Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections Sandy Buczynski*, C. Bobbi Hansen 1 ´ Park, San Diego, CA 92110, USA University of San Diego, School of Leadership and Education Sciences, 5998 Alcala

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 7 August 2007 Received in revised form 1 June 2009 Accepted 8 September 2009

An Inquiry Learning Partnership (ILP) for professional development (PD) was formed between a university, science centre, and two urban school districts to offer 4–6th grade teachers specific science content and pedagogical techniques intended to integrate inquiry-based instruction in elementary classrooms. From pre/post content exams, PD surveys, focus group, and assessment data, teachers increased their science content knowledge, reported implementing inquiry practices in their classrooms and their students experienced modest gains on 5th grade standardized science achievement exams. While some teachers were transferring knowledge/skills gained in professional development to their classrooms, others encountered barriers to implementing PD. These obstacles included limited resources, time constraints, mandated curriculum pacing, language learning, and classroom management issues. Strategies to mitigate these barriers in order to maximize the impact of professional development need to be a priority in professional development reform. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inquiry Professional development Elementary science education

1. Introduction Science education professional development is occupational instruction intended to equip teachers with tools and resources necessary to provide quality instruction. This instruction is geared to provide learners with an enduring and applicable understanding of scientific concepts. Professional development is usually offered to practising teachers in the form of Saturday workshops, summer institutes, or after school seminars and focuses on anything from increasing content knowledge to promoting self-efficacy. However, in order for any professional development to be effective, teachers must put into practice their professional development experiences. This case study uncovers connections between teachers’ experiences in an intensive math/science professional development programme and the translation of that experience to elementary classrooms. 1.1. Professional development as intervention Most U.S. elementary teachers are not sufficiently prepared to teach science subject matter nor do they have scientific skills to feel confident about teaching science regularly (Lee et al., 2008; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994; Tilgner, 1990). In the classroom, a teacher’s difficulty in asking and answering science questions stems from his or her limited science content knowledge (Neale, Smith, & Johnson, * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 619 260 7991. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Buczynski), [email protected] (C.B. Hansen). 1 Tel.: þ1 619 260 2381. 0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006

1990; Smith, Blakeslee, & Anderson, 1993; Roychoudhury & Kahle, 1999). These teachers’ subject matter deficit and insecurity may spring from a general disinterest in, lack of exposure to, or intimidation by science content. While local school districts provide professional development in disciplines being tested annually (e.g., language arts and math), science is a content area in which professional development, for the most part, is left for county office workshops or university settings. This creates a dilemma: The teachers most in need of professional development are those who do not already have a sound pedagogical content knowledge of the subject matter and do not have ready access to professional development opportunities. In response to this dilemma and as a part of No Child Left Behind funding, California Math and Science Partnership (CaMSP) grants have generated many opportunities for in-depth math and science professional development programmes throughout the state. As part of CaMSP’s 2004 cohort, an Inquiry Learning Partnership (ILP) was formed between two urban school districts, a museum science centre, and a university to develop a programme of sustained math/science professional development for grade 4–6 educators. The goals of the ILP included: (1) Improve student achievement in mathematics and science (2) Increase teacher content and pedagogical knowledge in mathematics and science (3) Improve the quality of math and science instruction in targeted schools These professional development goals were developed from National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and as envisioned,

600

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

encouraged teachers to be linked with the best sources of expertise, to actively learn, and to reflect on their teaching practice. Did the ILP professional development intervention meet its goals? This study provides a clear picture of the impact of ILP professional development on the levels of both teachers’ and students’ content knowledge and also uncovers major obstacles encountered by teachers while attempting to translate their professional development experience into classroom practices. 2. Literature review The influence of professional development on science teaching and student learning has been well documented (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; McDermott & DeWater, 2000; Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). For the most part, research suggests professional development improves science teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogy (Radford, 1998; Supovitz, Mayers, & Kahle, 2000) and enhances teachers’ confidence to teach science while facilitating a positive attitude about the nature of science teaching and student learning (Stein et al., 1999). Standards-based professional development has also empowered teachers to design instruction that is student centred and based on inquiry learning. Neale et al. (1990) and Radford (1998) report that standards-based professional development alters teachers’ pedagogical approach to science from considering science as a body of facts that students should memorise to exploring more conceptual aspects of science topics. Professional developers who model these effective strategies, engage teachers in hands-on science, put teachers in cooperative groups, and focus on how to design open-ended questions in order to enhance teachers’ science pedagogy. Much progress has been made in the last few decades and the positive effects of inquiry professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture have been clearly supported (Cuevas, Lee, Hart, & Deaktor, 2005; Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). However, the literature on science education professional development also provides descriptions of past failures (Guskey, 2000; Luft, 2001; Rhoton, Madrazo, Motz, & Walton, 1999; Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007). Unsuccessful professional development is seen as too conventionally taught, too top–down, and too isolated from school and classroom realities to have much impact on practice. Verloop (2001) argues that science professional development reform efforts in the past have been unsuccessful because they failed to take teachers’ existing knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes into account. In addition, educators have not done a very good job of documenting the effects of professional development, nor of describing precisely which aspects of professional development most contributes to its effectiveness (Blackmon, 2005; Corcoran, 1994). Immediate results from professional development are also expected. If ample evidence of teacher/student improvement is not forthcoming immediately, then support for change is withdrawn and professional development ceases. Specific remedies for unsuccessful professional development have also been put forth. Kennedy (1998) and Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998) suggest focusing on the need for teachers to recognize how students’ misconceptions cause learning difficulties. Lemke (1990) believes teachers need to learn how to enable students to share and negotiate ideas to come to a consensus of meanings about science. Overall, researchers of professional development find that the substance, or what teachers are exposed to as content specific pedagogical processes, as opposed to generic teaching skills, are more easily transferred by teachers, and thus have a greater impact on student learning (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Kennedy, 1998; Porter, Garet, Desimone, & Birman, 2003). Additionally, teachers’ content knowledge appears to be positively related to student science

understanding (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001, in Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004). Kennedy (1998) speaks directly to this relationship, ‘‘Programs that focus on subject matter are likely to have larger positive effects on student learning than are programs that focus on teaching behaviors’’ (p.11). While Supovitz and Turner (2000) note a lack of studies documenting a relationship between science teaching practices and student achievement in science, they do cite an evaluation of the Merck Institute of Science Education by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE, 1999) stating, ‘‘This study examined the link between inquiry-based teaching practices and student achievement on the open-ended portion of the Stanford 9 achievement test (and)...identified a statistical relationship between inquiry-based practices and fifth grade student achievement’’(p. 966). They also note that Ohio’s Statewide Systemic Initiative has also linked student achievement to teacher staff development in science pedagogy (Kahle & Rogg, 1996, in Supovitz & Turner, 2000). 2.1. Inquiry pedagogy Several waves of national science teaching reform have transpired over the last 40 years. Every one of these reform movements have emphasized that learning through inquiry is essential to learning science. Joseph Schwab proposed the concept of inquiry in 1965 as he was positing science instruction to more closely parallel the work of real scientists (Wallace & Kang, 2004). Despite all of these efforts, a thorough examination of the literature done by the research team of Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead, and Robinson (1981) indicated that the amount and quality of inquiry-based teaching was well below the desired state. Since that time, inquiry has once again gained the national spotlight with the National Science Education Standards calling for inquiry as the ‘‘central strategy for teaching science’’ with students posing measurable questions, identifying procedures to answer those questions, looking for patterns, trends, and meaning in their data and explaining their findings in terms of a valid conclusion (NRC, 1996, p.31). In fact, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Board of Directors has adopted a set of guidelines regarding the use of scientific inquiry as a teaching approach. An important challenge for science education reform is to transform content and process from competing priorities into an integrated goal. Fusing content and inquiry together in teaching methodology offers the opportunity to increase students’ experience with authentic activities of scientists while also building on a content knowledge base. This is a very powerful way to understand science content. It is also a very time consuming teaching strategy. This research looks at classroom practice in light of these guidelines (as emphasized in professional development) and provides a case for the state of inquiry learning in elementary classrooms. 3. Methodology The purpose of this qualitative case study is to measure a professional development intervention’s impact on students’ science achievement and teachers’ practices at the end-of-year one of a four-year ongoing professional development intervention. Based on Yin (1994) a case study design was developed using multiple sources of evidence as a way to insure construct validity. These data included a pre-professional development focus group, pre/post subject matter exams, teacher surveys, classroom observations, and student achievement scores. The study sample consisted of 118 grade 4–6 veteran teachers and their corresponding 3450 students from two urban school districts. Each teacher,

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

received 80 h of math and science content instruction however, for the purposes of this study, science is the target content. 3.1. Design of study Yin (1994) suggests that case studies develop around a descriptive framework in order to focus the study by forming questions about the situation or problem to be studied and determining a purpose for the case study. In this research, the case study addresses issues that are fundamental to understanding the professional development experiences of a cohort of elementary teachers.

 Are teachers implementing inquiry-based instruction in their 

classrooms in response to the professional development they are receiving? If not, why not? Are students’ scores improving on science achievement assessments in professional development teachers’ classrooms?

Meaningful indicators of success of the professional development programme will centre on participants’ gain in content knowledge and implementation of inquiry practices as well as the impact of teachers’ professional development on students’ learning. This case is not looking for cause–effect relationships; instead, emphasis is placed on exploration and description using inductive logic, a holistic understanding of the impact of professional development on elementary classrooms is uncovered. By examining a preponderance of evidence, the impact of professional development is measured. 3.2. Participants Participation in the professional development project was voluntary and 118 experienced teachers from two urban school districts’ low-performing schools, evenly distributed between grade levels 4–6 participated. The larger school district (District 1) had 101 teachers while 17 teachers from the smaller district (District 2) joined in the professional development. Approximately 10% of participant teachers did not meet ‘‘Highly Qualified’’ credentials under No Child Left Behind standards. On the other hand, 35% of participants had advanced degrees or additional supplementary certifications. While the majority of participants held general education elementary teaching positions, 6 participants were science specialists and 4 were math specialists. To attain the required 80 h of intensive content and inquiry pedagogy professional development, all of the teachers participated in one of the four 35-h weeklong summer institutes offered in 2005. The summer institutes concentrated on inquiry-based learning in math and science. In addition, participants attended at least seven of the 29 available 7-h Saturday content sessions that were offered throughout the school year. The Saturday content sessions, taught by university faculty, supported content standards in math (geometry, algebra, and statistics) and science (physical, earth, and life). The Saturday pedagogy sessions, led primarily by the ILP project director and district resource teachers, addressed formative assessment, use of student science notebooks, unpacking standards, teaching English Language Learners, adapting curriculum, best practices, and addressing the achievement gap.

601

the average class size is 26.4 students. In 2005 overall ethnic makeup of the student population in district 1 was: 64.0% Hispanic or Latino, 4.7% African American, 16.0% white, 3.1% Asian, 8.9% Filipino, 0.4% Native American, 0.8% Pacific Islander and 2.0% Multiple. In district 2, the student population was: 40.5% Hispanic or Latino, 25.7% African American, 23.5% white, 3.8% Asian, 3.3% Filipino, 0.7% Native American, 2% Pacific Islander and 0.5% Multiple. 3.4. Professional development context The ILP professional development intervention used standardsbased content and inquiry-based strategies intended to provide rigorous math and science instruction in elementary classrooms. The format for professional development followed a pattern of lectures on subject matter, hands-on experiences for teachers as learners, and demonstration of inquiry practices. Even though the goal of this professional development was content imbued with inquiry pedagogy, in reality the discipline content was delivered in a more traditional lecture format by university professors. However, this format was balanced with workshops that were not lecture based, instead were constructivist designed and offered teachers opportunities to interact through group work and handson experience with science kits. 4. Data collection 4.1. Pre-professional development focus groups During the first ILP professional development summer session, both authors conducted a structured focus group interview with a total of ten volunteers who gave their views and experiences of teaching science in grades 4–6. The focus group consisted of six females and four males; two were from the smaller district and eight from the larger district. 40% of the focus group was Latino/a, reflecting a similar demographic as that of the entire participant pool. 4.2. Pre–post subject matter tests Change in teacher content knowledge was measured by pre/ post-tests that were developed by university faculty who taught Saturday content sessions. Each exam was administered twice to teachers who attended the specific Saturday session: at the beginning of the session and at the end. The content of these exams was based on the subject matter planned for the day’s instruction and required short answer responses. The university instructor scored the exam on a 10-point scale. 4.3. Teacher survey End-of-summer institute surveys and ‘‘daily checks’’ after Saturday sessions were evaluated and used formatively by ILP staff to 1) determine if the teachers were satisfied with the content, delivery, and instructional strategies addressed by the workshops; 2) identify areas in which further professional development (intensive or follow-up) was needed; and 3) modify the existing schedule and curriculum for future workshops. Surveys were completed by 102 of the participant teachers and kept anonymous to encourage honest opinions.

3.3. Targeted student population 4.4. Classroom observations The secondary ILP objective was to have a positive impact on student learning and achievement in math and science. Total enrolment of students from both districts was 30,434 with 46% of the student population qualifying for a free/reduced-lunch. District 1 maintains an average class size of 28.4 students while in district 2,

The authors concurrently visited a subset of six teachers’ classrooms for one-lesson observation periods. All six of these volunteer teachers were female and 3 were Latina. The purpose of the classroom observation was to document specific examples of

602

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

teachers’ use of inquiry pedagogy and integration of content relevant to state content standards. While each teacher presented an inquiry lesson, one author videotaped the lesson while the other recorded field notes. To maximize the potential strength of videotape analysis, the authors used protocols described by Lesh and Lehrer (2000). 4.5. Student achievement scores To determine the indirect impact of ILP professional development, student scores on the 2005 and 2006 Science California Standards Tests (CST) from Grade 5 were obtained from both school districts. These tests were administered as part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) programme under policies set by the State Board of Education. The science CST consists of 60 objective questions covering physical sciences (19 questions), life sciences (22 questions), and earth sciences (19 questions). Student CST scores were compared between teachers who did not participate in the ILP programme and did not share students with ILP colleagues with those teachers in the ILP programme. Given complex teaming situations at school sites, selecting treatment and control groups for evaluating student achievement was challenging and yet accomplished. Held constant between treatment and control teachers were standards-based content taught and the STAR and local assessment testing structure. By comparing the baseline (2005) to the 2006 CST data, we were able to examine 1) if there were any changes within ILP teachers in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced from 2005 to 2006 and 2) if there were any differences between ILP and non-ILP teachers in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in science. In addition, locally developed assessments were constructed that measured a learner’s ability to use inquiry skills. These assessment instruments focused on electricity and magnetism for 4th grade and on properties of matter in 5th grade. Both ILP and comparison teachers administered the locally developed assessments, which were scored by ILP staff. Triangulation of the above data points strengthened the reliability and internal validity for this study (Merriam, 1998).

5.1. Teachers’ science content knowledge Of the 118 participants, 82% fulfilled 80 h of intensive professional development and the results of teachers’ content knowledge assessments are presented in Fig. 1 by session topic. Data indicates that Saturday professional development sessions gave teachers new knowledge and confidence to experiment with science inquiry-based learning activities. Participants came to the Saturday

Often time teachers revealed that they are ‘‘faking it’’ when it comes to deep content knowledge about science standards. The professional development enriched teachers’ core understanding of specific science concepts to the point where they gained the confidence to stop ‘‘faking it’’ as this teacher’s comments reveal, The most important [knowledge I gained] was all of the whys behind common circuit matters and magnets. I will now be able to better explain dating by magnetic orientation, energy flow etc. (Survey, 06). Teachers indicated that not only did students have misconceptions about science concepts but teachers often carried them as well as evidenced by this teacher’s statement,

71%

Pre Test

73%

71%

65%

Post Test

5.2. Students’ science content knowledge

45%

43%

34% 28%

32%

20%

Chemistry

Life Science 1

Frequently we think teachers do not care about the theoretical underpinnings concerning what they teach and just want practical ideas. However teacher comments revealed that they were appreciative about receiving foundational knowledge about how students learn and think about science. Whether through a deeper understanding of content, validation of prior content knowledge, or clarification of misconceptions, teachers indicated that content enrichment enhanced the effectiveness of their teaching.

Science CST scores, [Percent Proficient/Advanced], 2005 and 2006

Pre/Post Content Knowledge Assessments

Percent Correct

I learned more today than in any college level class I have ever taken. I am most excited about the knowledge I gained. Also, the many activities that I get to take back to my classroom (Survey, 06).

Excellent background information. I had had a lot of misconceptions. Now, I am excited to teach it [this concept] again (Survey, 06).

5. Case

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

content sessions with a moderate grasp of various science content. These content assessments were challenging for teachers, as indicated by both pre- and post-performance. Content sessions covered a great deal of subject material over 5–7 h, often times at fairly advanced levels. The average percent correct on pre-tests in science subjects was 31% with teachers ranging in prior knowledge from 20% to 43% in specific science content. Post-test science content scores ranged from 45% to 73% correct with an average score of 65%. That gives teachers an average gain of 34% in overall content knowledge as measured by these pre/post exams. Teachers’ pre-test sores were lowest in life science 2 and highest in Chemistry. Life science 2 was also the content area that showed the highest gains in content knowledge. However, content session’s ‘‘daily checks,’’ anecdotal data, and classroom visitations indicate that the University instructors helped teachers deepen their understandings of familiar subject matter, review content that may have become stale for teachers, and more importantly assisted teachers in making connections across disciplines in science. Teachers’ survey comments indicated that they learned much more information at content sessions than reflected simply by the pre/post assessment results:

Life Science 2

Earth

Elec. & Mag

Content Area- Science Fig. 1. Pre/post content knowledge assessment of teachers by content area.

5.2.1. California standards tests In order to compare student scores of teachers who participated in ILP professional development with student scores of teachers who did not participate, comparison teachers were recruited who were at the same school and matched grade level, subject area taught in 2005–2006, credential status, and years of experience. The science CST exam is only administered in 5th grade. The percent proficient represents students with 2006 CST scores at

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

5.2.2. Locally developed assessment Because professional development encouraged teachers to teach science content using inquiry pedagogy, it was important to assess students in this manner as well. Results of the locally developed assessments (based on inquiry learning) are presented in Table 1. The overall results indicate that students made gains from pre- to post-test and that students taught by ILP teachers performed better than students in the classes of non-ILP teachers. Teachers reported that the locally designed assessments proved particularly difficult for English language learners, who comprised a large percentage of students served by the ILP Project. There were no noteworthy differences in student scores between grade levels.

Science CST (Gr. 5) Scores 2004-2006 50%

44%

2004

% Prof/Adv.

proficient or advanced levels of performance. The treatment group includes 729 students in grade 5 while the control group includes 1235 students grade 5. Fig. 2 looks at student achievement scores for the participant and non-participant teachers. Among the 118 teachers involved in the project, 37 taught fifth grade. A comparison of District one’s science CST scores from 2005 to 2006 revealed a slight improvement among ILP teachers’ students (9% more students scored proficient/advanced in 2006) compared to a 2-percentage point improvement in student scores from comparison (non-professional development participant) teachers. For district two, there was no change in percent proficiency scores for students of ILP teachers from 2005 to 2006 in fifth grade science (remained 30%). However, students in the comparison teachers’ classrooms showed a 4% loss in students with a proficient score. Some of the greatest achievement gains occurred at sites where multiple teachers were involved in professional development. At three elementary schools in District 1, several fifth (and many 4th and 6th grade and science teachers) were involved in the ILP. Fig. 3 presents fifth grade students who scored proficient/advanced at these school sites before ILP intervention (2004) and for the following two years (2005 & 2006). The average gain in the percentage of students scoring proficient/advanced from 2005 to 2006 district-wide was five percentage points (28%–33%). However, in the three schools with multiple teachers actively involved in the ILP, students made even higher gains from 2005 to 2006. For example, at Silver Elementary 15% of fifth graders scored proficient or advanced on the science CST in 2005 as compared to 30% in 2006. Salt and Vista elementary schools (both with large numbers of teachers involved in the project) also made similar gains.

603

40% 30%

34%

33%

30%

28%

2006

22%

20%

16%

15% 8%

10%

5%

Treatment

- 5th Science

Comparison

District-wide

Silver

Salt

Fig. 3. Science CST scores for District one sites involved in ILP.

5.3. Implementation of professional development Teachers had professional information to implement inquiry, and, on survey data, self-reported that ILP project activities enhanced their teaching effectiveness and knowledge of inquirybased instruction in science. The results of perceived changes by teachers in their practice are seen in Table 2. An overwhelming majority of teachers (92%) reported that they increased the frequency of inquiry-based learning activities in science due to involvement in professional development. Because these same teachers had earlier indicated that they wanted professional development that would mimic classroom implementation, we believe teachers perceived that ILP delivered on that promise. The part of professional development that teachers most valued was: The deeper understanding and how that relates to what we teach our kids. (Survey, 06) Reflection on one’s own teaching practice takes time and intent. Often teachers are so involved in the execution of science lessons, they miss opportunities to reflect from either teacher or student perspective. Making connections between these two perspectives is critical as noted by this teacher’s comment, Going through the activities from a student point of view and a teacher point of view was helpful. All that I heard and saw made me reflect on my teaching practice (Survey, 06). There was also overwhelming evidence that ILP teachers were actively translating professional development experiences into

District 2

30%

27%

29%

20% 10% 0% 2005

2006 School Year

Percent Proficient/ Advanced

Percent Proficient/ Advanced

30%

Treatment

- 5th Science

Comparison

50%

39%

Vista

ILP Schools

50% 40%

7%

0%

[Percent Proficient/Advanced] 2005 and 2006 District 1

2005

40% 30%

30%

26%

30% 22%

20% 10% 0% 2005

School Year

2006

Fig. 2. District one and two CTS science scores (5th Grade) for treatment and comparison classes (2005, 2006).

604

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

Table 1 Average percent correct on locally developed science content assessments ILP and Non-ILP.

Fourth: Electricity and Magnetism Fifth: Properties of Matter

Pre-test

Post-test

ILP teachers only

Non-ILP/ comparison teachers

ILP teachers

24% (n ¼ 28)

44% (n ¼ 22)

58% (n ¼ 255)

20% (n ¼ 26)

40% (n ¼ 87)

59% (n ¼ 293)

action in their own classrooms. ILP teachers reported increased frequency of inquiry-based learning activities and specific changes of practice from traditional to inquiry pedagogy. For the most part, use of inquiry strategies were positively reinforced through improved student motivation and engagement when inquiry pedagogy was prevalent. This (inquiry strategy) worked better than before (non-inquiry approach) because students came up with their own way to solve problems. This increased their conceptual understanding. Also, each student was more self-directed and engaged (Survey, 06). Likewise, teachers’ skills in transforming yes/no questions, or direct response questions into questions that can lead to scientific method were also strengthened, Questioning is key in inquiry learning. My students now know what makes a question investigable. This is an important distinction to make that I did not do before (Survey, 06). I enjoyed being able to make investigable questions.it was harder that I thought. Walking through the process (in the students head) is great (Survey 06). Having experiences as a learner was very beneficial to teachers’ grasp of content and implementation of inquiry processes in the classroom. However, it takes longer to investigate a question than to receive a lecture on that topic. Add to that, other time restrictions those teachers faced implementing science content and inquiry pedagogy in their classrooms and evidence emerged for why some ILP teachers did not implement what was learned in their professional development.

Studies of teachers’ scores on the subject matter tests of the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) have found no consistent relationship between this measure of subject matter knowledge and teacher performance as measured by student outcomes or supervisory ratings. Most studies show small, statistically insignificant relationships, both positive and negative (DarlingHammond, 2000, p. 3). This study confirms Darling-Hammond’s analysis. While gains in teachers’ content knowledge were documented across content areas, the method of measuring this improvement was admittedly limited. Both pre/post content assessment instruments were designed by instructors themselves and given within an eight- hour time frame. It is therefore possible that the instructor presented information in a manner to touch on quiz topics to ensure score gains and it is also possible that retention of content specifics was short term. We have no information on pre-post subject matter tests in terms of reliability and validity. This is problematic for a number of reasons: testing effects and the instructor who developed the test is teaching the workshop. The score increases observed could be affected by these effects as well as regression toward the mean. A more meaningful data might be to offer the post-test several months later to uncover a retention level of knowledge. However, this study did capture the influence of a teacher’s command of subject matter on students’ learning. Successive year student achievement in science improved or at least maintained in classrooms of teachers who had been actively enriching their content knowledge and inquiry practices through professional development. Teachers self-reported that inquiry instructional strategies contributed to improvement in their students’ achievement. This is important in that teachers’ perception of an increase in student achievement includes the dimension of inquiry practice and is not solely based on a written assessment. This adds a positive connective layer for teachers who are being validated for their increased efforts in inquiry pedagogy by perceiving improved student accomplishment. This might help teachers ‘‘stay the course’’ in the long run when confronted with obstacles to implementing inquiry.

6. Barriers to implementation of professional development 6.1. Time allotted for science instruction by school sites/districts

5.4. Are students’ scores improving on science achievement assessments in professional development teacher’s classrooms? This case questions the relationship between teachers receiving professional development to strengthen content knowledge and inquiry pedagogy to increases in student achievement. For many years, researchers have debated the influence of teacher subject matter knowledge on student achievement.

While teachers had one full week in the summer or entire Saturdays to devote to science content and learning through inquiry, both districts 1 and 2 rarely allotted sufficient class time to meet the needs for learners to be engaged with inquiry-based science. Instead, a push to teach science through a literacy framework was evident. Additionally, the perception of how teachers think their district expects them to allocate time for science content

Table 2 Summary of end-of-year teacher surveys. 2005–2006 Extent to which the Inquiry Learning Project.

SCIENCE Not at all

a. Enhanced the overall effectiveness of TEACHING in. b. Enhanced knowledge of inquiry-based instruction in. c. Increased frequency that students are engaged in inquiry-based activities d. Helped align instruction to state standards e. Improved student achievement in science or math

A lot

1

2

3

4

0% 0% 1% 3% 0%

4% 3% 7% 13% 11%

29% 19% 47% 51% 52%

67% 78% 45% 33% 37%

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

plays a role in teachers’ presentation of science-based lessons. The following exchange illustrates how one teacher allocates time for 4th grade science. Author: How many times a week do you do science? PAUSE In real time. Teacher 2: When we focus on science, then we do it every week. Like 45 minutes – hour. Author: Once a week? Teacher 2: No, when we are doing the rotations, two or three times a week Author: And then when you are not doing science? Teacher 2: Then not at all. Author: Then how often do you do science? Teacher 2: Maybe every other month we do science. Or maybe every two months, it depends. (Focus group, 8.11.05) Even when teachers do spend class time on science, the focus is not always on content. Teachers either perceive the need to frame the teaching of science within the acquisition of literacy skills or are encouraged to use science as subject matter to develop writing skills: Teacher 1: I actually spend more of my science time focusing on reading comprehension and guided reading. Author: Science literacy? Teacher 1: Science literacy and learning to read expository text and figuring out science vocabulary and science context. A lot of reading skills. A lot more focus on that than on science context because our textbook is actually a 7th grade book. And the hands-on materials are really lacking. (Focus group, 8.11.05) Teacher 3: We do not even address science as something that we actually teach in school. In my four years of teaching, I have never had anything that addresses it. They say, ‘‘Oh, just bring it into your reading. Bring it into your writing. Just write about it.’’ That is the extent of science. (Focus group, 6.30.05)

6.2. Need to teach mandated curriculum Teachers also face a time constraint through pressure to keep up with a district mandated pacing guide. These guides were developed by content specialists and were intended to move students at a reasonable speed through the textbook. The pacing guides do not necessarily reflect attention to inquiry pedagogy, the professional development focus. Teacher 4: I loved the ILP (science) thematic stuff. We tried a little bit last year. But now with the pacing guide, it feels like if you deviated from the pacing guide then you are kind of off. The pacing guide, at times can be: this content this week–this day, this homework (Focus group, 6.30.05) Inquiry learning takes times. If a teacher feels anxious about maintaining a specified schedule, then the time required to explore investigable questions gets sacrificed. 6.3. Language learning It is projected that by 2030, 40% of school age populations will be English language learners (Rosebery & Warren, 2008). Couple this with the struggle schools have historically had to provide underserved populations with quality science instruction and

605

another dimension is added which hinders a teacher’s ability to incorporate inquiry strategies in the classroom. Science vocabulary is a key component of inquiry lessons. According to Lee and Fradd (1995), students correct use of science vocabulary, while not necessarily reflecting their level of understanding is considered to be an indicator of understanding. Difficulties a teacher can encounter in defining key science terms to limited English speakers were demonstrated in Teacher 2’s 6th grade class during a landform kit activity. The teacher asked students to define ‘‘levee.’’ Teacher 2: What happens if you build leaves, uh levees, along the river channel? What do we call levees? Student 1: If you have a river and it is like two walls . that it will guide it. Teacher 2: O.K. excellent Student 2: Two parallel lines. Teacher 2: Excellent! Teacher recaps in Spanish During lab: Student 1: What happens when you build levers along the river? Student 2: Response in Spanish (site visit video, 6.05.06) Both teacher and student misspoke the vocabulary term ‘‘levees’’ pronouncing it ‘‘leaves’’ and ‘‘levers’’. The attached definition, ‘‘two parallel lines’’ would certainly not be considered an indicator of understanding for the concept of a levee. Rosebery and Warren (2008) question, ‘‘Can students learn science before they are proficient in English?’’ While pedagogical approaches for English language learners such as, science talk (Gallas, 1995), use of imagination in science learning, and differentiating vocabulary were all addressed in professional development, the reality and rush of completing a kit activity in a single class period, to a class of limited English speakers, took precedence in this case. For teachers to work from their students’ strengths by making connections between students’ language and cultural practices to how they construct meaning in science classes, again, takes time. Without changes in infrastructure of school sites to accommodate frequent, focused, science instruction that is not paced and provides time to incorporate ELL strategies in science education, then the time necessary for teachers and students to engage in inquiry-based instruction will remain a stumbling block to the implementation of ILP professional development.

6.4. Lack of resources The unavailability of resources posed the largest barrier to the full application of professional development in the classroom. In an interchange with veteran teachers during a pre-professional development focus group, teachers discussed the cost of doing science: Author: And who pays for the play dough? Teacher 1: Oh, I did. Teacher 2: We pay for all of our stuff. Author: So how does that impact your ability to do science? Teacher 2: That lessens it because when you need materials, it costs. I think I spent $120 on one of the things that we do getting hammers, steel, and wood plates. (Focus group, 8.11.05) When funds are out of pocket for teachers, a financial divide is in place for students of more affluent teachers and students of teachers whose own financial resources are limited. Other resources provided by schools, such as technology are also limited.

606

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607

Author: What kind of technology do you have available? Pause. Overhead projector, document camera, computer with data projector, microscopes? Teacher 3: I have an overhead. As far as computers, there is one teacher computer and I have 4 others, if they are working. Our school is renovated so that we have a large television & VCR. Author: microscopes? Teacher 3: No Author: balances? Teacher 3: No. That is about the extent of it. I purchase a lot of my own materials and since I have been teaching the 4th grade for four years now, a lot of stuff I just recycle. I save it if I know it works. (Focus group, 8.11.05) One of the aspects of the ILP that teachers particularly appreciated was science kits available for check out from the science centre. One third of ILP teachers took advantage of this resource library. When asked what they most valued about the professional development experience, one teacher commented: Materials top the list. Having to locate, borrow or purchase items for an experiment is time consuming and not always possible. (Survey, 06) Professional development sessions were conducted at a science museum where teachers were inspired by the availability of handson materials. A level of frustration emerges when teachers return to the classroom and have to beg, borrow, and purchase science supplies. 6.5. Classroom management issues While teachers have the ability and knowledge to implement what they have learned in professional development, sometimes students do not have the requisite skills to make appropriate use of behavioural freedoms that inquiry learning entails. There is a temptation to focus on the fun, hands-on part of inquiry. When students were observed during site visits, it became clear that some students were not used to the physical and intellectual autonomy granted in an inquiry environment. A 6th grade teacher from district 2 duplicated an ice balloon activity from her professional development setting into the classroom. She was extremely organized with the ice balloons pre-made and all necessary materials on hand. The focus of the activity was skill building for developing a measurable question. However, the demands of materials distribution, listening skills, and group work on the part of the learners were not already a part of her classroom structure. Therefore, when she tried to implement a configuration that was appropriate and productive for inquiry learning, student misbehaviour became an issue. While this inquiry activity was smooth sailing with adult learners in professional development, the transition to a 6th grade classroom was not so smooth. A common misconception is that professional development is only as effective as the teacher’s willingness to apply knowledge gained through the professional development experience. However, teachers that are willing to implement professional development practices in the classroom often face hurdles that are beyond their control. The ILP provided a helping hand over the ‘‘lack of access to resources’’ hurdle by making a supply of stocked FOSS kits available for check out from the science centre. Other barriers were not so easily scaled. For example, lack of priority given to science instruction through testing requirements are deeply embedded in the standardized testing regime. Also, time allotments for inquiry instruction are not built into the pacing guide, a component of school district infrastructure and thus teachers ‘‘fall behind’’ when focusing on investigations.

It is not that teachers do not have the ability to implement inquiry in their classroom; there are these obstacles that get in the way of inquiry-based instruction. As in a weight loss programme, participants are given strategies to minimize holiday weight gains. It is up to the dieter to embrace these techniques and to avoid the common pitfalls of holiday temptations. In like fashion, teachers attempting to integrate inquiry-based pedagogy into their classrooms, must embrace ideas generated by like-minded teachers in their professional development communities who face the same difficulties themselves. Teachers have neither the agency nor resources to overcome these barriers by themselves. Being provided strategies to address possible obstacles in using the inquiry approach will help teachers proactively deal with the issues. 7. Conclusion Given 80 h of professional development (including 8 h of subject matter learning), teachers are beginning to have deeper understanding of content, a stronger commitment to inquiry-based learning activities, and trend toward higher student achievement scores. The more teachers from a single school site that are involved a professional development cohort, the stronger the impact of that professional development for that site. Professional development that makes connections between teacher and student perspective is also highly valued by teachers, as was receiving foundational knowledge about how students learn and think about science. However, this case suggests the need for professional development programmes to document actual gains of teacher content knowledge over a more diverse means: a waiting period before the post-test assessment of content knowledge, a measure of correct content usage in the classroom, and some process of determining the teachers’ ability to translate their own content knowledge into appropriate concept understanding for students. The case also highlights obstacles to implementing inquiry-based science as presented in professional development workshops. The state of inquiry learning in elementary classrooms will not advance until professional development addresses more than content knowledge and pedagogy for grade 4–6 learners. Science professional development must provide support for removing the current barriers that prevent the implementation of inquiry pedagogy in today’s elementary classrooms. References Blackmon, A. (2005, March 1). The influence of science education professional development on African American science teacher’s conceptual change and practice. Online Submission. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 499484) Retrieved 05.04.09 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: the mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1999). A close look at effects on classroom practice and student performance: A report of the fifth year of the Merck Institute for Science Education 1997-98. CPRE evaluation report: Author. Corcoran, T. B. (1994). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association. 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(3), 337–357. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–57, Retrieved 04.10.09 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect changes in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.

S. Buczynski, C.B. Hansen / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 599–607 Kahle, J.B., & Rogg, S.R. (1996). A pocket panorama of the landscape study, 1995. Miami University, Oxford, OH. Kennedy, M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249–263. Lee, O., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., Lewis, S., Thorton, C., & LeRoy, K. (2008). Teachers’ perspectives on a professional development intervention to improve science instruction among English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 41–67. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 797–816. Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquirybased science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021–1043. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research and design in mathematics and science education. Mehwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquirybased professional development program on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534. McDermott, L. C., & DeWater, L. S. (2000). The need for special science courses for teachers: two perspectives. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neale, D. C., Smith, D., & Johnson, V. G. (1990). Implementing conceptual change teaching in primary science. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 109–131. Porter, A., Garet, M., Desimone, L., & Birman, B. (2003). Providing effective professional development: lessons from the Eisenhower program. Science Educator,12(1), 23–40. Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: a model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 73–88.

607

Raizen, S. A., & Michelsohn, A. M. (1994). The future of science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rhoton, J., Madrazo, G., Motz, L., & Walton, E. (1999). Professional development: a major component in science teaching and learning. Science Educator, 8(1), 1–8. Rosebery, A., & Warren, B. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Roychoudhury, A., & Kahle, J. B. (1999). Science teaching in the middle grades: policy implications for teacher education and systemic reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 50, 278–289. Smith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 111–126. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: learning to assist teachers in new setting in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 237–269. Supovitz, J. A., Mayers, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: the longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431. Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 63–89. Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nded.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.