Summer Science Institutes Literature Review

Introduction
The Need for More Effective Science Teaching
Every week the news media is full of stories describing concerns about America’s competitiveness in a global economy and decline in our standing as a world leader in science and technology. Entities ranging from the president to the National Science Board to local school boards and even individual teachers have pointed to the lack of student proficiency on national and international tests of mathematics and science and the decline of students pursuing science and engineering degrees from universities nationwide as a cause for economic and societal apprehension and concern. It is also evident that some of the most critical and fastest growing occupations are dependent upon a knowledge base in science and mathematics. Solutions to these concerns include starting students as early as possible in inquiry-based science programs taught by proficient and knowledgeable teachers comfortable with the use of technology and the nature of science and inquiry. This can partially be brought about by effective constructivist, inquiry-based professional development workshops and institutes and with mentorship by practicing scientists particularly in the summer months and in association with institutions such as natural history museums, school districts, and universities.

Science teacher self-efficacy, science literacy, and understanding of the nature of science all seem to be strongly linked to an understanding of the nature of inquiry (Akerson and Hanuscin, 2006). Professional development workshops and institutes with an emphasis on research activities and constructivist, inquiry-based science likewise seem to be the most effective and practical ways to bring this about (Radford, 1998). Both pre-service and in-service teachers seem to benefit from these types of activities, particularly in the summer and in association with institutions such as museums and universities, as do their schools and their individual students (Melber and Cox-Peterson, 2005). Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto (1999) have emphasized the link between effective professional development and its impact on student achievement. It is imperative to undertake more studies of this type to reinforce and support this viewpoint, and then to design and implement workshops of this nature and encourage as much active participation by our nation’s science teachers as possible (Johnson, 2007).

Discussion
Science Professional Development Models

Low science teacher self-efficacy, failure to employ learning cycles in lesson development, technology deficits, and a lack of understanding of the nature of inquiry in scientific disciplines may contribute to lowered student achievement. Relevant components of competent science teaching may be increased through effective professional development workshops and summer science institutes. Methods of remediation in summer science workshops may include participation in generating and carrying out learning cycles, authentic scientific research projects with an expert mentor, utilization of appropriate technologies, and presentations on the effectiveness and types of learning cycles. It may also be possible to follow up in subsequent months and years with the targeted teachers, schools, and even monitor specified corresponding levels of student achievement. General models of science professional development used previously include curriculum development, mentoring, lesson study, teacher-directed study groups, action-research programs, and immersion experiences (Loucks-Horsley, et al, 2003).

This model proposes to incorporate elements of immersion, technology, curriculum generation and development, and mentoring of research projects by practicing scientists to create and implement a truly effective professional development model for K-12 science educators. Howe and Stubbs (1996) developed a useful and promising constructivist/sociocultural model for the professional development of science teachers. The central vehicle of their model is a series of institutes where teachers first listen to scientists present recent research findings and then write classroom activities using and adapting the information and ideas presented. Their results indicate that many of these teachers have now become empowered to assume responsibility for their own professional development, and even assume positions of leadership in their schools, districts, and state organizations. In another study (Westerlund, et al, 2002) clearly indicated that a professional development model of prolonged engagement in research activity mentored by practicing scientists can be successful at promoting teacher change towards more inquiry teaching, enhance their knowledge of science content, and increase their enthusiasm for teaching science. Morrison and Estes (2007) stated that using scientists and real-world scenarios in professional development for middle school science teachers was an effective strategy for encouraging them to teach science as a process and help them strengthen their science content understanding. A study from Australia found that a professional development model mentoring of elementary school teachers by university science professors has positive short-term implications for implementing constructivist science teaching strategies and facilitating the understanding of science content by the teachers (Koch and Appleton, 2007).

Problems with Traditional Science Teaching Methods and Professional Development Activities

The literature suggests that students need to “learn more than can be absorbed from simply reading about science-they need to do science, becoming critical thinkers and evaluators of what they observe and learn” to compete in today’s rapidly changing world (Rhoton and Bowers, 2001, p. 13). The state of Oklahoma’s Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) and the National Science Education Standards (NSES) recommend an inquiry approach to science teaching. Unfortunately many new and even experienced teachers feel ill-equipped to meet this challenge. Many K-12 school teachers have never been involved in a science inquiry investigation (Kielborn & Gilmer, 1999). Teachers use textbooks or cookbook type laboratories to teach science to their students. Textbook readings, note-taking, and cookbook lab activities give students the impression that science is scripted and that every experiment provides the correct answer. These types of activities do not accurately reflect the investigative and historically varied nature of scientific inquiry and do not require students to develop the critical thinking skills needed to compete in our changing world.

Evidence of Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Science Professional Development

There is much in the scientific educational research literature to support the idea that inquiry-based science instruction can be extremely effective. Chun and Oliver (2000) found significant gains in science teacher self-efficacy during a two-year study involving participation in inquiry-based professional development workshops. In 2004, Jarvis and Pell demonstrated similar increases in science teachers’ attitudes and cognition and corresponding student achievement gains during and after professional development activities. Likewise, a seven-year study in Iowa found tremendous gains in student achievement when science teachers designated as team leaders undertook ongoing training in constructivist teaching strategies advocated by the National Science Education Standards (Kimble, Yager, and Yager, 2006). Raudenbush, Rowan, and Cheong (1992) found that the level of teacher preparation was a strong predictor of self-efficacy in the science classroom, and engaging in highly collaborative environments such as professional development workshops and institutes helped to facilitate this. Luft (2001) noted that an inquiry-based professional development program positively impacted both the beliefs and practices of secondary science teachers. Supovitz and Turner (2000) indicated a strong link between the quantity of professional development in which teachers participate and the level of inquiry-based teaching practice and investigative classroom culture. Another study found that professional development linking theory and practice through curriculum decision making had a profound influence on decisions concerning classroom environments, especially when the teachers were engaged and mentored by university scientists and science educators, and informed by theoretical perspectives of science teaching (Parke and Coble, 1998).

Summary/Conclusion

This review of the literature supports a professional development model that expects to 1) increase the scientific literacy and efficacy of K-12 school teachers by providing authentic scientific inquiry experiences with technology that promote an understanding of the nature of inquiry in scientific disciplines and 2) present teachers with an approach to science teaching that translates this genuine inquiry experience into classroom practice. Clearly, the evidence provided by prior research suggests that such a model should be effective in achieving these goals. The author’s own personal experience also suggests that this type of professional development, with an emphasis on authentic, mentored research and generation of inquiry-based curricula, can have a profound impact on both a personal, as well as a school or district-wide basis. This involves shifting from a traditional didactic and textbook-driven science curriculum to a more inquiry-based, constructivist one and professional development institutes and workshops are the most practical and appropriate means to achieve these goals.





References

Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653-680.

Chun, S., & Oliver, J. (2000). A quantitative examination of teacher self-efficacy and knowledge of the nature of science. 2000 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.

Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (1996). Empowering science teachers: a model for professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 167-182.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teachers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1787-1811.

Johnson, C. C. (2007). Effective science teaching, professional development and No Child Left Behind: barriers, dilemmas, and reality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 133-136.

Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo J. D. (2006). A study of the effect of sustained, whole –school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 1-12.

Kielborn, T., Gilmer, P., & Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE), T. (1999). Meaningful science: teachers doing inquiry + teaching science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434008) Retrieved June 13, 2007, from ERIC database.

Kimble, L. L., Yager, R. E., & Yager, S. O. (2006). Success of a professional-development model in assisting teachers to change their teaching to match the more emphasis conditions urged in the National Science Education Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 1007-1021.

Koch, J. & Appleton, K. (2007). The effect of a mentoring model for elementary science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 209-231.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, S. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics: second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S. & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: the state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 213-233.

Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517-534.

Melber, L. M., & Cox-Peterson, A. M., (2005). Teacher professional development and informal learning environments: investigating partnerships and possibilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 103-120.

Morrison, J. A., & Estes, J. C. (2007). Using scientists and real-world scenarios in professional development for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 165-184.

Parke, H. M. & Coble, C. R. (1998). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: a model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773-789.

Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: a model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 73-88.

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F., (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.

Rhoton, J., Bowers, P., & National Science Teachers Association, A. (2001). Professional development planning and design. Issues in science education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449040) Retrieved June 13, 2007, from ERIC database.

Supovitz, J. A. & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.

Westerlund, J. F., Garcia, D. M., Koke, J. R., Taylor, T. A., & Mason, D. S. (2002). Summer scientific research for teachers: the experience and its effect. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 63-83.