Chapter 5
Downloaded via COLUMBIA UNIV on September 2, 2019 at 17:47:29 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Advancing Professional Knowledge and Skills for Chemistry Teaching through an Online Master’s Degree for SecondaryLevel Chemistry Teachers Sarah B. Boesdorfer* Illinois State University, 220 Julian Hall, Normal, Illinois 61790-4160, United States *E-mail:
[email protected] Many secondary-level chemistry teachers desire professional development opportunities, such as a graduate course or degree, that is chemistry teaching specific. Moreover, teachers’ topic-specific content and pedagogical knowledge has been linked to more effective teaching. Illinois State University (ISU) offers online masters’ degrees in chemistry education for practicing teachers seeking to grow their professional knowledge for teaching chemistry. The program seeks to improve secondary chemistry education through the increased topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge and teacher-leader skills of secondary chemistry teachers. As an online program, it also seeks to fill the need of teachers from different geographic regions who cannot find the topic-specific professional development they need. This chapter describes ISU’s chemistry education masters’ program, including the theoretical basis for the program and its structure as well as initial findings from the program assessment.
Introduction While the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) encourages a more integrated approach to science education (1) than curricula that include traditional science discipline-based courses, e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Science, most high school science curricula continue to require discipline-based courses for students to graduate (2). Beyond introductory discipline-specific courses, they also offer second-year, dual credit or Advanced Placement (AP) courses (2) that require teachers with more advanced knowledge in the discipline and teaching. A majority of high school chemistry teachers, though, do not have advanced knowledge in chemistry (3) or chemistry teaching because their undergraduate degrees are not in these areas (4, 5). While it is strongly recommended that teachers be state certified in the subject of chemistry to teach it at the introductory level in high school (6), and many states like Illinois (7) require subject certification to teach advanced chemistry courses, certification does not equate to a degree in chemistry or chemistry education (4, 7). For © 2019 American Chemical Society
Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
dual credit courses, classes taken in high school in which students earn both high school and college credit, teachers must meet the employment requirements to teach at the community college granting the college credit (8). These requirements are typically a master’s degree including eighteen graduate level courses in the content area; the high school teachers must meet these requirements for their high school to offer a dual credit course. For all these reasons, chemistry teachers need and are in search of opportunities to improve their chemistry content knowledge and their chemistry teaching (pedagogical content) knowledge. A masters’ degree which focused on chemistry content and chemistry teaching knowledge would not only improve their knowledge in these areas and likely improve their teaching, but as most public teaching contracts have salary benefits for the attainment of advanced degrees, it also improves their pay. This chapter describes an online master’s degree program designed to fill the needs of high school chemistry teachers. The program targets important aspects of teachers’ professional knowledge that are shown to improve teaching practices as well as provides teachers with the credentials they need to advance professionally. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the professional knowledge needed for effective science teaching and how teachers develop this knowledge. The master’s program is then described, situating the program in the research literature, followed by results from an initial outcomes assessment of the program. The chapter ends with a discussion of the lessons and implication of the program for chemistry teacher development. Background Chemistry teachers need knowledge specific for teaching chemistry to effectively teach. Attempting to help professionalize education, Shulman argued that instructors have a knowledge base explicitly for teaching their content, which was different than general knowledge (9). Along with knowledge of the discipline they taught, content knowledge (CK), Shulman introduced the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as knowledge teachers need to be teachers. Research has shown that teacher’s CK impacts their effectiveness for teaching, but CK alone does not explain the difference in effectiveness of teachers (10). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning (11–13), their knowledge of students (10), knowledge of assessments (14), knowledge of pedagogical (instructional) practices (15, 16), and knowledge of science reforms (17) have also been shown to affect classroom practices and students learning. To help further research into science teachers’ practice and to inform science teacher education, these aspects have been combined into models of science teachers’ PCK or more recently general professional knowledge for teaching. Magnusson et al. argued, based on previous theories and research, that science teachers needed both CK and PCK to teach (18). They defined PCK as having five components: orientation toward science teaching, knowledge of science curriculum (specific curriculum and general science goals and objectives), knowledge of students’ science understanding (students’ difficulties and background knowledge), knowledge of assessment in science (what to assess and how), and knowledge of science teaching instructional strategies (general science and topic-specific). Magnusson et al.’s PCK model has been used to conceptually define PCK in numerous research studies of science teacher knowledge to understand more fully the aspects of PCK which affect practice. There are numerous other models for PCK, including critiques and revisions to Magnusson et al.’s original model (19). Following a summit discussing PCK research and theory by many in the field, Gess-Newsome provides a more complex model of teacher professional knowledge and skills which include PCK as part of the larger model, rather than use it as the focus of instructors’ knowledge for teaching 54 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
(19). This model of teacher professional knowledge includes: assessment knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, knowledge of students, curricular knowledge, and topic-specific pedagogical knowledge, along with PCK as the knowledge for daily classroom planning and the skills for delivery it. For the full model see reference 19. By attempting to combine multiple models and research, this model has numerous connections between the components and is quite complex (20). Recently, Kind has suggested a simplified model of teacher professional knowledge based on research emphasizing the aspects which have been shown to improve teacher quality - student outcomes - and can be more readily applied for decision-making and program designing purposes: Professional Knowledge for Teaching (Science) (21). Her framework includes topic-specific content knowledge, topic-specific instructional strategies, knowledge of students, and knowledge of assessments, specifically formative assessments (See Figure 1). This framework is grounded in the research literature of aspects of teacher professional knowledge shown to impact their teaching practice and PCK models. The discussion of this chemistry education master’s degree program uses Kind’s model of professional knowledge for teaching as a framework. Alignment of the structure of the degree with this model is stressed along with evidence from students about their knowledge attainment as a result of participating in the program. In addition to the professional knowledge needed for teaching, the discussion of the chemistry education masters also needs to be grounded in the research on effective learning experiences for science teachers which improve their knowledge and change their practice. Teachers develop their professional knowledge for teaching through learning experiences. These experiences include formal instruction in preservice coursework, inservice professional development, which might include graduate coursework or programs not for credit, and informal learning experiences during their personal classroom teaching and interactions with colleagues. Research has shown several characteristics of professional development that lead to changes in and impacts on teachers’ classroom practices through their knowledge and skill development in learning experiences. These characteristics include active modeling of desired instructional methods (22–24), sustained, long term programs (22, 25, 26), a content-specific focus (23, 27), and community building activities (22, 28). Completing action research, often as part of professional development programs, has also been shown to improving teachers’ knowledge for teaching and their teaching practice (29–32). In the action research process, through more formalized data collection, teachers inquire into their teaching or classroom environment (33). The incorporation of many of these research-based characteristics of effective learning experiences for teachers into the chemistry education masters’ degree is highlighted below and teachers’ responses to these aspects are provided.
The Chemistry Education Master’s Degree Program Illinois State University (ISU) offers two masters’ degrees in chemistry education, one for those with undergraduate training in chemistry (MSCE degree program) and one for those without (MCE degree program). The programs of study for these degrees are very similar, varying slightly in the specific course requirements for each but not in structure or intent and goals. While the MSCE program requires students take more traditional chemistry content courses, and thus receive a Master of Science, there are no courses offered that are specific to one degree or the other. Teacher-students in the two programs get to choose their courses and take many courses together. Due to their similarities, they are hereafter discussed together as the chemistry education master’s program rather than separately as two distinct programs, but more information about the specific requirements for each program can be found on the program’s webpage (34). Also, because graduate students in the 55 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
chemistry education master’s program are both graduate students and full-time teachers, described more fully below, they are referred to as teacher-students. They bring their teaching experience, in which they are fully immersed while they are students, to their graduate work, and therefore both identities are important to their education. The chemistry education masters’ program can be completed entirely online, which was purposeful in design to meet the teacher-students’ needs. Chemistry teachers want content-specific professional development opportunties (35) which is difficult for schools to host when there are single or few content area teachers in a school. The online nature of the program also allows for flexibility and affordability, another reported need of teachers (36). Teachers can take the number of courses they are comfortable taking while working (flexibility) and all online students pay in-state tuition (affordable). Thus far the online nature appears to be meeting teachers’ needs. The number of teacher-students enrolled in degree programs over the past three years has ranged from 25-40 each semester. In addition, they have come from across the United States, with students from 27 different states taking at least 1 online course during the 2016-2017 academic year. Most teacher-students in the program are online students, but since the programs require coursework from different categories rather than specific courses, local teacher-students have the option of taking on-campus classes that meet the program requirements. It should be explicitly noted here that the online program was more easily achieved because the masters’ program is not a teacher certification program. This eliminates some obstacles (e.g. student teaching) that are state requirements for teacher licensure. Program Goals Broadly speaking, the chemistry education program’s purpose is to improve the professional knowledge and skills of secondary-level chemistry teachers (34). It is a professional degree program designed to increase the professional skills of its teacher-students. For design, assessment, and improvement purposes, the program has explicit learning outcomes or program goals which include the following: Teacher-students in the chemistry education master’s program will 1. Learn and interpret current chemistry knowledge appropriate for secondary school. 2. Be conversant in historical and current chemistry/science education research and issues. 3. Develop and improve their teaching practice for the continual education, growth, and understanding of all chemistry students. 4. Cultivate skills and knowledge necessary to take leadership roles facilitating success of other chemistry teachers. 5. Develop skills to assess, evaluate, and improve chemistry education in secondary schools. The term improve, as used in these goals, is defined as increased use of best practices for chemistry/ science teaching as supported by the research literature and numerous organizations including the American Chemical Society (ACS) (6), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (37), and the National Research Council (NRC) (38) among others. Current best practices include the use of student-centered, active learning teaching methods in which students engage in the practices of science/chemistry. These learning outcomes align with the Professional Knowledge for Teaching (Science) Model (21) (See Figure 1 for the alignment). Topic-specific content-knowledge is included as well as chemistry education research which informs knowledge of students and topic-specific instructional 56 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
strategies. Assessment is also included in the program goals and the model of professional knowledge. In addition, not only do the program goals align with the professional knowledge to improve the teacher-students’ teaching, but also included are goals of teacher leadership skills. Teacher leaders improve implementation of reforms and improve student learning not only in their classes but their schools and communities as well (39, 40).
Figure 1. Relationships between Kind’s Framework of Professional Knowledge for Teaching (Science) (21) program requirements for the chemistry education master’s program and the program’s goals. Chemistry covers a wide range of content topics, in which teachers and students have different needs in different courses and careers. While Illinois has adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (1) as the Learning Standards in Science for the state, the ISU chemistry education master’s program recognizes that not all states have adopted them (1). In addition, as stated in NGSS, many students will and should go beyond NGSS in high school courses as they prepare for their futures. Therefore, in defining the ‘content appropriate for secondary teachers’ we have used a variety of sources, provided to the teacher-students in some classes, including secondary chemistry content recommendations from NGSS, ACS (6), Advanced Placement (AP) Course Description (41), and theoretical discussions in the research literature (42, 43). Program Structure The chemistry education master’s degree program is non-thesis based, requiring 33-hours of coursework. As a coursework-based master’s program, teacher-students are not assigned to an advisor or research laboratory group as would typically occur in a traditional thesis-based program. There is one advisor for the program which helps the teacher-students identify the courses being offered each semester and what they still need to take to meet the program requirements. As identified earlier the chemistry education master’s program is a professional program designed to build on teachers’ initial training and classroom experiences, not to license new students as chemistry instructors; therefore, admission into the degrees requires teaching experience, preferably three or more years of experience. While not recommended, first year chemistry teachers can enroll in the degree program but must provide evidence of three years of teaching prior to graduation. This requirement aligns with the program’s goal of improving practice and provides the teacher-students with better informed prior knowledge of students, part of PCK (18, 19, 21), from which to develop their professional knowledge. Since teacher-students in the chemistry education master’s program are full-time working professionals, the program was structured for them to complete it at their own pace. Two to four program courses, discussed below, are offered online each semester, including the summers, to allow them flexibility. For example, some teacher-students do not enroll in courses for a semester due to other professional responsibilities, e.g. coaching or mentoring, or personal responsibilities, e.g. large 57 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
summer family vacation. Teacher-students have completed the program in two years including the summer semesters, taking three courses in the summers and two during each fall and spring semester, while others have completed courses approximately one at a time with semesters off, taking nearly six years (the maximum allowed by university policy for a master’s degree) to complete the program. To graduate teacher-students in the program take courses from three different categories: 1) traditional chemistry content (e.g. organic, biochemistry, etc.); 2) chemistry education or science education (e.g. ‘Thermochemical Energy in the Chemistry Classroom’ or ‘Recent Research in Science Education’); and 3) a capstone experience (typically a 2-course series to conduct an action research project). Again, the slight difference in the specific hours in each category of courses as required for the two different chemistry education masters’ degrees can be found on the program’s webpage (34). Figure 1 illustrates how the categories of required courses for the chemistry education master’s degree align with the Professional Knowledge for Teaching (Science) Model and the program goals. The content and structure of the courses is described below providing evidence for how these courses impact the teacher-students’ professional knowledge as indicated in Figure 1. As mentioned above, while they must take courses in each category for the degree, there are no required courses for the degrees. The number and variety of courses in the program provide teacher-students with a flexibility to tailor their course choices to meet their learning needs and teaching situations, which is useful to improving teaching practice because context impacts professional knowledge needed for effective instruction (20). Traditional Chemistry Content Courses Teacher-students are required to take courses that would be considered traditional graduatelevel chemistry courses. Though taught online, they continue to have similar content and structure, e.g. video lectures, problem sets, literature reviews, quizzes, and exams, as traditional in-person graduate-level chemistry courses. However, due to the target audience for the courses, there is effort made to offer courses on topics that might be relevant and of interest to secondary teachers for use in their classes as ‘real life examples.’ For example, Atmospheric Chemistry and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Exercise, and Sports Medicine are two content courses offered. Along with strengthening their understanding of general chemistry concepts as they learn advanced work on which the general concepts are built, the teacher-students also learn about advanced applications of chemistry and chemistry research. The focus of these courses is on developing the topic-specific content knowledge (22) part of the teacher-students’ professional knowledge (See Figure 1). Chemistry Education or Science Education Courses Teacher-students in the chemistry education master’s program must also take courses focused on the teaching of chemistry or science generally. Some of the courses focus on topics common in secondary chemistry courses, for example the topics of Chemical Reactions and Stoichiometry, Atomic and Molecular Structure, Thermochemical Energy, and Kinetics, Equilibrium and Acids and Bases. Breadth and depth of content for high school chemistry courses, methods for teaching these topics, and student understandings and difficulties are part of the learning objectives for the courses. Anecdotally (reported by teacher-students in discussions and comments to the instructor), teacherstudents also improve their chemistry content knowledge in these courses as well. The focus of these courses is on developing the teacher-students’ topic-specific knowledge and instructional strategies of their professional knowledge along with their knowledge of students. 58 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
There are also courses which are topic-specific to teaching chemistry but not to specific chemistry topics. For example, one course, Chemistry as an Experimental Science, focuses on teaching chemistry with students engaged in the practices of science, and another on safe practices to use in the classroom and learning outcomes related to safety for students in chemistry. In this category of courses students are also able to take science education courses offered by the School of Teaching and Learning, such as Recent Research in Science Education or Instructional Strategies for School Science. These courses tend to be offered online as well which allows the teacher-students to enroll and provides them with the ability to more fully adapt their degree program to their interests and needs. The course materials for these classes include chemistry/science education research literature, video examples presented and explained by veteran, award-winning high school chemistry teachers, and policy documents or initiatives from multiple sources. Student-centered, reform-based teaching practices, as discussed in the program goals, are the focus of the examples, activities, and methods in the courses. Along with reading/watching the course materials, teacher-students engage in online discussions with classmates, take ‘reading’ quizzes, write papers analyzing their teaching or their student learning, and create lesson plans/units/activities for their courses based on what they have learned. While similar in nature, each course is structured slightly differently as determined by the instructor, course content, and course materials. The assignments and focus of the courses align with research supported practices for professional development for teachers because they are content and context specific asking teachers to apply their knowledge. These have been shown to be effective in changing science teachers’ practices (22, 28). A list of courses offered along with descriptions can be found as part of the Department of Chemistry’s eLearning Website (44). Capstone Experience Finally, near the end of their master’s degree the teacher-students are required to complete a capstone experience, which is done as a 2-course sequence. In the first semester, teacher-students learn about action research and ethical research practices including Institutional Review Boards (IRB). They develop a plan for an action research project to be carried out in their environment. In the second semester, they complete their planned project, collecting and analyzing data and writing a formal report. They are encouraged in this second semester to think about how they might share their results with others if appropriate and how they might continue to research and share in the future. The teacher-students still have some choice in these courses as ISU offers action research courses (and other capstone experiences) in a few different degree programs, so the teacher-students still have some flexibility. For example, if they wanted to do a project on special education in their chemistry class, they might enroll in the action research courses offered through the Department of Special Education to more fully support their work. This capstone experience aligns with the program goals and has been shown in the research as effective in transforming teacher’s practices (29–31). One final comment on the courses: they are not offered solely to chemistry education master’s program students. While a few teacher-students from other ISU degree programs enroll in the courses, many chemistry teachers take the courses as visiting graduate students. These visiting teacher-students have reported they are enrolling in the courses for professional development reasons to improve their knowledge and teaching and/or because they need graduate courses for licensure reasons or contractual pay increases. Some of these visiting students eventually enter the degree program, but many do not, especially when they already have a master’s degree. While these visiting teacher-students do not increase the program numbers, they allow for strong class sizes each semester with a rich pool of diverse experiences and knowledge to develop class communities. 59 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Program Outcomes The chemistry education masters’ program at ISU is a relatively new program, even newer as an online program, and has not had many students graduate from the program to date (< 20), those numbers are increasing each year. In addition, because it is new, formalized collection of data and assessment of the program overall has just recently begun. The data presented here represents data from teacher-students in 2018 only. As part of the data collection process to assess the program, teacher-students complete survey questions at different times about the impact of the courses and program on their knowledge and teaching practices. Survey questions relating to impact and program assessment have been added to the typical anonymous course evaluation survey that teacher-students are invited to complete after every course. In addition, graduating students complete a longer ‘exit survey’ including more questions about their teaching and the program. They will be surveyed again one year after graduating from the program with the same survey. Finally, a survey is given to incoming teacher-students when they start the program, but this data is not included here. In addition, assessment data for the program includes the outcomes of assignments in a few select courses. One in particular reported here is a rubric to collect information about the content of the teachers’ action research projects. It is also completed by instructors of the capstone course. This rubric includes information about topic, methodology, content, and reported impact of the project. These instruments collect information about the content of the assignments rather than the specific grades achieved; they were developed from the research literature, validated by science educators, and piloted with teacher-students prior to use (44). The survey questions included with the course evaluation include a set of Likert-Scale statements for teacher-students to indicate their level of agreement, and two open-ended questions. Teacher-student responses to the Likert-scale questions from the 2018 semesters are presented in Table 1 and represent responses from the 7 different courses offered that year. It should be noted that the responses to these questions would include visiting teacher-students, not just those in the chemistry education master’s program. As it is part of the course evaluation, the survey is anonymous, and all students are invited to complete it. Response rate is between 40-55% of students per class. As the results in Table 1 suggest the online courses are well received by the teacher-students. They reported that the courses are impacting their teaching and viewed it as valuable professional development for them, even when they comparted to other in-person professional development. Collaboration between students and the building of community was an area of weakness. The teacher-students were also prompted to provide their own specific examples of how the course impacted their teaching practice by the question, “Please give one example of how you have used (or plan to use) the material from this course in your teaching.” Some of the responses included: • Discrepant activities is just the beginning • Since all assignment included a question of how to incorporate what we learned into the classroom, I have lesson plan ideas already set to go. • Numerous Labs, Assignments, Unit Plans have been revised to align with best practices. • I plan to implement my final project from this course in my classroom. I also plan to change the way I explain energy to students. • This course has given me a better perspective to understand what students know, or don’t know, coming in to a chemistry class. The most important thing I’ve learned is to pay closer attention to student misconceptions and use those to guide my instruction. 60 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Table 1. Likert-Scale Averages Three Semesters of Course-specific Survey Questions Likert Scale Statement
N
Meana
SD
I have used (or have specific plans to use) something I learned from this course in my teaching.
132
4.75
0.66
Compared with other online professional development or graduate courses I have taken, I found this courses as helpful or more helpful to my development as a teacher.
128
4.49
0.97
Compared with in person professional development or graduate courses I have taken, I found this course as helpful or more helpful to my development as a teacher.
132
4.31
1.05
I felt I connected and collaborated with my classmates as a community of chemistry teachers developing their practices.
132
4.00
1.22
This course effectively used the online environment to develop and improve my chemistry teaching.
131
4.47
0.92
I have shared things I learned from this class with other chemistry or science teachers.
131
4.29
1.09
I am able to learn from my peers in an online environment.
131
4.34
0.98
I would recommend this course to other chemistry teachers to help them improve their chemistry teaching.
131
4.52
1.00
As a result of this course, I have a better understanding of chemistry students and their learning.
131
4.38
0.93
I am a more effective chemistry teacher because I took this course.
131
4.47
0.91
a A 5-point Likert Scale was used with 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
The teacher-students were also given the opportunity to provide more general comments about the course impact prompted by the question “Do you have any additional comments on how this course impacted you as a chemistry teacher?” Below are a few of the responses: • All of these courses, every one that I’ve taken (this is number 5), have changed me as a teacher. I am more up to date than I’ve ever been. I love these courses. I’m getting my second masters through these courses but I’m in no hurry to be done. I will end up taking more courses than needed simply because I want to take them all. • It was great to share ideas with fellow chemistry teachers, get some new ideas, and realize we all face similar problems. • The wide variety of demonstrations presented and overall teaching philosophy will help me to formulate, change, and refine my teaching methods. Many students skipped the open-ended questions or gave really brief responses (i.e. “Thank you” or “Labs”) eliminating from possibility a detailed qualitative analysis of the responses to yield more general conclusions. However, while the quotes above were only a select few, the comments provide initial evidence that the online program is impacting teachers’ chemistry teaching and is an appreciated professional development. These courses meet the needs reported by teachers for content-specific professional development (8), which would improve their content or topic-specific professional knowledge (22). The comments also indicate that as found in previous research, the 61 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
teachers wanted the content-specific courses for their professional development (22, 35), and good professional development includes specific activities and modeling for teachers (22, 25). The teacher-students in the program are assessing their teaching methods as well. The action research rubric was completed for eight (8) action research projects completed in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018. Of the eight projects, five focused on teaching methods and the impact on student learning, one focused more generally on technology use by teachers and its impact on their teaching, and two focused on understanding student characteristics/opinions. In the papers, six of the teacherstudents explicitly stated that the action research project had an impact on their teaching practice or their choices for their classroom, which is aligned with previous research on teachers’ participation in action research (29–31). Only one paper explicitly indicated the author planned to share the results with colleagues or other educators, while a different paper has been accepted for publication in an academic journal. With few projects completed and assessed thus far, broad generalizations are not appropriate yet, but the initial results are promising. Finally, graduating teacher-students in Spring or Summer 2018 were asked to voluntarily complete a survey about their experiences in the degree program overall. Of the six (N= 6) who completed the survey, four answered the question “Overall, how do you think your Chemistry Education Master’s Degree has impacted your teaching?” • My teaching has definitely been impacted for the better. I have been able to reflect my own practices improve. The biggest improvement is in demonstrations and incorporating more lab and hands-on activities. • Helped me transition from being a math teacher to a lab science teacher. • I have learned so much both about teaching methods as well as content. I could not have made a better choice in choosing this program. • It has helped me be a better teacher and given me a greater depth of knowledge in the field of chemistry While only a few responses, their comments reflect the programs’ goals and gains in professional knowledge. Both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are mentioned. Answers to some other questions on the survey (“How much of the science instructional time in the target class do students design their own investigation or experiment to answer a scientific question or solve a problem”) indicate the graduates are using student-centered practices which engage students in science practices, but with no data from these teachers at the start of their programs we do not know if this is a difference in their practice. The results presented here are preliminary and depend on teachers to self-report their teaching practices. While these reports may not always be accurate, the initial findings presented here are positive and encourage us to collect more data to continue to evaluate the program’s impact in more detail. We continue to collect data from the teacher-students to accomplish this, but while there are always improvements to be made, the current data and research literature has indicated to us that we are tentatively meeting the program goals and do not need to make major changes to the program at this time.
Conclusions and Implications The chemistry education master’s program is a content-specific professional degree program designed to increase secondary-level chemistry teachers’ knowledge and skills for teaching. As discussed in this chapter, many components of the program align with the research on effective 62 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
professional development for science teachers (22, 28) and professional knowledge for teaching effectiveness (19, 21). It is content-specific, it engages teachers with current research, and it requires the teachers apply their learning to their own teaching and assess their classroom practices. These techniques have been shown in previous research to improve teaching and student learning in science (22, 25), which is the program’s goal specifically for chemistry. Initial assessment of the program indicates that the program is improving chemistry teachers’ professional knowledge and skills for teaching. In addition, the initial findings continue to support the previous research on characteristics of effective professional learning experiences for teachers. Increasing numbers in the program also suggest that the teachers value the courses and program, especially since many begin at ISU as visiting students and then decide to complete a master’s degree. The fact that this program is seeing these successes for chemistry teacher learning as a fullyonline program is an important implication for other chemistry and science teacher educators or science reformers. The online design of this program allows for the program’s impact to stretch beyond the regional reach of the university. It also allows for chemistry teachers who do not have access to local topic-specific professional development opportunities to participant. Numbers and budget are always a consideration, and in many schools or regions assembling enough chemistry teachers for topic-specific professional development that is cost-effective is extremely difficult. Teachers from different regions also benefits the program in terms of the instruction in the courses. With teacher-students in the courses from different states and regions and different types of schools, class discussion includes a wealth of experiences from which all can learn and discuss implications of the learning. However, as was seen in the survey data the online nature also has its challenges as well. The connections and community building, which is an important aspect of effective professional development (22, 28), were not as strong as other aspects of the program. Teachers from different states and schools also have different requirements and needs, different schedules, and different weather-related issues, which have to be negotiated. The choices made in the program, though, help limited these challenges. And finally, the online nature of the program makes assessment of the program more difficult and more reliant on teachers’ self-reported data. While integrated science courses might be advocated in some national reform efforts (1), it still requires teachers with knowledge in the individual science disciplines, especially since many secondary schools continue to offer discipline-based courses at the introductory and advanced level. Thus far ISU’s success with their chemistry education master’s program has confirmed there is a need for the topic-specific, accessible program; we built it and they have come. Using the research literature to inform the design of the program helped create a successful program for chemistry teachers. To improve their professional opportunities, to improve their teaching, and hopefully to improve their students’ learning, chemistry teachers must widen their professional knowledge teaching chemistry, and they need accessible learning opportunities to accomplish this. The ISU chemistry education master’s program provides such an opportunity.
Acknowledgments Dr. Willy Hunter was instrumental in the conception and development of the chemistry education master’s program at ISU. Without his ideas and efforts, the program would not exist. Also, Dr. Craig McLauchlan, chair of the Department of Chemistry, continues to support, value, and help grow the program to increase its reach and support chemistry teachers.
63 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
References 1. 2. 3.
4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10.
11. 12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
18.
NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2013. Banilower, E. R.; Smith, P. S.; Malzahn, K. A.; Plumey, C. L.; Gordon, E. M.; Hayes, M. L. Report of the 2018 NSSME+ 2; Horizon Research, Inc.: Chapel Hill, NC, 2018; p 442. Shah, L.; Schneider, J.; Fallin, R.; Linenberger Cortes, K.; Ray, H. E.; Rushton, G. T. What Prospective Chemistry Teachers Know about Chemistry: An Analysis of Praxis Chemistry Subject Assessment Category Performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (11), 1912–1921; DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00365. Rushton, G. T.; Ray, H. E.; Criswell, B. A.; Polizzi, S. J.; Bearss, C. J.; Levelsmier, N.; Chhita, H.; Kirchhoff, M. Stemming the Diffusion of Responsibility: A Longitudinal Case Study of America’s Chemistry Teachers. Educ. Res. 2014, 43 (8), 390–403. Smith, P. S. 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of High School Chemistry; Horizon Research, Inc.: Chapel Hill, NC, 2013; p 35. American Chemical Society. ACS Guidelines and Recommendations for the Teaching of High School Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C., 2018. PEL Teaching Endorsements. https://www.isbe.net (accessed Feb. 8, 2019). Colleges and states scramble to comply with instructor credential rules for dual-credit courses. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/01/23/colleges-and-states-scramble-complyinstructor-credential-rules-dual-credit-courses (accessed Feb. 8, 2019). Shulman, L. S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge and Growth in Teaching. Educ. Res. 1986, 15 (2), 4–14. Van Driel, J. H.; Berry, A.; Meirink, J. Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In Handbook of research on science education; Lederman, N. G., Abell, S. K., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2014; pp 848–870. Crawford, B. A. Learning to Teach Science as Inquiry in the Rough and Tumble of Practice. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44 (4), 613–642. Wong, S. S.; Luft, J. A. Secondary Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Persistence: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2015, 26 (7), 619–645; DOI: 10.1007/s10972015-9441-4. Keys, C. W.; Bryan, L. A. Co‐constructing Inquiry‐based Science with Teachers: Essential Research for Lasting Reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38 (6), 631–645. Haug, B. S.; Ødegaard, M. Formative Assessment and Teachers’ Sensitivity to Student Responses. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37 (4), 629–654; DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.1003262. Boesdorfer, S. B. Chemistry Teachers’ Choice of Representations as a Tool for Understanding Their Orientation toward Science Teaching. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 19 (1), 1–20. Kind, V. Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education: Perspectives and Potential for Progress. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2009, 45 (2), 169–204. Rushton, G. T.; Lotter, C.; Singer, J. Chemistry Teachers’ Emerging Expertise in Inquiry Teaching: The Effects of a Professional Development Model on Beliefs and Practice. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2011, 22, 23–52. Magnusson, S.; Krajcik, J. S.; Borko, H. Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge; Gess64 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
19.
20.
21. 22.
23.
24.
25. 26.
27. 28.
29. 30.
31. 32. 33.
Newsome, J., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Kluwer Academics Publishers: Norwell, MA, 1999; pp 95–132. Gess-Newsome, J. A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK: Results of the Thinking from the PCK Summit. In Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education; Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., Loughran, J., Eds.; Teaching and Learning in Science Series; Routledge: New York, 2015; pp 28–42. Kind, V. On the Beauty of Knowing Then Not Knowing: Pinning down the Elusive Qualities of PCK. In Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education; Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., Loughran, J., Eds.; Teaching and Learning in Science Series; Routledge: New York, 2015; pp 178–195. Kind, V. Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Lessons from Research and Policy for Improving Teaching Quality, 2018. Loucks-Horsley, S.; Stiles, K. E.; Mundry, S.; Love, N.; Hewson, P. W. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, 3rd ed.; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010. 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. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2001, 38 (4), 915–945. Penuel, W. R.; Fishman, B. J.; Yamaguchi, R.; Gallagher, L. P. What Makes Professional Development Effective? Strategies That Foster Curriculum Implementation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2007, 44 (4), 921–958. Darling-Hammond, L.; Richardson, N. Teacher learning: What matters? Teach. Learn. 2009, 66 (5), 46–53. Hauck, N.; Campbell, T. Effects of 3-Year Sustained Professional Development on the Classroom Instruction of Elementary School Teachers. Presented at the 2014 ASTE International Conference, San Antonio, TX, 2014. Hewson, P. W. Teacher Professional Development in Science. In Handbook of research in science education; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2007; pp 1177–1202. Luft, J. A.; Hewson, P. W. Research on Teacher Professional Development Programs in Science. In Handbook of research on science education; Lederman, N. G., Abell, S. K., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2014; Vol. II, pp 889–910. Roth, K. J. Science Teachers as Researchers. In Handbook of research in science education; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2007; Vol. 1, pp 1205–1259. Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Eilks, I. Different Types of Action Research to Promote Chemistry Teachers’ Professional Development—a Joined Theoretical Reflection on Two Cases from Israel and Germany. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2012, 10, 581–610. Mitchener, C. P.; Jackson, W. M. Learning from Action Research about Science Teacher Preparation. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2012, 23 (1), 45–64. Lebak, K.; Tinsley, R. Can Inquiry and Reflection Be Contagious? Science Teachers, Students, and Action Research. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21 (8), 953–970. Efron, S. E.; Ravid, R. Action Research in Education: A Practical Guide; The Guilford Press: New York, 2013.
65 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
34. Master of Science in Chemistry Education | Department of Chemistry - Illinois State. https://chemistry.illinoisstate.edu/msed/ (accessed Feb. 12, 2019). 35. Chval, K.; Abell, S.; Pareja, E.; Musikul, K.; Ritzka, G. Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences, Needs, and Expectations Regarding Professional Development. Eurasia J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ. 2008, 4 (1), 31–43. 36. 5 Advantages of Online Professional Development for Teachers. http://www.ednewsdaily. com/the-5-advantages-of-online-professional-development-for-teachers/ (accessed Feb. 12, 2019). 37. NSTA Position Statements. https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2019). 38. National Research Council [NRC]. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 2000. 39. Teacher Leader Model Standards; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. http://www. nnstoy.org/download/standards/Teacher%20Leader%20Standards.pdf (accessed Feb. 15, 2019). 40. Cosenza, M. N. Defining Teacher Leadership. Issues Teacher Educ. 2015, 24 (2), 79. 41. AP Chemistry Course and Exam Description; The College Board: New York, 2014; p 177. 42. Talanquer, V. Central Ideas in Chemistry: An Alternative Perspective. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 3–8; DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00434. 43. Holme, T.; Luxford, C.; Murphy, K. Updating the General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (6), 1115–1116; DOI: 10.1021/ed500712k. 44. Chemistry eLearning Course Information | Department of Chemistry - Illinois State. https://chemistry.illinoisstate.edu/elearning/courses/ (accessed Apr. 1, 2019).
66 Boesdorfer; Best Practices in Chemistry Teacher Education ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
