Expanding University Student Outreach: Professional Development

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Expanding University Student Outreach: Professional Development Workshops for Teachers Led by Graduate Students Robert M. B. Dyer,† B. Jill Venton,† and Jennifer L. Maeng*,‡ †

Department of Chemistry and ‡Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States

J. Chem. Educ. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on 08/24/18. For personal use only.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: University of Virginia, like many other universities, has developed a chemistry outreach program (called Chemistry Learning through Experimentation, Awareness, and Demonstration; i.e., Chemistry LEAD) that visits K−5 schools and teaches inquiry-based chemistry lessons in order to engage local students with science. Chemistry LEAD is graduate student organized and led. The number of classrooms the group can visit in any year is limited; consequently, to extend their impact, the group decided to organize a summer, 1 day professional workshop for teachers. The goal was to give teachers the knowledge, confidence, and materials necessary to implement inquiry-based chemistry lessons. The graduate students worked as a team, with different students leading different activities, to decrease the burden of workshop planning and implementation. The workshop was repeated for two summers; a total of 52 teachers from six school districts participated. The teachers enjoyed learning from the graduate students, and follow-up surveys revealed they improved their understanding of inquiry and had more confidence in implementing inquiry-based chemistry lessons. Indeed, most teachers implemented at least one of the investigations they learned during the workshop and indicated their students were highly engaged during the activities. Graduate students’ reflections indicated that they gained skills in communication, planning, and delegation that will be useful to them in a variety of career paths. These workshops were a manageable way for the graduate student outreach group to increase their impact and improve chemistry education in local K−5 classrooms. KEYWORDS: Public Understanding/Outreach, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Professional Development, Graduate Education/Research

■

INTRODUCTION Since 2009, chemistry graduate students at University of Virginia (UVa) have organized a successful outreach program for K−5 called Chemistry Learning through Experimentation and Demonstration (Chemistry LEAD). LEAD focuses their outreach in two ways: visiting elementary classrooms to implement inquiry-based chemistry lessons and performing chemistry demonstrations at community science events. These programs are important for the graduate students as they gain valuable experience as presenters and communicators about science in an environment outside of a traditional university setting. Such programs also allow K−12 students to interact with potential scientific role models.1−3 The chemistry lessons are inquirybased, in that students act like scientists by answering a scientific question through the analysis of data.4 Science instruction at the elementary school level is a critical component of STEM education. Research suggests that interest in science begins before middle school and positive classroom science experiences further this interest.5 Chemistry, in particular, is an important component of elementary science instruction as many fundamental chemical concepts are introduced in these grades, such as phases of matter and effects of temperature.6 However, the majority of elementary teachers typically have little background in the physical sciences and do not feel well-prepared to teach it.7 Thus, academic chemists have the potential to serve as a valuable resource for K−5 STEM education because of their content expertise and skillset.8 Although LEAD’s classroom visit program has been very successful, the amount of classrooms any graduate student group can visit is limited, and the group felt it could have a © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

bigger impact if they also taught teachers to implement the inquiry-based lessons in their classrooms. Thus, the goal of this project was to develop a 1 day, summer professional development (PD) workshop for local elementary teachers. The objective of this workshop was to advance the teachers’ knowledge of best practices for teaching science, including engaging students in asking questions, making observations, developing inferences, conducting investigations, and analyzing and interpreting data.9 These practices constitute the characteristics of scientific inquiry.10 Many elementary teachers lack knowledge of science content or are not familiar with inquiry-based pedagogical approaches11−15 and do not have the confidence to implement them, even if they are trained.16−19 Whereas the PD literature suggests that longer workshops are more effective at changing teachers’ knowledge and practice,20,21 a multiday workshop was not realistic for graduate students to implement, as the expectation is that they focus primarily on their research. Many teachers are also not willing or able to attend longer summer PD programs. Thus, we implemented a 1 day workshop that modeled targeted pedagogies by having teachers take the role of students and do the inquiry-based lessons and then provided opportunities for reflection and discussion about classroom implementation.14,22,23 After the workshop, surveys showed teachers had more confidence in their ability to implement inquiry-based chemistry lessons, and most implemented at least one of the lessons. Received: February 21, 2018 Revised: August 1, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00130 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Example student handout for density activity.

In order to make implementing the lessons as easy as possible, we prepared a kit for each teacher with all of the materials, including consumables, needed to do each investigation with a class of approximately 20 students three times. We also included a list of perishable items that could easily be obtained from a grocery store. We used funds from a Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation grant to supplement LEAD’s own funds to provide these kits.

Graduate students indicated in reflections that they gained valuable skills in collaboration, communication to diverse audiences, and had an improved understanding of the elementary curriculum, which improved their outreach visits. Overall, the workshops represented a successful PD program for both local teachers and graduate students; this model of graduate student outreach for teacher PD could be implemented successfully by science outreach programs at other universities.

■

Graduate Student Background and Preparation

DEVELOPING THE WORKSHOP

Chemistry graduate students in any year of their doctoral program are eligible to be members of LEAD. Experienced LEAD members who previously led many classroom visits facilitated the workshop. These upper level graduate students typically had at least 2 years of experience in the LEAD program and also received training on active learning and inquiry as part of their teaching assistant training at the beginning of graduate school. In general, LEAD uses a partner program for training new facilitators, partnering experienced facilitators who model how to teach inquiry-based lessons with new graduate students in LEAD. Planning meetings were held so that all facilitators used a consistent format and so that the graduate students could learn about best practices for teacher PD from our education school colleague. For the second year, planning meetings included an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the previous year’s workshop. Based on feedback, we sought to strengthen connections to the state Standards of Learning and allow more time for teacher discussion of implementation.

Activities and Materials

We began with some of the activities that had been created by LEAD members and had been implemented for several years. With guidance from experienced educators from the Curry School of Education at UVa, we revised activities and thought about implementation at different grade levels, matching concepts to our state science standards. We formalized our lesson plans to include learning objectives, background information on the content for teachers, experimental instructions, and a basic script to facilitate discussion when introducing the topic and conducting the investigations (see supplement for all lesson plans). In addition, we made a student worksheet for each lesson that could be easily handed out by the teachers when they taught the lesson (Figure 1). In total, six lessons were developed, two that could be used for any grade level (density and chemical/physical change) and two each focused for either grades K−2 (surface tension, pH changes) or 3−5 (forensic analysis, vitamin C titrations). While we wrote our own lesson materials, most of these activities were based on previous literature or science outreach Web sites and thus had previously been used with young children.

Teacher Recruitment

Our classroom visits at nearby elementary schools provided us a list of elementary school teachers to invite, and these local teachers were the primary participants the first year. B



Article

investigation to teach relative density by asking the question, “Are everyday objects more or less dense than water?” Teachers then individually predicted whether several objects would sink or float in water and actually placed these objects in water and made observations (see Figure 1). Next, he posed the question, “What do you think would happen if these objects were placed in salt water?” Teachers worked in small groups to dissolve salt in water until the solution became oversaturated with the salt (about 3.5 g per 100 mL) and retested the objects, noting their observations. Following this data collection, the graduate student facilitated a discussion in which teachers debriefed their results, developed other questions (e.g., What would happen if we used sugar? What would happen if we used a different liquid?), described how the investigation was aligned with the operational definition of inquiry described above, and identified potential modifications of the activity for their own students. The morning activities were aligned with standards at all grade levels (e.g., density). After each lesson, teachers worked in small groups by grade level to debrief and discuss how they could use this in their own classrooms. During debriefing, teachers referred to specific science topics and skills for their grade level and how these lessons could be used to support those learning objectives. Also, if a teacher had previously integrated a similar lesson, they shared how they had done it, often adding that they now had new ideas about how to teach it better. In the afternoon, the remaining lessons were divided by grade level, and teachers chose to attend the session most appropriate for them (either K−2 or 3−5). Teachers received the lesson plans and worksheets (in hard copy and electronic form) and kits (described above) with materials for all six investigations.

The second year, we also used contacts within the Curry School of Education to advertise our workshop to other school divisions (within a 45 min drive) outside of the radius in which we did routine visits. In total, 52 teachers attended the workshop over the 2 years, from six different school divisions. The workshop was scheduled for a single day approximately 2 weeks after the school year ended and was taught in classrooms in the Chemistry building at UVa. Teachers were provided a stipend and lunch for attending the workshop, but graduate student organizers volunteered their time. Teachers also received a letter saying they completed 6 hours of PD, which they can use toward license recertification. Implementation

The schedule for the workshop is shown in Figure 2. We began the day by introducing the idea of inquiry by eliciting the

■

Figure 2. Workshop schedule.

teachers’ prior knowledge. We asked them, “What comes to mind when you think about inquiry?” Teachers responded with words and phrases they related to “inquiry.” A functional definition of inquiry as “students answering research questions through data analysis”4 was introduced, and the graduate students pointed out that inquiry can be done with an existing data set and does not have to be hands-on. Teachers then considered how often they already use inquiry to teach science content; about a third of the teachers indicated they used inquiry most of the time, and the rest indicated they used inquiry sometimes. Teachers were then asked to describe why it is important to incorporate inquiry. They responded with comments such as “students need to learn how to think,” “answer problems,” and “if students are highly engaged they’ll retain information.” Finally, teachers shared examples of lessons they have done that have incorporated inquiry. The rest of the PD involved graduate students modeling then debriefing several investigations across six different topics for teachers, who acted as the students, with the goal of building teachers’ confidence in teaching chemistry though inquiry. For example, a graduate student facilitator modeled an

OUTCOMES

Teacher Outcomes

In order to understand teacher outcomes, surveys were administered to teachers pre- and post-workshop that assessed teacher’s confidence in teaching chemistry and knowledge of inquiry (Supporting Information). A follow-up implementation survey was administered 1 or 2 years after teachers participated in the workshop to ascertain the degree to which teachers implemented what they learned. This survey (Supporting Information) asked teachers to rate their confidence in implementing inquiry and chemistry instruction, if they implemented any of the activities from the PD, their students’ engagement during the activities, and if they would participate in future, similar PD offered by LEAD. Survey Data

Teachers’ understanding of inquiry instruction and confidence for teaching chemistry through inquiry improved significantly pre- to post-workshop. Following the PD, 73% (37/51) of participants expressed either partially or fully aligned understandings of inquiry, whereas prior to the PD, only 46% (28/52)

Table 1. Comparison of Changes in Reported Teacher Confidence indicator: confidence implementing inquiry activities chemistry activities

pre-test,a n = 52

post-test,a n = 52

follow-up,a n = 30

pre- to post-test z-statistic,b,c r

post-test to followup z-statistic,b,e r

pre-test to follow-up z-statistic,b,e r

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

3.46 2.15

1.00 0.87

4.15 3.56

0.77 0.80

3.70 3.03

1.00 0.91

−4.53d −6.05d

0.44 0.59

−3.040d −0.294d

0.39 0.38

−0.755 −3.729d

0.10 0.48

a

The Likert-type scale used ranges from 1 (not confident) to 5 (very confident). bEffect size = r, where r is the Wilcoxon test statistic/sqrt N and N is the total number of observations. cN = 104; medium effect size. dSignificant at α < 0.017. eN = 60; medium effect size. C



Article

He made it fun to learn the science behind what was happening.” Several participants recommended development of an “advanced” workshop with different activities, and this sentiment was reiterated on the follow-up survey, in which 77% (24/31) of respondents indicated they would attend a future, similar, summer PD if offered by LEAD.

of participants held partially or fully aligned inquiry understandings, a significant improvement (Wilcoxon signed rank test, Z = −2.642, p = 0.008, r = 0.26, n = 51, small to medium effect size). Confidence in implementing chemistry activities also increased significantly pre- to post-PD and then decreased slightly from the post-workshop to follow-up; however, confidence in implementing chemistry activities was still significantly greater than that pre-PD (Table 1). Following the workshop, most teachers strongly agreed that they were planning to implement the activities they learned into their classroom instruction (M = 4.7, SD = 0.6). Of the 31 teachers who completed follow-up implementation surveys, 81% indicated that they implemented one or more of the activities from the workshop. Of the 22 teachers who responded to specific implementation questions, these teachers implemented a mean of 3.1 (SD = 1.6) activities from the workshop. Teachers most often implemented the chemical/physical properties, surface tension, and density activities (Table 2).

Graduate Student Outcomes

Three of the 10 graduate students who planned and implemented the PD were asked to reflect on the experience and the skills that they gained as workshop organizers and facilitators. These students reflected upon how the skills they gained has influenced them in their work as graduate students and careers. For example, one of the graduate students who facilitated the workshop also conducted many classroom visits through LEAD. He reflected that: Although I am not currently pursuing a career in education, teaching during the workshop has molded my mentality about academia. In regards to my own research, teaching has reiterated the importance of asking simple questions one at a time and then answering them with well-thought experimentation. As a research associate, and the senior member of a lab, I oversee day-to-day operations and mentor other students, both undergraduate and graduate. From the workshop I found that whether you are teaching an adult with an extensive background or a second grader, being respectful of curiosity and encouraging discussion fosters a positive environment for learning. Another one of the facilitators was less experienced at that time the workshop took place and commented that:

Table 2. Comparison of Activities Implemented and Perceived Student Engagement respondents perceived student implementing, N = 22 engagement activity

N

%

Ma

SD

density chemical/physical properties titrations surface tension pH forensic chemistry

14 20 4 15 9 8

64 91 18 68 41 36

4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6

0.47 0.60 0.58 0.63 0.71 0.52

a

The Likert-type scale used ranges from 1 (not at all engaged) to 5 (highly engaged).

While I had participated in several school visits before, the workshop gave me a unique insight into the roles of teachers and educators that I had never really considered. Witnessing the development of a curriculum for the lesson and the implementation of the work firsthand motivated me to pursue a career in science education··· All of the work that went into the lessons would be used and further developed by each teacher to best suit their own unique needs. Another graduate student member of LEAD reflected on her role in putting together the lessons, gathering the teachers, and assembling the kits.

Of the teachers who did not implement activities, they cited their own reassignment to another discipline, lack of time for science instruction due to standards-based testing, lack of alignment with standards, and lack of confidence as reasons. Teachers reported high engagement among students (all means >4 on a scale of 1 (not engaged) to 5 (highly engaged), Table 2). Perceptions of Workshop Effectiveness and Experience

Overall, teachers were very satisfied with the workshop. Teachers perceived the workshop to be effective in providing opportunities to conduct chemistry activities (M = 4.7, SD = 0.6) and to practice inquiry activities (M = 4.7, SD = 0.5). They most appreciated the hands-on nature of the workshop, the opportunities to actively participate, and that the activities were modeled for them. As one teacher wrote on the postsurvey, “I love the lessons to use in my classroom and to see them demonstrated and I loved playing the role of students. This makes it much easier to implement these. Trial and error is significantly reduced.” Another indicated that the workshop built her confidence “as a teacher who can lead inquiry-based science experiences. [I learned] skills to present and carry out great experiments the kids will connect with...” Almost every teacher noted that having the materials and kit already prepared “makes it much more likely that I will conduct these experiments.” In addition, teachers also remarked positively about the graduate students leading the workshop, commending them for their enthusiasm and content knowledge. One teacher reflected, “The grad students were much more engaging than most PD I attend.” Another indicated, “[One of the grad students] was so knowledgeable.

Throughout this process, I learned that one of the characteristics of a good leader is the ability to properly delegate tasks. While completing all of these tasks by myself would have been extremely overwhelming and timeconsuming, assigning specific tasks to individuals with clear completion dates allowed me to get everything accomplished within an adequate time frame. This experience has helped me tremendously, both during my graduate school career, when I was actively involved in LEAD, and in my current career in industry. I have often been faced with projects that seem overwhelming at first glance, yet the ability to separate the main goal into individual pieces that need to be completed first and to ask for help when necessary is a skill that I believe directly stems from my involvement with LEAD, specifically the workshop. Planning and implementing the workshops helped these graduate students improve their own classroom visits and gave them a better idea of the challenges faced by classroom teachers. For example, during the workshop, one facilitator D



Article

could fit into the curriculum. The graduate students should be familiar with the science, but the teachers will know how best to implement the lessons for their unique class. For example, as described above, when we were studying surface tension and putting drops of water on a penny, one teacher remarked how they could integrate that with their first grade math lessons on money. At least three teachers indicated they would have appreciated even more time to share ideas with other teachers and discuss how they might modify the activities for their own classroom and students. 6. Follow-up with each teacher for a classroom visit. Many teachers indicated they would have liked to see one of the lessons modeled in their own classroom. Of teachers who completed the follow-up survey, 52% (16/31) indicated they would appreciate a classroom visit from a graduate student in LEAD in the future. However, due to limited resources, we were not able to fully implement this. Even without this follow-up, the implementation rate for lessons was high. Overall, the elementary teachers gained confidence and knowledge about implementing inquiry-based chemistry investigations in their classrooms. They perceived the PD was well-implemented and facilitated by the Chemistry LEAD graduate students, and indicated a continued need for ideas and materials to use in their classrooms. The graduate students who planned and facilitated the workshop indicated they gained experience as science ambassadors, advanced their science communication skills, and developed knowledge and skills that they have continued to use. Thus, it is possible for university outreach student groups to provide PD to local teachers, improving chemistry education in local schools.

learned that identifying and learning about money was an important part of the math curriculum for K−1 students, so when she subsequently went out to teach surface tension and had students put drops on a penny, dime, or a quarter, she made sure to emphasize that the size of the coin does not correlate with its monetary value but does correlate with how many drops of waters it will hold! Overall, these graduate students found planning and implementing the workshop to be a valuable experience that has helped shape their future outreach endeavors and future careers.

■

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITIES IMPLEMENTING TEACHER PD Ultimately, the results reported here provide evidence that graduate student outreach in the form of a summer PD workshop for teachers can facilitate elementary teachers’ integration of inquiry-based chemistry instruction into their classrooms. The planning of any workshop can be timeconsuming, and graduate students need to be primarily focused on their laboratory research; however, there are several suggestions for implementing a manageable and effective PD workshop. 1. Use readily available materials. We did not write any new activities for the workshop but used activities we had developed and previously tested in classrooms. Thus, the graduate students were already familiar with the content and how it could be implemented for different grade levels. Most of the supplies could also be easily and inexpensively obtained in large amounts to account for the number of participants. 2. Share the workload. Our workshop modeled six different investigations. We had four teams of graduate students who led each investigation and came for only their sessions. Other graduate students worked on assembling the kits for the participants or planning in other ways. This allowed many graduate students to participate and cut down on the number of hours any one student spent preparing. Undergraduate students could also help with the tasks for preparing and teaching the workshop. 3. Make resources easily accessible. We were able to provide each teacher a kit of supplies to implement the lessons because of the grant funding received, which likely led to higher implementation of the activities. However, most of the supplies could also easily be obtained from a grocery store. Equally important are the written resources provided. We provided worksheets and teacher lesson plans, in an editable format so teachers could easily modify them for their individual context. 4. Work with local contacts for recruitment. The first year, we targeted teachers whose classrooms we had previously visited to promote the workshop. The next year, our education school contact helped us with a list of science coordinators in surrounding counties and we were able to recruit more teachers from different divisions. A simple web-based sign up was used for teacher recruitment. 5. Allow time for teachers to discuss and reflect. One fear of chemistry graduate students leading a workshop for teachers is that they are not experts in elementary education. To circumvent this problem, give plenty of time for teachers to collaboratively discuss and reflect on how the lessons address their grade level standards and

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00130. Survey instruments and details of how these data were analyzed (PDF, DOCX) Lesson plans and worksheets (ZIP)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

B. Jill Venton: 0000-0002-5096-9309 Jennifer L. Maeng: 0000-0003-4955-4023 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following graduate students were involved in the planning and implementation of the PD: Tristan Butler, Robert Dyer, Joseph Houck, Scott Lee, Jeff Myers, Paisley Trantham Myers, Michael Nguyen, Michelle Prysby, Poojan Pyakurel, and Arthur Sikora. The research presented here was funded under a Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation grant. However, the results presented here do not necessarily represent the policy of the Foundation, and you should not assume endorsement by the Foundation. E



■

Article

(20) Johnson, C. C.; Kahle, J. B.; Fargo, J. D. Effective teaching results in increased science achievement for all students. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 371−383. (21) Supovitz, J. A.; Mayer, D. P.; Kahle, J. B. Promoting inquirybased instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy 2000, 14, 331−356. (22) Birman, B. F.; Desimone, L.; Porter, A. C.; Garet, M. S. Designing Professional Development That Works. Educational Leadership 2000, 57 (8), 28−33. (23) Capps, D. K.; Crawford, B. A.; Constas, M. A. A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2012, 23, 291−318.

REFERENCES

(1) Kerby, H. W.; Cantor, J.; Weiland, M.; Babiarz, C.; Kerby, A. W. Fusion Science Theater Presents the Amazing Chemical Circus: A New Model of Outreach that Uses Theater to Engage Children in Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1024−1030. (2) Long, G. L.; Bailey, C. A.; Bunn, B. B.; Slebodnick, C.; Johnson, M. R.; Derozier, S.; Dana, S. M.; Grady, J. R. Chemistry Outreach Project to High Schools Using a Mobile Chemistry Laboratory, ChemKits, and Teacher Workshops. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1249− 1258. (3) Meyer, A. F.; Knutson, C. M.; Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A.; Gruba, S. M.; Meyer, B. M.; Thompson, J. W.; Maurer-Jones, M. A.; Halderman, S.; Tillman, A. S.; DeStefano, L.; Haynes, C. L. Activities for Middle School Students To Sleuth a Chemistry “Whodunit” and Investigate the Scientific Method. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 410−413. (4) Bell, R. L.; Smetana, L.; Binns, I. Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. Science Teacher 2005, 72 (7), 30−33. (5) Maltese, A. V.; Tai, R. H. Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of Early Interest in Science. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 32, 669−685. (6) NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2013. (7) Banilower, E. R.; Smith, P. S.; Weiss, I. R.; Malzahn, K. A.; Campbell, K. M.; Weis, A. M. Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education; Horizon Research, Inc.: Chapel Hill, NC, 2013. (8) Cacciatore, K. L.; Sevian, H. An Urgent Call for Academic Chemists to Engage in Precollege Science Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 248−250. (9) Martinez, J. F.; Borko, H.; Stecher, B. M. Measuring instructional practice in science using classroom artifacts: Lessons learned from two validation studies. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 38−67. (10) Osborne, J. Scientific Practices and Inquiry in the Science Classroom. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2nd ed.; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates: London, 2014. (11) Johnson, C. C. Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. Sch. Sci. Math. 2006, 106, 150−161. (12) Johnson, C. C. Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher changes: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2007, 18, 629−661. (13) Lederman, N. G. Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2007; pp 831−880. (14) 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 Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010. (15) Supovitz, J. A.; Turner, H. M. The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 963−980. (16) Lakshmanan, A.; Heath, B.; Perlmutter, A.; Elder, M. The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 534−551. (17) Ramey-Gassert, L.; Shroyer, M. G.; Staver, J. R. A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Sci. Educ. 1996, 80, 283−315. (18) Sandholtz, J. H.; Ringstaff, C. Inspiring instructional change in elementary science: The relationship between enhanced self-efficacy and teacher practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2014, 25, 729−751. (19) Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986. F


Expanding University Student Outreach: Professional Development

Recommend Documents