This study tests the influence of a video-based, analysis-of-practice professional development (PD) program on upper-elementary teachers’ science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and teaching practice and on their students’ achievement. Using a cluster-randomized experimental design, the study compares the outcomes for teachers in an analysis-of-practice program with those of teachers in a content-deepening program. Mediational analyses explore the relationship between teacher outcomes and student learning. In comparison with the content-deepening PD program, the analysis-of-practice PD program significantly impacted teachers’ knowledge and practice. Mediation analyses revealed a strong relationship between teaching practice and student learning. The study advances the field beyond the currently accepted consensus model of effective PD toward an empirically tested model.
AbellS. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
ArensS. A.StokerG.BarkerJ.ShebbyS.WangX.CicchinelliL. F.WilliamsJ. M. (2012). Effects of curriculum and teacher professional development on the language proficiency of elementary English language learner students in the Central Region (NCEE 2012-4013). Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
3.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In SykesG.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BlankR. K.de las AlasN.SmithC. (2008). Does teacher professional development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
5.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BooneW. J.ScantelburyK. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilizing multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90, 551–569.
7.
BooneW. J.StaverJ. R.YaleM. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
8.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
9.
BorkoH.JacobsM.EiteljorgE.PittmanM. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.
10.
BosJ. M.SanchezR. C.TsengF.RayyesN.OrtizL.SinicropeC. (2012). Evaluation of Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) professional development (NCEE 2012-4005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
11.
BrophyJ. E. (Ed.). (1991). Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
13.
BucyznskiS.HansenC. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599–607.
14.
CabaloJ. V.MaB.JaciwA. (2007). Comparative effectiveness of professional development and support tools for world language instruction: A report on a randomized experiment in Delaware. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education.
15.
CappsD. K.CrawfordB. A.ConstasM. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 291–318.
16.
CarlsenW. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 471–481.
Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR. C.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on the teacher development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
20.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
21.
DorphR.GoldsteinD.LeeS.LeporiK.SchneiderS.VenkatesanS. (2007). The status of science education in the Bay Area (Research brief). Berkeley: University of California, Lawrence Hall of Science.
22.
DorphR.ShieldsP.Tiffany-MoralesJ.HartryA.McCaffreyT. (2011). High hopes—few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
23.
ElmoreR. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
24.
FennemaE.FrankeM. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 147–164). New York, NY: Macmillan.
25.
FulpS. L. (2002). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
26.
GaretM. S.CronenM. E.KurkiA.LudwigM.JonesW.UekawaK.. . . SztejnbergL. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
27.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
28.
GaretM.WayneA.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK.. . . DoolittleF. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
29.
GaretM. S.HeppenJ. B.WaltersK.ParkinsonJ.SmithT. M.SongM.. . . BormanG. D. (2016). Focusing on mathematical knowledge: The impact of content-intensive teacher professional development (NCEE 2016-4010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
30.
GerardL. F.VarmaK.CorlissS. B.LinnM. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81, 408–448.
31.
GreenleafC. L.LitmanC.HansonT. L.RosenR.BoscardinC. K.HermanJ.SchneiderS. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in Biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship PD. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 647–717.
32.
GrossmanP. L.WilsonS. M.ShulmanL. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 9(2), 1–25.
33.
HashwehM. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.
34.
HellerJ. I.DaehlerK. R.WongN.ShinoharaM.MiratrixL. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 333–362.
35.
HillH. C.BeisiegelM.JacobR. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42, 476–487.
36.
HollonR.RothK. J.AndersonC. W. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2: Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 145–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.
HughesR.MolyneauxK.DixonP. (2012). The role of scientist mentors on teachers’ perceptions of the community of science during a summer research experience. Research in Science Education, 42, 915–942.
38.
Institute of Educational Sciences. (2016). Does content-focused teacher professional development work? Findings from three Institute of Education Sciences studies. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/pdf/20174010.pdf
39.
JohnsonC. C.FargoJ. D. (2010). Urban school reform enabled by transformative professional development: Impact on teacher change and student learning of science. Urban Education, 45, 4–29.
40.
KerstingN.GivvinK. B.ThompsonB. J.SantagataR.StiglerJ. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 568–589.
41.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
42.
LehrerR.SchaubleL. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 635–680.
43.
LehrerR.SchaubleL. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701–724.
44.
LewisC. C.TsuchidaI. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Educational Policy, 12, 313–331.
45.
LewisC. C.TsuchidaI. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river. American Educator, 22(4), 12–17.
LuftJ.HewsonP. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. In LedermanN. G.AbellS. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 889–909). New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
MacKinnonD. (2012). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
MetzK. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own designs. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290.
MummeJ.SeagoN. (2002, April1–5). Issues and challenges in facilitating videocases for mathematics professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
53.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
54.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). The nation’s report card: Science assessment. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
55.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
56.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
57.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
60.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Vol. 1. Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/9789264266490-en
61.
PenuelW. R.GallagherL. P.MoorthyS. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth systems science: A comparison of three PD programs. American Education Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025.
62.
PituchK. A.MurphyD. L.TateR. L. (2009). Three-level models for indirect effects in school- and class-randomized experiments in education. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 60–95.
63.
PowellD. R.DiamondK. E. (2011). Improving the outcomes of coaching-based professional development interventions. In NeumanS. B.DickinsonD. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 295–307). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
64.
PutnamR. T.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
65.
RaschG. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut. (Reprinted by the University Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980)
66.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2, 173–185.
67.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
RaudenbushS.BrykT.CongdonR. (2010). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling [Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
69.
ReiserB. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards?Princeton, NJ: K–12 Center ETS.
70.
RothK. J.DrukerS. L.GarnierH.LemmensM.ChenC.KawanakaT.. . . GallimoreR. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
71.
RothK. J.GarnierH. E.ChenC.LemmensM.SchwilleK.WicklerN. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.
72.
SantagataR.KerstingN.GivvinK. B.StiglerJ. W. (2011). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 1–24.
73.
ScherL.O’ReillyF. (2009). Professional development for K–12 math and science teachers: What do we really know?Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 209–249.
74.
SeagoN. M.JacobsJ. K.HeckD. J.NelsonC. L.MalzahnK. A. (2014). Impacting teachers’ understanding of geometric similarity: Results from field testing the Learning and Teaching Geometry professional development materials. Professional Development in Education, 40, 627–653.
75.
SherinM. G.HanS. Y. (2002, April1–5). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
76.
SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.
77.
SherinM. G.van EsE. A. (2002). Using video to support teachers’ ability to interpret classroom interactions. In Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education: Vol. 4. Information technology and teacher education annual (pp. 2532–2536). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
78.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
79.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
80.
SleeterC. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43, 146–153.
81.
SmithD.NealeD. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1–20.
82.
SteinF.RankinL. (1998). Developing a community of practice. Journal of Museum Education, 23(2), 19–21.
83.
StephensonR. L. (2017). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of teaching science to improve student content knowledge (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3840/
84.
St. JohnM. (2001). The Exploratorium’s Institute for Inquiry four cornerstone claims: Final report. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research.
85.
StewartJ.CartierJ. L.PassmoreC. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In DonovanM. S.BransfordJ. D. (Eds.), How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
86.
StoddartT.ConnellM.StofflettR.PeckD. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates’ understanding of mathematics and science content. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 229–241.
87.
TaylorJ. A.RothK.WilsonC. D.StuhlsatzM. A.TiptonE. (2017). The effect of an analysis-of-practice, videocase-based, teacher professional development program on elementary students’ science achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10, 241–271.
88.
Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York, NY: Author.
89.
TofighiD.MacKinnonD. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700.
van DrielJ. H.BerryA.MeirinkJ. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In LedermanN.AbellS. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 848–870). New York, NY: Routledge.
92.
van DrielJ. H.MeirinkJ. A.van VeenK.ZwartR. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 129–160.
93.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’“learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.
94.
WarrenB.BallengerC.OgonowskiM.RoseberyA. S.Hudicourt-BarnesJ. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529–552.
95.
WayneA. J.YoonK. S.ZhuP.CronenS.GaretM. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479.
96.
WeissI. R.PasleyJ. D.SmithP. S.BanilowerE. R.HeckD. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
97.
WierE. (1987, April). Primary teachers’ perceptions of barriers to teaching science. Paper presented at the NARST annual meeting, Washington, DC.
98.
WilsonS. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310–313.
99.
WilsonS. M.BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
100.
WindschitlM. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice?Science Education, 87, 112–143.
101.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W.-Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=70
102.
YoshidaM. (1999). Lesson study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35484249_
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
