Effects of Two Scientific Inquiry Professional Development Interventions on Teaching Practice

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 38-56

  Grigg, Jeffrey ^a   Kelly, Kimberle A ^b   Gamoran, Adam ^a   Borman, Geoffrey D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

elementary school; professional development; randomized field trial; science instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874199446     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373712461851     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Akerson V. L.,Hanusci D. L.Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2006;44 (5): 653-680.
2. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993:.
3. Ball D. L.,Cohen D. K.Teaching as the learning profession. Darling-Hammond L.Sykes G., ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1999:3-31.
4. Barab S.,Zuiker S.,Warren S.,Hickey D.,Ingram-Goble A.,Kwon E-J., Herring S. C.Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts.Science Education. 2007;91 (5): 750-782.
5. Barr R.,Dreeben R.How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1983:.
6. Birman B.,Le Floch K. C.,Klekotka A.,Ludwig M.,Taylor J.,Walters K., O'Day J.State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Vol. 2. Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service; 2007:.
7. Borko H.Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.Educational Researcher. 2004;33 (8): 3-15.
8. Borman G.D.,Gamoran A.,Bowdon J.A randomized trial of teacher development in elementary science: First-year achievement effects.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2008;1 (4): 237-264.
9. Borman, G.D., Gamoran, A., & Bowdon, J. (2010, April). The final outcomes of a school-randomized trial on the effects of professional development on student achievement in elementary science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
10. Bowdon, J., Borman, G.D., & Gamoran, A. (2009, April). Growing capacity or dissipation? Secondyear outcomes of a school-randomized trial of the effects of professional development on student achievement in elementary science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11. California Department of Education. (2007). 2006 science primary adoption report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education Press. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/im/documents/sciprimadoptrep06f.pdf.
12. Carlisle J.,Kelcey B.,Berebitsky D.,Phelps G.Embracing the complexity of instruction: A study of the effects of teachers' instruction on students' reading comprehension.Scientific Studies of Reading. 2011;15 (5): 409-439.
13. Correnti R.An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2007;29 (4): 239-261.
14. Crawford B. A.Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2007;44 (4): 613-642.
15. Davis E. A.,Petish D.,Smithey J.Challenges new science teachers face.Review of Educational Research. 2006;76 (4): 607-651.
16. Desimone L.Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures.Educational Researcher. 2009;38 (3): 181-199.
17. Desimone L. M.,Porter A. C.,Garet M. S.,Yoon K. S.,Birman B. F.Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24 (2): 81-112.
18. Full Option Science System. (2002). NSES/FOSS correlation, grades K-4. Retrieved from http://lhsfoss.org/scope/correlations/pdfs/FOSS.NSES_K-4_8_20_02.pdf.
19. Full Option Science System. (2007). NSES/FOSS correlation, grades 5-8. Retrieved from http://lhsfoss.org/scope/correlations/pdfs/NSES5-8_10.23.07.pdf.
20. Full Option Science System. (2009). What is FOSS? Retrieved from http://lhsfoss.org/scope/correlations/pdfs/NSES5-8_10.23.07.pdf.
21. Gamoran A.,Anderson C. W.,Quiroz P. A.,Secada W. G.,Williams T.,Ashmann S.Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press; 2003:.
22. Gamoran A.,Nystrand M.,Berends M.,LePore P.C.An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping.American Educational Research Journal. 1995;32 (4): 687-715.
23. Gamoran A.,Secada W. G.,Marrett C. B.Handbook of research in the sociology of education. Hallinan M.T., ed. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2000:37-63.
24. Garet M. S.,Porter A. C.,Desimone L.,Birman B. F.,Yoon K. S.What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal. 2001;38 (4): 915-945.
25. Hamre B. K.,Pianta R. C.Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?.Child Development. 2005;76 (5): 949-967.
26. Heller J. I.Effects of Making Sense of SCIENCE™ professional development on the achievement of middle school students, including English language learners. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012:.
27. Hewson P. W.Handbook of research on science education. Abell S. K.Lederman N. G., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007:1179-1203.
28. Jakobsson U.,Westergren A.Statistical methods for assessing agreement for ordinal data.Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2005;19 (4): 427-431.
29. Jeanpierre B.,Oberhauser K.,Freeman C.Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2005;42 (6): 668-690.
30. Kennedy M.Form and substance in in-service teacher education. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 1998:.
31. Kelly K. A.CaMSP local evaluation, Year 3 Research Cohort (2010-11): Local Evaluation-Summative findings through October, 2011. 2011;:.
32. Kelly, K. A., Rickles, J., Sass, J., Ullah, A., & Foster, J. (2008, March). A longitudinal evaluation of grade 7 science reform utilizing classroom observations and regression discontinuity analysis. Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York.
33. Kirschner P. A.,Sweller J.,Clark R. E.Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.Educational Psychologist. 2006;41 (2): 75-86.
34. Lauffer H. B.SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitating professional development to change classroom practice.Science Teacher Education. 2010;59:13-28.
35. Lauffer H. B.,Lauffer D.Professional learning communities for science teaching: Lessons from research and practice. Mundry S.Stiles K., ed. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association; 2009:55-72.
36. Lee O.,Deaktor R. A.,Hart J. E.,Cuevas P.,Enders C.An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2005;42 (8): 857-887.
37. Little J. W.Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1993;15 (2): 129-151.
38. Los Angeles Unified School District. (2007a). Elementary science Full Option Science System (FOSS) instructional materials use and management at school sites (Memorandum 3783.2). Retrieved from http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/ptl_apps.nbk_doc_info.docinfo?p_doc_id=902297.
39. Los Angeles Unified School District. (2007b). FOSS California implementation frequently asked questions. Revised November 9, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.lausd.net/District_2/resources/science/07-08/elementary/FOSS_FAQs.pdf.
40. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
41. Lutkus A. D.,Lauko M.,Brockway D.The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment science 2005. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2006:.
42. Martin T.,Brasiel S. J.,Turner H.,Wise J. C.Effects of the Connected Mathematics Project 2 (CMP2) on the mathematics achievement of grade 6 students in the mid-Atlantic region. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012:.
43. Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from athttp://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf.
44. Meyer J. W.,Rowan B.Environments and organizations. Meyer M., ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1978:78-109.
45. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1996:.
46. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000:.
47. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012:.
48. Newman D.,Finney P. B.,Bell S.,Turner H.,Jaciw A. P.,Zacamy J. L.,Feagans Gould L.Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012:.
49. Oliveira A. W.Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010;47 (4): 422-453.
50. Osthoff E.,Ferrare J.LAUSD middle school science immersion inter-rater agreement. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research; 2007:.
51. Palardy G. J.,Rumberger R. W.Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008;30 (2): 111-140.
52. Pane J. F.,McCaffrey D. F.,Slaughter M. E.,Steele J. L.,Ikemoto G. S.An experiment to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive tutor geometry.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2010;3 (3): 254-281.
53. Rice J. K.Creating a new teaching profession. Goldhaber D.Hannaway J., ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2009:227-247.
54. Understanding mathematics and science matters. Romberg T. A.Carpenter T. P.Dremock F., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005:.
55. Schunn C.,Millar T.,Lauffer D.Full-cycle science and design for all K-12 students: SCALE science immersion definitions and design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center; 2005:.
56. Supovitz J. A.,Turner H. M.The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture.Journal of Research on Science Teaching. 2000;37 (9): 963-980.
57. Walkington, C. A., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M., Alibali, M. W., & Srisurichan, R. (in press). Bridges and barriers to constructing conceptual cohesionacross modalities and temporalities: Challenges of STEM integration in the precollege engineering classroom. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Research into practice. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense
58. Wayne A. J.,Yoon K. S.,Zhu P.,Cronen S.,Garet M. S.Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods.Educational Researcher. 2008;37 (8): 469-479.
59. Weick K. E.Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.Administrative Science Quarterly. 1976;21 (1): 1-19.
60. Wilson S. M.,Berne J.Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.Review of Research in Education. 1999;24:173-209.