studies explore the connection between Policy, PDPs, and Teachers.

However, a study by Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007)

recognized policy makers’ concerns about the effectiveness of government or

state-funded PDPs. In this study, over 450 teachers participated in a two-year PDP

at 28 different locations in the US. The authors wanted to identify the types of

professional development activities associated with increased program

implementation; to determine if teacher knowledge and practices improved with

PDP participation; and if the follow-up component of a PDP influenced teacher

knowledge and practice. Data in the study were drawn from the existing data base

of a large-scale project in the US, consisting of self-reported data by the teachers

and information from the different school sites.

When the quantitative data analysis was completed, the authors concluded

that the success of the PDP depended upon how the program was structured and

implemented by the coordinators. That is, the PDP had a significant impact on the

teachers when there was an alignment with state, regional or national standards

and the school curriculum. In addition to this finding, they also reported that the

program made a significant impact on the teachers when there was a threshold

amount of time, a focus on content and science as inquiry, and opportunities for

collective participation and reform-like experiences. Penuel et al. (2007) also

named important factors that contributed to the implementation of the program by

the teachers, including professional development opportunities after the initial

 24

session, classroom supplies, and technological support. Policy implications enter

the discussion when the authors call for more studies in this area, which would

require government funding.

Summary. Studies that recognize the relationship between Policy, PDPs,

and Teachers have the potential to explore the impact of policy on teachers. In

Penuel et al. (2007), the program was aligned with policy goals and their research

shed light on how to better support teacher learning through PDPs. They pointed

out the boundary between policy and school culture, and how it can influence

teachers involved in a PDP. This study also reinforced previous findings about

how the structure and enactment of PDPs affect teacher learning.

Studies that link Policy, PDPs, and Teachers are most often carried out at

several locations. The unique nature of a multi-site study (scale up program)

allows for a general understanding of program structure in relationship to teacher

learning. However, there are limitations to what can be learned in a scale up

setting, as site-specific program configurations can impact the fidelity of

implementation. In addition, when considering science teachers, the focus of

PDPs in this review, the unique nature of science knowledge may not be

amenable to a generalized implementation in different sites. In exploring this

connection, we need to examine the programs enacted at the different sites, as

well as the representation and learning of content knowledge. These types of

 25

studies will reveal the promise and constraints of scaling up PDPs for science

teacher learning, and can potentially provide guidance to policy makers.

Components: Policy, PDPs, and Students

In the last few years, there has been an increase in the amount of research

that connects Policy, PDPs, and Students. These types of studies often link

student achievement to the process of professional development, with the goal of

discussing policy implications (e.g., Geier et al., 2008; Lee, Deaktor, Engers, &

Lambert, 2008; Pruitt & Wallace, 2012). In 2008, for example, Geier et al. (2008)

reported on student achievement in an urban district as a result of a district-wide

PDP that was aligned with the project-based inquiry model in the district

curriculum. This research project responded to the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001, a national policy in the US that mandates the testing of students in order to

ensure accountability in different content areas. Often, students in urban areas, or

students who are linguistically and culturally diverse, do not perform at the level

of their non-urban and non-diverse peers on state tests. Geier et al. (2008) sought

to study the effectiveness of a coherent professional development and curriculum

program on roughly 5,000 middle school students in an urban area. The results of

this study, which uses state science test scores as the assessment, revealed that

students whose teachers were involved in the district-wide PDP had significant

standardized test gains when compared to teachers not involved in the program. In

their conclusion, the authors make policy recommendations about the alignment
 26

of best practices in professional development and curriculum in order to achieve

better results on state assessments.

Lee et al. (2008) completed a similar study to Geier et al. (2008), but

instead focused on linguistically and culturally diverse students in the US. In their

study, third, fourth and fifth grade teachers in six elementary schools participated

in a multiyear PDP that focused on cultivating inquiry instruction and positive

beliefs about science and literacy among diverse students. This was completed by

coordinating district curriculum use with a PDP. The study itself focused on how

the students of the teachers performed on a researcher created science test over

three years. The quantitative analysis of data from this study revealed that all

students had significant gains at the end of three years, but that third grade

students demonstrated the largest gains. In conclusion, the authors offered general

suggestions related to conducting research in the midst of accountability policy.

More recently, Lara-Alecio et al. (2012) focused on the effect of a PDP on

middle school English language learners’ (ELLs) knowledge of science and

English language literacy. The policy component of this study is related to the

increase in ELLs in science classrooms in the US, and the need to make science

instruction conducive to the learning of ELLs. Their study used a randomized

experiment with state science and language assessments, while the professional

development component focused on having teachers integrate language and

science instruction. They found a significant and positive effect of the PD

 27

program on ELLs. At the conclusion of their article, they offer specific

suggestions to policy makers about the amount of time needed to support

language development, and the importance of integrating science and literacy

instruction to support the learning of ELLs.

Pruitt and Wallace (2012), in a more state policy-focused study, examined

how a state-required mentoring program for science teachers improved student

achievement. The mentoring program in this study was for new teachers at low

performing schools, and was sponsored by a US state education agency. The

authors wanted to know if the students of teachers with mentors had improved

their test performance and graduation rates. The results from the study revealed

that overall there was no significant difference between students whose teachers

did or did not participate in mentoring programs. When the data were further

examined, however, some of the lowest achieving schools had reached parity with

mainstream schools. At the conclusion of the study, the authors offered

recommendations for policy makers, including better research on practices

associated with state-level programs, and they suggested broad guidelines for the

structure of the mentoring program.

Summary. These studies reveal the different types of policy that can

influence PD programs, with the goal of improving student learning. While all of

these enacted studies were influenced by a national policy, they also were

influenced by policies on local curriculum, and local policies about expected

 28

outcomes. The nested nature of policy in these studies may be unique to countries

which do not have nationalized curriculum. However, in countries with national

curriculum, other nested policies may impact the design of PDPs that strive to

promote student learning. In this area of research, we should consider the nested

nature of policies and their impact on student learning.

Future investigations that link Policy, PDPs, and Students should provide

ample detail about each component. The policies, the program design, and the

student outcomes should all be adequately described. The added detail will help

characterize the connection between these components. For instance, additional

detail could result in a better understanding of the transformation of a policy into

a PDP, or information could be gleaned about how the PDP structure impacts

student learning.

Among these components, there are several areas worth further

investigation. For instance, metrics assessing student learning could be used that

emphasize the logic and reasoning in a science field, as well as conceptual

understanding. Future studies could also explore the retention or transfer of

student knowledge or abilities (a result of the PDP) as they move on to different

grade levels or different courses. Furthermore, future studies could look at

students across different grades, in order to help build knowledge about student

learning over time, in the context of teachers who are active in PDPs.

Components: Policy, PDPs, Teachers and Students

 29

Studies that bridged all four components—Policy, PDPs, Teachers, and

Students—were difficult to find for this review. One such study, by Ostermeier,

Prenzel, and Duit (2010), could be viewed as having a national and international

policy orientation, as the study encompassed a national response to the results of

an international assessment. Their research looks at a PDP that was created after

German students earned a low ranking on the Third International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS). After the program had been in place for a few years,

teachers and students were studied in order to determine teacher and student

improvement and involvement in science.

The data from the teachers and students in the PDP were compared to a

representative sample of German schools tested in Program for International

Student Assessment (PISA), a later study with a different sample pool than

TIMSS. The research report of Ostermeier et al. (2010) discussed how teachers

engaged in the PDP, the type of support the teachers wanted, the products and

understandings of the teachers as a result of the program, and the learning of the

students. After analyzing the data, they concluded that professional development

was important for teachers and students, and that there was a need to conduct

research on large-scale PDPs. The authors recommended the program as a model

for improving science education in Europe. This conclusion, along with the

purpose of the study, places this study in the realm of national and international

policy.
 30

Summary. Among the policy oriented studies, this study has a unique

design and orientation towards PISA and TIMSS. By discussing and evaluating

the different components of the professional development process, this study is

able to provide a new perspective—one that accounts for policy, teachers and

students. Ostermeier et al. (2010) reinforce the idea that PDPs are essential in

improving classroom instruction. They also present a problem-oriented model

program that can be used in different countries. The level of detail they provide

about the program further contributes to an international discussion about

preparing scientifically oriented citizens. This study provides guidance to those

interested in professional development research or evaluation on how to

contribute to the international discussion about professional development, while

examining the impact of a large-scale program.

The constraint associated with this type of study, however, pertains to the

sheer amount of data needed in order to suggest consistency and coherence from

the program, to the teacher, to the students. Furthermore, the collected data needs

to align between areas and it should be comprehensive enough to allow for the

appropriate connections. Although this is a difficult and ambitious type of study,

it has potential to move the field of professional development forward on multiple

levels. Developing ways to present these types of studies in a concise, yet

comprehensive manner will certainly be a formidable task for those engaged in

this type of work.

 31

Components: PDPs and Teachers

The majority of research in the field of science teacher professional

development focuses on aspects of PDPs and their impact on teachers. Studies in

this domain explore the structure of the PDP, the practices used within the PDPs,

and the change in science teacher knowledge or practice as a result of the

program. Often these studies connect the program process to teacher learning,

with the intention of clarifying the connection of teacher learning and PDPs. In

reviewing studies in this area, it was not uncommon for studies to straddle

different topics, such as PDP strategies, teacher knowledge, or teacher

instructional practice.

The research articles in this section are grouped according to focus, or the

area most salient in the study. After a discussion of each group, the summary

emphasizes current and future directions. In this way, emerging and potential

areas of research can be addressed that encompass PDPs and teachers.

PDPs, Science Teachers, and School Culture. It is frequently noted that

the culture of a school has more influence than a PDP on a teacher. This is often

discussed in the conclusion of a PDP study, as school culture is rarely the direct

object of study in PDP research. Khourey-Bowers, Dinko and Hart (2005),

however, present one of the few studies to explore US school culture in the midst

of a PDP. They examined the beliefs and practices of secondary science teachers

engaged in the second year of a five-year PDP. The program created school
 32

district cohorts as a way to support the change and growth of the teachers within

schools. To document the change among the 216 teachers, the authors designed a

quantitative study that used (a) surveys that captured the perceptions of the

teacher leaders and the teacher groups about their participation, (b) reputable

questionnaires that captured the teachers’ demographics, beliefs, attitudes,

practices, and community involvement, and (c) recognized observational

protocols to document the quality of classroom instruction. They ultimately found

that creating learning communities within schools supported change in teachers’

beliefs, practices and knowledge, and that it helped to foster a more collegial

learning community.

PDPs and e-Learning. An emerging area of research is the use of

technology within PDPs. Research in this area explores how PDPs can be offered

using various e-learning innovations. These studies range from examinations of

the use of on-line learning programs to teachers blogging in learning

communities.

An example of a study that examined on-line learning can be found in the

work of Harlen, and Doubler (2004). Harlen is from the United Kingdom, while

Doubler is from the US. They conducted a two-year study about teacher learning

of inquiry in an on-line program and on-campus program. Using a collection of

pre and post-interviews, reports of classroom practice, lesson plans, and a time

log, they descriptively and qualitatively analyzed the data in order to understand
 33

the experiences of the teachers in both programs. Their two-year study with

elementary and middle school teachers revealed the advantages and disadvantages

of the on-line environment to support teacher learning. Overall, they found the on-

line environment to be supportive of reflection, yet they suggested that more

support in the form of written communication may be needed.

Counter to Harlen and Doubler’s (2004) findings are Elster’s (2010)

findings about teachers involved in on-line learning communities. In Elster’s

(2010) study, biology teachers collaborated with researchers to improve their

instruction of biology at several German school sites. The communities were

configured to support teacher reflection and the instruction of the Biology in

Context program. Extensive interviews with teachers and their students

throughout the program revealed that the on-line system was best for

collaboration, and it was less useful for instruction, learning and reflection.

However, similar to Harlen and Doubler (2004), Elster (2010) suggested that a

hybrid learning system may be more supportive of teacher learning.

In an examination of different learning environments, Annetta and

Shymansky (2008) explored the attitudes of US elementary school teachers as

they engaged in different distance education configurations of a PDP. One

configuration used live, interactive television in which a presenter broadcasted to

up to eight remote sites of teachers. Another configuration used video tapes of the

live session and a facilitator-led discussion with remote sites of teachers. The final
 34

configuration allowed for individuals to stream the video of the live session, and

then discuss the video with other teachers through a discussion board. The

teachers in this group had one week to view the video and interact in the

discussion board. A survey of participating elementary teachers revealed that the

type of delivery mechanism played an important role in their attitudes towards the

program, with the teachers in the live setting reporting much greater interaction

than the other groups. The web-based group reported the least amount of

interaction. They concluded from their quantitative analysis that the live programs

best supported the teachers, but they added that teacher experience in the use of

technology may have been a factor in this result.

In a unique study on blogging, Luehman and Tinelli (2012) explored how

15 secondary science teachers built a student-centered, inquiry identity over a

year. These teachers enrolled in a year-long course offered at US university that

was focused on curricular reform in science education. In addition to meeting in

person, the teachers were required to maintain a personal and professional blog.

They had to post at least 28 times, with only 4 assigned post topics. The blogs and

a survey were collected from the teachers. Luehman and Tinelli (2012)

qualitatively examined the blogs and the responses of the teachers to open-ended

questions and a survey. They found that blogging offered unique opportunities to

the science teachers and could support their professional learning to varying
 35

degrees. However, they suggested that consideration be given to the composition

of the group involved in the blogging community.

PDPs and Early Career Teachers. Most professional development

studies involve groups of teachers specifically targeted by the PDP. In the design

and development of such programs, early career content specialists are often

overlooked. One mixed-methods study by Luft et al. (2011) focused on newly

qualified US secondary science teachers. Over 100 first year teachers participated

in one of four different induction programs. Two of the induction programs

focused on providing science-specific induction support, while the other two

programs had limited opportunities for science teachers to improve their

instructional practice and knowledge. After their first year, the teachers in the

science-specific induction programs enacted more inquiry based lessons and held

views more consistent with student-centered instruction. However, by the second

year, school culture was more prevalent in the lives of the newly qualified science

teachers, and constrained the reform-based orientations of the teachers in the

science induction program. Only some of the instructional approaches persisted in

the teachers receiving science specific support. This study revealed that science-

specific induction programs may provide reform-based instructional support to

teachers in different school settings in their first year, which may last into the

second year of teaching.

 36

PDPs to Support Teacher Leadership. A new form of research in the

area of professional development explores how teachers learn to become leaders

in their fields. There are two studies in this area, and each explores the formation

of leadership skills through a PDP in different ways. The study by Hofstein,

Carmeli, and Shore (2004) followed 18 chemistry coordinators in Israel as they

developed their leadership abilities at their school, as well as their content and

pedagogical knowledge. The goal of the program was multi-faceted, but it

targeted school-based leaders with the intention of changing the teaching of

science at the school level. During the program, the chemistry coordinators had

opportunities to adapt and design classroom lessons and units, create assessments,

prepare and present on topics relevant to the school site. Both qualitative and

quantitative data were collected. These data sources revealed that the teachers

recognized their new roles, adopted new leadership and team management skills,

and were able to carry out some of the envisioned leadership activities.

Howe and Stubbs (2003) examined how individual science teachers

developed into leaders. In their study, they followed three experienced US middle

school science teachers as they participated in a PDP that was designed to build

leadership capacity. Interviews, observations, and documents were the data

sources for the three case studies. These data were examined within a model of

teacher leadership in order to understand the process of development among the

teachers. The analyzed data revealed how the teachers evolved as leaders and
 37

what constrained or supported their development. All of the teachers identified

key components that were important in their development as leaders: mutual

respect between teachers and scientists, opportunities for teachers to assume

leadership, the development of a community of practice, and challenging tasks.

Howe and Stubbs (2003) ultimately suggested that in order for teachers to have

access to these new roles, schools need to consider how to remove organizational

constraints that limit opportunities to learn and practice leadership skills.

Teacher Change in PDPs. Studies in this area examine different models

that explain how science teachers change as they are involved in a PDP, or they

determine which factors support teacher change during a PDP. Ebert and Crippen

(2010), for instance, evaluated a model of belief change that allowed for both the

prediction and assessment of teacher change. The model had a conceptual change

orientation and was originally used in the area of mathematics. Three high school

biology teachers involved in a long-term PDP in the US were the subjects in the

study. In order to determine the adequacy of the model, the authors created case

studies from observational and instructional data of the subjects. At the

conclusion of the study, the authors felt their proposed cognitive affective model

of conceptual change accurately described the change process of the three

teachers. The implications of this study may be useful for those involved in PDPs.

However, given the small sample size, further research is needed to examine the

adequacy of the model.

 38

In a study on teacher change, Freeman, Marx, and Cimellaro (2004)

sought to identify factors that are important in successful PDPs. Questionnaires,

reflections and focus group interviews were collected from over 50 US science

teachers. These data were qualitatively analyzed in order to determine what

factors supported teachers during a problem-based PDP. Their data revealed that

teachers needed to be both physically and psychologically comfortable, teachers’

prior experience with technology determined how technology was used, and the

program needed to have a balance between formal instruction and informal

interactions. The authors concluded that these factors should be taken into account

when designing PDPs in order to support teacher change.

PDP Strategies and Teacher Learning. Several studies focus on the

various strategies that exist within PDPs (e.g., Dori & Herscovitz, 2005; van der

Valk & de Jong, 2009). These studies look at specific ways in which a PDP in

science supports teacher learning, the building of teacher knowledge, or the

enactment of various instructional practices by a teacher. Dori and Herscovitz

(2005) explored how a 3-year case-based PDP in Israel influenced the instruction

and development of the participating middle school science teachers. The cases

integrated into the program often posed problems and that dealt with social issues.

The authors collected both qualitative and quantitative data as the teachers

engaged in case discussions, and as teachers created cases to use with their

students. In analyzing the data, Dori and Herscovitz (2005) concluded that the
 39

teachers implemented the case discussion strategies in their classrooms because

they became active learners and designers in the PDP.

The Dutch team of van der Valk and de Jong (2009) examined a year-long

PDP that focused on scaffolding to support the use of open inquiry among

secondary science teachers. Over the course of a year, seven teachers experienced

scaffolding techniques as they designed, discussed and implemented scaffolding

tools in their classrooms. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and

analyzed in this multi-method study. The results indicated that the scaffolding

tools allowed the teachers to utilize more inquiry instruction with their students.

The authors concluded that a scaffolding orientation for teachers was as important

as scaffolding for students.

Falik, Eylon, and Rosenfeld (2008), of Israel, also explored a long-term

PDP that supported the use of problem-based learning. Closed and open response

questionnaires were collected from novice and experienced teachers. From the

quantitative and qualitative analysis, the authors found support for their PDP

model. They also gained an understanding of how the school, teacher and students

influenced the teachers as they engaged in the PDP. Their discussion of these

areas reinforced the role of context in supporting teacher change.

PDPs, Curriculum, and Teachers. Supporting teachers in their use of

curriculum is an ongoing focus for those who conduct PDPs and study teachers.

Stolk, De Jong, Bulte and Pilot (2011), for example, explored how to support
 40

chemistry teachers in the Netherlands to use context-based curriculum. In their

PDP, teachers enacted a context-based unit with their students, and then designed

a new context-based unit to use in their classes. Six teachers were involved in this

study, and the data consisted of documents from the program and observations.

All of the teachers found the first curriculum unit useful in terms of understanding

context-based curriculum. However, when it came to designing a new unit, the

teachers faced several constraints and struggled with enacting a context-based

unit. The authors concluded that more support was needed to develop and enact

the advocated context-based curriculum.

In a different view of the implementation, Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, and

Freeman (2005) examined how an inquiry-based curriculum was utilized in the

classrooms of teachers participating in a PDP. In the program, teachers were

immersed in an inquiry experience that involved monarch butterflies in the US.

The teachers worked closely with scientists on all aspects of data collection and

analysis pertaining to the breeding or migration of the monarch butterflies. An

analysis of observations and interviews from the PDP revealed that almost all of

the teachers in the PDP did incorporate some aspect of monarch ecology into their

classroom; however, the use of inquiry practices that were embedded in the

program did not transfer readily to the classroom. In this study, certain parts of the

curriculum were enacted in the classroom, yet the authentic science experiences

that the teachers experienced did not make it to the classroom.

 41

Instructional Practices as a Result of PDPs. An important outcome of

PDPs is the science teacher’s classroom instructional practice. Studies that

explore the instruction of science teachers as a result of a PDP often examine

mediating factors such as beliefs, or self-efficacy. Mediating factors are those

factors that related to enhanced instructional practice. Johnson (2007), for

instance, explored how a two-year PDP in the US made an impact on the

instruction of six middle school science teachers. Data included observations and

interviews of the science teachers while they were involved in either a one or two-

year PDP. Johnson (2007) concluded that the teachers were able to implement

standards-based instruction, yet each teacher implemented the instruction

differently and the beliefs of the teacher contributed to the implemented

instruction. An additional finding of this study was the important role of the

school environment in terms of supporting a teacher’s use of the instructional

strategies emphasized in the PDP.

Scherz, Bialer, and Eylon (2008), of Israel, presented a unique perspective

on the relationship between professional development and the teacher. In their

study, they used evidence-based portfolios created by teachers in order to assess

their levels of practice related to the implementation of science skills. The

teachers in this study had some experience in using science skills in the

classroom. The PDP was designed to support their ongoing use of these skills.

From the collected data found in the portfolios, the authors identified an
 42

implementation progression of science skills related to instruction. They

suggested using this information to design a better program, thereby

‘customizing’ the professional development experience.

Huffman (2006) explored how 13 physics science teachers in the US used

new pedagogical approaches in their science classrooms as a result of a PDP.

Three groups of teachers were examined: experienced users of the new pedagogy,

beginning users of the new pedagogy, and a group of comparison teachers who

used traditional instructional methods. Qualitative and quantitative results

suggested that the PDP increased the teachers’ use of experiments with students

and alternative assessment methods. Huffman (2006), however, also found it was

more difficult for teachers to increase their use of constructivist discussion

methods and discussion regarding the nature of scientific inquiry.

In a unique study of practices and beliefs, Lavonen, Jauhiainen, Koponen,

and Kurki‐Suonio (2004) created a PDP to support physics teachers’ use of

experiments. The 98 Finnish teachers in this study participated in an 18-month

PDP that engaged them in physics experiments. Throughout the program, the

teachers were prompted to consider the important role of experiments in physics

in order to challenge their beliefs about using experiments. Survey data and

emails were analyzed to determine if the beliefs of the teachers changed, along

with their use of experiments. From the data, there was not a significant change in

either the beliefs of the teachers or their use of experiments. The study by
 43

Lavonen et al. (2004) reveals the importance of specifically targeting beliefs and

practices in order to impact the practice of teachers.

PDPs and Teacher Self-Efficacy. Monitoring the change of science

teachers’ self-efficacy has been a long-standing area of interest among researchers

in professional development. Self-efficacy has often been considered essential in

the instructional practices promoted by PDPs. That is, without good self-efficacy,

important instructional practices will not be adopted by a science teacher. In the

studies in examined in this review, self-efficacy was often monitored through the

Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) (Enochs & Riggs, 1990).

The STEBI is a 23-item instrument that uses a rating scale from strongly agree to

strongly disagree, and is developed for elementary teachers.

Palmer (2011) studied the self-efficacy of twelve Australian elementary

teachers who participated in a PDP. Data were collected through interviews and

the STEBI prior to, during, after, and two years after the program. The data were

analyzed in order to understand the improvement of the teachers’ self-efficacy.

The author concluded that the teachers’ self-efficacy improved as they engaged in

a PDP that targeted his/her perceived ability to teach science. In addition, the self-

efficacy improved as teachers were provided feedback about their teaching.

In another study using the STEBI, Lakshmanan, Heath, Perlmutter, and

Elder (2011) explored how PLCs supported teacher self-efficacy. In addition to

the STEBI, data were also collected through observations of practice. In this
 44

study, the self-efficacy of the elementary and middle school US teachers did not

significantly increase by the end of the program. However, teachers with higher

self-efficacy tended to use practices advocated by the PDP, while teachers with

lower self-efficacy struggled to adopt the practices advocated by the PDP. The

authors concluded that those conducting PDPs needed to take into account the

self-efficacy of teachers.

Teacher Knowledge and PDPs. The development of teacher knowledge

has been a long-standing area of interest to those involved in PDP research.

Studies in this area focus on the knowledge that teachers develop as a result of a

PDP. This knowledge can be as specific as improving teachers’ understanding of

the nature of science, content knowledge, or pedagogical content knowledge, or as

broad as improving the knowledge of science teachers in general.

In the content area of the Nature of Science (NoS), Posnanski (2010) and

Akerson, Cullen, and Hanson (2009) have explored how US elementary teachers

improved their understanding of the NoS in the midst of a PDP. Both of these

studies used the Views of the Nature of Science questionnaire (VNOS)

(Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) in order to monitor how the

teachers changed their understanding of NoS. Posnanski (2010) administered the

VNOS before and after the PDP, and collected additional interviews and

observational data. The analysis of data revealed that an explicit focus on the

teaching of NoS in the PDP did improve the knowledge of the participating
 45

teachers. Similarly, Akerson et al. (2009) concluded that PDPs that incorporated

opportunities for teachers to learn in communities did improve the teachers’

understanding of NoS.

In a unique PDP in Australia, Berry, Loughran, Smith, and Lindsay (2009)

developed a program in which teachers worked with academics over the course of

a year as teacher researchers. As the teachers and researchers worked together,

they contemplated the professional knowledge of the teachers. This PDP focused

on understanding the knowledge of the teachers, as well as finding ways in which

to capture the tacit knowledge of a science teacher. Through the use of cases, the

authors were able to document how teachers improved their professional

knowledge. In looking at the data from the teachers, Berry et al. (2009) concluded

that the cases provided a venue in which to improve the professional knowledge

of the participating teachers.

In a more targeted approach to develop knowledge, Bertram and Loughran

(2012) used explicit discussion of content knowledge and pedagogical decisions

in order to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge of teachers. Their study

reported on six teachers in Australia who participated in a program for two years

that involved explicit discussions between teachers and educational researchers.

The teachers also participated in interviews during the PDP, and they provided

various documents associated with the program. The analyzed data revealed that

the teachers found value in focusing on content knowledge and instruction, and
 46

they improved in certain areas of their pedagogical content knowledge. However,

the science teachers were hesitant to adopt the process of explicit discussions in

their practice due to limitations of time.

Seeking to build science teachers’ metastrategic knowledge, Zohar (2006)

created a PDP in Israel that met for 56 hours over six months. The program had

three phases. In the first phase, the 14 junior and high school science teachers

learned about thinking skills in science and were asked to develop higher order

thinking skill tasks for the students in their classes. In the second and third phase,

the teachers implemented their developed higher order thinking tasks. Interviews,

observations and artifacts were collected from teachers throughout the program,

and analyzed qualitatively in order to understand changes in their use of

metastrategic knowledge. The results of the analysis revealed that the teachers

were able to develop their metastrategic knowledge, but only about a third of the

teachers could consistently use the instructional practices associated with

metastrategic knowledge in their classrooms. Zohar (2006) concluded that the

teachers had variable forms of metastrategic knowledge, which in turn affected

the implementation of higher order thinking skill tasks.

Conceptions are similar to knowledge, and Lotter, Harwood, and Bonner’s

(2007) research revealed the importance of conceptions of inquiry when teachers

learned to use the inquiry strategies promoted in a PDP. Their study followed

three US secondary science teachers as they participated in a PDP that involved

 47

working with their peers, students, and testing their own lesson plans.

Observations and interviews were used to document the teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry. An analysis of the data showed how different conceptions of inquiry

influenced the teachers’ use of reform-based instruction. The authors concluded

that the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry interacted with their professional

development experience, which resulted in each teacher enacting reform-based

instruction in a different way with their classes.

An area that has gained more attention in the last few years is

argumentation. Simon and Johnson (2008), of the United Kingdom, developed a

PDP that helped teachers build their abilities to support argumentation in the

classroom. In this study, they had teachers create portfolios in order to help

teachers apply their learning, to document the evidence regarding their learning,

and to facilitate a reflective analysis of learning to use argumentation. The

portfolios of just two teachers who participated in their PDP formed the basis of

this study. By examining the portfolios, Simon and Johnson (2008) found that the

portfolio process was a positive experience for these teachers as they developed

their skills of supporting argumentation among their students. The authors

concluded, however, that portfolios were difficult and time-consuming for some

teachers and that the portfolios may not be the best way to support the

development of knowledge pertaining to argumentation.

 48

PDP Scientists and Science Teachers. PDPs in science education can

involve scientists, as well as science educators. The research shows that for a

variety of reasons, scientists have mixed success in working with teachers.

Drayton and Falk (2006), for instance, worked with over 20 teams consisting of

an ecologist (scientist) and teachers in the US. Over the course of one year,

teachers and scientists worked closely together in order to learn about ecological

research and inquiry in science. The goal of the partnership was to have teachers

build a partnership with an ecologist, rather than classroom applications. The

authors collected questionnaires and portfolios from the team members. They

descriptively and qualitatively analyzed the data on the teams throughout the

project. Findings were based on the entire group, along with three selected case

studies. The authors concluded that there were uneven collaborations between the

teams; only some of the teams were productive and focused on learning inquiry in

an ecological setting. They attributed the uneven collaborations to several factors,

including the scientists’ knowledge of classroom realities and content, different

professional cultures between the scientists and teachers, and perceived power

and status of scientists by teachers.

Similarly, Hughes, Molyneaux, and Dixon (2012) conducted a qualitative

study of three teachers working with scientists in a US based Research Experience

for Teachers program. This six-week program was designed to allow teachers to

work with scientists in the morning, and then in teacher cohorts in the afternoon.
 49

Scientists volunteered to work with teachers. The data collection in this study

consisted of interviews with teachers, observations of teachers in laboratories,

written learning evaluations of teachers by scientists, and post-program classroom

observations and interviews with teachers. These data were crafted into three

cases. They found that teachers enjoyed several benefits as they worked closely

with scientists over a year. The teachers improved their understanding of inquiry,

felt they were part of a community, and received valuable information from the

scientists. The authors, however, stated that the mentoring style of the scientist

did make a difference in the learning of the teacher and how the information

gained was translated to the students of the teacher.

In looking at the knowledge and skills of scientists in PDPs, there is

evidence that scientists struggle to communicate about science to science

teachers. Schuster and Carlsen (2009), for instance, studied science doctoral

students in the US who worked with teachers over the course of the five days. The

topics of the different programs consisted of astronomy, meteorology,

microbiology, astrobiology, and materials science. The data sources in this study

consisted of observations of the workshops and interviews with instructors and

participants. The analysis of the data was done qualitatively and revealed the

scientists’ pedagogical orientations. Shuster and Carlsen (2008) reported that

research scientists were limited in their abilities to translate practices in science

into learning experiences for science teachers.

 50

Similarly, Bell and Odom (2012) explored how education and science

professors and a science educator engaged in a PDP targeting middle level

teachers. The PDP was held at a US university, lasted two weeks, and was

focused on inquiry-based science. The program was collaboratively planned

among the professors. Using inquiry-based instruction, they took turns in leading

different lessons. The data sources consisted of observations and interviews,

which were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the analysis revealed that

professors valued reform-based instruction, but did not enact this type of

instruction consistently. Furthermore, the professors’ views about their field and

the teachers colored their presentation of the program content.

Summary. The research that connects PDPs and teachers is quite diverse.

Some researchers emphasize a program’s structure, while others may prioritize

how a teacher’s knowledge, beliefs and practices develop over time in response to

particular strategies. Capturing the professional learning of teachers in the midst

of PDPs and exploring the impact of different program formats is, however, a

changing research emphasis.

In terms of different formats, PDP providers now utilize different approaches

and venues in which to support science teacher learning. A rapidly expanding

orientation is towards e-learning opportunities. Within the e-learning community,

hybrid models of professional development appear to have promise. The

opportunity for communication in an e-learning community can be purposeful for

 51

some teachers, but there is an ongoing need of teachers to connect in person with

each other.

Another emerging area has science teachers involved in the design and

enactment of their own PDPs in order to support their learning. One way to

involve teachers entails embedding the PDP in their daily work and utilizing their

daily experiences in order to modify the program. Another approach is to have

teachers collaborate with PDP directors in order to support their own learning of

the advocated strategies. When science teachers can guide their own professional

development, they can better meet their own and their students’ learning needs.

From these studies it is also evident that there is an interaction between

context and the outcomes of PDPs. For science teachers, a school context can

encourage or inhibit the use of a desired PDP outcome. Principals, existing

curriculum, and colleagues are just a few contextual factors that can thwart or

support a science teacher’s use of new instructional approaches, or development

as a teacher leader. It is important to attend to context when developing PDPs.

There is also evidence that PDPs must be strategically configured in order to

build self-efficacy, or target the beliefs, knowledge or the practices of science

teachers. Achieving improved self-efficacy, inquiry-oriented beliefs, or the

specific use of an instructional practice requires carefully planned PDPs that take

into account the knowledge and learning experiences of the participating teachers.

While there are different ways to support teacher learning in a PDP, it is

 52

important to monitor the learning of the teacher in terms of PDP goals. We should

add, in designing carefully planned PDPs, Loucks-Horsley, et al.’s (2010)

conceptualizations of different PDP approaches (Immersion in Content, Standards

and Research, Examining Teaching and Learning, Aligning and Implementing

Curriculum, and Professional Development Structures) and PDP design is still

useful.

From this review, it is clear that the professional development process for a

teacher is complex, and that there is a need for a model to describe the teacher

learning process in the midst of professional development opportunities. We

suggest one potential model that draws upon the work of Schwab (1978)

Fenstemacher (1986), and others.

Within this model (see Figure 2), Schwab’s (1978) four commonplaces of

schooling – teaching, learning, subject matter, and context – are important.

Teaching is ontologically related to learning, and therefore without meaning in its

absence (Fenstermacher, 1986). Subject matter is both syntactical and substantive

(Gardner, 1972; Schwab, 1964). Context is guided by the physical and social

environment in which teachers work (Schwab, 1978).

[Insert Figure 2 Here]

This model is based on the work of Borko (2004), Short (2006), and Lauffer

and Lauffer (2009), and reveals the nested, complex nature of PDPs. There are

three domains, which consist of relationships between teaching and learning

 53

within and between each domain. The School domain, influenced by Schwab

(1978) and Fenstermacher (1986), focuses on work in classrooms. The

Professional Development domain addresses the learning of the teacher. The third

domain, Leadership Development, concentrates on preparing professional

development specialists. Between the different participants there are interactions,

and across all domains is the influence of content and context. There is certainly a

need for research that explores teaching and learning in and between the different

domains.

Figure 2 and this review of research reinforce the importance of the structure

and process of PDPs, and the learning and teaching of teachers. However, the

varied nature of the studies that bridge PDPs and teachers do suggest more

specific areas of research. Specific areas that are worthy of additional examination

are:

 Exploring different approaches to professional development that support

teacher learning. There should be well-reasoned approaches to PDPs that

support teacher learning. That is, teachers should have opportunities to learn

in ways that transcend the traditional PDP designs. For instance, technology

(as mentioned above) offers science teachers new ways to collaborate with

their peers and it provides a new venue in which to learn about science. The

potential of alternative PDP delivery systems that are responsive to the

knowledge of teachers is unexplored. This is the next generation of PDPs for

 54

science teachers, and they have promise in providing personalized teacher

learning.

 Studying how teachers learn in the midst of PDPs. Most studies provide pre

and post-data pertaining to teachers in the professional development process.

With the development of new PDPs, more will need to be done to understand

how teachers learn as they are engaged in different learning opportunities.

Current studies on teacher learning reveal a complex process that interacts

with information, experiences, and students. Understanding how PDPs

specifically support the process of teacher learning is essential research that

will ultimately benefit science teachers.

 Studying how teachers put their learning into practice. Teachers take on

different roles as they participate in different domains in Figure 2. A teacher

who has the role of a learner in the professional development domain when he

or she engages in a PDP takes on the role of a science teacher in the school

domain. There is a need to explore how teachers engage in the complex

process of connecting these two roles, and understanding how they integrate

their science teaching practice in the school domain while they learn in the

professional development domain.

 Examining how to support those who provide and engage in PDPs. There is

little research that studies those who work with teachers to facilitate their

professional learning. These individuals have come from the ranks of

 55

scientists, teacher leaders, PDP coordinators, doctoral students, and science

teachers. Research in this area could explore, for instance, how scientists build

their knowledge to work with science teachers in different PDPs, or how

science coordinators guide teacher learning in the midst of PDPs.

Understanding how those who work with science teachers support the learning

of teachers, and are prepared to work with science teachers are important lines

of work to continue.

 Exploring how teachers adapt or translate the curriculum or instructional

approaches advocated in the PDP. Most researchers document the change

that teachers make as the result of a PDP, and then report if the change made

by teachers aligns with the goal of the program. This simple model negates the

complexity of learning and the knowledge of the teacher. Understanding how

a teacher adapts curriculum or instructional approaches associated with the PD

program is certainly a worthwhile area of study. This area will increase with

importance as more learning opportunities are offered to teachers in the online

environment, and through programs that require shorter periods of

involvement. With the knowledge of how curriculum or instructional

approaches are adapted, all forms of PDPs could be modified in order to better

support their translation into the classroom.

 Understanding career specific professional development. Most PDPs focus on

a group or cluster of teachers, with different backgrounds and different years

 56

of experience. In these programs they are learning to implement new

curriculum, about a new instructional approach, or building specific practices,

knowledge or cognitive orientations. There is a significant need to understand

how science teachers progress throughout their careers, and how to support

their development. Studies, for instance, could be conducted to understand

how to better support early career teachers, developing teacher leaders, or the

unique professional needs of mid-career science teachers. The information

that could be gained from such studies has the potential to result in PDPs that

consider a professional progression of teacher opportunity and capacity.

Components: PDPs and Students

Research in this area explores how a PDP influences some aspect of

student learning, without explicitly considering the role of teachers. Cuevas, Lee,

Hart, and Deaktor (2005), for example, studied how 25 elementary students of

seven teachers improved their inquiry abilities as their teachers participated in an

inquiry-oriented PDP and used supporting curriculum. Initially, the PDP and

curriculum materials were developed to support low-achieving, low socio-

economic-status, and English as a second language students in the US. The

materials were provided to all teachers, and all teachers participated in four days

of a PDP. Even though the program targeted specific students, the quantitative

results of the study found that all students improved in their inquiry ability. The
 57

authors concluded, as have other researchers, that good curriculum materials and

professional development opportunities can improve student learning.

Venville and Dawson (2010) reported on the results of a short-term PDP

in Australia that focused on improving students’ ability to engage in

argumentation about socio-scientific issues in the area of genetics. In this case

study, teachers participated in a short- term PDP that focused on improving

students’ skills in the use argumentation, informal reasoning and conceptual

understanding of science. After the short intervention, the teachers taught

argumentation to their students during one class period. The following two class

periods, students used their newly acquired skills. The quantitative results from

this study indicated that the students of the teachers participating in the

professional learning event significantly improved in their use of argumentation,

informal reasoning and conceptual understanding.

Summary. The ultimate intended outcome of any PDP is student learning.

Studies that focus on PDPs and student learning outcomes can provide

comprehensive views of student learning related to the goals of a PDP. In the

studies in this section, student learning was assessed with different measures,

which portrayed various ways in which students learned about science. By

understanding how students learn science from measures outside of achievement

scores, teachers engaged in and those directing PDPs can acquire a different

understanding of the impact of a PDP on students. When data transcends

 58

standardized test measurements on student learning, the complex nature of student

learning as a result of teacher professional development is revealed.

There are two observations that can be made about future studies in this

area. First, studies that explore PDPs and student learning tend to provide limited

information about the involvement and role of the teacher. This should be

acknowledged by the authors when they disseminate their studies. Second, studies

in this area should continue to look at the complex nature of student learning as a

result of PDPs. Understanding how different aspects of a PDP can result in

student learning will be important as new models of PDPs are studied and tested.

In fact, it is likely that these studies are necessary before large-scale studies are

conducted that involve policy, teachers or students.

Components: PDPs, Teachers and Students

An emerging area of study in PDPs connects PDPs, Teachers and

Students. Roth et al. (2011) studied how a coherent content story line and student

thinking approach supported teacher and student learning. In their study, they

divided over 40 US elementary teachers and their students into two groups: one

group focused on student learning in the midst of the instructional goals of the

lesson (coherent story line) and content knowledge, and one group focused on just

content knowledge. Observational data were collected in addition to measures of

content and pedagogical knowledge. The authors found that a PD program with a

coherent study line and content knowledge instruction resulted in significant

 59

teacher and student gains, more than when there was just a focus on content

knowledge. This quantitative study highlighted the importance of having teachers

consider the overall instructional goals, along with student learning and the

necessary content. The authors also concluded that connecting to the overall goals

or storyline is something that is unique to PDPs.

Similarly, Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, and Miratrix (2012)

explored how three different professional development interventions influenced

teacher and student outcomes. In this project, the authors compared the use of

teaching cases, the examination of student work, and metacognitive analysis with

a no-treatment control on more than 270 US elementary teachers and 7000

students. They used a random assignment process, and developed instruments to

measure teacher and student knowledge. They found that when teachers engaged

in teaching cases and the examination of student work, their students improved in

their accuracy and written justifications.

Research in this area also examines how PDPs can support the use of

technological practices in the classroom. Gerard, Varma, Corliss, and Linn

(2011), for instance, synthesized professional development research that explored

the use of technology-enhanced practices in the science classroom and their effect

on students’ inquiry learning experiences. They concluded that teachers benefited

most from long-term support and constructivist orientations when learning how to

use technology-enhanced inquiry science in the classroom. Not surprisingly, they

 60

found that PDPs varied considerably in terms of how they supported science

teachers in their use of technology.

Summary. These studies highlight major shifts in the design of PDPs.

One shift recognizes the importance of incorporating an understanding of student

thinking in the design of PDPs. Programs in this area illustrate important forms of

research that consider the program configuration, the learning of the teacher about

the content and about students, and the learning of the student. Another shift

pertains to the inclusion of technology in the professional development enterprise.

As technology becomes more ubiquitous in learning and teaching, there is a need

to understand how PDPs with different forms of communication technology can

support teacher and student learning. These are the most important shifts in PDP

design for science teachers in the last ten years.

As additional studies are conducted on PDPs and teacher and student

learning, scholars should consider the fact that most of the research in this area

has been done with elementary or middle school teachers and students. Secondary

teachers and students have a different orientation towards science, and the very

nature of their learning may be different than elementary or middle school

teachers or students.

Another aspect of this research pertains to understanding the relationship

of how teachers learn from their students, how students are learning, and how the

PDP connects to the learning of both teacher and student. This type of research
 61

will help clarify how PDPs can be modified in order to respond to both teachers

and students. In addition, this type of research can clarify how such programs can

be configured in order optimize their impact on science teachers and students.

This type of research moves the professional development community one step

further in understanding and enacting personalized PDPs.

The Present and Future of Research in PDPs in Science

In this review, it is evident that there are enduring and emerging lines of

research in the field of PDPs. Enduring lines of research, such as the change in

teacher knowledge as a result of a PDP or the inclusion of an authentic science

experience during a PDP, will continue to refine our knowledge in these areas.

This will be done through new approaches to data collection and analysis, and

through ongoing contemplation of presented findings. Emerging lines of research,

such as the use of e-learning approaches in PDPs or the connection of student and

teacher learning, are the result of new tools that can be used to support learning

and our changing knowledge base about learning. Exploring these areas will

require the use of standardized and new approaches to research. Both enduring

and emerging lines of research have the potential to impact the content, the

context, and the process of PDPs.

In order to guide those who are involved in research on PDPs in science,

there are several points to be made as a result of this review. Some points are

more specific, and target a unique problem that calls for investigation. The points
 62

have been listed throughout this review and are found in the summary sections.

Other points are general, and are meant to guide the field as a whole. These points

are the result of a broader view of the research and they are meant to orient

researchers to potentially important areas of study. The following paragraphs will

address these more general points.

First, we must be more strategic in our research endeavors. There are

clearly some forms of research in the field that are no longer useful. For instance,

there is no need for additional research that touts the importance of teachers

working together, nor do we need research indicating the general success of

PDPs. There are, however, areas of study within these topics that bear

examination. For instance, it would be useful to know how teachers learn about a

concept as they engage in a PDP, and how specific strategies best support teacher

learning and student learning. As PDP researchers move forward, they must

clarify how the proposed research addresses some problem. In addition, those

who review these studies must push researchers to move beyond ‘known

conclusions.’

In terms of looking at PDPs broadly, it will be important to understand the

connections between Policy, PDPs, Teachers and Students. There are, of course,

many ways to expand upon the connections. For instance, if the study is broad,

attuned to national policy, and explores the learning of teachers, then the policy

and the learning outcome should be clearly articulated as it pertains to teachers. If

 63

the study explores a more specific area, then an orienting statement should be

provided that shares the connection, and then the specific topic of study. For

instance, a study that bridges PDPs and Teachers should state this connection, but

also add that the study seeks to explore the construct of teacher knowledge in

biology. By clearly stating connections, it will be easier to identify collections of

studies that can be used in research syntheses.

When conducting studies that explore Policy and PDPs with Teachers and

Students or just Teachers or Students, researchers should consider the sample of

students. Several of the policy-oriented studies targeted students in poverty or

who were linguistically and culturally diverse. While these are important

populations to study and populations deserving of our utmost attention, it is also

important to consider the efficacy of the PDP among a variety of students,

including those who are very young or those with disabilities. One immediate

step, however, would be better descriptions of the student populations involved in

the studies.

An enduring line of research exists with elementary teachers who are

involved in PDPs. Over time, studies have focused on their efficacy to teach

science, as well as building their knowledge and practices for teaching. In the

upcoming years, middle level science teachers and science faculty in higher

education will be important populations to examine as they engage in PDPs. After

all, it is these teachers who can initiate and cultivate an interest and passion in
 64

science. But with the shift to a more global scientific society (viewed through

PISA and TIMSS), secondary science teachers will not only need deep content

knowledge, they will need to learn how to enact the emerging reforms that require

socio-scientific, or integrated science approaches. Understanding how PDPs can

better support secondary science teachers in the midst of these changes calls for

essential research.

An emerging area of study in coming years will pertain to the

incorporation of e-learning approaches into PDPs. Connecting these studies to the

components of Policy, Teachers or Students will be a greater challenge, but

essential. Within the studies reviewed in the chapter, the use of e-learning

approaches to support teacher learning was preliminary. There is a need to

explore how these environments can support teacher and student learning in new

ways, and there is a need to consider how to maximize teacher learning through

various e-learning opportunities. Even more elusive is the connection between

Policy, PDPs and the e-learning environment. Understanding this connection will

be essential. Clearly, this area of research has the most potential in the upcoming

years to redefine the process of PDPs.

Finally, the use of different research methods is an emerging area. To

begin with, there is a need to conduct more synthesis studies of PDPs. Small scale

studies are essential; they provide important insights into aspects of PDPs.

Synthesis studies, which examine sets of similarly oriented areas, can provide
 65

important information for those who are engaged in both the research and

enactment of PDPs. However, one of the greatest challenges in crafting synthesis

studies will be finding studies that have adequate methodological details.

There is also a need for additional comparison studies that explore aspects

of PDPs. The studies should be used to understand how different PDP

components contribute to teacher or student learning. Crafting these studies

requires attention to various methodological decisions, and a well-conceived

theoretical and conceptual orientation about teacher learning.

Wicked Problems

Even with the plethora of research in professional development, there are

problems that will haunt science education researchers for years. As these

problems won’t be solved quickly, they could be ignored by those involved in

PDP research. However, these problems deserve the ongoing attention of the

research community – which means tackling these problems in small steps. These

are ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973); the solutions are not easy, there

may be multiple explanations, and the problem has a great deal of complexity.

However, discussing and exploring these problems will provide opportunities to

redefine how teachers experience PDPs. Wicked problems pertaining to PDPs for

science teachers include:

 Understanding the promise and pitfalls involved in scaling up PDPs.

Research in the field of PDPs should examine the reality of scaling up the
 66

program. When a small-scale PDP has produced promising results, there is

often enthusiasm for expanding a program. This process of scaling-up could

mean reaching more teachers by broadening different grade levels, school

districts, content topics, or teaching approaches. Doing so, however, raises

various issues that can compromise the integrity and fidelity of the innovation

that is being scaled-up. Some of these issues include the need to work with

non-volunteer teachers, to increase the number of professional developers and

their institutional homes, to work across different contexts, and to find the

necessary financial and community resources to support scaling-up. In other

words, while the idea of scaling-up is alluring and promising, its reality is

unknown. The impact of context and the nature of teacher learning suggests

that scaling-up may be an elusive construct.

 Understanding how to provide relevant information to policy makers and

professional development specialists regarding PDPs. It is important that

research guide PDPs in science education. This occurs when research reaches

those who make policy and professional development providers.

Unfortunately, most research pertaining to PDPs in science rarely reaches

these audiences. This may be attributed to the lack of desire of policy makers

and professional development providers to acquire this research, the lack of

clear suggestions offered by the research, or it may be that there are just too

many articles to read. Bridging research to policy and practice is a persistent

 67

problem that certainly needs the attention of researchers. Solving this problem

may require new forms of presenting and disseminating research, as well as

working more closely with policy makers and professional development

providers to understand their needs.

 Understanding how to create high impact PDPs that meet the needs of all

teachers and all their students. With this knowledge, traditional

configurations or orientations of PDPs would be challenged, and teacher and

student learning would be enhanced. Pursuing research in this area may entail

starting with teacher and student learning in science, and working backwards

to consider the configuration of a PD P. Of course, it could also start with

novel PD program formats and exploring the learning of teachers, and then

students. No matter how studies proceed, there is a great need to develop

PDPs that can be rapidly personalized in order to maximize the learning of all

teachers and their students. Characterizing the process of this program will

usher in new models of PDPs, which may be shorter in duration, diagnostic, or

that by-pass or attend to school culture.

 Understanding the boundaries of context associated with PDPs. An enticing

research problem in PDPs pertains to understanding the boundaries of context

and how context can impact teacher learning. For instance, the context in

which a teacher works is certainly important in terms of his/her instruction,

yet collaborative and targeted professional development methods may

 68

override the impact of context. A political context can also affect the design

and enactment of a PDP and result in different forms of teacher learning.

Context is a broad construct that can range from national policy to the school,

or from the current value of science within a community to the very nature of

science pursuits. By understanding the boundaries of context and teacher

learning, there is the potential to design PDPs that better support teacher

learning in science.

 Understanding the professional development process, as it pertains to policy,

the program, the teachers and the students. PDPs for science teachers have

weak and strong connections to policy, teachers, and students. The strength of

these connections depends upon the design and enactment of the program.

Understanding the potential impact of each component upon the process of a

program can ultimately guide those who are providing or studying PDPs. For

instance, some policies may have more impact on potential PDPs than will the

learning of science among students. Conversely, learning science in

fundamentally new ways may have a potential impact of policy. These

directions and magnitude of impact among these different connections are

worth questioning and exploring.

Final Comments

Even though there are several different directions that can be pursued by

those involved in professional development research, it is clear that research

 69

reporting standards are needed in the area of PDP research. The standards that are

proposed are in addition to accepted practices in reporting research. All studies in

this area should still share, for instance, a theoretical orientation, a literature

review, and description of the population of the participants in the study. There

should also be clarifying details about the program under study.

Standards for research involving PDPs should include a clear statement

about the orientation of the research as associated with the PDP. This would be,

for example, a statement about the study connecting the components discussed

previously, which would include Policy, PDPs, Teachers, or Students. A specific

statement might clarify that “this study looks at the connection of policy to PDPs

to teachers,” or that “the conducted research adds to studies in the PDP and

teacher domain.” By including this information, those who conduct syntheses of

research in this field will also have a better understanding of the intention of the

researchers.

Standards for research involving PDPs should also require clear

statements about the PDP. They should include at least the amount of time

teachers are engaged in the program, the credentials/ background/ experience of

the instructors, the goals of the program, and the process and strategies used in the

program. If appropriate, there should be a discussion about the unique aspects of

the PDP.
 70

Standards in professional development research should also include

suggestions or implications that have some pragmatic value. The conclusions

offered in a research report should not be limited to an audience of other

researchers – and especially when they relate to PDPs. Professional development

providers could benefit from specific suggestions arising from the study data.

Teachers could find information that would help them to identify programs best

suited to their needs. While there are several target audiences, the information

should be always be presented simply, and within the bounds of the data in the

study.

Clearly, these are initial standards for reporting PDP research. In the

upcoming years, they may be more. But for now, these standards will increase the

impact of research in this area.

Authors’ Note

We would like to thank the reviewers of this chapter for their thoughtful

comments. In addition, we appreciate all of the comments provided by those

people who discussed this chapter with us during the writing process. We would

also like to acknowledge the assistance of two graduate students at The University

of Georgia: Celestin Ntemngwa in retrieving several of these studies for us, and

Shannon Dubois for her extensive comments on this chapter.

References
 71

Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of research on

science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

Akerson, V. A., Cullen, T., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a

community of practice through a professional development program to improve

elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1090–1113.

American Educational Research Association (2006). Standards for

reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.

Annetta, L., & Shymansky, J. A. (2008). A comparison of rural

elementary school teacher attitudes toward three modes of distance education for

science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19,

255-267.

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, 375-395.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from

science education. London: Falmer Press.

 72

Bell, C. V., & Odom. A. L., (2012). Reflections on discourse practices

during professional development on the learning cycle. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 23, 601-620.

Berry, A., Loughran, J., Smith, K., & Lindsay, S. (2009). Capturing and

enhancing science teachers’ professional knowledge. Research in Science

Education, 39, 575–594.

Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science Teachers’ Views on CoRes

and PaP-eRs

as a Framework for Articulating and Developing Pedagogical Content

Knowledge, Research in Science Education, 42, 1027-1047

Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning:

Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to

teacher professional development. International encyclopedia of education, 7,

548-556.

Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of

empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best

practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23,

291-318.
 73

Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J. & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science

inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 42, 337–357.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., &

Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status

report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH:

National Staff Development Council.

Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2006). Dimensions that shape teacher–scientist

collaborations for teacher enhancement. Science Education, 90(4), 734-761.

Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional

development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27,

1413-1446.

Ebert, E. K. & Crippen, J. K. (2010). Applying a cognitive-affective

model of conceptual change to professional development. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 21, 371-388.

Elster, D. (2010). Learning communities in teacher education: The impact

of e-competence. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2185-2216.

Enochs, L., & Riggs, I. (1990). Further development of an elementary

science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School

Science and Mathematics, 90, 694-706.

 74

Eurydice (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies,

practices and research. Brussels: Eurydice. Retrieved from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education

Falik, O., Eylon, B. S., & Rosenfeld, S (2008). Motivating teachers to

enact free-choice project-based learning in science and technology (PBLSAT):

Effects of a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 19, 565–591.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a

continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103,

1013-1055.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of Research on Teaching: Three

Aspects. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd Ed.)

(pp. 37-49). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Fishman, 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, 643-658.

Freeman, J. G., Marx, R. W., & Cimellaro, L. (2004). Emerging

considerations for professional development institutes for science teachers.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 111-131.

Gardner, P. L. (1972). Structure-of-knowledge theory and science

education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 4(2), 25-46.

 75

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national

sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B.,

Soloway, E. & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students

engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.

Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011).

Professional development for technologically enhanced inquiry science. Review of

Educational Research, 81, 408-448.

Gilbert, J. K. (2010) Supporting the development of effective science

teachers In Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (Eds.) Good practice in science teaching:

What research has to say (2nd Ed.) (pp. 238-258). London: McGraw Hill.

Harlen, W., & Doubler, S. J. (2004). Can teachers learn through enquiry

on-line? Studying professional development in science delivered on-line and on-

campus. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1247-1267.

Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Maratrix, L. W.

(2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher

knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 49, 333-362.

 76

Hendriks, M, Luyten, H, Scheerens, J, Sleegers, P & Steen, R (Eds.)

(2010). Teachers’ professional development: Europe in international comparison:

an analysis of teachers’ professional development based on the OECD’s Teaching

and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Office for Official Publications of

the European Union, Luxembourg, viewed 17 Oct 2012,

<http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/talis/report_en.pdf>.

Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S.

K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education

(pp. 1105-1150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hofstein, A., Carmeli, M., & Shore, R. (2004). The professional

development of high school chemistry coordinators. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 15, 3-24.

Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2003). From science teacher to teacher

leader: Leadership development as meaning making in a community of practice.

Science Education, 87, 281-297.

Huffman, D. (2006). Reforming pedagogy: Inservice teacher education

and instructional reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 121-136.

Hughes, R., Molyneaux, K., & Dixon, P. (2012). The role scientist

mentors on teacher’s perceptions of the community of science during a summer

research experience. Research in Science Education, 42, 915-941.

 77

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K. & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of

professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers'

classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.

Johnson, C. C. (2007). Whole school collaborative sustained professional

development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 18, 629–661.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science

professional development. NISE Brief, 3(2), 1-8.

Khourey-Bowers, C., Dinko, R. L., & Hart, R. (2005). Influence of a

shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and collegiality.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 3-24.

Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A. & Elder, M. (2011). The

impact of science content and professional learning communities on science

teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 48, 534–551.

Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y.,

(2012). The effect of an instruction intervention on middle school English

learner’s science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 49, 987-1011.

Lauffer, H. B., & Lauffer, D. W. (2009). Building professional

development cadres. In S. Mundry & K. E. Stiles (Eds.), Professional learning

 78

communities for science teaching: Lessons from research and practice (pp. 55-

72). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I. T., & Kurki‐Suonio, K. (2004).

Effect of a long‐term in‐service training program on teachers' beliefs about the

role of experiments in physics education. International Journal of Science

Education, 26, 309-328.

Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views

of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of

learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a

multiyear professional development intervention on science achievement of

culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 45, 726-747.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development:

Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-

596.

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.

 79

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W.

(2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and

mathematics (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S. E., Love, N. B. & Hewson, P.

W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and

mathematics (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Luehmann, A. L., & Tinelli, L., (2012). Teacher professional identity

development with social networking technologies; Learning reform through

blogging. Educational Media International, 45, 323-333.

Luft, J.A., Firestone, J., Wong, S., Adams, K., & Ortega, I. (2011).

Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199-1224.

Luft, J.A., Wong, S., & Ortega, I. (2009). The NSTA state of science

education survey – 2009, full report. National Science Teacher Association,

Arlington, VA.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core

teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry practices. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 9, 1318-1347.

National Research Council (2007). Rising above the gathering storm:

Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press.

 80

National Research Council (2009). Strengthening High School Chemistry

Education Through Teacher Outreach Programs: A Workshop Summary to the

Chemical Sciences Roundtable. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.

Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for Staff

Development (Revised). Oxford, OH: NSDC.

Nelson, T. H. (2009). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional

growth: Should we be optimistic? Science Education, 93, 548-580.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).

Opfer, V. D. & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional

learning. Review of Educational Research, 81, 367-407. DOI:

10.3102/0034654311413609

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, 303-

327.

Palmer, D. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice

program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 95, 577-600.

 81

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007).

What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum

implementation. American Education Research Journal, 44, 921-958.

Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S., (2011). Preparing teachers

to design sequences of instruction in Earth systems science: A comparison of

three professional development programs. American Educational Research

Journal, 48, 996-1025.

Posnanski, T. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science

within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers:

Project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 21, 58-621.

Pruitt, S. L., & Wallace, C. S (2012). The effect of a state department of

education teacher mentor iniatitve on science achievement. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 23, 367-385. DOI 10.1007/s10972-012-9280-5

Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2011). Identifying elements critical for

functional and sustainable professional learning communities. Science Education,

95, 543-570.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory

of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2006). Does one size fit all? The

experiences of beginning teachers from different teacher preparation programs

 82

during an induction program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 963-

985.

Roth, K., Garnier, H. E., Chen, K., Lemmens, M. Schwille, K., &

Wickler, N. I. Z., (2011). Video lesson analysis: Effectice science PD for teacher

and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117-148.

Scherz, Z., Bialer, L., & Eylon, B-S. (2008). Learning about teachers’

accomplishment in “learning skills for science’ practice: The use of portfolios in

an evidence-based continuous professional development program. International

Journal of Science Education, 30, 643-667.

Schuster, D. A., & Carlsen, W. S. (2008). Scientists' teaching orientations

in the context of teacher professional development. Science Education, 93, 635-

655.

Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and

significances. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and

the curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: Translation into curriculum. In I.

Westbury and N. J. Wilkoff (Eds.), Science curriculum and liberal education:

Selected essays of Joseph J. Schwab (pp. 365–383). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Shapiro, B. L., & Last, S. (2002). Starting points for transformation:

Resources to craft a philosophy to guide professional development in elementary

 83

science. In P. Fraser-Abder (Ed.), Professional development of science teachers:

Local insights with lessons for the global community (pp. 1-20). New York:

Routledge Falmer.

Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for

argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30,

669-688.

Stolk, M. J., De Jong, O., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a

framework for professional development in curriculum innovation: Empowering

teachers for designing context-based chemistry education. Research in Science

Education, 41(3), 369-388.

Supovitz, J. & 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.

van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in the

open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 829-850.

Venville, G, I., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom

intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and

conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

47, 952-977.
 84

Watson, K., Steele, F., Vozzo, L., & Aubusson, P. (2007). Changing the

subject: Retraining teachers to teach science. Research in Science Education, 37,

141-154.

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of

professional knowledge: An examination of the research on contemporary

professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Zohar, A. (2006): The nature and development of teachers' metastrategic

knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331-377.

 85

Figure 1. A model to guide the research in science teachers’ professional

development

Policy

Profesional
Development
Programs

Teachers Students
 86

Figure 2. Teacher learning domain in professional development

View publication stats