Factors influencing teacher appropriation of professional learning focused on the use of technology in science classrooms

Longhurst, Max; Jones, Suzanne H.; Campbell, Todd

doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1273848

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among Advancing and Nuanced teachers, descriptions demonstrated alignment with social constructivist and culturally-relevant pedagogical principles that were explored in the PD (Moje et al, 2004;Morales-Doyle, 2019;Windschitl & Stroupe, 2017). Such alignment better allowed teachers to adapt tools and strategies to meet the needs of classroom and organizational contexts (Grossman et al, 1999;Longhurst et al, 2017).…”

Section: Rq1: Categorizing Teacher Changementioning

confidence: 95%

“…(2) implementation level; and (3) degree of perceived change (Franke et al, 2001;Grossman et al, 1999;Justi & van Driel, 2006;Longhurst et al, 2017;Schipper et al, 2017). The analysis was both a priori and inductive (described below), and resulted in four categories of teacher change: Static, Initiating, Advancing and Nuanced (Table 3).…”

Section: Rq1: Categorizing Teacher Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…She recognized that student learning was not entirely within their control even when student agency had precedence, yet she embraced the pedagogical ambiguity and allowed for shifts in classroom norms towards reform practices from SLP. Educators take up and incorporate new ideas and knowledge differently in PD, resulting in variation in teacher learning and implementation that has been documented both quantitatively (Banilower et al, 2018;Fischer et al, 2018;Granger et al, 2019) and qualitatively (Franke et al, 2001;Longhurst et al, 2017;Molle, 2021). Studies using iterative models such as the IMTPG have shown that some of the variation in teacher learning is due to recursive reflections and enactments as teachers encounter new ideas, try them out in their classrooms, interpret student responses, and slowly shift their beliefs and understandings (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002;Jacobs et al, 2010;Sherin, 2002).…”

Section: Rq2b Theme 3: Student Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, we first determined how teachers varied in their understanding of reform practices from SLP (the PD), implementation of reform practices, and degree of perceived change (RQ1) (Grossman et al, 1999;Longhurst et al, 2017), resulting in a continuum of teacher learning. We then applied Clarke and Hollingsworth's (2002) Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) model to understand the role of interactions between domains in shaping teachers' instructional change (RQ2; 2a) (Franke et al, 2001;Widjaja et al, 2017).…”

Section: Rq2b Theme 3: Student Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Why do teachers vary in their instructional change during science PD? The role of noticing students in an iterative change process

Preminger,

Hayes,

Bae

et al. 2024

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instructional shifts required by equitable, reform‐based science instruction are challenging, especially in the elementary context. Such shifts require professional development (PD) that supports teacher internalization of new pedagogical strategies as well as changes in beliefs about how students learn. Because of this complexity, many PD programs struggle to foster lasting pedagogical shifts, necessitating further investigation into why some teachers successfully embrace reform practices while others do not. This qualitative study uses a nonlinear, iterative model of teacher learning (Interconnected Model of Professional Growth; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) alongside professional noticing to help understand why elementary teachers in science PD differentially make sense of and internalize new pedagogies. Findings indicate that teachers most likely to adopt reform‐based instructional practices from the PD were those who clearly connected student learning to their instructional moves. In addition, teachers who more actively attended to student sensemaking and productive struggle took up pedagogies from the PD more substantively than did colleagues who attended solely to student engagement and affect. Finally, teachers who attended to and valued novel ideas from students’ lived experiences were more likely to change their beliefs about students’ capacity to learn science, and thus more likely to see the value of instructional practices from the PD. In sum, structuring PD to build on these specific teacher noticing skills can encourage more teachers to move away from traditional, teacher‐directed instructional practice, and more fully support reform‐based instructional practices.

show abstract

Section: Rq1: Categorizing Teacher Changementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Rq1: Categorizing Teacher Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rq2b Theme 3: Student Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rq2b Theme 3: Student Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why do teachers vary in their instructional change during science PD? The role of noticing students in an iterative change process

Preminger,

Hayes,

Bae

et al. 2024

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In learning about new disciplines, PD program providers will need to consider how they support teachers in their learning, which will require constantly adapting PD program to the learning of the participants. Several of the studies revealed that teachers learned the presented content differently, and as a result they needed different types of instructional support in order to support their learning (e.g., Annetta et al, 2013;Longhurst, Jones & Campbell, 2017;Xie et al, 2017). There were differences among the teachers in how they learned the new content.…”

Section: Area 2: Knowledge and Practices Of Teachersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prepared for the Future? What a Literature Review Reveals About K–12 STEM Professional Development Programs

Luft¹

2019

Proceedings of the 2019 AERA Annual Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These initiatives require that K-12 teachers advance their knowledge in ways that demonstrate the connections between STEM disciplines and in ways that can help their students connect STEM to their daily lives. PD programs will be essential in supporting K-12 teachers in their use of integrated STEM content that is found in our world.Unfortunately, there are few evidence-based roadmaps for creating and studying wellconceptualized STEM PD programs. Honey, Pearson, and Schweingruber (2014) recently concluded that there is a need to articulate how the STEM areas are integrated, how important outcomes associated with an integrated program are studied, and how to configure STEM PD programs. They specifically reported that "many well-meaning efforts to develop STEM integrated programs are unclear about goals or do not collect outcome data (p. 150)." In addition, they conclude that those who are responsible for designing educational initiatives need to be purposeful in their integration of STEM. Clearly, there is a need to offer more direction to those who work with and study STEM teacher learning.This review of research was conducted with the goal of assisting those who design, implement, and study STEM PD programs. It focuses on understanding how current STEM PD programs are configured and how the different STEM PD programs support the development of the knowledge and practices of teachers. One part of the review focuses on the structure of STEM PD programs. The second part of the review looks closely at how transfer occurs within the different STEM programs, which impacts the knowledge and practice of the participating teachers. This review extends single discipline reviews by examining how STEM PD programs are constructed, providing insights into the design of evidence-based programs that impact teacher learning and practice, and suggesting directions for future research.

show abstract

How do organizational conditions inform teachers’ equity self‐efficacy and implementation during professional development?

Hayes,

Gladstone,

Toven‐Lindsey

et al. 2024

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is part of the special issue on Teacher Learning and Practice within Organizational Contexts. Shifting instructional practices in elementary schools to include more equitable, reform‐based pedagogies is imperative for supporting students’ development as science learners. Teachers need high quality professional development (PD) to learn such practices, but research shows considerable variability in the extent to which teachers implement instructional practices learned during PD. Individual teacher characteristics such as self‐efficacy may influence teacher learning during PD, but only account for part of the variability. The organizational conditions of teachers’ schools and districts may also play a key role in teachers’ implementation of new instructional practices. However, because systematic research in this area in science education is still nascent, it is difficult for districts and PD providers to address organizational barriers to professional learning. To meet this need, we conducted an explanatory mixed‐methods study using surveys (N = 54) and interviews (N = 19) of elementary teachers engaged in equity‐focused, reform‐based science PD, testing the degree to which a conceptually framed set of organizational conditions predicted teacher equity self‐efficacy and instructional practice alignment. Out of the 11 organizational conditions, only teacher professional impact and their sense of autonomy in their instructional practice explained variance in the outcomes. Qualitative findings showed these relationships to be iterative and recursive, rather than linear. Our findings underscore the essential role of teacher professionalism and sense of agency over commonly cited organizational conditions such as materials and labs in supporting teachers to implement more equitable science instructional practices during PD.

show abstract

Factors influencing teacher appropriation of professional learning focused on the use of technology in science classrooms

Cited by 9 publications

References 45 publications

Why do teachers vary in their instructional change during science PD? The role of noticing students in an iterative change process

Why do teachers vary in their instructional change during science PD? The role of noticing students in an iterative change process

Prepared for the Future? What a Literature Review Reveals About K–12 STEM Professional Development Programs

How do organizational conditions inform teachers’ equity self‐efficacy and implementation during professional development?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About