A “TEACHER-IN-RESIDENCE=
221;
EXPERIENCE AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE INQUIRY
Laura
J. Lising,
Lisa
M. Tirocchi,
Abstract
In the 2004-2005,
Introduction
Strategies for
Professional Development
=
T=
raditional
in-service science teacher professional development typically happens
concurrently with teaching or during the summer and involves workshops or
college coursework. In order =
to
meet more challenging reform goals, newer models of professional development
have been devised to create longer cycles that often afford more contextual=
ized
experience and reflection.
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) describe six major categories of
professional development strategies:
1. &n=
bsp;
including materi=
als
selection and replacement units.
2. &n=
bsp;
including partner=
ships,
professional networks, and study groups.
=
3. Examining teaching and learning<=
/span>, including action research, case
discussions, examining student work and thinking, and lesson study.
4. &n=
bsp;
including science
inquiry and working with scientists.
=
5. Practicing teaching, =
including coaching, demonstration
lessons, and mentoring.
=
6. Vehicles and mechanisms, =
including developing professional
developers, technology for professional development, workshops, institutes,
courses, and seminars.
Characteristics of Professional Development<= /h3>
=
B=
oth
traditional and alternative models of professional development vary in a wide range of characteristics.
= G= aret et al. (2001), in a national survey of participants in Eisenhower-funded science and mathematics professional development, found that the degree of change in the teachers’ self-reported practice= s was correlated most strongly to: their perception of e= nhanced knowledge and skills; coherence= of the professional development with other professional development activities, other school activities, the teachers’ goals, and state standards and assessments; focus on content knowl= edge, and total contact hours. In turn other factors, such as overall time span of the professional development, Collective participation of groups of teachers from the same school, department, or grade level, and how much active learning the professional development entailed for the teachers, also impacted these results less directly. They found that reform/alternative types of professional development had more impact than traditional types of professional developm= ent (workshops, courses, etc.), but only through the increase in the other variables described above. &nbs= p; However, the study did not seem to differentiate between types of teacher outcomes, most notably whether the changes in the teacher practices were aligned with reform teaching goals, especially inquiry. In fact, one issue raised by the centrality of coherence is the potential conflict between state standards/assessments and inquiry goals. The degree to which these are mismatched is clearly a barrier that professional development cannot fully overcome. <= o:p>
=
S=
upovitz
and Turner (2000) provide a nice overview =
of
important characteristics of inquiry-focused professional development, some
supported by practice data, and some not.&=
nbsp;
These include: immersi=
on in
science inquiry: intensive, sustained experiences; connection to concrete t=
asks
and experiences with students; content focus; grounding in common standards;
and connection to other aspec=
ts of
school change. Their analysis=
of a
large sample of survey responses showed that inquiry practices and
investigative classroom culture were most strongly influenced on the
programmatic end, by duration of professional development. The most important teacher
characteristics were the race of the teacher (with minorities practicing
inquiry significantly more than whites), content preparation, and attitudes
towards reform, while school characteristics that supported reform were
principal supportiveness and resource availability, although the latter were
eclipsed by the correlation of student socioeconomic status with reform
practices, with higher-poverty populations receiving more traditional instr=
uction.
Impact of Professional Development
=
M=
any
studies have assessed the impact of various programs of professional
development and have found varied results, not only in terms of the
teachers’ learning of particular content (science or pedagogical), but
also in terms of teachers’ beliefs about good teaching, teachers̵=
7;
practices, and students’ perceptions of science in the context of a
particular course.
Goals =
vs.
Practice
=
O=
ne
of the most interesting and important sets of results concerns the relative
congruence or lack thereof between teachers’ stated beliefs about good
science teaching, their goals, and their actual classroom practice before a=
nd
after professional development. Often the stated teaching
orientations are more closely aligned with inquiry standards than the actual
practice of the teachers.
&=
nbsp; The
differences between beliefs, goals and practice are affected by a myriad of
factors that are analyzed in various studies from different theoretical
perspectives (Benson, 1989:
Brickhouse, 1990; Tobin,
Briscoe, & Holman,1990; <=
/span>Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Martens, 1992; Prawat, 1992; Luft
& Pizzini, 1998; Bryan &a=
mp;
Abell, 1999; Luft, 2001; Kang=
&
Wallace, 2005: Johnson,
2006; Smith & Southerland, 2007). Examples of factors that influence=
d the
goal/belief-practice divide include: situational barriers, including support
from principals and other teachers; resource availability, including curric=
ulum
and materials, teacher skills and/or confidence at facilitating inquiry, ex=
perience
teaching, tensions between goals, frames, and beliefs, and differences aris=
ing
from the non-unitary (context-dependent) nature of epistemology. Some of these factors can be
addressed by better professional development that is informed by further re=
search
into the nature and details of these issues.
Goals
of Professional Development
In reviewing claims for the characteristics of effective professional developm= ent, Guskey (2003) argues that more and better research is needed with student learning outcome data as the final measure, in line with the ultimate goal = of professional development, and takes many reports to task for accepting less= er measures as evidence. However, even the assumption of student learning outcome as the prim= ary final goal may be a faulty one inasmuch as some professional developers have process/thinking goals as higher priorities for students. And the question is not solely one of goals. Bryan and Abell (1999), for instance, found that the shift from a learning outcome to= a learning process frame allowed a student teacher to resolve the tensions between her beliefs and experiences and reform her teaching.
Substance of Professional
Development
=
Of
course, one cannot have the debate about the proper goals for inquiry-focus=
ed
professional development without also engaging the question of what is
inquiry. This is a comp=
lex
question and an ongoing debate (
“Good science
inquiry involves learning through direct interaction with materials and
phenomena,” (NSF, 2000)=
<= o:p>
T=
he
National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) emphasize
children’s experiences in general, yet all of the examples are focuse=
d on
data. Much of the
professional development in science inquiry shares or is influenced by this
perspective.
<= o:p>
T=
he
Aims of this Paper
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; Our
aims in this paper are severalfold.
In Part 1 we describe how one teacher’s experience as part of a
project team working on preservice education served her as a form of
professional development in science inquiry and address what this has in co=
mmon
with other types of alternative professional development. In Part 2 we will share the
results of a preliminary analysis of this teacher’s goals and classro=
om
practices in the subsequent year, and then in Part 3 we will briefly touch =
on
what was new or different in year 3, when the official research had
ceased. Following this =
we
will discuss what lessons for science inquiry professional development migh=
t be
drawn from this case.
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
Part 1: The Teacher-In-Residence Year R=
11;
Professional Development Aspects of the Experience
=
O=
ur
goal for this section of the paper is to elucidate the characteristics of a
rather unique professional development experience that might be a replicable
model. The central ques=
tion
is:
What were the professional
development aspects of the teacher-in-residence experience for one particul=
ar
TIR in one particular context?
What characteristics did this experience share with the various
strategies for alternative professional development and with programs that =
are
more effective at changing teacher practices?
Data and Methodology
= T= his first part of the paper is descriptive rather than investigative. No formal data were collected for this section. <= o:p>
Context: The Towson
=
T=
he
Physics Teacher Education Coalition (PhysTEC) project at
=
O=
ne
common element of the various PhysTEC programs is the inclusion of a
“Teacher-in-Residence” (TIR) who spends a year on loan from his=
or
her school. Most projec=
ts
hire a new TIR each year, with the previous TIR often returning to teaching=
and
continuing to engage in mentoring and professional development. Our first year’s TIR h=
ad
four years experience as a 4th-grade teacher and worked on all
aspects of our project. After
her year at
=
T=
he
TIR has several primary roles. Many
of the faculty engaged in the project have limited or out-of-date experienc=
e in
the classroom, and few have enough experience in the various local school
districts that serve as partners in the teacher training programs and likely
placements for recent graduates. The experience that th=
e TIR
brings is invaluable in designing programs that are up-to-date, realistic, =
and
relevant and benefit from the wealth of knowledge that can only be gained in
the classroom. The TIR at most
sites is also uniquely suited to the mentoring of novice teachers. The TIR is also often the only per=
son on
the project team during a given year whose time is completely devoted to the
project, which can be crucial for the project’s success. Furthermore, the hiring proc=
ess,
the collaboration, and the continued contact between project staff and the =
TIR
after the TIR year increases the overall collaboration with local school
districts.
=
E=
ach
of the PhysTEC sites are generally funded for three or more years, with abo=
ut
half of the funding for TIR support.
Several of these sites, including
Professional Development Aspects=
of
the TIR Experience.
=
A=
lthough
the major aim of the project is not in-service teacher development,
participation in the project creates a myriad of intellectual challenges th=
at
naturally lead to professional development both for the TIR and for the fac=
ulty
PIs. This paper will
primarily address the professional development experience for the TIR becau=
se
we hope to compare it to the other literature about professional development
for classroom teachers. The
professional development experience for the PIs is also of interest but will
not be discussed here, except where relevant.
=
At
=
L=
ooking
in more detail, we can see that our TIR’s activities fell into five o=
ut
of six of Loucks-Horsley et al.’s categories.
=
2. Collaborative structures. The project
clearly comprised collaborative work at all levels. The TIR was not just part of=
a
team, but also part of the team leadership. Her activities were often designed=
by
her in concert with the PIs, and her most important contributions were
intellectual (although we definitely appreciated the effort of execution as
well!)
=
3. Examining teaching and learning.=
6. Vehicles and mechanisms. The TIR designed and ran workshops =
for
pre-service methods instructors and mentor teachers. As mentioned above, she also=
wrote
curriculum for methods instructors.
=
T=
he
category of professional development that was most lacking in this experien=
ce
was practicing teaching. The impact of this was
notable, as discussed below.
(Interestingly, the first edition of Loucks-Horsley et al. [1998] had
only 5 categories, but in the second edition (2003) some strategies were
regrouped and others were added to make a new category, category 5; practicing
teaching.)
=
W=
ith
regard to desirable characteristics of a professional development program, =
the
40 hour/week, 9 month duration of this experience would certainly put it on=
the
extreme high-end of the total contact hours continuum. Certainly the experience add=
ed to
the knowledge base of the TIR (theory, second-hand experience, and some
content), although the lack of practice for the TIR meant less acquisition =
of
teaching skills. =
The
active learning orientation and standards connection were strong, but the
overall coherence and collective participation were not features of this
experience. More on the natur=
e and
impact of these issues will be discussed in Part 2.
=
D=
uring
the second year of our project, our first TIR returned to her original
classroom. She and the
faculty researcher, Dr. Lising, arranged for the latter to spend some time
observing her classroom.
Again, this was not intended as professional development for the
teacher. Quite to the
contrary, it was intended as further collaborative professional development=
for the faculty researcher. The other goal of the
observations was research into teaching and learning. Nonetheless, there were cert=
ainly
aspects of professional development for the teacher that arose out of this
relationship (mostly in categories 1, 2, and 4), although this was much les=
s of
an intensive experience for the teacher given the very limited time she was
participating. However,=
it
might seem obvious that this continued contact during the transition back to
the classroom would be a crucial part of making the professional development
effective. This leads u=
s into
the second section of the paper, where we present data to support this
supposition and address several other research questions.
Part 2:&nbs= p; Preliminary Analysis of Post-Professional Development Teaching Data<= /h5>
2.&n=
bsp;
What would the teacher actually do in terms of inquiry
teaching?
3.&n=
bsp;
What factors would influence the
differences between beliefs, goals, and practice?
Data and Methodolog=
y
Our data consist of audiotaped discussions before and after lessons and emails. We also collect= ed lesson notes, student artifacts, and video or audio recordings of most of t= he year’s science lessons. &= nbsp;
=
O=
ur
analysis is primarily descriptive, acknowledging the large influence of the
researcher on the outcome of the project.&=
nbsp;
The teacher and faculty researcher had a close professional and pers=
onal
relationship after a year of difficult collaborative work at the
university. Had they not chos=
en to
collect these data, the faculty researcher and teacher would still have bee=
n in
regular contact due to the established relationship and ongoing collaborati=
ve
necessities required by the project, the faculty researcher’s desire =
to
continue learning from the teacher, and because the faculty researcher was
regularly at the school supervising interns in other classrooms. This continuing contact is actuall=
y one
of the features of this professional development experience for the TIR.
=
O=
ur
methodology does not allow us to make any “objective” claims ab=
out
the impact of the professional development experience. However, this is not a hindrance s=
ince
our aim is only to describe what did happen in these unique circumstances i=
n order
to make a start at understanding why that happened and what might happen in
similar contexts.
=
In
this case, “inquiry” is defined by the “Changing
Emphases” summaries in the NSES [NRC, 1996]. The teacher and researcher h=
ad
developed a shared understanding of this definition through the year in the
project, although they did not agree fully on the degree to which it should=
be
implemented.
Findings
Question 1: W=
hat
would the teacher want to do in=
terms
of modifying the curriculum to be more inquiry-based? On what criteria would=
these
choices be based?
=
M=
s.
Tirocchi’s stated goals were very ambitious. She was excited to put her r=
efined
ideas into practice and challenge the children, whom she believed would res=
pond
very well. She wanted to be as consistent as po=
ssible
with the NSES. Her prim=
ary
goal was to encourage the children to really think about science ideas and
develop their thinking skills.
Thus the teacher had an explicit epistemological goal: concern for the children’s m=
aking
sense for themselves and using critical, scientific thinking. She was not approaching inqu=
iry
merely as a means to better content understanding, but rather as a worthy g=
oal
in its own right.
&nb=
sp; However, at the outset the teacher =
stated
that she would not be writing too many lessons from scratch (for time and
sanity’s sake), but rather trying to tweak and adapt the curriculum w=
here
possible to make it more inquiry-based.&nb=
sp;
Content-wise, the intention was=
to
cut out content not required by the state standards, unless, of course, that
topic was needed to do the others well.&nb=
sp;
So overall, the teacher had ambitious inquiry goals, but modest plan=
s.
Question 2:
=
M=
s.
Tirocchi ended up modifying almost every lesson, exceeding her stated plans=
in
that regard. The =
result
was that her actual teaching, and the students’ responses, were quite
well aligned with the NSES definition of inquiry science. For example, one of the statements=
in
the NSES is that science instruction should place more emphasis on <=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman"'>“science as argumentation and
explanation” and less emphasis on “science as exploration and
experiment.” One =
lesson
on space happened after the teacher diagnosed that the children did not yet
have a full understanding of what causes day and night. So the teacher put together a work=
sheet
with four possible explanations of day and night that are common for childr=
en
to give (the researcher helped with these possibilities), leaving space for=
the
children to agree or disagree with each and explain why. After individual work and small gr=
oup
discussion, the children had a full-class debate. During the group work and debate, =
the
children were encouraged to use objects from the room, including balls and
flashlights, if that helped them develop or explain their ideas, but the fo=
cus
was on using all sources of reasoni=
ng,
especially their common sense and experiences to argue the question.
=
A=
lthough
science was not yet a tested topic in
=
M=
ost
of the lesson modifications involved adding more elicitation, elaboration, =
and
discussion of students’ ideas and consideration of alternate ideas.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New R=
oman"'>1.&n=
bsp;
Children’s ideas at the cente=
r. The children engaged in regul=
ar
whole class and small group discussions/debates about their own ideas and
reasoning.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New R=
oman"'>2.&n=
bsp;
Focusing on a range of possible ide=
as. The lessons included many activities
where the children compared/applied a set of competing ideas.
=
3. Ideas/predictions
before experiments or before working with data. The experiments the teacher chose to do did not have an
obvious outcome and the children were challenged to make a reasoned predict=
ion
before beginning the experiment. The same held when the
children were using data from other sources.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New R=
oman"'>4.&n=
bsp;
Minimal reading for answers.=
The teacher avoided using re=
ading
for answers in places where she determined the children could make substant=
ial
progress on their own.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New R=
oman"'>5.&n=
bsp;
Communicative variety.
=
A=
lthough
some of this work was hands-on, involving drawings or object manipulation, =
much
of it was not. Ms. Tiro=
cchi
did add a few experiments to the units and retain others in modified form.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> However, the majority of the
modifications did not involve experiments. These choices were driven by=
both
theoretical considerations (see example of NSES alignment above) and practi=
cal
ones. Putting together an experiment takes much more time than arranging a
class debate. Or rather it ta=
kes
more dedicated time – the teacher mentally prepared for her class deb=
ates
during her long commute to and from the school by anticipating their ideas =
and
ways she could facilitate the discussion. By rough count, the incidenc=
e of
use of data (provided data, data collected in classroom experiments, and da=
ta
from in-class observations) as evidence in inquiry investigations (about 50=
% of
lessons) was lower than the use of children’s own everyday experience=
s,
intuition, and common sense as evidence in the investigations (about 70% of
lessons). (See Table 1.)
T=
able
1
T=
he
Sources and Uses of Evidence in Observed Science Lessons
Collecting experimental data, using provided data, or making <= o:p>
observations from physical objects or physic=
al
models. =
=
About
50%
Discussing =
and
debating ideas and models using their
everyday
experiences as evidence. =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
=
About
70%
Question 3: What fa=
ctors
would influence the differences between beliefs, goals, and practice?
&=
nbsp; Several
factors were positive or negative influences in Ms. Tirocchi’s inquiry
teaching.
&nb=
sp; 1. Hindrance: Time and the pressures of assessme=
nt
data collection. These were=
the
most significant hindrances identified by the teacher. The time demands of modifying
curriculum, designing lessons, creating worksheets, setting up and testing
experiments ahead of time, and gathering the requisite materials led her to
choose the least time-consuming path that met her goals. This issue was exacerb=
ated
by the pressures of assessment data collection.
2. Hindrance: The children’s previous school experiences and the modern test-center= ed environment. The children had little to no previ= ous experience with inquiry (at least in the school setting), especially with respect to working with their own ideas and experiences. They were also well aware of the h= igh stakes nature of the tests they were being given. In addition, the focus on math and science left only 30 minutes available for science daily.
“When I give them a problem, they just look at me,
they don't want to stop and think about, okay, what is this asking me, how =
can
I solve it? And I think it al=
l goes
back to ... I don't know, just not being asked those types of questions, or=
not
been expected to solve them on their own. And … because of the test, a
lot of the kids have this idea in their heads that there is always a right
answer, and they don't want to give you an answer that's not the right
answer.”
= 5. Hindrance and sometimes help: Conte= nt and pedagogical content knowledge limits. Sometimes the teacher got stuck with lesson planning ideas because of her lack of a deep understanding of a topic. She also didn’t = have many inquiry learning experiences of her own that would have helped with id= eas for lessons and with connections among science concepts (e.g. seeing the big picture and the progression of ideas).&nbs= p; However, when she was able to make time to think through the topic f= or herself, she was able to use the range of ideas and questions she came up w= ith in her lessons. On one occasi= on when the teacher was brainstorming analogies for the molecular arrangement = of solids, she came up with several ideas for the children to consider that we= re very accessible to them. The researcher, on the other hand, got so bogged down with coming up with an analogy that was close to the correct answer that she only managed to come = up with one somewhat confusing idea. &nb= sp;
6. Hindrance: Lack of a community of other teach=
ers
also pursuing inquiry. The
teacher reflected that one major missing component of the experience was ha=
ving
at least one other teacher in her school (and preferably her grade team) who
was also engaged in the same endeavor.
Part
3: The Teacher Alone.
=
<=
/span>No formal research was planned, and=
no
data about the teacher’s science inquiry practices were collected in =
year
3. However, a few
observations by the teacher and from one informal observation by the resear=
cher
are worth discussing. In
brief, this is what happened.
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; The
teacher retained her general inquiry goals, but planned to spend much less =
time
on writing or modifying lessons.
The teacher used replacement lessons from the previous year about ha=
lf
of the time and the curriculum provided for the other half.
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; One
new addition to her teaching approach was that sometimes when using unmodif=
ied
lessons, she involved the students in critiquing the lessons. For example, with one particularly
opaque reading assignment, the teacher had the children discuss how to impr=
ove
it. Another time the te=
acher
used a confusing experiment to discuss what makes a good experiment and what
does not.
&=
nbsp; The
result was an improvement over Year 2 in several ways:
Discussion and Implications for Science Teac= her Educators
Strategies for and Characteristi=
cs
of Professional Development.
=
O=
ur
description adds to the literature that presents ways in which professional
development can be accomplished in the context of work that is aimed at
achieving other purposes.
This study also show the importance of certain professional developm=
ent
aspects that are well-known to be crucial, especially the importance of
iterative reflection on one’s own practice and having a community of
similarly-engaged peers for intellectual and emotional support. The importance of the
concerns outside the realm of professional development can also not be
understated.
Impact of Professional Developme=
nt -
Goals vs. Practice.
&=
nbsp; The
teacher’s goals and practice were both informed by her sophisticated
beliefs and understanding of the nature of science and science inquiry. Epistemological issues were not a
noticeable limitation on her practice. Whenever the situation was a=
t all
permissive of inquiry, the teacher attempted very dramatic modifications of=
the
science lessons toward inquiry.
However, many barriers still had a significant impact, especially
situational barriers and skills and confidence, in line with the literature=
set
in similar contexts. Consider=
ing
these barriers could inform a revision of our approach to the
teacher-in-residence program, while other barriers are outside of the purvi=
ew
of professional development. =
Goals and Substance of Professional Development - What K=
inds
of Inquiry Should We Teach?
=
O=
ne
provocative issue that our study raises concerns use of discussions/debates=
and
the children’s own everyday experiences more often than experiments,
physical models, and other types of data collected or provided in the
classroom. Yet, as described above, almost all
prominent definitions of inquiry center around testable questions and data =
that
is collected in the classroom.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Exceptions to the above focus inst=
ead on
outside sources rather than the children’s own everyday lives. For example, in the NSF monograph =
Lynn
Rankin writes:
“…,
hands-on methods are not the only ways to achieve these goals. Other resources are important for
stimulating questions and providing information. Books, articles, information on th=
e internet,
and personal conferences and interviews can all be used to provoke initial
interest in a topic from which research or investigations may emerge.”
(NSF, 2000)
N=
owhere
is there mention of children critiquing curriculum.
=
T=
he
choice to use fewer data-centered activities was made by the teacher partly
because some of the content lent itself to that type of inquiry, but also
because these were modifications that were less time-consuming to make, and
thus more practical for an already overworked elementary teacher. Furthermore, critiquing curr=
iculum
with the students proved also to a practical way making inquiry-oriented
changes and exposed the children to a wider perspective on science, science
learning, and science teaching.
=
T=
hese
findings support an argument for broadening what is taught in science inqui=
ry
professional development to include more emphasis on debate-based inquiry using
children’s everyday experiences as primary sources of evidence rather
than data or experiences generated in the classroom. This type of inquiry i=
s very
appropriate for topics where the children already have a wealth of relevant
experiences, and can be more practical and flexible for teachers since it d=
oes
not require gathering equipment.
&=
nbsp; Furthermore,
science inquiry professional development might also include not just teache=
rs
critiquing curriculum (which many types of professional development include=
),
but also helping teachers learn to engage their students in that process, w=
hich
could open up entirely different and fruitful avenues for their students=
217;
deep, critical thinking.
Acknowledgements
&=
nbsp; We
are grateful for the support of the national PhysTEC project for funding our
local PhysTEC work and L. Tirocchi’s travel to ASTE. We would also like to thank the Je=
ss and
Mildred Fisher College of Science and Mathematics and the Department of
Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences for, respectively, funding L.
Lising’s travel to ASTE and
providing funds for much of the research equipment used in this
study. We would also mo=
st
like to thank the children in Ms. Tirocchi’s classes for being the
lovely, bright, and wonderful young people that are our motivation for doing
all of this.
References
American Association for the Advanc=
ement
of Science. (1993). Benchmark=
s for
Science Literacy: Project 2061.
Anderson,
R. D. (2002). Reforming scien=
ce
teaching: what research says =
about
inquiry. Journal of Science T=
eacher
Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Benson, G. D. (1989). Epistemology and the science
curriculum. Journal of Curric=
ulum
Studies, 21(4), 329-344.
Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teacher̵=
7;s
beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom
practice. Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(3), 53-62.
Brickhouse, N. & Bodner, G. M.
(1992). The beginning science
teacher: classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5). 471=
-485.
Bryan, L. A. & Abell, S. K.
(1999). Development of profes=
sional
knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Tea=
ching,
36(2), 121-139.
Exploratorium
Institute for Inquiry:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/index.html
Garet,
M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S..
(2001). What makes profession=
al
development effective? Result=
s from
a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945
Johnson, =
C. (2006). <=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK80'>Effective professional developme=
nt
and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implications
for reform. School Science and
Mathematics, 106(3), 150-161.
Kang, N. H. &Wallace, C. S.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (2005). Secondary teachers’ us=
e of
laboratory activities: linking
epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140-165.=