A Model for In-service Teacher Learning in the Context of an Innovation

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 451-470

  Coenders, Fer ^a   Terlouw, Cees ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b SAXION UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Model for professional development; Professional development; Teacher learning model; Teacher professional growth

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938417637     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-015-9432-5     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education,30, 1405–1416.
2. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(5), 521–539.
3. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education,28, 999–1015.
4. Bindernagel, J. A., & Eilks, I. (2009). Evaluating roadmaps to portray and develop chemistry teachers’ PCK about curricular structures concerning sub-microscopic models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,10, 77–85.
5. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher,33(8), 3–15.
6. Campbell, B., Lazonby, J., Millar, R., Nicolson, P., Ramsden, J., & Waddington, D. (1994). Science: The Salters approach—a case study of the process of large scale curriculum development. Science Education,78, 415–447.
7. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education,18(8), 947–967.
8. Clarke, D., Hollingsworth, H., & Gorur, R. (2013). Facilitating reflection and action: The possible contribution of video to mathematics teacher education. Journal of Education,1(3), 94–121.
9. Coenders, F. (2010). Teachers' professional growth during the development and class enactment of context-based chemistry student learning material. Enschede. Doctoral Thesis University of Twente.
10. Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing teachers’ beliefs to facilitate the transition to a new chemistry curriculum: What do the teachers want? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 317–335.
11. Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., Dijkstra, S., Pieters, J. (2010). The effects of the design and development of a chemistry curriculum reform on teachers’ professional growth: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 535–557.
12. Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: The importance of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Curriculum Studies,38, 67–83.
13. Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education,87, 3–20.
14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision making. Interchange,3, 1–25.
16. Driessen, H. P. W., & Meinema, H. A. (2003). Chemie tussen context en concept. Ontwerpen voor vernieuwing. [Chemistry between context and concept. Design for renewal]. Enschede: SLO.
17. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education,76, 493–506.
18. Ebbens, S., Ettekoven, S., & Rooijen, J. v. (1996). Samenwerkend leren, praktijkboek [Cooperative learning, practical book]. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
19. Eilks, I., Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a long-term participatory action research project on science teachers' professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7, 149–160.
20. Fullan, M. G. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21. Gibbs, J. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
22. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education,28, 957–976.
23. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher,15(5), 5–12.
24. Justi, R., van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teacher professional growth for understanding the development of science teachers' knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 437–450.
25. 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, 258–271. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17484.x
26. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education,30, 1301–1320.
27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Meijer, M. (2011). Macro–meso–micro thinking with structure–property relations for chemistry education (Doctoral thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht.
29. Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality and Quantity,36, 145–167.
30. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational-research—cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research,62(3), 307–332.
31. Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). “Chemie im Kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education,28, 1041–1062.
32. Park, S., & Oliver, J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education,38, 261–284.
33. Parke, H. M., & Charles, R. C. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34, 773–789.
34. Penuel, W., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal,44, 921–958.
35. Pintó, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education,89, 1–12.
36. Ralle, B. (2001). Chemie im Kontext—Mut zu neuen Methoden (Chemistry in context—Courage for new methods). In R. Brechel (Ed.), Zur Didaktik der Physik und Chemie (Vol. Band L21, pp. 261–263). Alsbach: Leuchtturm-Verlag.
37. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education,30, 1365–1387.
38. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions. Review of Educational Research,81, 530–565. doi:10.3102/0034654311423382
39. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education,28, 977–998.
40. Schwartz, A. T., Bunce, D. M., Silberman, R. G., Stanitski, C. L., Stratton, W. J., & Zipp, A. P. (1997). Chemistry in context. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
41. Shulman, S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57, 1–22.
42. Van den Akker, J. J. H. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. Frazer & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
43. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher,41, 26–28.
44. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(6), 673–695.
45. Witterholt, M., Goedhart, M., Suhre, C., & van Streun, A. (2012). Interconnected Model of Professional Growth as a means to assess the development of a mathematics teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education,28(5), 661–674. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.003
46. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.