Examining the Influence of RETs on Science Teacher Beliefs and Practice

Abstract

Following the argument that an explicit focus on teacher thinking is an important outcome for professional development (Capps, Crawford, & Costas, 2012; Desimone, 2009), the research presented here examines the impact of one form of professional development, Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs), has in shaping teachers’ beliefs and affect related to inquiry in the classroom. By examining two distinct forms of RETs, this study incorporates 5 years of data collected from more than 100 RET participants, which include elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Evidence was drawn from analysis of multiple instruments measuring science teachers’ self‐efficacy (STEBI), pedagogical discontentment (STPD), teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning (TBI), and Contextual Beliefs about Teaching Science (CBATS). The results indicate that both RET programs were successful in shaping teachers’ beliefs and affect—particularly in decreasing pedagogical discontentment and enhancing beliefs about reform. However, the RET program that focused mainly on teacher practice was more successful in shaping teachers’ beliefs and was the only program to show an influence on teachers’ practice.

Fostering Impactful Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs)

“…Teachers who participate in RETs come from a wide range of backgrounds, which includes the extent to which they have previously conducted scientific research (e.g., Blanchard, Southerland, Osborne, Sampson, Annetta, & Granger, 2010;Enderle et al, 2014). When working with scientists in a science research-focused RET setting, the work of teachers, who often are unfamiliar with the nature of scientific research and lack the research skills of practicing research scientists, is often viewed as an apprenticeship.…”

“…In order to engage teachers in the practices of science, computer science, and engineering and to enhance their knowledge and skills at the same time, the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States funds research experiences for teachers (RETs) (NSF, 2017;Wade, Benson, & Switzer, 2012). One of the intentions of these programs is to give teachers research experiences under the guidance of practicing scientists during the summer in order to bridge the gap between classroom science and the science done by scientists (e.g., Barnes, Hodge, Parker, & Coroly, 2006;Dresner & Worley, 2006;Enderle, Dentzau, Roseler, Southerland, Granger, & Hughes, 2014;Southerland, Gess-Newsome, & Johnston, 2003;Pop, Dixon, & Grove, 2010). The overall goal of RET programs, in other words, is to "build long-term collaborative partnerships between K-12 STEM teachers…in…research and helping them translate their research experiences and new knowledge into classroom activities" (NSF, 2017, n. p.).…”

“…Science RET programs can be grouped into one of two broad categories depending on what teachers are expected to do during the program (Enderle et al, 2014). The first category is a science research focused model and the second category is a science pedagogy focused model.…”

“…The teachers in these programs are expected to gain research experience and a better understanding of inquiry by participating in an on-going study (e.g., Barnes et al, 2006). In a science pedagogyfocused RET, which is less common, teachers have an opportunity to develop their own research questions and engage in scientific inquiry from inception through the presentation of findings (Blanchard, Southerland, & Granger, 2009;Enderle et al, 2014). In this less traditional design, the teachers' own observations of the natural world and subsequent questions or problems arising from it guide the inquiry process (e.g., Lotter et al, 2007).…”

“…A more recent study by Enderle et al (2014) compared how the two types of RETs affected teachers' beliefs about teaching, pedagogical discontentment (level of dissatisfaction with one's current teaching practices), selfefficacy, and classroom practice. The elementary, middle, and high school teachers in the study (N = 100) participated in either a research-focused or a pedagogy-focused RET for six weeks.…”