Using a Resource Framework to Examine Middle School Science Teachers’ Learning From Professional Development

• In Event: Roundtable Session 3
  In Roundtable Session: Understanding the Urban Advantage Middle School Science Initiative’s Implementation and Impact: A Multicity Analysis

Abstract

In order to build students’ understanding of science and scientists’ work, the Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2011) advocates integrating students’ learning of core disciplinary ideas and cross-cutting concepts with engagement in scientific practices. Yet, how best to build science teachers’ capacities to implement these ambitious teaching practices is rarely clear-cut, especially since there are numerous factors influencing teachers’ PD learning (e.g., Desimone, et al., 2002; Garet, et al., 2001; Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson, 2003; Yoon, et al., 2007). Research is needed to better understand how PD can support teachers in successfully enacting this vision of science education, and the role specific resources play. Our research aimed to address this area of inquiry by examining: (1) four middle school science teachers’ learning opportunities in UA-NYC over three years; (2) to what extent and how teachers applied their PD learning experiences in their classrooms, and (3) resources that teachers drew upon in the process.

Our investigation is framed around the conventional, personal/intellectual, and environmental/social resources that help teachers do their work (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003). We seek to understand how teachers’ learning and instructional practice are mediated by the presence and skillful use of these resources. Each year we observed PD sessions and conducted multiple classroom observations, interviews, and online surveys to collect data about teachers’ background, knowledge, school culture, instruction, resource use, and PD experiences. Data analysis involved: (1) coding PD learning opportunities for science content, teaching strategies/activities, and tools/materials; (2) coding classroom observations for evidence of PD learning; and (3) creating teacher resource profiles to explain the extent and manner in which they applied their PD learning during instruction. We continually generated and revised hypotheses about the role of particular resources in supporting teachers’ learning.

Findings showed distinct patterns in how teachers applied their PD learning. Specifically, two teachers showed minimal evidence of engaging students in any form of scientific investigations across time. The other two teachers began similarly; during their first year these teachers showed a weak uptake of PD learning in their practice. Yet, by the third year, these teachers were engaging students in long-term science investigations that heavily leveraged off of their PD learning opportunities. Most importantly, the teachers’ resource profiles suggest that PD uptake was affected by: (1) environmental/social resources, particularly professional leadership and collegial support; (2) personal/intellectual resources, most notably teachers’ views about students; and (3) conventional resources, namely key program PD tools. While some resources can be directly influenced by UA (e.g., teachers’ knowledge), others are less amenable to change through UA (e.g., school’s culture). In order to be better positioned to positively influence teachers’ PD learning, results suggest that UA facilitators need to attend to the variability in teachers’ resources (construed broadly) and seek out ways to adapt the program to various school contexts. Together with paper two, this research provides insights into how contexts shape and are shaped by UA, and the relationship between those interactions and teachers’ learning.

Authors

• Jamie N Mikeska, Michigan State University

• Suzanne Elgendy, New York City Department of Education

• Suzanne M. Wilson, University of Connecticut

• Mark Helmsing, George Mason University

• Don McClure, St. John's University

• Amber Meyer, Michigan State University

• Tamara Shattuck, Michigan State University