Over the past decade, national and state policy makers have wagered heavily on systemically reforming science and mathematics education through inquiry-based instructional approaches. This study examines the impact in one state of intensive science and mathematics professional development for teachers in the context of statewide systemic reform. Based on a unique longitudinal data set, the study models the impact of professional development on teachers' attitudes toward inquiry-based instruction, their capacity to adopt inquiry-based teaching strategies, and their classroom use of inquiry-based instructional practices. The findings are remarkably consistent across both subjects. Teachers' attitudes, preparation, and practices all showed strong, positive, and significant growth from preprofessionai development to the following spring. Furthermore, these gains were sustained over several years following their involvement. These findings provide a promising indication that large-scale, high-quality, intensive training set within a context of standards-based systemic reform can be a powerful mechanism for sustained impact on teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arons, A. B.
(1989). What science should we teach? In the Biological Science Curriculum Study (Ed.), A BSCS thirtieth anniversary symposium: Curriculum development for the year 2000 (pp. 13-20). Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
2.
Atwater, M. M.
(1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558-576). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Bryk, A. S.
, & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Bryk, A. S.
, Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1996). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
5.
Burstein, L.
, McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
Bybee, R. W.
(1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Corcoran, T. B.
, Shields, P. M., & Zucker, A. A. (1998). The SSIs and professional development for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
8.
Cremin, L.
(1961). The transformation of the American school. New York: Knopf.
9.
Cuban, L.
(1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman.
10.
Darling-Hammond, L.
(1994). National standards and assessments: Will they improve education?American Journal of Education, 102, 478-510.
11.
Dewey J.
(1915). Schools of tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton.
12.
Dow, P.
(1991). Schoolhouse politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Eisner, E. W.
(1995). Standards for American schools: Help or hindrance?Phi Delta Kappan, 76(10), 758-764.
14.
Elmore, R. F.
(1993). The development and implementation of large-scale curriculum reforms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Center for Policy Research in Education.
15.
Elmore, R. F.
(1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-25.
16.
Elmore, R. F.
, Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Fennema, E.
(1990). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169-187). New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
Fullan, M.
(1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Grobman, A.
(1969). The changing classroom: The role of the biological sciences curriculum study. New York: Doubleday.
20.
Kahle, J. B.
(1996). Opportunities and obstacles: Science education in the schools. In C. S. Davis, A. Ginorio, C. Hollenshead, B. Lazarus, & P. Rayman (Eds.), The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 57-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Loucks-Horsley, S.
, Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
22.
Marder, C.
(1996, July). Evaluation of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) program: Compilation of state data from the annual report to NSD: SSI Program, 1995. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
23.
Massell, D.
, Kirst, M., & Hoppe, P. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based systemic reform in nine states. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
24.
Mayer, D.
(1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 29-45.
25.
McDermott, L. C.
(1996). Physics by inquiry (2 Vols.). New York: John Wiley.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28.
National Research Council
(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
Porter, A. C.
, Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
30.
Rogosa, D.
, & Saner, H. (1995). Longitudinal data analysis examples with random coefficient models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(2), 149-170.
31.
Rogosa, D. R.
, Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 726-748.
32.
Seltzer, M. H.
, Frank, K. A., & Bryk, A. S. (1994). The metric matters: The sensitivity of conclusions about growth in student achievement to choice of metric. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 41-49.
33.
Shields, P. M.
, Marsh, J., & Adelman, N. E. (1998). The SSI's impacts on classroom practice. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
34.
Smylie, M. A.
(1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 20, 129-177.
35.
Vinovskis, M. A.
(1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 53-85.
36.
Weiss, I. R.
, Matti, M. C., & Smith, P. S. (1994). Report of the 1993 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
37.
Willett, J. B.
(1994). Measuring change more effectively by modeling individual change over time. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
38.
Zucker, A. A.
, Shields, P. M., Adelman, N., & Powell, J. (1995). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) program: Second-year report. Part I: Cross-cutting themes (SRI Project 3612). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
