Collaborative Professional Development Focused on Promoting Effective Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the design, implementation, and initial outcomes of a collaborative professional development program intended to prepare middle and high school educators to implement effectively the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in classrooms with diverse learners. The professional development program discussed herein was designed by a university in partnership with a local school district and incorporated key principles of effective professional development associated with promoting substantial changes in teacher knowledge and practice recommended in the research literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Guskey, 2002; Reiser, 2013). Topics covered in the professional development included NGSS practices and crosscutting concepts, Universal Design for Learning, and disciplinary literacy. Results suggest that the impact of this professional development program was positive. Feedback from participants was favorable and will be shared as well.References
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R.,Shavelson, R. J., and Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4),360-389.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.
Gunal, M. , Hand, B., and Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 5(4), 615-637.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, No. 3&4, DOI: 10.1080/13540600210000051 2.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., and Christie, M. (2003) Assessment-oriented scaffolding of student and teacher performance in a technology-supported genetics environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495–538.
Higher Education Opportunity Act. United States Department of Education. Public Law 110-315 (2008).
Jonassen, D. H., (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34-37.
Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review 6(1), 7–19.
Moje, E.B. (2008, May). Reading the adolescent reader: Profiles of reader identities, knowledge, strategy, and skill. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA.
Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
Meyer, D. L. (2009). The poverty of constructivism. Educational Philosophy and Theory 41(3), 332–341.
Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 12(6), 609–626.
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools (2nd ed.). Denver: Love Publishing.
Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? K-12 Center at ETS. Retrieved from http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shanahan,C., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Shanahan,C., Shanahan, T., and Misischia C. (2012). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393-429.
Statewide Task Force to Explore the Incorporation of Universal Design for Learning UDL Principles into Maryland's Education Systems. (2011). A Route for Every Learner: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a Framework for Supporting Learning and Improving Achievement for All Learners in Maryland, Prekindergarten Through Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/40C0E913-3A05-42E7-9627-93CB24597D6A/28188/A_Route_for_Every_Learner_Report_NSG_032511_w.pdf
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Boston: Kluwer.
