RESEARCH PAPER
Fostering Impactful Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs)
 
More details
Hide details
1
North Carolina State University, Department of STEM Education, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.
2
University of Texas at Austin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
Online publish date: 2017-11-15
Publish date: 2017-11-15
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):447–465
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States funds Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs) for K-12 science teachers. The RET program seeks to provide science teachers with research experiences so they can provide enhanced science or engineering inquiry experiences for their students. One form of RET that focuses on science pedagogy has resulted in some promising changes in teachers’ thinking and lesson design. This case study examines how a cohort of ten secondary science teachers’ inquiry conceptions and lesson design changed after participating in a science pedagogy RET, and analyzes the relationship between the components of the program and changes seen in teachers’ inquiry conceptions and lessons. Significant changes in teachers’ inquiry conceptions and particularly their lessons were a result of teacher adoption of the inquiry-based instructional modeled during the science pedagogy RET. A theory of action is proposed for RET design that would better promote and support teacher learning and foster changes in classroom instruction.
 
REFERENCES (43)
1.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. (2007). An introduction to inquiry. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. i – xiii). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
 
2.
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science education. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807 – 830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
3.
Blanchard, M. R. (2006). Assimilation or transformation? An analysis of change in ten secondary science teachers following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/et....
 
4.
Blanchard, M. R., LePrevost, C. E., Tolin, A. D., & Gutierrez, K. S. (2016). Investigating technology-enhanced teacher professional development in rural, high poverty middle schools. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 207-220.
 
5.
Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., Wallwork, C. & Harris, B. S. (2013). Progress on implementing inquiry in North Carolina: Nearly 1,000 elementary, middle and high school science teachers weigh in. Science Educator, 22(1), 37-49.
 
6.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, D. E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322-360.
 
7.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
 
8.
Barnes, M. B., Hodge, E. M., Parker, M., Koroly, M. J. (2006). The teacher research update experience: Perceptions of practicing science, mathematics, and technology teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 243-263.
 
9.
Bodzin, A. M., & Beerer, K. M. (2003). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39-49.
 
10.
Capps, D. K. & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about the nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education 24(3), 497-526.
 
11.
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. 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(3), 291-318. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2.
 
12.
Capps, D. K., Shemwell, J. T., Young, A. M. (2016). Over reported and misunderstood? A study of teachers’ reported enactment and understandings of inquiry-based science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 934-959.
 
13.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175 – 218.
 
14.
Collins, A. Brown, J. S. and Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38-46.
 
15.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916 – 937.
 
16.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613 – 642.
 
17.
Dresner, M., & Worley, E. (2006). Teacher research experiences, partnerships with scientists, and teacher networks sustaining factors from professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 1 – 14.
 
18.
Enderle, P., Dentzau, M., Roseler, K., Southerland, S. A., Granger, E., & Hughes, R. (2014). Examining the Influence of RET’s on Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice. Science Education, 98, 1077-1108.
 
19.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 
20.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K., Rogan-Klyve, A. (2009). Research education of new scientists: Implications for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 442–459.
 
21.
Gallagher, J., Parker, J. (1995, October). Secondary Science Teacher Analysis Matrix (SSTAM). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
 
22.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
 
23.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
24.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.
 
25.
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning teachers and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
 
26.
Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research in beginning/newly qualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 532–537.
 
27.
Luft, J. A., Firestone, J., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. J. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1199-1224.
 
28.
MacIsaac, D. & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 479-485.
 
29.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
 
30.
National Science Foundation. (2017). Research experiences for teachers (RETs) in engineering and computer science. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pg....
 
31.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
 
32.
NGSS Release. (2013). Final Next Generation Science Standards Released. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org....
 
33.
Park, J., Jang, K., & Kim, I. (2009). An analysis of the actual processes of physicists’ research and the implications for teaching scientific inquiry in school. Research in Science Education, 39, 111-129.
 
34.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
 
35.
Pop, M. M., Dixon, P. & Grove, C. M. (2010). Research Experiences for Teachers (RET): Motivation, Expectations, and Changes to Teaching Practices due to Professional Program Involvement. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 127-147.
 
36.
Pringle, R. M., & Carrier Martin, S. (2005). The potential impacts of upcoming high-stakes testing on the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 35, 347-361.
 
37.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.
 
38.
Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256.
 
39.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Becoming a member of a school community while working toward science education reform: Teacher induction through a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) perspective. Science Education, 93(6), 996 – 1025.
 
40.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 
41.
Silverstein, A. C., Dubner, J., Miller, J., Glied, S., & Loike, J. D. (2009). Teachers’ Participation in Research Programs Improves Their Students’ Achievement in Science. Science, 326(5951), 440-442.
 
42.
Southerland, S. A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: How scientists’ beliefs are manifested in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 669 – 691.
 
43.
Southerland, S. A., Granger, E. M., Hughes, R., Enderle, P., Ke, F., Chaminade, K. R., Saka, Y., & Tekkumru-Kisa, M. (2016). Essential Aspects of Science Teacher Professional Development: Making Research Participation Instructionally Effective. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–16.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215