The Contribution of Professional Development Resources to Teachers’ Understandings about Scientific Inquiry and Investigations and Teachers’ Instructional Practice

• In Event: Developing Middle School Teachers’ Understandings About Scientific Inquiry and Investigations: A Case of Formal-Informal Partnerships

Abstract

Although much is still unknown about what teachers learn and how they learn it (Borko, 2004; Kennedy, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999), there is a growing consensus that many learning opportunities for inservice teachers have been inadequate at best. In response to the widely proclaimed deficiencies of traditional PD, researchers have undertaken the task of identifying characteristics of effective programs (e.g., Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999; Kennedy, 1999; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). However, it is clear we need more research that examines what aspects of PD lead to increased teacher and student learning (Borko, 2004; Garet, et al., 2001; Hill, 2004; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Here we explore how the availability and use of resources offered to teachers through UA contributed to teachers’ understanding about SI as well as their teaching practice.
We used multiple data collection methods to examine resource use in the PD program. To capture teachers’ developing understanding of the NOS and how to design and conduct scientific investigations, we used interviews and online surveys, observed all PD sessions, and took field notes on teachers’ learning opportunities. To understand how teachers use UA resources to support their students’ learning, we observed lessons to capture teachers’ instructional practices and student learning opportunities as well as administered student surveys and conducted student focus group tasks. We utilized an analysis system based on our frame of instructional resources to analyze the data across sources.
Findings suggest that SI is difficult for teachers to understand and to teach. UA PD providers attempted to address these difficulties by foregrounding the challenges of SI and doing investigations using secondary research. In particular, PD facilitators provided opportunities for teachers to use two UA tools - one for designing investigations and another for developing scientific explanations – as they worked with secondary data sets. This work helped teachers understand the individual components of an investigation and see how the components of a field study or controlled experiment could be transposed onto a secondary research investigation.
Classroom observations revealed that teachers applied UA tools during instruction for different reasons and their use revealed varying degrees of alignment with teachers’ experiences learning the tools during PD. For example, one teacher provided students with opportunities to explore concepts related to force and motion using the investigation design tool, closely mimicking the tool’s use in PD. Although teachers reported that UA resources provided a structured approach to SI in their classrooms, the tools were largely incorporated into their standing practices, which ranged from more or less teacher-directed. This is not surprising, as this is the first year of the study, and one would expect that changing practice would take longer than one academic year that we have documented thus far. Findings do suggest that PD tools can play an important role as “messengers” of a reform, and we anticipate that teachers’ understanding of these tools and how they are related to the NOS and SI will evolve over time.

Author

• Robyn A. Carlson, Michigan State University