Capitalizing on Teacher Expertise: Motivations for Contemplating Transfer from Professional Development to the Classroom

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 363-374

  Van Duzor, Andrea Gay ^a  

^a CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case study; Chemistry; Elementary school teachers; Inservice teacher education; Professional development; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960620068     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-010-9258-z     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. American Association of Physics Teaches (1996) Nature of matter. On powerful ideas in physical science. American Association of Physics Teaches, College Park, MD.
2. Anderson JR, Greeno JG, Reder LM, Simon HA (2000) Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educ Res 29(4): 11-13.
3. Ball DL (2000) Bridging practices: intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. J Teach Educ 51(3): 241-247.
4. Barber J (1986) Great explorations in math and science (GEMS): chemical reactions. Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
5. Barton AC (1998) Feminist science education. Teachers College Press, New York.
6. Barton AC (2001) Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. J Res Sci Teach 38(8): 899-917.
7. Bernal PJ (2006) Addressing the philosophical confusion regarding constructivism in chemical education. J Chem Educ 83(2): 324-326.
8. Blank RK, De las Alas N, Smith C (2007) Analysis of the quality of professional development program for mathematics and science teachers: Findings from a cross-state study. Council of Chief State School Officers o. Document Number, Washington, DC.
9. Bogdan RC, Biklen SK (1998) Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods, 3rd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
10. Cobb P (1994) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educ Res 23(7): 13-20.
11. Cobb P, Yackel E (1996) Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educ Psychol 31(3/4): 175-190.
12. Cobb P, Confrey J, diSessa A, Lehrer R, Schauble L (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educ Res 32(1): 9-13.
13. Coburn CE (2001) Collective sensemaking about reading: how teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educ Eval Policy Anal 23(2): 145-170.
14. Coburn CE (2004) Beyond decoupling: rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociol Educ 77(3): 211-244.
15. Coburn CE (2005) Shaping teacher sensemaking: school leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educ Policy 19(3): 476-509.
16. Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL (2006) Troubling images of teaching in no child left behind. Harv Educ Rev 76(4): 668-697.
17. Dana TM, Campbell LM, Lunetta VN (1997) Theoretical bases for reform of science teacher education. Elem Sch J 97(4): 419-432.
18. Engle RA (2006) Framing interactions to foster generative learning: a situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. J Learn Sci 15(4): 451-498.
19. Gess-Newsone J (2001) The professional development of science teachers for science education reform: a review of the research. In: Rhoton J, Bowers P (eds) Professional development: planning and design. NSTA Press, Arlington, VA, pp 91-100.
20. Glesne C, Peshkin A (1999) Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Longman, New York.
21. Good RG, Wandersee JH, St Julien J (1993) Cautionary notes on the appeal of the new "Ism" (constructivism) in science education. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp 71-87.
22. Harlow DB (2008) From learning physics to teaching physics: what transfers? Paper presented at the national research in science teaching (NARST) annual meeting. Baltimore, MD.
23. Kelly AE, Lesh RA (2000) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
24. Lederman NG (1999) Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. J Res Sci Teach 36(8): 916-929.
25. Lobato J (2003) How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educ Res 32(1): 17-20.
26. Lobato J (2006) Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. J Learn Sci 15(4): 431-449.
27. Loucks-Horsley S, Love N, Stiles KE, Mundry S, Hewson PW (2003) Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics, 2nd edn. Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
28. Mulford DR, Robinson WR (2002) An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. J Chem Educ 79(6): 739-744.
29. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
30. National Research Council (2000) Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: new practices for the new millennium. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
31. National Science Resources Center (2000) Science and technology concepts for middle schools (STC/MS): properties of matter. Carolina Biological Supply Company, Burlington, NC.
32. Putnum RT, Borko H (1997) Teacher learning: implications of new views of cognition. In: Biddle BJ, Good TL, Goodson IF (eds) International handbook of teachers and teaching, vol II. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 1223-1296.
33. Raizen SA, Michelsohn AM (eds) (1994) The future of science in elementary schools: educating prospective teachers, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
34. Randi J, Corno L (1997) Teachers as innovators. In: Biddle BJ, Good TL, Goodson IF (eds) International handbook of teachers and teaching, vol II. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 1163-1221.
35. Reis-Jorge J (2007) Teachers' conceptions of teacher-research and self-perceptions as enquiring practitioners-a longitudinal case study. Teach Teach Educ 23: 402-417.
36. Roth W-M, Barton AC (2004) Rethinking science literacy. Routledge, Falmer, New York.
37. Scerri ER (2003) Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. J Chem Educ 80(5): 468-474.
38. Schneider RM, Krajcik J, Blumenfeld P (2005) Enacting reform-based science materials: the range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 42(3): 283-312.
39. Tobin K (ed) (1993) The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
40. Treagust DF, Duit R, Fraser BJ (eds) (1996) Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. Teachers College Press, New York.
41. von Glassersfeld E (1993) Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp 23-38.
42. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (trans. Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Worosz M (1988) Delta science modules: states of matter, teacher's edition. Delta Education, Nashua, NH.
44. Yelon S, Sheppard L, Sleight D, Ford JK (2004) Intention to transfer: how do autonomous professionals become motivated to use new ideas. Perform Improv Q 17(2): 82-103.
45. Yore LD, Bisanz GL, Hand B (2003) Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. Int J Sci Educ 25(6): 689-725.
46. Yore LD, Anderson JO, Shymanshky JA (2005) Sensing the impact of elementary school science reform: a study of stakeholder perceptions of implementation, constructivist strategies, and school-home collaboration. J Sci Teacher Educ 16: 65-88.