Teaching for understanding in Earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 415-436

  Penuel, William R ^a   McWilliams, Harold ^b   McAuliffe, Carla ^b   Benbow, Ann E ^c   Mably, Colin ^c   Hayden, Margaret M ^d  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b TERC   (United States)

^c American Geological Institute   (United States)

^d Duval County Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

Earth science; Middle school; Professional development; Teaching for understanding

Indexed keywords

EID: 76149145042     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-008-9120-9     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1015171124982.
2. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3& 4), 369-398. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep2603& 4_8.
4. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from new American schools' scale-up phase. Santa Monica: RAND.
5. Boone, W. J., & Kahle, K. B. (1998). Student perceptions of instruction, peer interest, and adult support for middle school science: Differences by race and gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 333-340.
6. Brown, J. L. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
7. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8. Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. doi: 10. 3102/01623737023002145.
10. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244.
11. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298-338. doi: 10. 3102/0002831207302501.
14. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. doi: 10. 1002/1098-2736(200011)37: 9<916:: AID-TEA4>3. 0. CO; 2-2.
15. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi: 10. 3102/00028312038004813.
17. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. doi: 10. 3102/0013189X034003003.
18. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112. doi: 10. 3102/01623737024002081.
19. Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
20. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658. doi: 10. 1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3.
21. Gardner, H., & Dyson, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96(2), 198-218.
22. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., 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. doi: 10. 3102/00028312038004915.
23. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers' knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & L. M. Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education (pp. 51-94). Boston: Kluwer.
24. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. doi: 10. 1080/135406002100000512.
25. Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers' needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 1573-1847. doi: 10. 1007/BF02614642.
26. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. doi: 10. 3102/00028312042002371.
27. 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(6), 668-690. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 20069.
28. Johnson, C. C. (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 1573-1847. doi: 10. 1007/s10972-007-9043-x.
29. Kubitskey, B., & Fishman, B. J. (2006). A role for professional development in sustainability: Linking the written curriculum to enactment. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 363-369). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
30. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. C. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., Lewis, E. L., & Stern, J. (1993). Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science (pp. 5-60). New York: Springer.
32. Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345-375. doi: 10. 1146/annurev. psych. 51. 1. 345.
33. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 185-216. doi: 10. 1007/s10972-005-9002-3.
34. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271.
35. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
36. Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C. (2000). Assessing teachers' beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275-292. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37: 3<275:: AID-TEA4>3. 0. CO; 2-2.
37. Marek, E. A., & Methven, S. B. (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41-53. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 3660280105.
38. Patton, M. Q. (1979). Evaluation of program implementation. In L. Sechrest (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual (Vol. 4). Newbury Park: Sage.
39. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
40. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2008). Comparing three approaches to preparing teachers to teach for deep understanding in Earth science: Short-term impacts on teachers and teaching practice. Menlo Park: SRI International.
41. Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: An analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294-315.
42. Penuel, W. R., Shear, L., Korbak, C., & Sparrow, E. (2005). The roles of regional partners in supporting an international Earth science education program. Science Education, 89(6), 956-979.
43. Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73-88. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35: 1<73:: AID-TEA5>3. 0. CO; 2-K.
44. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
45. Rivet, A. (2006). Using transformative research to explore congruencies between science reform and urban schools. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 578-584). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
46. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
47. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252-297. doi: 10. 3102/0002831207302498.
48. Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 40-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1016569117024.
50. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
51. Singer, J. E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-179. doi: 10. 1207/S15326985EP3503_3.
52. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143-175. doi: 10. 1080/002202799183205.
53. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
54. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitous pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481.
55. Supovitz, J. A., & May, H. (2004). A study of the links between implementation and effectiveness of the America's Choice comprehensive school reform design. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk JESPAR, 9(4), 389-419. doi: 10. 1207/s15327671espr0904_4.
56. 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(2), 963-980. doi: 10. 1002/1098-2736(200011)37: 9<963:: AID-TEA6>3. 0. CO; 2-0.
57. Treagust, D. F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J. L., & Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Science Education, 85(2), 137-157. doi: 10. 1002/1098-237X(200103)85: 2<137:: AID-SCE30>3. 0. CO; 2-B.
58. Tushnet, N. C., Millsap, M. A., Abdullah-Welsh, N., Brigham, N., Cooley, E., Elliott, J., et al. (2000). Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Instructional Materials Development Program. San Francisco: WestEd.
59. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
60. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & 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. doi: 10. 1002/1098-2736(200102)38: 2<137:: AID-TEA1001>3. 0. CO; 2-U.
61. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
62. Wiske, S. (1997). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.