DETERMINING THE IMPACT ON THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING OF
GRADUATES OF A SCIENCE AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE-
BASED GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAM
by
Alyson Mary Mike
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Education
in
Education
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
April, 2010
©COPYRIGHT
by
Alyson Mary Mike
2010
All Rights Reserved
ii
APPROVAL
of a dissertation submitted by
Alyson Mary Mike
This dissertation has been read by each member of the dissertation committee and
has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citation,
bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of
Graduate Education.
Dr. Elisabeth Swanson
Approved for the Department of Education
Dr. Joanne Erickson
Approved for the Division of Graduate Education
Dr. Carl A. Fox
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
doctoral degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it
available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I further agree that copying of this
dissertation is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as
prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for extensive copying or reproduction of
this dissertation should be referred to ProQuest Information and Learning, 300 North
Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, to whom I have granted “the exclusive right to
reproduce and distribute my dissertation in and from microform along with the non-
exclusive right to reproduce and distribute my abstract in any format in whole or in part.”
Alyson Mary Mike
April 2010
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge those people who supported me through the process
of completing my dissertation. I would like to thank my committee – especially
Elisabeth Swanson for her reviewing, editing, commenting and overall support from start
to finish. Dr. Art Bangert provided insights and recommendations in preparing the
statistical analysis. Dr. Peggy Taylor and Dr. John Graves for their continued
encouragement and editorial comments. In addition, a huge thank you to Micki
MacGregor for all the magic she does in making sure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are
crossed! I would like to thank Tim Joern for his help with coding and being my
cheerleader.
I would also like to thank Jill Miller for reading, editing, transcribing, and her
continued support. She was a constant sounding board through the process.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my mom, Gillian Mike (1931-
2005). She impressed upon me the importance of taking on a challenge and seeing it to
completion.
This research was supported by the Center for Learning and Teaching in the West
(NSF Award #0119786)
vTABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Background ...............................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem..........................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................6
Research Questions...................................................................................................6
Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................8
Significance of the Study..........................................................................................9
Outline of the Study................................................................................................13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................15
Introduction.............................................................................................................15
Professional Learning .............................................................................................15
Categorizing Professional Learning .................................................................16
Summary...........................................................................................................25
Professional Growth through Professional Learning..............................................26
Professional Learning and MSSE .....................................................................31
Summary...........................................................................................................33
Global Graduate Program Recommendations ........................................................34
Graduate Program Recommendations ..............................................................34
Other Graduate Program Advocates .................................................................35
Graduate Program Curriculum Recommendations...........................................36
Summary...........................................................................................................43
Graduate Programs as Professional Development..................................................44
Essential Features of Professional Development....................................................46
Structural Components of Professional Development......................................48
Core Components of Professional Development..............................................49
Content Focus ...................................................................................................50
Active Learning ................................................................................................52
Coherence .........................................................................................................54
Summary...........................................................................................................57
Professional Development Standards .....................................................................58
The Context Standards......................................................................................60
The Process Standards ......................................................................................61
The Content Standards......................................................................................62
Summary...........................................................................................................64
Distance Education .................................................................................................66
Community of Inquiry Model.................................................................................67
Essential Components of the Online Learning Environment ...........................69
Summary...........................................................................................................72
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED
Connecting Professional Learning, Professional Development
and the Community of Inquiry Model ....................................................................74
Summary...........................................................................................................80
Distance Education Supports Geographically Separated Learners.........................81
Summary...........................................................................................................83
Summary: The Need for Further Study ..................................................................83
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................89
Introduction.............................................................................................................89
Program Context ...............................................................................................90
Participant Context............................................................................................93
Research Procedures ...............................................................................................95
Overall Design of the MSSE Professional Learning Survey..................................98
Pilot Survey.....................................................................................................102
Survey Implementation...................................................................................103
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................104
Overall Design of the Case Study.........................................................................105
Case Participants.............................................................................................107
Pilot Case Study Interviews ............................................................................108
Case Study Implementation ............................................................................109
Case Study Data Analysis...............................................................................110
Study Fidelity........................................................................................................112
Delimitations/Limitations .....................................................................................113
4. RESULTS OF THIS STUDY...............................................................................116
Introduction...........................................................................................................116
MSSE Student Survey...........................................................................................116
Section I Student Survey – Professional Experience and Education..............117
Precision of Responses and MPLS Instrument Reliability .............................120
Section II Student Survey – MSSE Students’ Science Content
Understanding and Knowledge.......................................................................121
Section III Student Survey – Professional Learning.......................................126
Professional Learning through Using Research to Inform
Best Practice........................................................................................131
Professional Learning through Collaboration.....................................133
Professional Learning through Reflective Practice.............................135
Professional Learning about Supporting Student Achievement .........137
Areas of Least Influence .....................................................................138
Content Knowledge and Associated Learning Strategies ...................141
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED
Section IV Student Survey – MSSE Students’ Enhancement and
Change in Practice Skills and Knowledge ......................................................144
Open Ended Survey Responses Regarding Science
Content Knowledge ............................................................................146
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Connections to the Pedagogy of Teaching Science ............................148
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Connections to Action Research.........................................................149
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Connections to Categories of Professional Learning..........................149
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to-Face Learning ........................151
Summary.........................................................................................................152
Survey Responses Regarding Pedagogy for Teaching Science......................153
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Content Knowledge ...................................................155
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy: Connections to
General Pedagogy and Pedagogical Content Knowledge...................155
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Action Research.........................................................158
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Professional Learning ................................................159
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy: Perspectives on
Distance and Face-to-Face Learning ..................................................160
Summary.............................................................................................161
Survey Responses Regarding Science Curriculum.........................................162
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum: An Overview......................164
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum: Connections to Action
Research..............................................................................................167
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum: Connections to
Professional Learning .........................................................................168
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum: Perpectives on
Distance and Face-to-Face Learning ..................................................169
Summary.............................................................................................169
Survey Responses Regarding Diverse Learners .............................................170
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse Learners:
An Overview.......................................................................................172
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse Learners:
Connections to Action Research.........................................................175
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse Learners:
Connections to Professional Learning ................................................175
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse Learners:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to-Face Learning ........................177
Summary.............................................................................................178
Summary of Student Surveys..........................................................................179
MSSE Faculty Survey............................................................................................181
Section I Faculty Survey – Professional Experience and Education ..............182
Precision Responses and MPLS Instrument Reliability .................................183
Section II Faculty Survey – MSSE Students’ Science Content
Understanding and Knowledge.......................................................................184
Section III Faculty Survey – MSSE Students’ Professional Learning ...........189
Section IV Faculty Survey – MSSE Students’ Science Content
Understanding and Knowledge.......................................................................198
Summary of Faculty Survey .................................................................................202
MSSE Student Case Studies .................................................................................205
Charles ............................................................................................................208
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................209
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................210
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................213
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................214
Valuing Learning ................................................................................215
Content Knowledge ............................................................................216
Online Learning ..................................................................................219
Sue...................................................................................................................220
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................220
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................221
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................223
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................224
Valuing Learning ................................................................................225
Content Knowledge ............................................................................226
Online Learning ..................................................................................227
Action Research ..................................................................................228
Barb.................................................................................................................229
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................229
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................230
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................234
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................235
Valuing Learning ................................................................................238
Content Knowledge ............................................................................239
Online Learning ..................................................................................242
Action Research ..................................................................................242
Julie .................................................................................................................244
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................244
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................245
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................249
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................250
Valuing Learning ................................................................................251
Content Knowledge ............................................................................253
Online Learning ..................................................................................259
Caleb ...............................................................................................................260
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................261
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................261
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................263
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................264
Valuing Learning ................................................................................265
Content Knowledge ............................................................................266
Online Learning ..................................................................................270
Sean.................................................................................................................271
Motivation to Pursue a Degree ...........................................................271
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences ...................................272
Social Capital – Social Connections ...................................................273
Critical & Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice .......................274
Valuing Learning ................................................................................275
Content Knowledge ............................................................................276
Online Learning ..................................................................................277
Action Research ..................................................................................277
Summary of Case Studies ...............................................................................278
Summary of Overall Findings.........................................................................281
5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS......................................286
Introduction...........................................................................................................286
Summary of the Study ..........................................................................................286
Findings.................................................................................................................289
The Student MSSE Professional Learning Survey .........................................290
The Faculty MSSE Professional Learning Survey .........................................294
Case Studies ....................................................................................................297
Conclusions...........................................................................................................299
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................299
Research Question 2 .......................................................................................304
Research Question 3 .......................................................................................311
Implications...........................................................................................................312
Recommendations for a Comprehensive, Research and
Experience-Based Framework for Graduate Level Professional
Development for Science Teachers ................................................................312
xTABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED
Recommendation to Explicitly Strengthen the Focus on Student Learning
In Graduate Professional Development for Science Teachers........................313
Recommendations for MSSE Faculty and Program Staff .............................316
Considerations for Teachers Selecting a Master’s Program...........................321
Future Research ....................................................................................................321
Additional Research on Professional Learning...............................................322
Additional Research on Graduate Programs...................................................323
Additional Research on the MSSE Program...................................................323
Summary...............................................................................................................325
REFERENCES CITED...............................................................................................328
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................338
APPENDIX A: MSSE Student Informed Consent for
Participation in Research Form...............................................339
APPENDIX B: MSSE Faculty Informed Consent for
Participation in Research Form...............................................342
APPENDIX C: MSSE Student Professional Learning Survey .......................345
APPENDIX D: MSSE Faculty Professional Learning Survey.........................358
APPENDIX E: Comparison of Language and Phrasing Between the
Learning How to Learn Survey and the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Survey.................................................368
APPENDIX F: Comparison of Language and Phrasing Between the
Learning How to Learn Survey and the MSSE Faculty
Professional Learning Survey.................................................371
APPENDIX G: Comparisons of Language and Phrasing from the
2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education,
Question 12b, and the MSSE Student Professional Learning
Survey and the MSSE Faculty Professional Learning Survey374
APPENDIX H: Descriptive Statistics for Questions 12b of the 2000
National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education .......376
APPENDIX I: Comparisons of Language and Phrasing from the
eMSS (Electronic Mentoring for Student Success) Teacher
Growth Survey –Mathematics and the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Survey.................................................379
APPENDIX J: Alignment of the Research Questions and Methods of
Quantitative Analysis with the Questions of the MSSE
Professional Learning Survey.................................................382
APPENDIX K: MSSE Student Case Study Interview Questions ....................386
APPENDIX L: MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio .....................389
APPENDIX M: MSSE Student Professional Rubric ........................................397
APPENDIX N: MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio Rubric..........400
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Effective Professional Development Components from the
Research Literature ...........................................................................................11
2. Summary of Professional Learning Components: Research and
Practitioner Literature .......................................................................................26
3. Research Literature and Policy Recommendations for
Graduate Programs............................................................................................44
4. Effective Professional Developments Structural Components from
the Research Literature .....................................................................................49
5. Effective Professional Development Core Components from the
Research Literature ..........................................................................................56
6. Overview of the MSSE Course Offered ...........................................................92
7. MSSE Program of Study...................................................................................93
8. MSSE Students Currently Enrolled and Graduates, 2009 ................................94
9. MSSE Student Characteristics, 2009 ................................................................94
10. Overview of Research Exploring Professional Learning of the
MSSE Graduates...............................................................................................96
11. Alignment of the Dimensions of Professional Learning and Case
Study Interview Questions for the MSSE Students ........................................106
12. MSSE Respondents Graduation Dates, (N = 183)..........................................118
13. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influences of Course Experiences
on Knowledge and Practices in the Following Areas Related to
Science Content ..............................................................................................122
14. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Science Content Most Influenced by Course
Experiences, (N =369) ....................................................................................125
xii
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table Page
15. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Science Content Least Influenced by Course
Experiences, (N=369) .....................................................................................126
16. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences
on Professional Learning. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency
of Responses, (N=369) ...................................................................................127
17. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning through Using Research to
Inform Best Practice Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N=369) ......133
18. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning through Collaboration
Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N=369).........................................135
19. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning through Reflection
Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N=369).........................................137
20. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning About Supporting Student
Achievement Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N=369) ..................138
21. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning Least Influenced by
Course Experiences, (N=369).........................................................................140
22. MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experience on
Science Content Understanding and Knowledge, and on Learning Strategies
for Furthering Content Understanding. Descriptive Statistics and
Frequency of Responses, (N=369)..................................................................142
23. MSSE Student Perceptions of Areas of Science Content
Understanding and Associated Learning Strategies Most Influenced
by Course Experiences, (N=369)....................................................................144
24. Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Science
Content Knowledge by Course Type, ANOVA Comparisons of Means
Across Course Types and Science Content Knowledge .................................145
xiii
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table Page
25. Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Pedagogy
for Teaching Science by Course Type, ANOVA Comparisons of Means
Across Course Types and Pedagogy for Teaching Science............................153
26. Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Science
Curriculum by Course Type, ANOVA Comparisons of Means Across
Course Types and Science Curriculum...........................................................163
27. Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on
Teaching Diverse Learners by Course Type, ANOVA Comparisons
of Means Across Course Types and Diverse Learners ...................................171
28. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences
on MSSE Students’ Knowledge and Practices in the Following Areas
Relating to Science Content. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency
of Responses, (N=24) .....................................................................................185
29. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge
and Practice Relating to Science Content Most Influenced by Course
Experiences, (N=24) .......................................................................................188
30. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge
and Practice Relating to Science Content Least Influenced by Course
Experiences, (N=24) .......................................................................................189
31. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences
on the MSSE Students’ Professional Learning. Descriptive Statistics
and Frequency of Responses, (N=24).............................................................190
32. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning Most Influenced by Course
Experiences .....................................................................................................196
33. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and
Practice Relating to Professional Learning Least Influenced by Course
Experiences .....................................................................................................198
34. MSSE Program Experiences Perceived by Faculty to Foster the
MSSE Students’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Descriptive Statistics
and Frequency of Responses, (N=24).............................................................199
xiv
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table Page
35. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of Students Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Most Influenced by Course Experiences .....................................201
36. MSSE Faculty Perceptions of Students Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Least Influenced by Course Experiences ....................................202
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Community of Inquiry Model.............................................................................4
2. Professional Development Components for a Change in Practice ..................56
3. Practical Inquiry Model ...................................................................................67
4. Community of Inquiry Model...........................................................................68
5. Relationships Between Interactions and Learning............................................70
6. Effective Components for Professional Learning, Graduate Programs,
and Professional Development as Described by the Research Literature
and Policy Recommendations...........................................................................88
7. Types of University Degrees of the MSSE Students and Graduates ..............119
8. Charles Portfolio Excerpt................................................................................218
9. Barb’s Diagnostic Learning Log.....................................................................232
10. Barb’s Content Form and Function Outline....................................................241
11. Julie’s Commentary on Student Data .............................................................248
12. Julie’s Project Handout ...................................................................................255
13. Student Work Sample on Observation............................................................256
14. Question of the Day Student Work Sample....................................................257
15. Investigation Student Work Sample ...............................................................258
16. Video Segments on Caleb’s Blog ...................................................................269
17. Diagram from Caleb’s Blog............................................................................269
18. Photograph of Geologic Formation from Caleb’s Blog..................................270
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES – CONTINUED
Figure Page
19. Essential Components for Professional Learning, Graduate
Programs and Professional Development as Described by the
Research Literature and Policy Recommendations ........................................288
20. Graduate Program Recommendations ............................................................301
xvii
ABSTRACT
This study examined the professional learning of participants in a science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program, specifically the Master
of Science in Science Education (MSSE) at Montana State University. The program’s
blended learning model includes distance learning coursework and laboratory, field and
seminar experiences. Three-quarters of the faculty are scientists. The study sought to
identify program components that contribute to a graduate course of study that is
coherent, has academic rigor, and contributes to educator’s professional growth and
learning. The study examined the program from three perspectives: recommendations
for teachers’ professional learning through professional development, components of a
quality graduate program, and a framework for distance learning.
No large-scale studies on comprehensive models of teacher professional learning
leading to change in practice have been conducted in the United States. The literature on
teachers’ professional learning is small. Beginning with a comprehensive review of the
literature, this study sought to identify components of professional learning through
professional development for teachers.
The MSSE professional learning survey was designed for students and faculty,
and 349 students and 24 faculty responded. The student survey explored how course
experiences fostered professional learning. Open-ended responses on the student survey
provided insight regarding specific program experiences influencing key categories of
professional learning. A parallel faculty survey was designed to elicit faculty
perspectives on the extent to which their courses fostered science content knowledge and
other aspects of professional learning. Case study data and portfolios from MSSE
students were used to provide deeper insights into the influential aspects of the program.
The study provided evidence of significant professional learning among science
teacher participants. This growth occurred in key categories defined in the literature
including inquiry, building social capital, critical and responsive learning, valuing
learning and building content knowledge. In general, findings from students and faculty
were well aligned. Based on respondents’ recommendations, the author recommended a
stronger emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge, analysis of student work, and
strategies for differentiating instruction for diverse learners. Conclusions include a
framework and roadmap elements to inform those working to improve graduate
education or professional development for science teachers.
1CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
This study sought to examine the professional learning of the participants of a
science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program, specifically
the Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) at Montana State University. The
characteristics of such a program were explored through the lens of research and policy
recommendations for graduate education and professional development standards for
teachers. The MSSE program is available asynchronously online and this study
examined the impact this feature has on the program participants and graduates.
The MSSE program was established in 1996 as an intercollegiate and
interdisciplinary degree program sponsored by three of Montana State University’s
(MSU) colleges: Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Development, and Letters
and Science. The program is a distance education program coordinated through the
Division of Graduate Education. Graves (2002) provided an overview of the goals of the
program, which include increasing scientific literacy, improving pedagogical content
knowledge, increasing content knowledge, and engaging teachers in action research. In
this study, the MSSE program was examined from the perspective of professional
learning and professional development for educators, graduate education
recommendations, and the Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, Anderson, Archer,
2000) for online learning.
2Professional learning is the application and use of different sources of knowledge,
often derived through engagement in professional development. The opportunity to
engage with other educators in meaningful dialogue, to reflect upon that activity, and to
implement those ideas into practice is at the heart of professional learning (Pedder,
James, MacBeath, 2005). Professional learning can occur through participation in a
graduate degree program, a professional development opportunity, a graduate course, a
professional learning community, or any activity that creates change in teacher practice.
The Council of Graduate Schools and other graduate organizations identified key
features of a quality program. These recommendations are global ideas that promote
excellence through broad themes such as diversity, access, and accountability. The
emphasis in graduate education has shifted from passive learning to the active
engagement with the material and the subsequent use of that knowledge (Hinumi, 2005).
This is accomplished by integrating the key features into the enacted curriculum of a
graduate program. This study examined the characteristics of the MSSE program in
relation to the recommended features of a graduate program.
Professional learning outcomes may be weak or non-existent if the activity
designed is not of high quality. The American Education Research Association [AERA]
(2005) had examined what impact professional development, and the consequential
professional learning, may have on student learning and what specifically makes
professional development “high quality”. Professional learning and professional
development have common aspects. Professional development is another lens through
which to view the MSSE program. The term “Professional Development” covers a vast
3range of learning situations and activities. Underlying all of these learning activities and
strategies is the need for professional development that is content focused, incorporates
pedagogical content knowledge, allows for collaboration and reflection, and is embedded
within teacher practice.
Another perspective by which to examine the MSSE graduate program is through
the characteristics of an online learning program. Many of these elements are captured
in the Community of Inquiry Model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer
(2000). The MSSE program is an asynchronous online program. The Garrison et al.
model was based on online communities of learning. The model builds on three
components that all interact with each other: Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and
Cognitive Presence. Teaching Presence encompasses everything from the design of the
online environment to the facilitation skills of the instructor that lead toward learning
outcomes. Social Presence is the ability of the instructor to engage participants in a
manner, both socially and emotionally, which creates the perception of engagement in
discussions with “real people.” Cognitive Presence is the act of constructing meaning
through discussion and reflection. The interaction of these three components can be seen
in Figure 1, which clearly outlines the interrelatedness and interconnectivity of the
components of the model.
4Figure 1. Community of Inquiry Model Garrison et al. (2000, p. 88).
The transfer of the graduate program professional development experiences to the
individual’s practice in the classroom constitutes the professional learning of the
educator, one of the goals of a program such as MSSE. The process through which
graduate education professional development becomes internalized by the educator and
ultimately incorporated in instructional practice defines professional learning (Fullan,
2006). Within the MSSE program, this professional learning is primarily facilitated
through online, asynchronous courses. These courses form each participant’s program of
study.
Statement of the Problem
The literature surrounding teacher professional development points to numerous
recommendations of what is deemed as high quality professional development (Kedzior,
2004; Desimone et al., 2002; Kleiman, 2004; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, &
Hewson, 1996; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995). The MSSE program, both
intentionally and serendipitously, seems to have embedded these recommendations from
the professional development literature through the structure and requirements of the
5program. This study sought to identify the program components that have been created
within the MSSE program that contribute to a graduate course of study that is coherent,
has academic rigor, and contributes to the educator’s professional growth and learning.
Few studies have been conducted on the MSSE program. Graves’ 2002 study
illustrated the empowerment or professional efficacy of the graduates as a result of the
action research component of the MSSE program. Horizon Research (2001) looked at
the MSSE program as part of a two-part evaluation study, but only as a small-scale
component of a larger study. The Horizon study examined the cumulative impact of
taking National Teacher Enhancement Network (NTEN) courses, a MSU program that
provides online graduate level science courses for science teachers, such as
connectedness to other teachers, teaching strategies, enthusiasm for teaching, and content
knowledge. No other studies have examined the MSSE program. The science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program has the potential to
benefit and impact the professional growth and learning of the graduates, yet no evidence
exists confirming this potential. Furthermore, no research studies have specifically
explored how such a program has contributed to science teachers’ professional learning
and growth.
The Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) program offered through
Montana State University offers a large majority of its graduate courses through an
asynchronous online format, which allows access to a wide array of participants (Obbink
& Tutill, 1998). Harris-John and Ritter (2007) stated in their study, “In a highly
competitive world laced with a variety of technological devices and software, it becomes
6imperative that this training is offered in a manner that is both convenient and relevant to
the worker, and that includes offering training in an e-based format” (p. 7). No research
has examined the MSSE program through this lens and the potential impact an online
science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program has on the
graduates.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the professional learning of participants
of a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program through
a concurrent mixed-methods design. The study examined such a program from three
perspectives: professional learning through professional development, recommendations
for a quality graduate program, and accessibility for geographically distributed
participants, as the program is offered online. A science content-based program for
teachers, such as MSSE, has the potential to create strong science educational leaders
through the collaboration with other teachers and scientists and the lab and field
experiences offered in the courses.
Research Questions
This study attempted to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How do the characteristics of the MSSE program compare to 1)
research and policy recommendations for graduate education and 2) to professional
development standards for teachers?
7a. What are the formal program requirements for the MSSE program?
b. What is the intended program experience?
c. How do these formal requirements and intended experiences align with
recommendations for graduate education programs and teacher professional
learning in research and policy literature?
Research Question 2: How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree program perceived by students, and how have program
experiences influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning because
of their participation in such a program?
b. What program experiences, from a program teachers’ perspective, contribute
to participants’ professional learning?
c. What program experiences, from a program faculty perspective, contribute to
the science teachers’ professional learning?
d. What evidence of teacher professional learning can be identified?
Research Question 3: How does the distance mode of delivery of this science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate program impact the science teachers’
professional learning?
In this mixed methods study, statistical, quantitative results were obtained from a
survey administered to current and former program participants. Qualitative results from
open-ended survey questions and from a case study of six MSSE students, selected
through maximum variation sampling, came from portfolios of evidence of personal
8professional learning and interviews. A faculty survey was administered and the
statistical and quantitative analysis added another layer of depth to this study.
Definition of Terms
Professional Development: opportunities to learn new or advanced skills, pedagogy,
content, advanced exploration of resources, and can include technology to support
teacher professional growth (Grant, 1996).
Distance Education: an educational or learning event in which the instructor and students
are separated by distance and geography and can occur synchronously or asynchronously.
For the purpose of this study, it refers to computer-mediated asynchronous delivery
(Commission on Colleges, 2006).
Professional Growth: the transfer of new or advanced skills, pedagogy, content, and
resources into instructional practice (Peine, 2007).
Instructional Practice: decisions made by teachers regarding curriculum choices for their
students (Saskatchewan Education, 1997).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: providing appropriate learning strategies and
techniques based upon a deep understanding of content (Shulman, 1987).
Disciplinary Content Knowledge: a deep understanding of “big ideas” as well as intricate
details of a particular discipline (Shulman, 1987).
Professional Learning: the transfer of new or advanced skills, pedagogy, content, and
resources into one’s personal practice through reflection (Pedder, James, MacBeath,
2005).
9Action Research: examining one’s practice through systematic inquiry. It includes
examination of how students learn and how well they learn with the intent of providing
insight and reflection into one’s practice and moving toward increased student
achievement (Mills, 2003).
Significance of the Study
Increased accountability in education has charged the educational community to
redouble its efforts to support the professional learning of practicing teachers. Effective
programs that lead to increased professional growth and learning are not always readily
available to educators locally. Through the lenses of professional learning and
professional development, graduate education recommendations, and the Community of
Inquiry model, this study identified the characteristics of the MSSE program and the
influence on teachers’ professional learning.
The work in professional learning done by Pedder (2007) was extensive. In one
study, data was collected from thousands of teachers in England. Pedder collaborated
with other researchers in large-scale studies in the area of professional learning. Pedder
identified four aspects of professional learning. Those aspects include:
A. Inquiry: Using and responding to different sources of evidence and carrying
out joint research and evaluations with colleagues.
B. Building social capital: Learning, working, supporting, and talking with
colleagues to discuss how students learn.
C. Critical and responsive learning: Occurs through reflections, self-evaluation,
10
experimentation, and by responding to feedback.
D. Valuing Learning: Deepening understanding and learning through talking
about and valuing learning with others (p. 235).
These aspects were used to examine the MSSE program for professional learning of the
program participants and are defined further in Chapter Two.
Graduate education in the U.S. responds to policy and recommendations from
numerous graduate education organizations. The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is
one prominent organization that outlined recommendations for effective graduate
programs. The CGS, along with other graduate school advocates, outlined ten areas that
an effective graduate program should address. They include student support, academic
rigor, a coherent program of study, content focus, research, interdisciplinary content, a
capstone project, communication skills, knowledge applications, and comprehensive
exams. These areas serve as a lens through which to examine the characteristics of the
MSSE.
The literature identified key research-based features for effective professional
development for teachers (Garet, Birman, Porter, Desimone, Herman, Yoon, 1999;
Kedzior, 2004; Desimone et al., 2002; Kleiman, 2004; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley,
Stiles, & Hewson, 1996; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995). Table 1 provides an
overview of those features.
11
Table 1
Effective Professional Development Components from the Research Literature.
Recommendations Definitions
Structural:
 Extended and Continuous
Professional
Development
Sustained, extensive contact hours, opportunities for
practice and follow up.
 Participants in Similar
Professional Contexts
Similarity between educators who participate in the
program with teaching assignments, content, etc.
Core:
 Content Focused A focus on deep understanding of disciplinary
content knowledge, including how to deconstruct the
knowledge for students.
 Active Learning Discussions about pedagogical content knowledge,
instruction, planning for implementation, analysis of
student work, and presenting, reading and writing
about the content with others.
 Coherence Connection between the professional development
and teachers’ curriculum, standards, and student
assessment measures.
The National Staff Development Council built upon those key features of effective
professional development stating, “When teachers have access to high-quality, results-
driven, content specific staff development, their students’ academic achievement
increases” (NSDC, 2001, p. 3). The MSSE program is a graduate degree program, but is
also a professional development experience. Professional learning is the goal of
professional development and is a mechanism to examine the MSSE program.
The NSDC also encouraged teachers to seek out e-learning professional
development, which allows for increased opportunities that are flexible, convenient and
12
cost effective. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s Community of Inquiry model was used
to examine the online aspect of the MSSE program. Looking at the online portion of the
program from the perspectives of social, teaching, and cognitive presence allowed
another aspect of the MSSE program to be examined.
The MSSE program offered through Montana State University is a graduate
degree program that appears to include the key elements of professional learning,
effective graduate education, professional development and learning, and online
learning. No studies have been conducted on the MSSE program design to examine the
effectiveness of the program and the program’s influence on the professional growth and
learning of current and past graduates.
The purpose of this study was to begin to explore those aspects of the MSSE
program and add to the literature on effective science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree program. The MSSE program was examined from the
point of view of recommendations from the Council of Graduate Studies as well as other
higher education advocates and policy makers with respect to effective graduate
programs. The MSSE program was examined in terms of what constitutes effective
professional development and the resultant professional learning of the program
participants. Lastly, the MSSE program was examined from the perspective of online
learning and its influence of program graduate and participants. The results helped
inform the MSSE program staff of the impact the program has on its graduates, but may
also inform similar programs regarding effective policies, procedures, and practices.
While the MSSE program is successful based on the large number of graduates,
13
evaluations, and testimonials, the basic premises of its success have not been
investigated thoroughly.
From a larger perspective, the study may offer insights into the design and
development of other pedagogical, content focused science graduate programs. The
study may benefit other graduate programs or professional developers in creating
programs that influence professional learning. This study may inform how professional
learning may be addressed through different types of courses, i.e. online, face to face,
field, hybrid, etc. The study may offer suggestions on how to consider the mix of
pedagogy and content that influences professional learning. Finally, blending the
recommendations of graduate programs and professional development this study may
inform administrators in creating a sustainable and ongoing learning experience.
Outline of the Study
Chapter Two of this study examined research related to what constitutes an
effective science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program
through the lens of professional learning. Professional learning is an intended outcome of
professional development and the literature on professional development was reviewed.
Chapter Two also explored the various areas of teacher learning, in particular, the
construct of changes in instructional practice and improved content knowledge. Chapter
Two explored the recommendations of effective graduate programs based on policy and
research. Online learning was examined from the lens of online professional
development and Community of Inquiry model.
14
The third chapter addressed the methodology employed to investigate the
influence of the MSSE program on teachers’ professional growth and learning. Results
and interpretations from the descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the collected
data were presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five discussed the findings and
implications of this study of the MSSE program as it relates to content based graduate
degree programs, professional development, professional learning, access to all, and
suggestions for further research. It advised other science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree programs of effective policies, procedures, and
practices.
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The review of the literature examined relevant research that pertains to
professional learning, effective graduate programs, professional development and the
associated features as a mechanism for professional learning. The Community of Inquiry
model as the framework for online learning was also reviewed. The literature review is
divided into the following sections: professional learning, graduate program
recommendations, essential features of professional development, and the impact on
professional growth, standards of professional development, online learning including
recommendations for online professional development, distance education, the
Community of Inquiry Model, and needs of teachers who are separated geographically
from institutes of higher education.
Professional Learning
Those individuals who continue to increase their knowledge base pertaining to
their work in a profession such as teaching are engaged in professional learning.
Professional learning can happen through university course work, professional
development, or informal channels, each of which can take many forms. Professional
learning, as defined by Pedder et al. (2005), based on over six years of research and
thousands of surveys across the United Kingdom, “is an embedded feature of teachers’
16
classroom practice and reflection, is extended through consulting different sources of
knowledge, is expanded through collective activity, and deepened through talking about
and valuing learning” (p.209). Professional learning stems from the transference of new
knowledge to classroom practice. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) in their
synthesis of teacher learning, added that research in this area is an emerging research
topic with limited data. The majority of the research that does exist is in the form of rich
case studies. These studies provide an initial understanding about teachers’ professional
learning as they attempt to change their classroom practice.
Categorizing Professional Learning
Pedder (2007) systematically examined results from the “Learning How to Learn”
survey that was administered to over twelve hundred teachers in thirty-two schools in
England in an effort to understand the key components needed for professional learning
to occur. This was a continuation of a study completed in 2005 in which over one
thousand teachers in forty-three different schools completed the same survey. Pedder
used a factor analysis to analyze the data from the surveys. From this analysis, four
dimensions emerged as the professional learning process. These dimensions include:
A. Inquiry: “Using and responding to different sources of evidence and carrying
out joint research and evaluations with colleagues” (Pedder, 2007, p.235).
In addition, inquiry consists of examining good practice used in other schools.
Teachers may read current research or use the Internet as a source of best
practices as a means of improving one’s practice. Consulting with students on a
regular basis about how they learn is also part of the inquiry process. In essence,
17
teachers use research and pupil consultation as sources of information. This
information is combined with joint research and team teaching to improve
professional practice.
B. Building social capital: “Learning, working, supporting, and talking with
colleagues to discuss how students learn” (Pedder, 2007, p.235).
This dimension allows for collaboration with other staff members with the intent
of focusing on student learning. Teachers suggest ideas to each other and then
take steps to try out those new ideas. There are open discussions about what they,
as teachers, are learning and how they are learning. There are opportunities to
discuss best practices in how students learn. The discussions are collaborative,
reassuring and supportive.
C. Critical and responsive learning: “Occurs through reflections, self-evaluation,
experimentation, and by responding to feedback” (Pedder, 2007, p.236).
Teachers discuss experiences and practices, and based on feedback adapt it for
other contexts. Through reflective practice, teachers identify professional
learning needs. Teachers continue to experiment with different practices as a
method of improving their work. Reflective practice is only part of this critical
and responsive learning – student feedback, self-evaluations, and observations by
other colleagues – all provide insight into a teacher’s practice. This dimension is
characterized by a teacher’s responsiveness to ideas, suggestions, and feedback
from multiple sources.
D. Valuing Learning: “Deepening understanding and learning through talking
18
about and valuing learning with others” (Pedder, 2007, p.236).
This dimension celebrates learning of both students and teachers. Academic
success is noteworthy and should be recognized – both the successes of students
and teachers. Teachers are also committed to the concept that all students are
capable of learning. Learning should be an enjoyable experience for all involved.
Professional learning in the context of teacher education is an outcome of many formal
and informal learning experiences, including graduate education, professional
development, and teachers’ daily experiences.
Pedder’s (2007) comprehensive analysis of surveys, repeated over time, indicated
that there are four broad dimensions that are associated with professional learning. Each
of these four broad areas has specific components that collectively define the dimensions
at a more granular level. Pedder’s dimensions serve to make connections with the other
research on professional learning as examined below.
Day and Gu (2007) conducted a longitudinal, multi-site, mixed methods study to
examine professional learning over teachers’ careers. The authors looked at professional
learning from the perspective that “it will enrich teachers’ knowledge base, improve their
teaching practices, enhance their self-efficacy, and commitment to quality of service” (p.
425). A key finding from their study showed that professional learning is strongest when
“responsive and differentiated support” is provided to meet the teachers’ needs (p. 439).
The premise of responsive and differentiated support strongly connects to Pedder’s
(2007) third dimension, critical and responsive learning. Pedder’s third dimension
includes the ability to see how practices that work in one context may be adapted to other
19
contexts. Teachers modify their practice in light of evidence from feedback, self-
evaluations, and evaluations from colleagues. Pedder’s results connected to Day and
Gu’s findings in that professional learning meets the needs of teachers by being
responsive to the teachers’ situation and context.
Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Wallace, and Greenwold (2005) conducted a 34-month
study of professional learning communities across 393 schools. The premise of the
research was to detemine if professional learning communities could sustain and promote
professional learning. Their survey incorporated the ideas that professional learning is
believed to be more effective when it is based on self-development and work-based
learning. Key structures that promote professional learning emerged from their review.
These structures include experiential learning, reflective practice, process knowledge,
problem-based professional learning, professional collaboration and learning support as
teachers use the new knowledge. These structures identified by Bolam et al. are similar
to the dimensions Pedder identified, specifically the first, second, and third dimension.
Pedder looked at professional learning through a lens that allows for reflection,
collaboration, and using new knowledge in a supportive environment.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) devoted a chapter in their book to teacher
learning. Their book, How People Learn, was the result of the work for two distinct
committees of the National Research Council: the Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, and the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.
The book was based on a two-year project in which a committee reviewed and evaluated
developments in the science of learning. They compiled the report into a practioner
20
guide about learning. The authors identified the opportunities for teacher learning,
including graduate programs. “For the most part, teachers take graduate courses in
education rather than in the subject matter of their teaching because of the lack of
disciplinary graduate courses that are offered after school hours or during the summer”
(Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999, p.180). They stated that the generic nature of
many professional learning opportunities diminishes effectiveness of the experience. For
professional learning to be effective, they made the case that it must be learner centered
and include a focus on pedagogical content knowledge. The authors emphasized there is
power in teachers rethinking their disciplinary content knowledge and pedogogical
content knowledge simultaneously.
These authors also extracted key components that must be in place for teacher
learning to occcur. They include the following;
 Teachers need expertise in both subject matter and teaching.
 Teachers need to have an understanding of both what the students know and
how students acquire knowledge of the specific content that is being taught.
 Teachers need a pedagogical content knowledge base, an understanding of the
needs of diverse learners and cultures, and strategies to meet the needs of
those diverse students.
 A teacher’s focus is to support students with their learning and the application
of that learning to new situations.
 Teachers need an understanding of child development, strategies to best meet
those developmental needs, and strategies to tap into prior knowledge of the
21
student based on their developmental level.
 Teachers need a personal professional development plan that meets their
personal and professional needs.
The authors identified broad components that move toward effective teacher learning.
The components identified by Bransford et al. (1999) are similar to Pedder’s
(2007) dimensions of professional learning. The authors described the need of both
pedagogical and content knowledge and an understanding of the needs of diverse
learners. Pedder’s dimension of inquiry is similar in the sense that teachers look to
research and examination of good practice in order to make informed choices and
classroom decisions. Pedder’s dimension of building social capital focuses on student
learning both what students are learning and how they are learning. Bransford et al.
stated teachers need to identify their own professional development needs. Pedder’s
dimension of critical and responsive learning encouraged teachers to identify their
professional learning needs based on reflective practice.
The National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL), founded at
Michigan State University’s College of Education in 1985, conducted a series of
longitudinal research studies to examine teacher learning through 1995. The Teacher
Education and Learning to Teach study consisted of more than 700 teachers at 11 sites
throughout the U.S. who completed questionnaires before, during, and after their teacher
preparation program. A smaller group of 160 teachers was interviewed and the
researchers observed their teaching. Over 100 other studies conducted over the 10-year
period examined 4 areas: how can teachers learn to teach in more powerful ways, how
22
can teachers transform their learning into better teaching, how can teachers connect
content knowledge to diverse learners, and the complexities involved in teaching. The
emphasis on teacher learning was based on research indicating that understanding occurs
only when learners actively think about or try out new ideas in light of their prior
knowledge. NCRTL’s guiding principles on teacher learning stated that teachers must
be introduced to new ideas and have their experiences questioned and beliefs challenged
to move learning forward. Programs that aim to impact teacher learning must engage
teachers in a manner that broadens and deepens their subject knowledge to meet a
diverse student population. Teachers must also have opportunities to reflect about their
learning and the subsequent application into their practice. The NCRTL reported three
tasks are essential for professional learning and must occur concurrently to be effective.
They are
 Teachers need to rethink their assumptions about teaching and learning by
exposure to better ideas and challenges to question their own experiences and
beliefs.
 Teachers need to improve their subject matter knowledge and engage in new
learning tasks. Over time, a deeper content knowledge enhances the ability of
teachers to present content knowledge in a manner that allows connections for
diverse learners.
 Teachers must learn to reason about their work in the process of doing it through
reflection of their practice.
23
The three tasks are similar to Pedder’s dimensions. NCRTL’s task of rethinking
assumptions correlates to Pedder’s dimensions of inquiry, using and responding to
different sources of evidence. Examination of best practice and research is used to
improve practice. Pedder did not specifically identify subject matter knowledge as a
dimension, meeting the needs diverse learners was addressed in the dimension of valuing
learning with the inherent belief all students can learn. The ability to reason about one’s
work is reflection, which is a dimension of critical and responsive learning. The
NCRTL’s tasks and Pedder’s dimension parallel each other in regard to what comprises
professional learning.
Elmore and Burney (1997) prepared a report for the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future. They described a local school district’s focus on
attending to teacher learning. The report was a thorough analysis of the Community
School District 2 in New York City. The district successfully used staff development to
change instruction system-wide. In addition, the authors presented a protocol for staff
development that may be duplicated in other districts as a mechanism to influence
professional learning. The premise of the report was a general concern among
educational reformers about the role of local school districts in the improvement of
teaching and learning in schools. From the work in this district, the authors reported that
professional learning that impacts instructional change is a four-stage process. The
stages include awareness, planning, implementation, and reflection. Awareness is
providing teachers with materials, experts, resources, and research in order to illustrate
new ideas. This ties in closely with Pedder’s dimension of inquiry. Planning is the
24
opportunity to collaborate and design curriculum – the collaboration similar to Pedder’s
building social capital dimension from the perspective of teachers talking and discussing
how students learn and how the ideas generated by teachers are experimented with in the
classroom. Implementation and reflection are closely related. In implementing new
strategies, teachers constructively critique each other and provide feedback. The
feedback then allows opportunities for reflection. The dimension of critical and
responsive learning identified by Pedder resembles this stage.
The Department of Educational Training (2005) in Melbourne, Australia,
developed a practitioner’s guide of seven principles of highly effective professional
learning. Although a practitioner’s guide, the principles were identified by the
Department of Educational Training through an analysis of the research literature.
Effective professional learning focuses on developing the
core attributes of an effective teacher. It enhances teachers’
understanding of the content they teach and equips them with
a range of strategies that enable their students to learn that
content. It is directed towards providing teachers with the
skills to teach and assess for deep understanding and to develop
students’ metacognitive skills.
(Department of Education and Training, 2005, p. 6)
The Department of Education and Training stated that highly effective professional
learning:
1. Increases teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.
2. Is school based and is grounded in the day-to-day work of the teachers.
3. Is based on best practice and research.
4. Is collaborative, reflective, and offers opportunity for feedback.
5. Includes evidence and data driven from multiple sources.
25
6. Is ongoing, sustainable, and embedded in the culture of the school.
7. Is linked to the district’s goals and is system wide.
Several of these principles can be connected to the dimensions that Pedder described.
Principle 3 refers to best practice and research and Principle 5 refers to evidence to make
educational decisions, both are similar to Pedder’s dimension of inquiry. Principle 4 has
similarities to Pedder’s dimensions of building social capital in the sense of collaboration
that is expected in professional learning. In addition, there are similarities to the
dimension of critical and responsive learning in that reflection and feedback make for
effective professional learning.
Summary
An examination of the components of professional learning and the four
dimensions Pedder identified through his multiple studies – inquiry, building social
capital, critical and responsive learning and valuing learning – revealed common themes
in the research literature. An area that was not explicit in Pedder’s dimensions is a
content focus for professional learning. Bransford et al. (1999) stated that pedagogical
content knowledge is critical for professional learning. Examining one’s disciplinary
content knowledge should occur simultaneously with an examination of pedagogy. The
NCRTL presented compelling findings that content focused learning is key for
professional learning. Table 2 summarizes the key components of professional learning.
Table 2 includes the research presented in this section with connections to the dimensions
of professional learning identified by Pedder et al. (2007). Professional learning is
effective when it includes Pedder’s four dimensions of inquiry, building social capital,
26
critical and responsive learning, and valuing learning. In addition, there must be a focus
on content knowledge and understanding. Using the lens of professional learning to
examine the MSSE program provided insight into how the experiences in the program
lead to professional learning and growth of the MSSE students.
Table 2
Summary of Professional Learning Components– Research and Practitioner
Literature.
I
n
q
u
ir
y
:
U
s
in
g
a
n
d
re
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
to
d
if
fe
re
n
t
s
o
u
rc
e
s
o
f
e
v
id
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
a
rr
y
in
g
o
u
t
jo
in
t
re
s
e
a
rc
h
a
n
d
e
v
a
lu
a
ti
o
n
s
w
it
h
c
o
ll
e
a
g
u
e
s
B
u
il
d
in
g
S
o
c
ia
l
C
a
p
it
a
l:
L
e
a
rn
in
g
,
w
o
rk
in
g
,
s
u
p
p
o
rt
in
g
,
a
n
d
ta
lk
in
g
w
it
h
c
o
ll
e
a
g
u
e
s
to
d
is
c
u
s
s
h
o
w
s
tu
d
e
n
ts
le
a
rn
.
C
r
it
ic
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
iv
e
le
a
r
n
in
g
:
O
c
c
u
rs
th
ro
u
g
h
re
fl
e
c
ti
o
n
s
,
s
e
lf
-e
v
a
lu
a
ti
o
n
,
e
x
p
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
,
a
n
d
b
y
re
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
to
fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
.
V
a
lu
in
g
L
e
a
r
n
in
g
D
e
e
p
e
n
in
g
u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d
in
g
a
n
d
le
a
rn
in
g
th
ro
u
g
h
ta
lk
in
g
a
b
o
u
t
a
n
d
v
a
lu
in
g
le
a
rn
in
g
w
it
h
o
th
e
rs
C
o
n
te
n
t
fo
c
u
s
e
d
Pedder (2007)    
Day and Gu
(2007)

Bolam et al
(2005)
  
Bransford, et al
(1999)
   
NCRTL (2007)    
Elmore &
Burney (1997)
  
Dept of
Education &
Training
(2005)
   
Professional Growth through Professional Learning
Professional learning can occur if key components are embedded with a
professional development experience. An outcome of professional learning is a change
in practice. The professional growth of an educator can be defined as the transfer of new
27
or advanced skills, pedagogy, content, and resources into instructional practice (Peine,
2007). McAleer (2008) developed a framework for the domains of potential teacher
growth and development. This framework was developed through a synthesis of the
research literature on professional growth with an emphasis on mathematics teachers.
McAleer examined growth through two broad categories – knowledge for teaching and
engagement and practices of teachers. Five subcategories comprised the category of
knowledge for teaching. They include:
 general pedagogical knowledge.
 content knowledge.
 pedagogical content knowledge consisting of specialized content knowledge,
knowledge of content and teaching, and knowledge of student thinking.
 curricular knowledge.
 knowledge of how to support diverse learners.
 knowledge of educational policies, practices, and objectives.
The engagement and practices category consisted of two subsets: professional
engagement and leadership, and reflective practices. Professional growth consisted of a
deep content knowledge, as well as how to teach the content and address and meet the
needs of all learners. Professional growth was also defined by involvement in
professional activities or positions of leadership beyond the regular classroom. McAleer
stated that reflective practice was also a key factor in professional growth.
This framework for professional growth can be compared to Pedder’s dimensions
of professional learning. Pedder’s dimension of inquiry, using different sources of
28
evidence and research to improve practice, can be related to McAleer’s knowledge of
student thinking and knowledge of educational policies, practices, and objectives. The
knowledge of supporting diverse learners connects to Pedder’s dimension of valuing
learning, the idea that all students are capable of learning. These ideas were similar to the
knowledge of teaching components McAleer presented in her framework.
Pedder’s building social capital was based on collaboration with others to discuss
ideas, pedagogy, and student learning. This dimension bears some semblance to the
professional engagement and leadership of McAleer’s framework. Reflective practice,
also identified by McAleer, was included in Pedder’s critical and responsive learning
dimension. Further insight into professional growth and the relationship to professional
learning was explored in the graduate education and the professional development
sections of this literature review.
The intent behind any professional learning is to create change – a change in
instructional practice, a change in beliefs or attitudes, and a change in understanding.
Professional development is one of several mechanisms that can support professional
growth through professional learning. Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman
(2002) in their large scale study of professional development, stated that professional
development can be a “cornerstone of systemic reform efforts designed to increase
teachers’ capacity to teach to high standards” (p. 81). They also emphasized that
professional development that is content focused impacts instructional practice and can
have a positive influence on student achievement.
29
Guskey and Sparks (1991) examined profesional development that leads to
professional growth. They identified three areas of a professional development
opportunity that can lead to professional growth. The first was instrumentality, which
refered to how clear and specific the pedagogical practices are explained. Congruence
refered to the connectedness of the new practices with teachers’ present practice and
philosophy. The last area they identified was cost – the time and effort to implement the
new practices compared to the potential benefits of implementation. Pedder’s dimension
of inquiry has some connections to instrumentality. Inquiry is examing research and best
practice followed by implementation or connecting new practices within a teacher’s
classroom.
Linking professional development to the context in which teachers teach can also
influence the effectiveness of professional learning. Applying the new knowledge to a
participant’s teaching situation can lead to better instruction and student learning (AERA,
2005). Borko (2004), in her synthesis of the research literature, added another dimension
to this idea by layering challenging conversations around this new knowledge to help
embed this new knowledge in teachers’ practice. Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and
Stiles (1996), in their NISE brief examinning professional development, stated explicitly
that linking the new knowledge to classroom practice, as well as to the teachers’ prior
knowledge, strengthens teacher learning.
One area of professional growth that often emerges from content rich professional
development is increased leadership capacity (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, and Hewson,
1995). Often the result of such effective professional development is that participants
30
become agents of change beyond their classrooms. McAleer (2008) reported an increase
in leadership for the math mentors in her study.
The recent research in professional learning was examined by Putnam and Borko
(2000). The authors used the lens of “situated perspective” in developing
recommendations for best practice in teacher professional learning. The idea of teachers
engaging in a professional community of discourse is one method that has shown promise
in affecting teacher learning. Diverse groups of teachers discussing practice, embedded
with different viewpoints and expert views, create rich conversations that impact the
learning of the participants. Putnam and Borko stated, “University participants can bring
to these communities the critical and reflective strands and modes of discourse that are
important norms within the academic community. In additon, they bring research based
knowledge” (p. 7). The research examined by Putman and Borko ties in with three of
Pedder’s dimensions – different sources of information and research (inquiry), the ability
to discuss them with other professionals at a deeper level (building social capital), and
reflecting on the discourse (critical and responsive learning).
Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal (2003) developed a model of teacher learning and a
framework to evaluate teacher learning using student performance as the indicator of
growth. The premise of their research was that if teachers were learning, then their
students should be learning as well. Their study examined multiple points of evidence to
determine the content, strategies, sites, and type of media used to create professional
development in the Detroit Public Schools. The study focused on middle school science
teachers implementing a new curriculum. This mixed method study used student pre and
31
post tests, data from teacher focus groups, observations, and feedback to develop a
framework. The authors concluded and emphasized that using smaller snippets or
samples of student learning are the best method to track teacher learning. The authors
recommended looking at student learning of specific concepts rather than large learning
units. This method provided better evidence of teachers’ professional learning and
changes in instructional practice.
The model that Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal presented can be connected to
Pedder’s dimensions. The framework was developed by the authors using a variety of
data sources to inform practice (inquiry) and analyze teacher learning . There was also an
emphasis of teachers receiving multiple forms of feedback (critical and responsive
learning). Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal, designed professional development to affect
teacher learning and Pedder’s dimensions were visible in the architecture of the
professional development.
Professional Learning and MSSE
Graves’ (2002) study showed that, according to participants, one benefit of the
action research component of the MSSE program was improved teaching and learning.
Graves’ mixed method study examined the impact of action research on two cohorts of
MSSE participants. Utilizing focus groups and teacher responses to open ended survey
items, Graves’ thorough analysis indicated action research was a type of professional
learning that impacts teacher practice. The MSSE curriculum also included self-
reflection as part of the process in the courses offered. Graves’ research indicated that
opportunities for self-refection by the participants were a powerful part of empowerment.
32
Graves’ study also included an examination of the collegial relationships formed in each
cohort. Qualitative data indicated the sharing and interaction had a significant impact on
the sense of empowerment of the participants.
Graves’ study examined the construct of empowerment among the MSSE
participants, which connect with Pedder’s dimensions of professional learning. The
MSSE program was designed with cohorts of teachers collaboratively engaging in deep
discourse about content and offering opportunities for self-reflection. The MSSE courses
reflect Pedder’s dimensions of professional learning. Participants engage in a
collaborative environment to discuss student learning and the implementation of those
ideas (building social capital). Throughout the MSSE curriculum, participants are asked
to try to incorporate new teaching practices in their own classrooms and reflect upon the
experience (critical and responsive learning).
The Horizon Research’s (2001) evaluation of the National Teachers Enhancement
Network (NTEN) courses, many of which are used toward the MSSE graduate degree,
indicated an increased content knowledge and a change in teaching practice of the
participants. Opportunities for collaboration and an increased knowledge of instructional
strategies provide a strong commitment to effective professional development through an
effective graduate program. Again, the Horizon report identified collaboration and
discourse about content as factors contributing to professional learning. The dimensions
of building social capital, as defined by Pedder, are similar to the factors identified by
Horizon Research. Pedder did not address content specific discussions, but rather
recommended the more general act of discussing how students learn and exchanging
33
ideas, both components in the MSSE courses.
Summary
Professional learning can evolve from many experiences, but as Pedder et al.
outlined, the most effective learning comes from a program that addresses the four
dimensions; inquiry, building social capital, critical and responsive learning, and valuing
learning. Learning is effective in impacting teacher practice if it allows for reflection
through collaboration and deep dialogue. Day and Gu stated that when learning
experiences are intentionally designed to meet the needs recognized by teacher
participants, this strengthens the professional learning experiences. Bolam et al. (2005)
added a new aspect to Pedder’s dimensions by including problem based learning.
Bransford, et al stated that graduate programs can contribute to professional learning.
The authors also found that programs that are learner centered and include a focus on
pedagogical content knowledge are the most effective for professional learning, but are
not prevalent options offered in many graduate programs.
Professional growth of educators has been written about extensively in the
professional development literature, although it can occur through other experiences.
McAleer identified areas of professional growth which result from professional learning.
Based on a comprehensive review of the research and practitioner literature, she
identified two broad categories: knowledge for teaching, and engagement and practices of
teachers. The components that comprise the categories identified by McAleer can be
mapped to the dimension of professional learning described by Pedder. Quality
professional learning experiences can affect teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes.
34
Fishman et al. presented a model of professional development that has similarities to the
professional learning design Pedder recommended. A design with Pedder’s dimensions
and an emphasis on content specific knowledge has the potential to influence the
professional growth and learning of teachers.
Global Graduate Program Recommendations
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) mission statement is “to improve and
advance graduate education in order to ensure the vitality of intellectual discovery”
(Council of Graduate Schools, 2006). The CGS is comprised of a collective of member
colleges and universities across the country that offer master’s and/or doctoral degrees.
The CGS advocates and promotes research and innovation in higher education. Institutes
of higher education look to the CGS for policy, recommendations, and research for all
facets of graduate education. Through its policy, position statements, and clarifying
criteria for effective graduate programs, the CGS established essential components of a
graduate program.
Graduate Program Recommendations
The Council of Graduate Schools (2005) identified components of a quality
graduate program. They include:
 a supportive program culture.
 an informed faculty who can provide a first-hand perspective of the field and
work place.
 a variety of planned learning experiences ranging from traditional and
35
immersion/intensive courses to practice-centered learning, effective
mentoring, a culminating experience or tangible products, and skill-building
activities.
These components can be tied to Pedder’s dimensions – specifically the dimensions of
inquiry, building social capital, and critical and responsive learning. The CGS listed a
supportive program culture as a component. This can be connected to building social
capital in the sense that there is collaboration between faculty and the teachers in the
graduate program focusing on the learning of the teachers’ students. The CGS also listed
the component of informed faculty and the expertise they bring. This can be mapped to
the dimension of inquiry. The faculty becomes a conduit of providing research and ideas
of best practice to the teachers, an essential piece of the inquiry dimension. The CGS
also recommended a range of planned learning experiences. This paralleled the
dimension of critical and responsive learning. This dimension focuses on experimenting
with different teaching practices, reflecting on the experience, and continually honing the
practice. These dimensions involve using research and new knowledge, applying it to
practice, and examining the content with an expert in the field.
Other Graduate Program Advocates
While the CGS is a leader in graduate education advocacy, numerous other
organizations influence graduate programs as well. These organizations include the
Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB), the Association of American Universities
(AAU), and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the Institute for
Higher Education Policy, the American Council on Education, and the American
36
Distance Education Consortium. The SREB, a respected member of the educational
community founded in 1948, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works with
leaders and policy-makers in 16 member states to improve pre-K through postsecondary
education. The AAU focuses on issues of importance to research universities. The
CHEA, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, the American Council on Education
and American Distance Education Consortium all provide recommendations for what
constitutes effective graduate education.
These recommendations from this collective group are designed for the
administrative level. Specific curricular recommendations are also outlined by some of
the organizations.
Graduate Program Curricular Recommendations
Hirumi’s (2005) comprehensive study examined what defines quality e-learning
programs using the parameters outlined by six different higher educational organizations.
Hirumi defined e-learning as technology supported learning. Using all of the previously
listed graduate advocate organizations, with the exception of the CGS, Hirumi also
included the American Federation of Teachers and the Open and Distance Learning
Quality Council and systematically examined what it means to define a graduate program
as a quality program. Hirumi’s study extracted five basic structures:
 Institution – organizational commitment and support
 Program – course development, curriculum and instructions, evaluation
and assessment
 Course – outcomes and objectives, methods, learning environments and
37
experiences
 Student support – student services, admissions, requirements, research
opportunities
 Faculty support – faculty benchmarks, academic control, preparation
Hirumi’s recommendations were broad, but began to categorize the necessary
components in the actual graduate program. The CGS listed three components of
effective graduate programs: a supportive program culture, informed faculty, and a
variety of planned learning experiences. The CGS recommendations can be connected to
those structures Hirumi reported.
The CGS listed a supportive program culture as a recommendation. This is
similar to Hirumi’s structure of student and faculty support. Student support included the
admission process, the advising of students in the program and ensuring graduation of
those enrolled in the program. Faculty support is ensuring that the faculty has the needed
resources and professional development to support them in their endeavors.
The next recommendation by the CGS was informed faculty. Hirumi’s study
looked at the needs of the faculty, especially those teaching distance education courses.
Hirumi identified a quality program as one that ensured that the faculty received
appropriate training, support, and resources to adequately teach the courses being offered.
Without these supports in place for the faculty, the integrity of the program is reduced.
A variety of planned learning experiences for the graduate students were also
recommended. Hirumi referred to these in the structures of program and course. These
two structures focused on important instructional variables, such as objectives, content,
38
assessment, feedback, and media use. The CGS recommendations emphasized a
multitude of learning experiences that will challenge the graduate student. Hirumi
reinforced that idea with his study.
A change Hirumi noted from previous studies of effectiveness of educational
programs was the evaluation of outputs rather than inputs. The emphasis in graduate
education has shifted to the learner’s engagement with the material and the subsequent
use of that knowledge. “World-class benchmarks not only define what should be done
but also delineate how well it should be done” (Hirumi, 2005, p. 315). These outputs
were addressed in the program and course structures. Hirumi also referred to accrediting
organizations that place an emphasis on outcomes, such as the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Hirumi reported this allows flexibility for
institutes of higher education in the manner in which they strive to achieve those
outcomes.
Kasworm and Hemmingsen (2005) examined graduate programs pertaining to
adult education and human resource development through case studies in Denmark and
the United States. They examined the changes that have evolved in graduate education,
particularly the master’s degree, in both countries. Their findings indicated the
professional preparation of adult education and human resource development
professionals should focus on the development of critically reflective practitioners.
The two programs that comprised the U.S. case study required participants to
complete thirty-nine hours of course work and a capstone project. In synthesizing data
from the programs, six components emerged which included:
39
 Theory, research, and practice in relation to the characteristics of adult learners.
 Instructional programs and practices.
 Theory, research, and practice that focused on meeting the needs of diverse adult
learners.
 A research course for the practitioner to engage in examination of the research
and in designing a research project.
 Selecting courses to meet specific career and student needs.
 A research capstone project that integrates of coursework and professional
practice.
The authors of this study found programs with these components have had a significant
impact on the professional practice of participants and also on personal growth.
Kasworm and Hemming pointed out that connecting theory to practice is a key element in
an effective graduate degree program.
In a national study of master’s degree programs, Haworth and Conrad (1997)
examined what constitutes a quality program. Their study was based on 781 participant
interviews focusing on the interaction of students, faculty, and administrators to extract
the attributes of high-quality programs that emphasize student learning and development.
They identified five program attributes, which include:
 Diverse and engaged participants, including all current students and alumni, in the
program. The intent is to use their insights of the students’ learning experience to
improve the process.
 A community of learners who have a similar vision of the program.
40
 Collaborative discourse.
 Breadth and depth of course work developed with connected program
requirements, including a culminating project.
 Adequate resources.
Their work not only defined the attributes, but also presented a model in which to
evaluate and improve graduate programs.
Conrad, Duren, and Haworth (1998) conducted a comprehensive study of
master’s programs in the U.S. The authors stated that there is a lack of literature
describing both the student experience and perspective. Their study was an attempt to
begin to fill in that void. The study consisted of over 800 interviews of faculty,
administrators, students, and alumni of forty-seven graduate programs representing
eleven fields of study. The goal of the study was to “sketch a national portrait of master’s
education and to advance a theory of program quality” (Conrad, Duren, & Haworth,
1998, p.66). They found that a master’s degree program was a powerful professional
development experience, especially for those in an education program. Programs that
offered doing-centered learning, or applying the classroom based knowledge into a
professional setting and the opportunity to put theory and research into practice, ranked
highest among respondents.
Minkel and Richards (1987), in a synthesis of the research literature, and through
consensus of an expert panel, identified ten components of a quality master’s degree
program. The authors also noted that the emphasis on a master’s degree has two
outcomes. The master’s degree is a stepping stone to a doctoral degree or the master’s
41
degree is seen as a “professional degree”. The emphasis with the professional degree
approach is directed toward the application of knowledge rather than original research.
The quality criteria Minkel and Richards identifed are:
 Tutorial Experience: personalized instruction and guidance.
 Level of Sophistication: courses should be comprised of advanced disciplinary
content and intellectual rigor.
 Core of Planned Coursework: a coherent program that assures mastery of
specified knowledge and skills.
 Tool/Technique/Methodology Requirement: students acquire tools specific to the
discipline.
 Research Component: demonstration of mastery through a research component.
 Extra-disciplinary Experience: exposure outside the immediate degree or
discipline.
 Culminating Experience: a capstone project.
 Communication Skills: the ability to communication in a manner appropriate for
the degree and discipline.
 Application of Knowledge: a mechanism to apply the coursework to the
profession.
 Comprehensive Examination: an exam for the student to demonstrate the breadth
of knowledge through participation in the program.
The authors also viewed the graduate program as part of a university commitment. The
extensive recommendations paralleled the broad themes identified by Hunumi and the
42
recommendations made by the CGS.
The Council of Graduate Studies (2005) in the policy statement, Master’s
Education: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators, outlined specific program
requirements and aspects including a minimum number of courses, a core curriculum to
be mastered and a culminating project and a faculty advisor for each student. The CGS
also identified other elements that may be part of a master’s degree program. Not all
elements may be included in a program, but their policy gudielines offered suggestions.
They include:
 An internship to allow for professional practice while offering faculty supervision
and feedback.
 A capstone or culminating experience to integrate proir learning.
 A comprehensive examination.
 A residency requirement that allows for interaction and mentoring between
faculty and students. This requirement is more fluid with more distance learning
opportunties. Utilzing technology for video conferencing, web-based course, etc.,
allows for more flexibilty and requires faculty to reach out to stuents in new ways.
 Time limits for degree completion.
 Completion of a minor field.
 Mastery of a foreign language or research tool .
Each master’s program should set requirements specific for their program and use the
policy suggestions as a guide.
43
Summary
Graduate programs look to the CGS and other higher educational organizations
for recommendations of policy and practice. The CGS offered three broad components
that a graduate program recommends: supportive program culture, informed faculty, and
a variety of learning experiences for the graduate students. Hirumi’s study built upon
those foundational pieces, and began to organize them into subsets. Both the CGS and
Hirumi’s research identifed key areas that universities need to address in developing,
evaluating, and maintaining quality programs.
The research literature on graduate degree programs is sparse, particularly in
examining student experience and perspective as noted by Conrad, Duren, and Haworth
(1998). A concerted effort by this researcher to examine the literature on graduate
programs based on recommendations from faculty and librarians, and using the
bibliographical references of the studies referenced, confirmed the literature base is
small. There are several research studies and policy statements that make
recommendations for developing a quality program. The policy recommendations
presented an overview of components that an institute of higher education should
consider in developing a graduate degree program. Those recommendations are in
presented in Table 3.
44
Table 3
Research Literature and Policy Recommendations for Graduate Programs.
Program Components
S
tu
d
e
n
t
S
u
p
p
o
rt
A
c
a
d
e
m
ic
R
ig
o
r
C
o
h
e
re
n
t
P
ro
g
ra
m
o
f
S
tu
d
y
C
o
n
te
n
t
F
o
c
u
s
R
e
s
e
a
rc
h
In
te
rd
is
c
ip
li
n
a
ry
C
a
p
s
to
n
e
P
ro
je
c
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
S
k
il
ls
K
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
A
p
p
li
c
a
ti
o
n
C
o
m
p
re
h
e
n
s
iv
e
E
x
a
m
Hinumi (2005)    
Kasworm and Hemmingsen (2005)       
Haworth and Conrad (1997)      
Conrad, Duren, and Haworth
(1998)
 
Minkel & Richards (1987)          
Council of Graduate Studies (2005)      
Graduate Programs as Professional Development
One type of provider of a credible professional development is an accredited
university or college. Technological advances in distance education have allowed higher
education to offer online professional development, including graduate degree programs.
The MSSE program offered through Montana State University offered professional
learning in a pedagogical content knowledge and content-based master’s degree program.
The MSSE home page states, “Courses may be taken for professional development or to
earn a graduate degree” (MSSE, 2009).
Isenberg’s (2002) monograph made the case for providing quality professional
development for educators through master’s degree programs. Isenberg provided an in
depth synthesis of the literature of the National Board process and how institutes of
higher education can use that process to improve their own programs. The monograph
45
was designed to serve as a guide for higher education programs that want to incorporate
the National Board Certification process into the current program of study being offered.
Isenberg examined master’s degree programs that use the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) core values as a foundation for the course of study. The
monograph outlined the aspects of a quality master’s program and illustrated how these
components are needed for graduate programs to be a source of quality professional
development. Educational reform efforts place a heavy emphasis on student learning,
and strong professional development is a key element. Isenberg explained that the
NBPTS supported that goal of professional development. These recommendations are
addressed in the next section as part of the essential features of professional development.
Selke’s (2001) descriptive report of the types of master’s degree programs also
noted the significance of the National Board Certification (NBC) process. Selke found
that many master’s programs designed for educators were including the NBC process
within the master’s program design. Selke’s report examined the focus of different types
of master’s degree programs that educators seek. Selke, in her review of the literature on
master’s programs in the U.S., identified three types of master’s degrees: the master’s of
arts in teaching, traditional master’s degree in education, and a practitioner’s master’s
program. Selke emphasized that all of the types of master’s degree are professional
development. “ ‘Practitioners’ master’s programmes do not conceptualize the master’s
programme as a terminal degree that parallels a teaching career, but rather as one
component on a continuum of professional development with the potential to transform a
teaching career” (Selke, 2001, p.206). Selke’s definition of a practitioner master’s
46
program appears to align with the intent of the MSSE program as the MSSE program is a
type professional development and with the intent of influencing teaching practice.
While there are few studies that examine graduate programs as professional
development, the studies that exist represent clearly that a master’s program for educators
is a form of professional development. Some master’s programs are considering
including the NBC process within their master’s program as the process provides “a
programmatic context that facilitates the development of knowledge, skills, and
dispositions” (Selke, 2001, p. 208). Each study offered recommendations pertaining to
the aspects of the master’s program that should be considered in the design. These
recommendations are discussed in the next section.
Essential Features of Professional Development
Professional development for teachers includes all opportunities, both formal and
informal, that offer ways to enhance one’s skills and improve one’s teaching practice.
The National Staff Development Council (2009) used terms such as “comprehensive,”
“substantiated,” and “intensive” when describing professional development, all with the
goal of increasing student achievement. The research literature on professional
development is extensive and offers recommendations of what constitutes effective
professional development. In addition, the research literature is broad in identifying
design features that should be included for effective professional development. This
literature review did not address all of those characteristics, only those that are relevant to
the study of the MSSE program.
47
The research literature on professional development is vast, yet a large majority of
the studies can be connected to examine common themes. Garet, Birman, Porter,
Desimone, Herman, and Yoon (1999) went into sweeping detail in their book detailing
the comprehensive national study they conducted examining professional development.
The authors evaluated the Eisenhower Professional Development Program through three
strands. The first was a national profile compiled from interviews and survey data. Over
450 interviews were conducted with the directors of Eisenhower-assisted professional
development programs. Over 1000 surveys were collected and analyzed. The second
strand consisted of a set of case studies in selected districts and states. The intent was to
gather more detailed information about the types of professional development being
offered under the auspices of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. These
sites were selected because of the diverse approaches being offered in the professional
development experience. The case studies included in-depth site visits and interviews.
The third strand was a longitudinal study of teacher change using those same selected
districts. Again, thorough case studies in this strand included classroom observations in
elementary, middle, and high school. The teachers who were observed were asked in-
depth questions regarding topics taught, students’ performance goals, and their
professional development participation.
Through a series of studies, Garet et al. examined the relationships between a
variety of features of professional development and change in teaching practice in a
cross-sectional, national probability sample of teachers. The features were categorized as
structural or core. Structural features are the overall design of the professional
48
development experience. Structural features include the duration of the activity and the
collective participation of the participants. The types of activities that offer active
learning define core features. Core features include the engaging teachers in discussions
about teaching and coherence. Coherence is a way of meeting the teachers’ needs
through a focus on content. Garet, et al. provided a comprehensive examination of core
features and is used as a standard framework for much of the ongoing research in
professional development. Numerous other studies augmented Garet’s et al. research
with similar findings about professional development structure and activities. The study
by Garet et al. was the framework of professional development components used to
examine effective professional development in the study of the MSSE program.
Structural Components of Professional Development
Several studies identified structural components of professional development.
Kedzior and Fifield (2004), in their review of the research literature of effective
professional development, found that extended and continuous professional development
is more effective than one time or episodic approaches. Kennedy (1998), through a
comparative examination of professional development programs, concurred that
professional development can be effective if it is distributed over time, but only if the
content is worthwhile. Garet et al. (2001), in their large scale empirical comparison of
effects of different characteristics of professional development on teachers' learning,
found longer duration of the professional development allowed for more in-depth
conversations on content, student learning, and pedagogy.
49
Garet et al. also examined the structural features of the collective participation of
the participants. They defined this collective participation as active learning of teachers
who were in similar professional contexts. These groups of participants in the study were
all associated in a similar professional manner. These groups engaged in deep
conversations about concepts, skills, and problems - core type features. It is the
professional communication between teachers who share a professional context that can
contribute to a change in teacher practice in the classroom (Maldonado, 2002). Loucks-
Horsley, Stiles, and Hewson (1996) also found this association to be powerful.
Professional communication between teachers with similar professional contexts can
move these teachers to be teacher leaders and agents of change in their schools. Table 4
summarizes the effective structural components of professional development that are
relevant to this study.
Table 4
Effective Professional Development Structural Components from the Research
Literature.
Recommendations Definitions
Structural:
 Extended and Continuous
Professional development
Sustained, extensive contact hours, opportunities for
practice and follow up.
 Participants in Similar
Professional Contexts
Similarity between educators who participate in the
program with teaching assignments, content, etc.
Core Components of Professional Development
Core features of professional development are also needed along with structural
features. Core features are the activities associated with collective participation over an
50
extended time period. They are developed to meet the needs of the teachers in a
particular setting. Discussions about pedagogy and discussions that focus on content are
key core activities.
The AERA (2005), in a research policy brief, elaborated on the core features of
professional development, particularly the focus on subject matter. Referencing several
studies that examined teacher practice and student achievement, professional
development that connected how students learn subject matter, instructional practice
specific to subject matter, and increasing teacher’s knowledge of subject matter were
most effective. The brief concluded that content focused professional development was a
key aspect in effective professional development. Professional development that focuses
on how students learn, pedagogical content knowledge, instructional practice, and
disciplinary content knowledge can lead to improved student achievement. In addition,
professional development that connects to the teachers’ curriculum, standards, and
accountability measures leads to better instruction and student learning. Garet et al.
referred to this connection as coherence.
Content-Focused
Teachers begin to actively engage their students in developing ideas once they
have a deeper understanding of the content (Garet et al., 2001). Kedzior and Fifield
(2004) drew those same conclusions from their synthesis of the literature. Borko (2004)
argued that when teachers have a powerful understanding of the content, consisting of
subject matter knowledge for teaching, understanding of student thinking, and
instructional practices, it enabled them to foster students’ conceptual understandings.
51
Garet et al. (1999) concluded content was a core feature that improved the effectiveness
of professional development.
Numerous other studies pointed to a focus on content as a critical component for
effective professional development. One finding of Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, and
Hewson’s (1996) synthesis of the research literature and policy recommendations
surrounding professional development was that teachers with strong disciplinary content
knowledge were better able to address the needs of diverse learners regarding the content.
Knowing how students learn is critical, but recognizing how all students learn moves
toward increased student achievement for all students. Kennedy (1998) performed an
analysis of the research literature in search of professional development that included
evidence of student learning and concluded that effective professional development is
content focused.
The research literature clearly indicated content is important, but identifying
appropriate content for instructors to teach is part of that challenge of professional
development. Ball (2000) centered much of her work on teachers of mathematics, but her
findings are applicable to science teachers. Ball stated that content knowledge that
matters for teaching must be identified. Once it is identified, it must be put into the
context of the teacher’s practice in the classroom. Teachers must also be able to
deconstruct content knowledge in a manner that enables it to be broken down
conceptually for students.
52
Active Learning
Another core component of professional development identified in the research
literature is active learning. Active learning pertains to all parts of the teaching practice,
including disciplinary content knowledge, potential misconceptions, pedagogical content
knowledge, the associated instructional practice, and discussions around those areas.
When teachers have the opportunity to construct and investigate new knowledge, this
translates into better teaching practice. Lewis (2002) described this as an act of
professionalism in which teachers seek out new information to hone their practice.
Active learning is comprised of several features, all of which lead teachers to examining
and discussing pedagogy, while allowing teachers the opportunity to practice what they
have learned.
Active learning is facilitated through engaged, meaningful discussions of the new
information gained from the professional development activities and with intent of
changing teacher practice. Garet et al. identified four components of active learning.
Active learning can be observing other teachers, as well as being observed; planning for
implementation of the new knowledge in the classroom; analysis of student work; and
presenting, leading and writing about the content.
Observation, whether observing others or being observed, can impact teacher
practice. It was not a component that explored in this study, as the majority of the
courses in the MSSE program are asynchronous and offered over geographic distance.
While it may be speculated that some participants in the MSSE program do engage in this
type of active learning, it is not an area that was studied.
53
Creating opportunities for learning the subject matter as well as opportunities to
use it in the classroom is another aspect of active learning. Borko (2004) in her article
examining the research on professional development and its impact on teacher learning,
clarified successful programs were not purely about the subject matter, but instead were
about how students learn that subject matter. Ball (2000) identified the challenges
teachers face in integrating content and pedagogy into their classroom practice.
Understanding content and utilizing appropriate instructional practices to convey content
are essential skills of effective teaching.
Teachers must be provided opportunities to link the new knowledge from the
professional development to their classroom. Garet et al. outlined parameters that can
lead to implementation. One strategy was that the teachers must have the opportunity to
participate in the same lessons they expect their students to experience. By engaging in
the lessons, it offers teachers an opportunity for feedback and stimulates discussion about
the challenges that may be experienced in their own context.
Analysis of student work is another facet of active learning. By delving deep into
students’ written responses, teachers can gain insight into misconceptions, reasoning, and
problem solving skills of their students. Reviewing student work allows teachers to
differentiate instruction and better meet the needs of their students. Garet et al. found
opportunities to examine student work were rare. Timble (2005) stated in her research
summary of strategies that work to improve student learning, that reviewing student work
was best practice and leads to improved student performance. Continual assessment of
54
student work is a practice of teachers who strive toward increased student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 1996).
The last component of active learning is presenting, leading, and writing about the
knowledge learned from the professional development. Synthesizing the information to
share with someone else or teach caused the teacher to examine the information in depth
(Garet et al., 1999). Using new knowledge to teach through a lecture, demonstration, or
presentation requires an understanding of the information. Lieberman (1996) included
that opportunities for teachers to develop or write curricula with others were part of
active learning. In this collaborative event of writing, reviewing, enacting, and revising
lessons teachers have the opportunity to use their professional learning in a meaningful
way.
Coherence
Effective professional development needs to connect and link to the context of the
teacher. The professional development must connect to the curriculum being used, the
standards that are used, and the accountability measures that are required by the district
and/or state. The AERA (2005) described two studies that examined the impact of
connecting the professional development to the curriculum being used by the teachers in
a research brief. In instances where the professional development focused on the
curriculum being used, there was a much higher level of adoption of the practices learned
through the professional development. Garet et al. added that aligning the professional
development to the standards used by the teachers also resulted in implementation of the
new knowledge and practices in the classroom. Lieberman (1996) concurred that if the
55
professional development was consistent with the schools curriculum and expectations
for student performance a change in teaching practice wass more probable.
Coherence also includes the connectedness to a larger professional development
plan. The one-day workshop or weekend session is not designed to build on previous
experiences or to begin a foundation of subsequent professional development experiences
with the same focus. Coherence links to the structural feature of duration. A coherent
professional development opportunity was one in which there are opportunities to link
and build upon experiences, allowed for more advanced topics and skills, and went into
greater depth of the content (Garet et al., 1999).
Effective professional development results in professional learning. Graduate
programs, which may be considered a form of professional development, have
characteristics that overlap the key features of both professional development and
professional learning. Figure 2, a graphical representation developed by the AERA
(2005), illustrates the connections of essential components of professional development
and the resultant professional learning – a change in instructional practice.
56
Figure 2. Professional Development Components for a Change in Practice
(AERA, 2005).
Table 5 summarizes the effective core components of professional development that are
relevant to this study.
Table 5
Effective Professional Development Core Components from the Research Literature.
Recommendations Definitions
Core:
 Content Focused A focus on deep understanding of disciplinary content
knowledge, including how to deconstruct the knowledge
for students.
 Active Learning Discussions about pedagogical content knowledge,
instruction, planning for implementation, analysis of
student work, and presenting, reading and writing about
the content with others.
 Coherence Connection between the professional development and
teachers’ curriculum, standards, and student assessment
measures.
57
Summary
Professional development is an opportunity to learn new or advanced skills,
pedagogy, and content. It is one mechanism in which teachers can increase their
professional learning. The intent behind professional development is to create a change
in teacher practice and student achievement. Garet et al. (1999), in their comprehensive
study developed a framework for effective professional development that included both
structural and core features. This framework was used to examine the MSSE program as
a professional development experience for teachers.
Structural features are the architecture of the professional development. Two
structural features emerged as a lens through which to examine the MSSE program.
They included extended and continuous profession development and participants in
similar professional contexts. Professional development that allowd for extended
conversation and opportunities for more in depth conversations about the content were
more effective. When those discussions included participants in a similar teaching or
professional context, the impact on instruction change was more likely.
Core components were the activities that the teachers engage in during the
professional development. Content focused professional development that allowed
teachers to go in-depth into the subject matter and offered opportunities to unpack that
knowledge for their students was a core component that influences instructional change.
Active learning, or the opportunities to discuss, co-construct lessons, analyze student
work, and the analysis one’s own practice was influential in creating a change in practice.
58
Finally, the professional development must have coherence and be linked to the teacher’s
classroom.
Professional Development Standards
Numerous professional organizations have policy recommendations for
professional development. All of the organizations are in alignment that ongoing
professional development throughout one’s career is essential to ensure high quality
instruction for students. The professional development standards relevant to this research
study are those from the National Staff Development Council [NSDC] (2001), the
National Research Council [NRC] (1996), the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards [NBPTS] (1987), the Southern Regional Education Board [SREB] Online
Professional Development Standards, and the National Science Teachers’ Association
[NSTA] position statement.
The NSDC initially established standards for professional development in 1995 in
an effort to provide guidance for schools and districts to develop effective programs. The
standards were updated in 2001 and were guided by three questions. Those questions
were; what are all students expected to know and be able to do?; what must teachers
know to insure students meet those expectations?; and what is the focus of professional
development to meet those goals? The standards developed by the NSDC were broken
into three broad areas: Context Standards, Process Standards, Content Standards. In
2006, the SREB used the NSDC standards and adapted them for online professional
development as a means to address the unique features inherent in online professional
59
development.
As a call to action to increase the scientific literacy of students in the U.S., the
National Research Council published the National Science Education Standards in 1996.
The standards also included professional development standards for science teachers.
“The Standards describe a vision of the scientifically literate person and present criteria
for science education that will allow that vision to become reality” (NSES, 1996, p. 11).
These standards were developed based on exemplary practice and research.
A similar call to action created the National Boards for Professional Teaching
Standards. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy’s Task Force on
Teaching as Profession released a final report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21
st
Century (NBPTS, 2008). The recommendation in the report called for the creation of a
board to clarify what all teachers should know and be able to do. Shortly thereafter, the
NBPTS released their core propositions, which were the standards in which the National
Board Certification program was founded.
NSTA is the largest professional organization for science teachers in the world
and supports and promotes professional development and has developed a position
statement regarding professional development. NSTA drew from the research that
suggested high quality science instruction can significantly impact student achievement.
In May of 2006, NSTA published a position on professional development. Based on both
the practitioner and research literature, NSTA outlined standards for professional
development in science.
60
The Context Standards
The context standards focused on improving learning for all students through
resources, leadership, and learning communities. The NSDC emphasized that learning
communities are a driving force behind professional development. The NBPTS Core
Proposition 5, Teachers are Members of Learning Communities, emphasized a similar
theme. The SREB also referred to learning communities as an essential part of the
context standard. Collaborating with colleagues was not only a form of best practice in
professional development, but also a dimension of professional learning.
Continuous instructional improvement, guided by district personnel, was also part
of the context standard. The intent behind this standard is that professional development
is ongoing and meets the needs of the teachers. The professional development should
also connect and link to the daily practice of the teachers. Both the NSTA position
statement and the NRC reiterated this same theme. The SREB supported the
implementation of online professional development as key component in a district’s
overall plan. The contextual connection of the professional development has a direct
association to the recommendations of effective professional development in the
research. The NSDC context standards also connected to the recommendations in the
research literature for effective professional development with regard to collaboration and
extended duration of the professional development opportunity.
The last component of the context standard referred to ensuring the necessary
resources were available to support teacher learning and collaboration. NSTA has
several references to resource support in the position statement. Sustainability was a
61
theme that resonated with all the standards. Sustainability included support from the
district to simply provide quality professional development, funding, time, materials, and
ongoing administrative. The NRC also advocated for resources, especially those specific
to science teaching.
The Process Standards
The process standards of the NSDC recommended that educators’ address the
learning of all students through data driven decisions, research based design,
collaboration and evaluation of the professional development. The intent of the process
standard was to provide educators with data and research to make informed decisions
about what all students are expected to know and be able to do and what teachers must
know and do in order to ensure student success.
The process standard is reiterated in all of the other professional development
standards. The NBPTS Core Proposition 3, Teachers are Responsible for Managing and
Monitoring Student Learning, resonated with the process standard. In order to deliver
effective instruction, teachers must have a thorough understanding of their students from
assessments. Using multiple measures, the data can inform practice. NSTA’s position
statement also addressed the process standard by integrating professional development
with the assessment practices. NSTA also included opportunities for teachers to analyze
and reflect on the assessments and use that information to drive instructional practice.
The SREB emphasized using disaggregated student data for analysis.
The NRC included analysis of data as a means of professional growth and
learning. Using opportunities to examine ones’ teaching practice through analyzing
62
student work was one method by which feedback is collected on growth and learning.
Collaborating with other teachers during this process allowed for extending the learning
of both teachers and students. This connected with the NBPTS, Core Proposition 4 –
Teachers Think Systematically about Their Practice and Learn from Experience.
Critically examining one’s practice on a regular basis increased skills and the ability to
better meet the needs of students.
Another aspect of the process standard that emerged from the SREB is that the
design of the professional development should address a variety of learning styles
through the selection of appropriate technologies. The learning styles of participants can
be addressed through a variety of online learning experiences that connect to teachers’
practice. A hybrid approach is also recommended when possible. The flexibility of “just
in time” professional development support the needs of the participants.
The Content Standards
The last broad category of the NSDC standards was the content standards. The
content standards sought to address learning of all students through equity, quality
teaching and family involvement. The essence of the standard was understanding and
appreciating all students, creating safe, orderly and supportive learning environments,
and holding high expectations for their academic achievement lead to improved student
learning. This closely connected to the dimension of valuing learning from the
professional learning literature. The content standards also focused on deepening
educators' content knowledge, providing them with research-based instructional strategies
to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepared them to use
63
various types of classroom assessments appropriately. The last part of the content
standard included providing educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and
other stakeholders appropriately.
The aspects of the content standard closely resembled the standards from the
NRC, NBPTS, and NSTA. Equity is a common theme in all standards. The Standard D
of the NRC emphasized the history and culture of the school environment should be part
of any professional development. Core Proposition 1 of the NBPTS focused on making
learning accessible for all. An understanding of cultural and family differences is critical
for effective teaching. The NSTA position broadly stated science education must serve
the needs of all students. The SREB extended the idea of equity in access to the
technology of the educators engaged in the professional development.
Quality teaching improves the learning of all students by deepening teachers
disciplinary content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (NSDC, 2001). The
NRC strongly emphasized content in all of the standards. In Standard A, the emphasis of
professional development was on essential science content and using inquiry methods to
learn the content. Standard B continued the emphasis on strong content understanding
and added an emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge to make the content accessible
to all students. In Standards C and D, the NRC included access to new knowledge and
research, collaborating with other teachers about the content, and the coherence of the
content within their professional context.
The intended outcome of professional development is “transformative learning
experiences that confront deeply held beliefs, knowledge, and habits of practice” (NSTA,
64
2006, p.2). Professional development that is designed to challenge one’s thinking and
deepen content knowledge should be the driving force in the design. NSTA also added
that pedagogical issues and the understanding of how students learn is an essential part of
professional development. The SREB added that the online instructor should also be
highly qualified in the specific content knowledge of the professional development and
online learning strategies.
The NBPTS core Proposition 2 clearly articulated teachers should know their
content and have mastery over the subjects they teach. A deep understanding of content,
and the instructional strategies needed to engage students are the key elements of this
standard. Teachers should be aware of misconceptions, potential gaps in content and
skills of their students, and design lesson to address them.
The last part of the content standards focused on including all of the stakeholders
in a student’s education. Again, all of the standards included connections with families
and communities. Both the NRC and NSTA expanded those connections to science
organization, university faculty, and experts in the field. The intent is that all available
resources are utilized in supporting the learning needs of all students.
Summary
In comparing the NSDC’s, NRC’s, NSTA’s, SREB’s, and NBPTS professional
development standards to the recommendations of effective professional development
from the research literature, it is evident there are common themes that emerge. The
professional development research literature pointed to key components that define
effective professional development as structural and core features.
65
Structural features were collaboration and duration. Collaboration was part of all
the professional development standards. The context standard included learning
communities, opportunities for teachers to engage in professional discussions about their
professional learning. Collaboration with other teachers offers opportunities for feedback
and better instructional practice. The content standard emphasized that the professional
development should be ongoing and connected to the teaching context. This was similar
to the recommendations of duration described the research literature.
The process standard focused on making data driven decisions and using those
decisions to determine what students know, what students need to know, and what
teachers must do to have students reach those goals. This may be accomplished through
analysis of student work. Engaging in collaborative discussions with others about student
work, revising instructions, planning for implementation to parallel the core feature and
active learning are all aspects of the process standard.
The last standard was content. Teachers need a mastery of content and how to
apply that content to their own instructional practice to meet the needs of a diverse
student population. Content was a core feature described in the research literature that is
a necessary component of effective professional development. The content standard also
described the importance of equity and involving families and communities in meeting
the educational goals of all students. This characteristic is very similar to the valuing
learning dimensions of professional learning.
66
Distance Education
Distance education offers a unique opportunity to further ones educational
pursuits that fits within ones professional and personal needs. Bender (2003) cited four
reasons that students and administrators believe online learning is effective: increases
convenience, enhances flexibility, eliminates time and travel to class, and alleviates
classroom space issues. Students who complete online classes have a great deal of
satisfaction from the experience, which may be attributed to the convenience and
flexibility to the learner (Extension, 2006). Another aspect of online learning that
contributes to its appeal is that it breaks down cultural barriers (Bender, 2003). The
asynchronous format and the distance that separates all participants allows an interaction
that may not be replicated in a face to face class which in turn allows each member of the
class an equal voice regardless of culture or race and focuses the attention on the
discussion.
The majority of the MSSE courses may be taken through online, asynchronous,
computer mediated communication. From the perspective of online, asynchronous,
computer mediated communication, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) developed a
framework for examining meaningful educational experiences in a text-based
environment. The Community of Inquiry model was used as a lens through which to
examine the MSSE program, as it is widely used in other distance education research.
67
Community of Inquiry Model
A group of individuals engaged in a task or common goal can be referred to as a
community of practice. Learning is a process of social participation, a community of
practice (Wenger, 1998). The Community of Inquiry, proposed by Garrison, Anderson,
and Archer (2001), used the idea of a community of practice in the online environment.
Inquiry was a main component of the model as it provides the questioning and
exploration of a topic or experience. Through interacting and collaborating with others in
an online environment, participants experience an inquiry process. This is represented in
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Practical Inquiry Model, Garrison et al. (2000).
The Community of Inquiry model clearly outlined the three necessary elements that
intertwine with each other in order to create an effective online environment: teaching
presence, social presence, and cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001).
The use of computer-mediated conferencing requires written communication to develop
the model proposed by Garrison et al. Vaughan (2004) reiterated that written
68
communication was associated with critical thinking. It set up a reflective component as
well as encouraging rigor in the discourse. Figure 4 illustrates the Community of Inquiry
model.
Figure 4. Community of Inquiry model Garrison et al. (2000).
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (1999) broke down the elements of the
Community of Inquiry model very succinctly. The first element in the model was
cognitive presence, which was defined as the ability of individuals to construct meaning
through the community of practice. Teaching presence included designing and managing
learning sequences, providing subject matter expertise, and facilitating active learning.
The third element was social presence, defined as the ability of learners to project
themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry. All three elements are
needed to create the optimal online learning experience.
Garrison, Anderson, and Archers’ (2000) seminal article elaborated on each of the
elements in the model. It can be extrapolated from the literature that cognitive presence
is essential, yet it is not sufficient to sustain a group of learners without a sense of
69
collaboration and community. While Garrison, et al. presented the research base that
illustrated the effects of cognitive presence, they also found flaws with much of the
methodology presented. Despite these shortcomings, there was empirical evidence that a
social presence was needed to create cognitive presence.
Social presence requires forethought and effort by all of the online participants.
In computer-mediated conferencing, the social cues exhibited in a face-to-face setting are
absent. Once again, Garrison et al. (2000) presented the body of research that showed
that other social cues can have the same effect. The use of emoticons or other symbols to
convey an affective perception may also be used. The most effective social cue is
through the written communication that sets up a tone of respectful and challenging
questioning.
The final component in the Community of Inquiry model was teaching presence.
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) suggested that teaching presence consists of three
main categories: design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction.
All three components are necessary to promote meaningful individual and social
knowledge construction.
Essential Components of the Online Learning Environment
Within the online environment, there are multiple types of interaction that the
learner has with the experience. Swan (2004) extracted four types of interaction through
her review of the research literature examining interaction in the online environment.
They included interaction with content, interaction with instructors, interaction with
classmates, and interaction with course interface, i.e. the technology used for the
70
interaction. In addition, she meshed those interactions with the Community of Inquiry
model to illustrate how those interaction types could be portrayed within the model. See
Figure 5 for Swan’s adapted model.
Figure 5. Relationships between Interactions and Learning, Swan (2004).
Both Swan’s compilation and other research indicated that interaction between
faculty and students and student-to-student was the necessary for a satisfactory
experience (Picciano, 2002; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kumari, 2001; Fulford and
Zhang, 1993). Shea, Pickett, and Pelz (2003) in their follow up study with students
enrolled in courses through the SUNY Learning Network (SLN), concluded that teacher
presence in the form of course organization and instructor facilitation equated to a high
level of satisfaction in the course.
While there is a great focus on faculty-student interaction by the very nature of
teaching and learning, there must also be an importance placed on peer interaction. Swan
71
(2002) examined correlations between twenty-two design factors and students
perceptions of satisfaction, and learning, and interaction. Data was collected from 73
courses from the State University of New York Learning Network. Swan not only stated
that interactions with peers were essential for satisfaction, but the perceived learning was
tied into the interaction. A positive experience with interaction equated to a high level of
satisfaction and perceived learning. Jung, Choi, Lim, and Leem (2002) in their
investigation of the types of interactions with undergraduates in Korea, found that the
social presence was a strong indicator of course satisfaction as well as motivation.
Interaction is paramount in creating a successful online experience. Swan’s (2004)
adapted Community of Inquiry model illustrated that interaction with content, peers and
faculty is a key factor in online learning.
Social presence is only part of the model. Garrison (2003), in his paper outlining
the components of cognitive presence, clarified that no part of the model occurs in
isolation, but rather through integration and balance of all three. Deep and meaningful
learning is possible by reflective and collaborative discourse, part of the cognitive
presence. Through reflection and collaboration, learners create meaning from the
experience. Engaging in discourse with others, the social presence facilitates the
cognitive presence. Shea et al. (2003) confirmed Garrison’s statement, stating,
“Cognitive presence is the extent to which students are able to construct and confirm
meaning through sustained discourse in a community of inquiry, and it is achieved in
concert with effective teaching presence and satisfactory social presence” (p. 65). No
part of the model stands on its own; each part is an integral part of the other.
72
Teaching presence also integrates with cognitive and social presence to complete
the model. The instructional design and organization of the course falls into the realm of
teaching presence. The actual facilitation of the course and the associated direct
instruction are also part of the teaching presence. Shea, et al. utilized a survey to measure
teaching presence as it related to student satisfaction. The survey was sent to over six
thousand students with a response rate of 31%. The authors clarified this is a low
response rate and indicated the results were more suggestive than conclusive. The survey
measured the interaction of students and faculty for both facilitation and direct
instruction. Students reported high levels of satisfaction with the design and
organization, and this indicated students expected a high level of interaction from the
instructor. They concluded that the interaction between social presence and teaching
presence were related – one cannot exist without the other for a satisfactory experience.
Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001, p. 5) made this connection again
defining, “teaching presence as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and
social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally
worthwhile learning outcomes.”
Summary
The Community of Inquiry presented an effective model for computer-mediated
learning. Each of the three components of the model can be used to address the
recommendations of effective professional learning, graduate programs, and professional
development.
73
Cognitive presence is ability of individuals to construct meaning through a
community of practice. Reflective and collaborative discourse is at the heart of cognitive
presence. In examining the recommendations for professional learning, graduate
programs and professional development emphasized a need for learners collaborate to
make meaning of the new information presented. The research literature for professional
learning and professional development also recommended reflection as part of the
process of contextualizing learning in one’s practice.
Teaching presence was defined as the instructional design, facilitation, and direct
instruction to create a meaningful educational learning experience. The learning
experience created by the teaching presence required both the cognitive and social
presence to be part of the process. The literature on professional learning can be
connected to teaching presence if the instructional design of the course includes
examination of best practice and research leading toward a change in teaching practice.
The facilitation and direct instruction components of teaching presence can be connected
to the recommendations of professional learning through open discussions. The
instructional design and facilitation can be implemented to support active learning,
content, and coherence – all part of the professional development recommendations.
Social presence was defined as the ability of learners to project themselves
socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry. Both the professional development
and professional learning research can be linked to social presence. Both bodies of
research recommended collaborative work that included interaction, feedback, and
reflection. It was this rich discussion about students and student learning with other
74
teachers, and personalizing those experiences, which connected social presence to the
literature on professional leaning and professional development. It was the ability to
connect with others in a distance education experience that allowed one to assimilate and
personalize the experience.
The Community of Inquiry model provided a foundation for the distance learning
that occurred in a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree
program. Teaching presence can provide both the organization and instructional
components of good content. The pedagogical principles used by the instructor can be
modeled through teaching presence and social presence. The teaching and social
presence created within the course can support the cognitive presence of the participants.
Part of the cognitive presence included opportunities for participants to collaborate and
discuss pedagogical strategies and content and develop their ideas and perspectives. The
three components of the model supported the recommendations for effective professional
learning, graduate programs, and professional development.
Connecting Professional Learning, Professional
Development, and the Community of Inquiry Model
Designing an online course or program should not occur by happenstance.
Rather, the research literature should drive the design and pedagogical strategies used in
the learning experience. The experience that a student has in an online course should
match the academic rigor and expectation in a face-to-face course. Developing an online
course that supports the Community of Inquiry model, as well as recommendations from
the professional learning and professional development literature for science and
75
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree, requires careful consideration and
planning.
A policy recommendation for online course development stems from the Institute
for Higher Education Policy. In 2002, the Institute for Higher Education Policy
established a series of benchmarks for success for online courses. These benchmarks
outlined guidelines for good practice. The policy statement identified twenty-four
benchmarks considered essential for a quality online learning experience. These
benchmarks can be connected to the Community of Inquiry Model, in particular teaching
presence. Several benchmarks focused on attributes of course development, teaching and
learning, course structure, faculty support, and evaluation and assessment. These
benchmarks would be the equivalent of a checklist of items that might be included in the
teaching presence of a course.
Benchmarks for a quality online experience are then combined with best
practices in teaching. In 1987, Chickering and Gamson published the “Seven Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.” These seven principles were a guiding
document for faculty in promoting good teaching practices. Chickering and Ermann
(1996) modified those original seven principals for distance education experiences. The
authors responded with principles for online learning that addressed the unique aspects of
computer-mediated learning.
The first principle of good practice encouraged communication between students
and faculty. Technology offered additional opportunities for communication with
students through email and discussion, while increasing participation and contribution
76
from diverse students. Chickering and Ermann claimed that this connection was a
motivating factor for students. This first principle can be related to social presence in the
Community of Inquiry Model. Interaction between faculty and students was one of the
types of social interaction that defines social presence.
Increased collaboration was encouraged and supported in online learning and
allows for more open communication between students was the second principle
identified by Chickering and Ermann (1996). Social presence was part of this principle
as student to student and student to faculty are types of interaction that can increase
course satisfaction. In addition, this connection and collaboration with others supported
the recommendations from the literature from professional learning and professional
development on collaboration (Pedder, 2007; Garet, et al., 2001). Offering opportunities
to discuss the content, get feedback, and reflect on the process also supported cognitive
presence.
Kleinman’s (2004) white paper illustrated examples of professional development
that strongly focused on “cohorts”, a group of educators participating together in a
professional development, and expounded on the use of the application of the online
work being applied to the classroom. The application of the new knowledge was tried
and then successes and challenges were shared with the community for an increased
value of the professional learning
The next principle identified by Chickering and Erman was active learning.
Active learning techniques were supported not only through communication tools, but
learning by doing – using technological tools in the field, simulations, and opportunities
77
for insight using these tools. Chickering and Ermann, in their third principle, emphasized
that the opportunities for active learning using technology are vast. The definition of
active learning by Chickering and Ermann define active learning as talking about
learning, reflecting upon learning, relating it to personal experience, and then applying to
daily lives. This definition resembled the definition of active learning from the
professional development literature. In the context of professional development, active
learning can be observing other teachers, being observed, planning for implementation of
the new knowledge in the classroom, analyzing student work, and presenting, leading and
writing about the content (Garet, et al. 2001). Relating the learning to one’s practice is
similar to coherence as described in the professional development literature, connecting
the teacher’s context.
The concept of active learning can also be connected to the literature on
professional learning. Professional learning consists of inquiry, examination of good
practice to improve teaching practice. The application to one’s practice is evidence in
active learning and professional learning. The dimension of social capital also connects
to active learning through the process of talking about student learning and applying it in
the classroom. Professional learning also includes critical and responsive learning – the
feedback of active learning (Pedder, 2007). The process of active learning supports the
Community of Inquiry model through the teacher presence of instructional sequence, to
the social presence created in discussion, and cognitive presence of assimilating the new
knowledge into one’s teaching practice.
78
Maintaining a written record of what has transpired and utilizing other
technological tools such as video, editing capabilities of word processing software, etc,
expands opportunities for feedback and was the fourth principle identified by Chickering
and Ermann. The authors clarified that students needed scaffolding to assess their prior
knowledge and needed feedback to assess their growth and understanding of new
knowledge. Computer mediated instruction provides a written record of all that has
transpired and offers multiple methods of providing feedback and opportunities for
reflection. Once again, this emphasis on feedback and reflection relates to the literature
on professional learning (Pedder, 2007: NCRTL, 1995; Elmore & Burney, 1997). This
process of feedback and reflection supports cognitive presence.
The anytime, anywhere capability of most distance learning allows coursework to
fit into busy schedules. Chickering and Ermann referred to this as time on task. The
flexible nature of online learning allowed for increased efficiency and time spent
learning, rather than commuting. This defined the fifth principle. They also stated access
to resources online allowed students who are geographically distant to have the same
opportunities as those students on campus. Access to electronic resources was more time
efficient. The authors indicated that a better use of time contributed to better interaction
between participants in the course. Social presence was again supported by increased
opportunities to discuss the material with colleagues and faculty. Focused time on task
related to the recommendation from the professional development literature that extended
and continuous professional development is effective in impacting instructional practice
(Kedzior & Fifield, 2004).
79
High expectations were established through good practice in online learning as
per Chickering and Ermann’s sixth principle. Utilizing technology allowed participants
to access to additional information on the Internet and the experience can be
personalized. Technology allowed for opportunities to have work peer-reviewed and
work samples and the expectations can be easily posted for all to review. The
collaboration of peer-review connects to the professional learning recommendations.
Critical and responsive learning, a dimension of professional learning, included teachers
sharing ideas and getting feedback, observations by other colleagues, reflecting on that
feedback (Pedder, 2007). This recommendation for good practice also incorporated
teaching presence by setting the high expectation, social presence trough peer reviews,
and cognitive presence through reflection.
Lastly, Chickering and Erman stated that technology offers multiple avenues for
learning that met the needs of all students. Technology addresses a variety of learning
styles and the instructor has numerous options available to support the learning styles.
Through course design and instruction, teaching presence can impact good practice by
meeting the needs of a diverse student population. The authors emphasized self-
reflection and collaboration were strategies of good practice in distance education. By
meeting the needs of diverse learners with these strategies, the recommendations of
professional learning and the Community of Inquiry model were supported.
Collaboration is a component of inquiry and building social capital and social presence.
Reflection is the foundation of critical and responsive learning and cognitive presence.
This principle also supported the recommendation from professional learning of valuing
80
learning. All students can learn and that learning should be recognized is the
recommendation from the literature. It connects with the idea that technology supports
diverse learners and all learners can be successful.
Summary
Chickering and Ermann’s updated “Seven Principles of Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education” provided recommendations for good practice for distance
learning. The authors emphasized that if technology is to be fully utilized to its potential,
the recommendations for good practice should be consistent with the essence of the
Seven Principles. The modified Seven Principles aligned with the Community of Inquiry
Model and the literature on professional learning and professional development.
The Community of Inquiry Model consisted of a balance and connectedness
between teaching, social, and cognitive presence. Chickering and Ermann described in
the updated Seven Principles that the instructional design and structure, setting high
expectations, and active learning were all components established by the instructor.
These components were all part of the teaching presence. Emphasized throughout the
principles is the opportunity for interaction between the faculty and students and between
the students. The collaboration and active learning is social presence. Within the aspects
of collaboration, feedback and reflection are key components. Feedback and reflection
are what contribute to cognitive presence.
Professional learning consists of inquiry, the examination of research and new
information and discussing it with colleagues. Building social capital was also a
component of professional learning and emphasizes collaboration with colleagues on how
81
students learning, sharing ideas, and implanting those new ideas into practice. Critical
and responsive feedback consists of feedback and reflective practice. Valuing learning is
the idea that all students are capable of learning. These recommendations from the
literature aligned with the updated Seven Principles. The Seven Principles emphasized
collaboration, reflection, discussions about learning, and meeting the needs of diverse
learners.
Chickering and Ermann’s updated Seven Principles can also be connected to the
literature on professional development. Effective professional development incorporates
active learning. Active learning was one of the principles. In addition, the principles
recommended connecting the learning to one’s daily life and experience. This is similar
to the recommendation of coherence – connecting the professional development to the
teacher’s instructional context.
Distance Education Supports Geographically Separated Learners
The pace of new information and knowledge is ever increasing in all fields,
especially in education due to reform efforts. Educators must keep up with those changes
through professional learning. A science and pedagogical content knowledge-based
graduate degree program is one type of professional development that can support
geographically distant learners, while meeting the participants’ need for content and new
information. Distance education can offer the mechanism to accomplish professional
learning goals. Harris and Ritter (2007) advocated that e-based learning meets the needs
of educators with its “any time, anywhere” philosophy.
82
Perdue (2003) reviewed the research regarding web-based professional education.
Her analysis explored the use of distance learning, as well as the motivation and
deterrents of online learning. A multitude of professions utilize web-based learning as a
means to keep current in their respective fields. Most professions require continuing
education and distance learning opportunities make this task easier and more convenient.
A study by Thomas-Goodfellow, Pedue, and Valentine (2001) examined motivation for
online professional development for respiratory therapists. They used a self-completed,
mailed survey to participants in a web-based continuing education course. There were
110 respondents to the survey. Their study identified eight motivators for distance
learning including flexibility and convenience. Valentine (2002, p. 2) reiterated these
themes stating distance education “can meet the promise to deliver classes to a
geographically broad and diverse population.”
The U.S. Department of Education (2003) examined distance education program
across the U.S. in both 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions.
The report outlines key findings in regard to distance education. Access for
geographically distant students was a priority for these institutions. Neal and Miller
(2004) built upon these common themes. In their review of distance education, the
authors identified similar factors that have affected the popularity and rise of distance
education offerings. The increased accessibility is also a key factor in the popularity of
distance education. Accessibility has multiple layers including attracting diverse student
populations and those students with disabilities for which online courses are may offer
easier access than attending a traditional course. One other benefit is that participants in
83
the courses have equal opportunities for their voice to be heard. Course participants have
access to experts who may provide a learning opportunity without requiring travel.
Summary
Distance learning provides opportunities for professional development that may not
have been available to teachers separated geographically from a campus. The increase in
distance professional development is rapidly growing. Participants report it is both
convenient and cost effective. It saves travel time and allows teachers to engage with
other educators in a collaborative manner anytime, anywhere. Increased access is often
are reasons cited as a benefit to online learning.
Summary: The Need for Further Study
Educators who continue to improve their pedagogical skills and content
knowledge are engaging in professional learning. The research on professional learning
identified five dimensions of professional learning that have the potential to impact
student learning. Inquiry is the process of reading the literature, examining best practice
while collaborating with others. Building social capital emphasizes the collaboration
further. In this dimension teachers exchange ideas, share insight to their own learning,
and discuss how students learn. Another dimension of professional learning is critical
and responsive learning. This dimension centers on reflective practice and feedback from
other teachers. The responsiveness of that reflective practice is what makes this
dimension a powerful learning experience for the teacher. Valuing learning is another
part of professional learning. Not only is learning celebrated and recognized, but the
84
underlying core value is that all students can learn. Pedder (2007), through extensive
teacher surveys and case study data from teachers in England, characterized and defined
these dimensions of professional learning.
Professional learning that emphasizes disciplinary content knowledge is another
aspect of professional learning. Understanding the concept at a deeper level allows
teachers to differentiate instruction to better meet the needs of a diverse student
population. In addition to the increased content knowledge, a focus on pedagogical
content knowledge and the science specific strategies to implement in the classroom is
necessary as well. The research literature on professional learning included a focus on
content along with the dimensions Pedder identified (Day & Gu, 2007; Bolam, et al.,
2005; Bransford, et al. 1999; Elmore & Burney, 1997).
A graduate degree program can be a form of professional development. The
Council of Graduate Studies, along with other graduate school organizations, has
recommendations and policy statements that clarified what a quality graduate program
should entail. The research literature on graduate program is sparse and the majority of
recommendations and guidelines come from policy and position statements from the
various graduate school organizations. The policy and research literature identified ten
components that should be included for an effective graduate program.
The recommendations for graduate programs had some similarities to both the
professional learning and professional development literature. All had an emphasis on
content. All had an emphasis on the application of the content knowledge, through
discussions and collaboration. Both the graduate program and the dimension of inquiry
85
in professional learning included the examination of research. The literature on
professional development identified coherence and alignment of the professional
development to a teacher’s context and curriculum. The graduate literature also referred
to a coherent program of study, a program that assured mastery of specified knowledge
and skills. In examining coherence in the MSSE program, the mastery of knowledge and
skills can be connected to the coherence recommenation of professional development.
The coherence of both content and pedagogoical content knowlegde can be a lens in
which to examine the MSSE program. Communication skills were also a
recommendation from the literature. Graduate students should possess the ability to
communicate in a manner appropriate for the degree and discipline. This can be
connected to the literature on both professsional learning and professional development.
Collabortion, discussion, and consultation with other teachers and students, all require
communication skills.
In addition, the graduate recommendations included student support. This
consisted of everything from financial support to advising of the graduate students. The
literature emphasized that a graduate program should ensure the academic rigor of the
program. The Council for Graduate Studies offered suggestions on how that can be
evaluated, including internal and external evaluations. The research also pointed to
programs that had interdisciplinary components as an effective characteristic. Programs
that cut across disciplines and/or field of studies offer students a more global perspective
in their course of study. The last two recommendations were characteristics that allowed
for a performance based assessment and demonstration of understanding by the teacher
86
enrolled in a graduate program. A capstone project and a comprehensive exam rounded
out the graduate program recommendations for an effective graduate program (Hinumi,
2005; Kasword and Hemmingsen, 2005; Haworth & Conrad, 1997; Conrad, Duren, and
Haworth, 1998; Minkel & Richards, 1987, Council of Graduate Studies, 2005).
The third lens that was used to examine the MSSE program was professional
development. Garet, Birman, Porter, Desimone, Herman, Yoon’s (1999) comprehensive
study was the framework used for the professional development component. Professional
development was characterized by two features, structural and core. The structural
features were the architecture of the professional development experience. The research
literature identified several structural components, but two were pertinent to this study.
Professional development that is sustained over time, includes extensive contact
hours, and offers opportunities for practice and follow up was one of structural
professional development feature that was examined. The literature identified that
extended and continuous professional development impacted teachers’ knowledge
(Kedzior & Fifield, 2004; Kennedy, 1998; Garet, et al., 2001). The second structural
recommendation is participants who share a similar teaching context. There was power
in the learning of between educators who participated in the program with similar
teaching assignments and content (Maldonado, 2002; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, & Hewson,
1996; Garet, et al., 2001).
In addition to structural components were core components. Core components
were the activities that the teachers engaged in during the professional development. A
focus on content was one of the core activities. As previously mentioned, a focus on
87
content was mirrored in the literature from professional learning and effective graduate
programs. Active learning was another core feature that was used to examine the MSSE
program. Discussions about pedagogical content knowledge, instruction, planning for
implementation, analysis of student work, and presenting, reading and writing about the
content with others comprised the essence of active learning. Once again, there were
similarities to the professional learning literature. Inquiry, building social capital and
critical and responsive learning, all professional learning dimensions, can be connected to
active learning. Both recommended discussions, collaboration, trying new strategies and
sharing the results with other teachers. A final core recommendation was coherence.
Coherence refers to a connection between the professional development and teachers’
curriculum, standards, and students. As stated previously, a connection can be made
between coherence of professional development and a coherent graduate program.
There is little research examining the impact on the professional learning of
graduates of a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree
program, such as MSSE. There is no established method of examining the effects of the
professional learning or using artifacts to demonstrate the learning. Structures of
effective components emerge from the literature on professional learning, graduate
programs, and professional development. Those components are illustrated in Figure 6.
88
Figure 6. Effective Components for Professional Learning, Graduate Programs, and
Professional Development as described by the research literature and policy
recommendations.
While many of the descriptive terms for professional learning, professional development,
and graduate programs varied, the definitions and intent were similar as described
previously.
This research study identified the impact of professional learning of the MSSE
graduates. The findings from this study added to the limited research on science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree programs. In addition, this study
informed the MSSE leadership about the program and its influence on the professional
learning of its graduates.
89
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design of this study and the research procedures used.
Measures utilized to improve the study quality and the potential delimitations and
limitations of the study are presented. The Master of Science in Science Education
(MSSE) program provided the context for this study. The program, along with its
students, graduates, and faculty are described in the sections that follow. Other
contextual and background information necessary for understanding the objectives of the
study are provided. In addition, the selection process of study participants is outlined.
This research involved a concurrent mixed-methods design utilizing both
quantitative and qualitative techniques (Creswell, 2007). In a concurrent study, both
quantitative and qualitative data are used to seek similarities within the results. Both data
carried equal weight in the study. In this study, two surveys were used to provide an
overview of how the MSSE program addressed the dimensions of professional learning.
The case studies provided a more in-depth analysis of the data as to where and how the
professional learning occurred.
Case studies were utilized for in-depth study and comparison (Patton, 2002).
Case study data was used in this study to provide an understanding of the professional
learning that occurs as a result of participation in the MSSE program. The case studies
were layered or nested, in which several individual cases are used to evaluate a program
90
(Patton, 2002). Case studies were only conducted with students in the MSSE program,
not faculty.
The research procedures section described the different data collection methods
used in this study including 1) a survey of graduates and current participants in the MSSE
program 2) a case study of six graduates and current participants in the MSSE program
and 3) a survey of MSSE faculty. The case study data included the MSSE Professional
Learning Survey (Appendix C) administered to all students and the open ended,
standardized interviews. In addition, portfolios demonstrating evidence of professional
learning from the graduates and current participants in the MSSE program were
collected.
The Institutional Review Board of Montana State University mandated that all
requirements for the protection of human subjects be met in this study. The IRB approval
for this study (Appendix A and Appendix B) included that all case study participants
were provided with consent forms which were signed and securely filed. In addition,
names and identifying information of all the participants, MSSE faculty and staff, and
specific courses were changed to maintain confidentiality.
Program Context
The Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) program is a science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program available to participants
from across the country, as well as internationally. The MSSE Program is unique in that
it is an inter-college, interdisciplinary program housed in the Division of Graduate
Education at Montana State University-Bozeman. In 1996, the Montana Board of
91
Regents of Higher Education approved the MSSE degree program. It is a joint venture
among the Colleges of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Development, Letters
and Science, and the Division of Graduate Education (MSU, 2008). The Department of
Intercollege Programs for Science Education administers the program. The technical
support for the program’s online courses is managed from the Burns Telecommunication
Center, Montana State University’s Extended University.
MSU-Bozeman faculty members of the Departments of Biology; Ecology;
Chemistry and Biochemistry; Earth Science; Education, Health and Human
Development; Land Resources and Environmental Science; Mathematics; Microbiology;
Plant Science and Plant Pathology; Physics; and other related areas teach most courses.
Approximately 91% of the instructors have doctorate degrees in the subjects they teach.
Science courses are offered through the appropriate science content departments (MSSE,
2008).
The majority of the courses may be taken through online, asynchronous, computer
mediated communication. The program of study for most students includes
approximately 80% of the coursework being completed online. This offers students, who
are primarily practicing science teachers, the flexibility and convenience to participate in
a graduate level program while continuing their careers. Students are required to be on
campus for a minimum of two weeks as they pursue their MSSE degree, one week for at
least one lab or field based campus course. A second week on campus is required to
present the culminating capstone project during the annual symposium in science
education. Most students complete the degree within 2-3 years, with 46% completing the
92
program within 2 years. There is a six-year window of completion for master’s degree
coursework that is required by the MSU Division of Graduate Education.
As of Spring 2009, there were 81 courses offered in the MSSE program and by
the National Teachers Enhancement Network (NTEN). NTEN is an MSU online
professional development program for K-12 teachers of science and has offered graduate
level science courses since 1993. Table 6 provides for an overview of types of courses
offered.
Table 6
Overview of MSSE Types of Courses Offered.
Types of Courses
Discipline MSSE NTEN Courses TOTAL COURSES
Biology 9 1 10
Chemistry &
Biochemistry
8 1 9
Earth Science 9 2 11
Education 11 11
Electrical Engineering 1 1
Health and Human
Development
2 2
Geography 1 1
Geology 4 4
Land Resources and
Environmental Sciences
2 2 4
Mathematics 1 1 1
Microbiology 5 2 7
Plant Sciences 3 3
Physics 6 9 15
Range Science 1 1
93
Thirty total credits are required for the MSSE degree which include 12 core education
credits consisting of an assessment course and an action research sequence designed to
lead to the capstone project, 12 credits from a multidisciplinary selection of science
courses, and 6 elective credits from either science or education (Table 7).
Table 7
MSSE Program of Study.
MSSE Required Courses Credits
Education (includes capstone) 12
Science Courses 12
Electives (science or education) 6
A three-person faculty committee is formed to advise each student during enrollment in
the program and through the design, implementation, write-up, and presentation of the
capstone project and paper.
Participant Context
Students are admitted on a rolling basis throughout the year through an
application and admission process. Applicants must have a bachelor’s degree in science,
science education, K-12 education, or other related area. Applicants must have two years
of successful teaching experience, which can range from a traditional school setting to
informal science settings such as a museum or a position in outdoor education.
At the end of the 2008/2009 academic year there were 333 educators enrolled in
the degree program. All were at different stages of their programs of study. At the end
of the 2009 summer session, teachers from 50 states and 16 foreign countries had
94
participated in the program (Table 8). By the end of the summer 2009, 413 MSSE
degrees had been awarded in the program’s history.
Table 8
MSSE Students, Currently Enrolled and Graduates, Summer 2009.
Geographic Distribution
Grade Level
Instate
Teachers
Out-of-state
Teachers
Total Teachers
Elementary 27 10 37
Middle School 29 104 133
High School 71 253 324
Community College 7 27 34
Other Non-traditional &
dual teaching assignment
34 120 154
Total 168 514 682
Many students begin their experience in the MSSE program by enrolling in
NTEN or MSSE courses as non-degree/continuing education students. The initial
experience with these courses lead many participants to apply for admission in the MSSE
program. Table 9 provides an overview of the demographics of the MSSE students as of
the summer of 2009.
Table 9
MSSE Student Characteristics – Summer 2009
Gender Number of Participants
Male 271
Female 411
Ethnicity
White 576
African American 1
Asian 5
Hispanic 7
Hawaiian 1
American Indian 9
95
Research Procedures
The purpose of this study was to explore the professional learning of current
students and graduates of the MSSE program at Montana State University – Bozeman.
Based on the research literature, it appeared that effective graduate degree programs
embedded many components in the design that were consistent with the identified
dimensions of professional learning. These included inquiry, building social capital,
critical and responsive learning, valuing learning, and a focus on content (Pedder, 2007;
Day & Gu, 2007; Bolam et al., 2005; Bransford et al., 1999; Elmore & Burney, 1997).
In addition, based on the research literature, it appeared that effective graduate
degree programs embedded in the design many components that were consistent with the
strategies used in effective professional development for educators (NSDC, 2001; AERA
Association, 2005; Ball, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Desimone, et al., 2002; Kennedy, 1998;
Borko, 2004; Kedzior and Fifield, 2004; Maldonado, 2002). These strategies included
active learning, a content focus, coherence, extended and continuous participation, and
participants in similar contexts. Lastly, the recommendations in the policy and research
literature for an effective graduate program were a lens through which to examine the
MSSE program (Hinumi, 2005; Kasword and Hemmingsen, 2005; Haworth & Conrad,
1997; Conrad, Duren, and Haworth, 1998; Minkel & Richards, 1987; Council of
Graduate Studies, 2005). These dimensions of professional learning, key components of
effective graduate programs and professional development were used to structure this
study and influence the selection and creation of data collection methods and instruments,
which included case study and survey data from both MSSE students and survey data
96
from the faculty. Sample size and selection for the survey, participant and faculty case
study sample size and selection were addressed. Table 10 provides an overview of this
study.
Table 10
Overview of Research Exploring Professional Learning of the MSSE Graduates.
Research Questions Data
Collection and
Analysis
Participants
and Timeline
1. How do the characteristics of the MSSE program
compare to 1) research and policy recommendations
for graduate education and 2) to professional
development standards for teachers?
a. What are the formal program requirements for the
MSSE program?
b. What is the intended program experience?
c. How do these formal requirements and intended
experiences align with recommendations for graduate
education programs and teacher professional learning
in research and policy literature?
Literature
Review and
interviews of
program staff
Interviews of
program staff
Interviews of
program staff
Literature
review
interviews of
program staff
Spring &
Summer 2009
Spring &
Summer 2009
97
Table 10 Continued.
Research Questions Data Collection and Analysis Participants and
Timeline
2. How are experiences in this
science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree
program perceived, and how have
program experiences influenced
participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers
increase their professional learning
because of their participation in such
a program?
b. What program experiences, from
a teachers’ perspective, contribute to
participants’ professional learning?
c. What program experiences, from
a program faculty perspective,
contribute to the science teachers’
professional learning?
d. What evidence of teacher
professional learning can be
identified?
Case interviews & portfolios of
MSSE students
MSSE Professional Learning
Survey – participant perceptions
& portfolios of current and
former MSSE students
MSSE Professional Learning
Survey – participant perceptions
& portfolios of current and
former MSSE students
MSSE Professional Learning
Survey – participant perceptions
Portfolios of current and former
MSSE students
Selected MSSE
students for
case study –
Summer/Fall
2009
All current and
former MSSE
students July-
September,
2009
All current and
former MSSE
students &
selected
students for
case study,
Summer/Fall
2009
Selected MSSE
students for
case study -
Summer/Fall
2009
3. How does the distance mode of
delivery of this science and
pedagogical content knowledge-
based graduate program impact the
science teachers’ professional
learning?
Case interviews of MSSE
students
Summer /Fall
2009
98
Overall Design of the MSSE Professional Learning Survey
The quantitative data for the research study was collected using the MSSE
Professional Learning Survey (MPLS) developed by this researcher based on Pedder’s
four dimensions of professional learning (Appendix C). The research on professional
learning also indicated that a focus on content knowledge was a measure of professional
learning (Day & Gu, 2007; Bolam et al., 2005; Bransford et al. 1999; Elmore & Burney,
1997). Thus, questions related to content knowledge were included in this survey.
The literature described professional learning as having the characteristics of
inquiry, building social capital, critical and responsive learning, valuing learning, and a
focus on content. Pedder et al. (2005) described the development of a survey called the
Learning How to Learn Staff Questionnaire. The survey consists of three parts. Only
part B of the Learning How to Learn Staff Questionnaire was applicable to this study.
James et al. (2003) outlined the research base for the questions that were developed in the
original survey. The Learning How to Learn survey was pilot tested and revised several
times before the final questions were established. Over 2000 teachers had responded to
this survey.
The Learning How to Learn Staff Questionnaire used a correlation analysis. The
Staff Questionnaire was administered twice with a 55% return rate from the schools in
the study in 2002 and 2004. Exploratory factor analysis in the original study led to the
identification of four factors accounting for 43.8% of the variance of respondents’ scores.
The four factors identified for Part B of the Learning How to Learn survey on
which the MSSE Professional Learning Survey was based included the following:
99
 Factor 1: Inquiry: a. Using different sources of knowledge
b: Inquiry: Reflection and change
 Factor 2: Collective Learning
 Factor 3: Mutual Support and reassurance
 Factor 4: Valuing Learning
These four factors were what Pedder et al. used to develop the dimensions of professional
learning, the framework for this study. A reliability analysis showed a generally high
level of reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha for the factors that were identified.
Cronbach’s alpha for each of the four factors in Part B were .8998, .8847, .8238 and
.7520, respectively (James, et al., 2003).
Because the Learning How to Learn survey was developed in England, there was
one minor change that this researcher made in terminology. The researcher changed the
word pupils to students to reflect a more common term used in the United States. The
phrasings of the statements were modified to make the statement more personal to the
respondent and connect to an overarching question stem. For example, in the original
survey, question five stated, “students are consulted about how they learn most
effectively” (James, et al., 2003). This was modified to, “consulting and observing
students about how they learn most effectively”, and connected to the overarching
question. Appendix E outlines the changes made from the original Learning How to
Learn Questionnaire and the MPLS for the MSSE students. The reliability of the MPLS
is discussed in the next section.
100
An MPLS was also developed for the MSSE faculty (Appendix D). It was similar
to the survey used for the MSSE students. Terminology and phrasing were modified by
the researcher to reflect a faculty perspective rather than a graduate student perspective.
For example, question five on the original survey stated, “Staff engage in team teaching
as a way of improving practice” (James, et al., 2003). This was modified to – “Engaging
in team teaching with someone at the MSSE teacher’s school as a way of improving
practice”. Appendix F outlines the changes made for the faculty survey.
Questions on the MPLS that related to content specific professional development
came from the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education survey
administered by Horizon Research, Inc. Specifically, question 12b was used in the
MPLS for this study as it addressed content focused professional development as outlined
in the literature. The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education was
administered to 5,756 mathematics and science teachers across the United States. The
questions used in this study maintained the original language with some minor changes.
The original questions and the changes made to the questions for this study are outlined
in Appendix G for both the student and faculty survey.
The questions used in this study from the 2000 National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education focused on the impact of professional development on the
respondents’ content knowledge. The results were expressed in percentages or means
with the standards errors in parentheses and are shown in Appendix H. No reliability
data was generated for the questions selected for use in the MPLS. Reliability data was
only provided on selected composite variables, and Question 12 was not included in any
101
of those composites that included reliability data. (S. Smith, personal communication,
February 2009).
The questions on the MPLS that related to changes in practice, skills, and
knowledge were modified from the eMSS (Electronic Mentoring for Student Success)
Teacher Growth Survey –Mathematics created by McAleer (2008). Questions from
Section IV of the MPLS that focused on content knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, curricular knowledge, and supporting diverse learners were modified for this
study. McAleer used these questions to elicit responses about how specific areas in the
eMSS program impacted mentor teachers’ professional growth. The modified questions
used in the MPLS elicited how specific program components have enhanced the MSSE
students’ professional learning. The original questions developed by McAleer and the
modifications made to the phrasing and language for the MPLS are outlined in Appendix
I for the student survey.
The questions used in this study that asked respondents about the influence of
science content and understanding come from the 2006 Learning Science Online study.
The questions used were only a small subset of questions from the original study. The
original study was an aggregate study of 40 online science course offered in 2004-2005.
Clark and Rowe used these questions as part of a study to determine an overall picture of
online science courses and to create a profile of participants and instructors in those
courses. Eight questions were used that were part of the Individual Learning
Opportunities section. The reliability analysis for these questions was 0.76. Five
questions were from the Social Learning Opportunities. Reliability analysis for the
102
Social Learning Opportunities was 0.80 (Asbell-Clark & Rowe, 2007). The questions on
the MPLS were not modified, rather the original language was maintained.
Pilot Survey
Both the MSSE student and faculty surveys were piloted. All surveys were
administered online using Survey Monkey. A request to participate in the survey was
sent electronically to the participants from the MSSE Program Director, Dr. Peggy
Taylor, and included a brief statement of the research study and contact information of
the researcher. The notification of the survey from Dr. Taylor informed participants of
the legitimacy of the survey and may have contributed to a higher response rate. Non-
respondents received a follow up email within two weeks from the researcher.
A sample of 16 current MSSE students was asked to complete the pilot student
survey. This preselected group of teachers was currently enrolled in one or more of the
MSSE courses. Pilot survey respondents were asked for comments regarding clarity and
understandability of the questions. Modifications were made as needed for the final
MPLS. These included minor wording changes for clarity.
As the number of MSSE faculty is small (approximately 33), a pilot study would
reduce the number of respondents later. As the faculty survey closely paralleled the
students’ survey, the pilot student survey was used to provide one level of feedback.
Expert feedback from four members of the education faculty reviewed and commented
on the survey. Three members of the science faculty also reviewed and provided expert
feedback. Modifications were made as needed for the final MPLS. These included
103
adding more content specific questions. The content specific questions were identified as
section two on both the student and faculty survey.
The MPLS for the students and faculty was designed with feedback from the
MSSE program staff. The MSSE program director and faculty members familiar with
both the goals of this study and the MSSE program contributed to the development of the
survey. This expert feedback contributed to the content validity of the instrument.
Survey Implementation
The MPLS survey was revised based on feedback from the pilot study. The final
survey was administered to all MSSE students, both currently enrolled and graduates of
the program. The MSSE program staff maintains contact information of all of the MSSE
students. Dr. Peggy Taylor, the MSSE Program Director, made the initial request to the
MSSE students to participate in the survey. Similar to the pilot survey, the initial
correspondence from Dr. Taylor added legitimacy to the survey. Communication from
the MSSE office may have contributed to higher response rates.
The survey was administered online using Survey Monkey to 610 MSSE students
and graduates who had an active email address on file with the program office. Each
MSSE student was provided a link to participate in the survey. All participants were
assigned a number to maintain confidentiality and only the researcher had access to
names and assigned numbers. A follow up email was sent to all non-respondents at two
weeks and four weeks. As the survey was originally sent out during the summer when
many teachers may not be checking email as frequently, the survey was resent to all non-
respondents at the end of September to increase the number of respondents. A follow up
104
email was sent in mid-October. Three hundred sixty nine MSSE students responded to
the survey, a 60% response rate.
The faculty survey was also revised based on feedback from the pilot study. It
was administered online to thirty-two MSSE faculty. The request to participate in the
survey was sent out electronically from Dr. Peggy Taylor, the MSSE Director with the
same rationale as the student survey. All participants were assigned a number to
maintain confidentiality and only the researcher had access to names and assigned
numbers. A follow up email was sent to all non-respondents at two weeks and four
weeks. Twenty-four faculty members responded for a 75% response rate.
Data Analysis
Survey responses attempted to reveal the ways in which MSSE program promoted
the professional learning of the participants, influenced understanding of content
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. All of the survey responses were
analyzed descriptively revealing the ways in which these teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
practice was enhanced or changed. The data was also analyzed for themes and trends. A
one within repeated measures analysis was used to analyze the responses in Part IV,
questions 1- 4 asking about students’ enhancement and change in practice, skills, and
knowledge. Qualitative analysis was used to identify trends and themes in the open-
ended responses. Appendix J provides a summary of how the research questions and
methods of quantitative analysis align with the questions of the MSSE Professional
Learning Survey.
105
Overall Design of the Case Study
Using case studies, the professional learning of the MSSE students was explored
through the perspective of the participants. Case studies offer multiple perspectives in
examining data. Patton (2002) stated that well constructed case studies are both holistic
and context sensitive. Patton described holistic as providing an overall picture of the
focus of the research through the case study. Context sensitive referred to the case study
providing in-depth information about each case.
Data must come from multiple sources as a means to improve the validity of the
study. Yin (2009) recommended multiple sources of evidence to develop “converging
lines of inquiry” (p. 115), a process of triangulation. Using multiple sources of evidence
in a case study is more likely to present more accurate findings.
The questions for the case study were developed by the researcher based on the
literature characterizing professional learning as having the characteristics of inquiry,
building social capital, critical and responsive learning, valuing learning, and a focus on
content. The questions were also developed to reflect attributes of professional
development. The MSSE student interview questions are found in Appendix K.
The MSSE student portfolio was developed by the researcher to capture evidence
of professional learning through instructional materials and student work samples.
Providing an opportunity to reflect on the submitted artifacts offered insight into the
professional learning of the case study respondents. The portfolio was a way to connect
current practice in the classroom with a MSSE course to demonstrate evidence of
106
professional learning. The portfolio provided another source of data to strengthen the
case study. The components of the MSSE student portfolio are found in Appendix M.
The interview questions and portfolio for the students were designed with
feedback from the MSSE program staff. The MSSE program director and faculty
members familiar with the both the goals of this study and the MSSE program
contributed to the development of the survey. This expert feedback contributed to the
content validity of the instrument.
Table 11 illustrates the alignment of the dimensions of professional learning with
the specific MSSE student interview question that addresses that dimension.
Table 11
Alignment Of The Dimensions Of Professional Learning And Case Study Interview
Questions For The MSSE Students.
Dimensions of Professional Learning MSSE Student Interview questions
A. Inquiry: Using and responding to
different sources of evidence and
carrying out joint research and
evaluations with colleagues.
Do you use sources of evidence (such as
research, consultation with students and
colleagues) differently than before to
understand and modify your teaching practice?
B. Building social capital: Learning,
working, supporting, and talking with
colleagues to discuss how students
learn.
Are there any ways in which your tendency to
collaborate with colleagues [MSSE or others] to
explore how students learn, and to experiment
with new approaches, have been modified?
(Probe for specific examples.)
C. Critical and responsive learning:
Occurs through reflections, self-
evaluation, experimentation, and by
responding to feedback.
Are there ways that your reflection on practice
has been influenced? (Probe for specific
examples.)
Are there ways that you respond to feedback
(from other teachers, students, administrators,
parents) differently now
107
Table 11 continued.
D. Valuing Learning: Deepening
understanding and learning through
talking about and valuing learning
with others
Has the value you place on your own learning
changed in any way? Explain.
Have the ways you convey to your students that
you value their learning changed? Explain
E. Content Knowledge: A deep
understanding of “big ideas” as well
as intricate details of a particular
discipline
To what extent has your knowledge of science
content been enhanced as a result of your
participation in MSSE? Explain (Probe for
specific examples such as changes in depth of
understanding of “familiar” topics; grasp of
connections across topics; updating
information; knowledge of research methods...)
To what extent has your knowledge of science
pedagogy, and your tendency and ability to
implement varied approaches, been have been
influenced as a result of your participation in
MSSE? Explain (Probe for specific examples of
understanding of “advanced” science teaching
practices, frequency of implementation,
tendency to use more varied practices.)
Case Participants
Purposive sampling was used to select participants for the participants’ interviews
and portfolio. Krathwol (2004) recommended using this sampling technique as it “will
better inform the researcher regarding the current focus of the investigation” (p. 172).
The case study participants, both current students and graduates of the MSSE program,
were selected based on their willingness to create a portfolio demonstrating their
professional learning from a specific MSSE course and participate in an interview.
Six current students and graduates of the MSSE participants were selected in
summer 2009 based on the following criteria: 1) students in good standing with the
MSSE program and 2) students who have completed at least five courses, including one
108
or two science courses, and/or the first two core education courses toward the MSSE
degree. The selected participants represented a cross section of the demographics of the
MSSE program including geographically distant teachers and teachers who work in hard-
to-staff schools. Students were selected through maximum-variation sampling.
Maximum variation sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, involves selecting a wide
range of variations, such as professional backgrounds, culture, teaching experience, etc.
This allowed this researcher to maximize the diversity relevant to the research questions
with such a small sample (Cohen & Crabtree, 2009). The researcher contacted the MSSE
Program Director, Peggy Taylor, for a list of names of students who would fit the profile
needed for the study. Several names were provided for each demographic profile. The
researcher then randomly selected individuals and contacted them about participation in
the case study.
Pilot Case Study Interviews
The MSSE student interview questions were piloted with six MSSE students. A
request to participate in the interview was sent electronically to the pre-selected
participants from the MSSE Program Director, Dr. Peggy Taylor. It included a brief
statement of the research study and contact information of the researcher. The
notification of the pilot interviews sent from Dr. Taylor informed participants of the
legitimacy of the interviews.
This preselected group of teachers were currently enrolled in the MSSE program
or preparing to graduate. Modifications to the questions were made by the researcher in
the first two interviews in order to provide clarity for the student of the questions being
109
asked. All of the interviews were recorded, transcribed and reviewed with a member of
the MSSE faculty steering committee. Slight modifications were made in the phrasing of
the MSSE Student Case Study Interview Questions for the final interview questions
(Appendix K).
The pilot student interviews provided one level of feedback. Expert feedback was
received from four members of the education faculty who reviewed and commented on
the interview questions. The MSSE program director and faculty members familiar with
the both the goals of this study and the MSSE program contributed to the development of
the interview questions. This expert feedback contributed to the content validity of the
instrument.
Case Study Implementation
As modifications were made to the interview questions during the pilot, three of
the six interviews were selected as part of the final case study. These original
participants also met the demographic profile created through purposeful sampling to
ensure a representative sample of MSSE students. These participants were then
contacted about further participation by completing a portfolio. The researcher explained
the MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio was used to provide evidence of
professional learning (Appendix M). Artifacts for the portfolio may include:
 Electronic posts from the MSSE course for participants currently enrolled
in a course.
 Examples of lessons, units, or projects created.
 Student work samples.
110
 Examples from the capstone project.
Other artifacts suggested by the participants were considered as an indicator of
professional learning such as observation reports, evaluations, documentation of growth
from colleagues, etc.
Participants were asked to provide a rationale for the selected artifacts. The
portfolio included a professional learning self-reflection. Participants were provided with
a description of the dimensions of professional learning and asked to describe how each
dimension related to their experience in the MSSE program. The self-reflection was part
of the MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio (Appendix M).
Case Study Data Analysis
Analysis of interviews and portfolios was ongoing. Patton (2002) recommended
three steps in the analysis of the case studies. The steps included organizing the raw data,
creating a case record, and writing a descriptive narrative. Categories were identified as
they emerged from the data analysis. Those categories were then subdivided to better
reflect the data’s themes. The raw data consisted of the transcript of each interview and
the portfolio. The data was organized into categories and subcategories. Excerpts of the
interviews and portfolios were identified for use in the case narrative.
The case narrative was a descriptive picture of each case created after reviewing
the data (Patton, 2002). Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which two or more
individuals agree. Inter-rater reliability addressed the consistency of the implementation
of a rating system; therefore, another researcher coded the raw data. The co-rater was a
doctoral level science educator.
111
The co-rater read through each interview transcript and was provided a list of
numbered excerpts from the interview. The co-rater then coded these statements based
on the categories and subcategories that emerged from the data. The co-rater was also
asked to look for other categories. If discrepancies existed, the co-rater and this
researcher discussed them and the categories were edited accordingly. The co-rater was
also provided a copy of the narrative and was asked to read and comment about the
narrative to ensure that each case was accurately presented.
A co-rater was also used to verify the portfolio data. The portfolio data was
analyzed using a rubric developed by this researcher. The co-rater was provided
information and training on the dimensions of professional learning. The training
consisted of reading the literature review of professional learning and several
conversations to discuss the aspects of each dimension. The co-rater was then presented
with the raw portfolio data and asked to score the portfolio using the same rubric. If
discrepancies existed, the co-rater and the researcher discussed them and the rubric was
edited accordingly. The co-rater was also provided a copy of the narrative of the
portfolios and was asked to read and comment about the narrative to ensure that each
case was accurately presented.
Triangulation occurred through the different data sets collected in this study. A
comparison of themes and ideas that surfaced from the case studies provided one
perspective. The case study data was compared to the recommendations from the
professional learning literature. For both the case study interviews and the portfolio, a
rubric was used to measure the professional learning dimensions. The Professional
112
Learning Reflection Rubric for Interviews and the MSSE Student Professional Learning
Portfolio Rubric are found in Appendices N and O.
Study Fidelity
Using a mixed methods approach to collect data offered triangulation that
addressed issues of internal validity. Creswell (2003) defined a mixed method study as
one in which data collection is both numeric and textual. Using the survey from the
MSSE students and faculty, and the case study interviews and portfolios of students,
these diverse methods provided an understanding of the research questions. The survey
was broad and allowed the researcher to generalize. The MSSE Student Case Study
Interview Questions and MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio data allowed for
the examination of the research questions on a more granular level. Denzin (1978) stated
that triangulation can partially overcome the deficiencies inherent from a single
researcher. Lincoln and Guba (1985) reiterated triangulation as a method to improve
validity. Viewing data from difference sources and perspectives was a strategy to
improve the quality of a study.
Both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods have benefits and
shortcomings. Quantitative methods, such as the survey utilized in this study, allowed for
large numbers of respondents. Quantitative methods are often associated with researcher
objectivity and can be replicated by others (Creswell, 2003). Shortcomings stem from
the fact that the researcher selected the questions based upon the research literature and
may not document other perspectives and perceptions.
113
Qualitative methods also have advantages and disadvantages. This study focused
on participants, current and former, in the MSSE program and faculty. Capturing
perceptions from these two groups allowed for rich descriptions that provided a unique
insight to the MSSE program and allowed the researcher to document unanticipated
perspectives and perceptions.
Qualitative methods have the disadvantage of being more difficult to generalize.
Creswell (2003) advocated the use of a mixed methods approach as long as there was
clarity, through detailed documentation, in the data collection methods being utilized. In
addition, the researcher merged qualitative and quantitative data to answer the research
questions being posed. The survey questions provided a broad context for the study in
which generalizations emerged. The more detailed data from the interviews have the
potential to enhance and provide detail to the generalizations in the survey.
Delimitations and Limitations
The survey used in this study only involved current MSSE students and graduates
of the program. There were 349 graduates of the program and 333 students currently in
the program that were potential participants, yet the number of respondents to the survey
limited the study. Non-respondents are always problematic since their lack of
participation can affect the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the data. Since this
study only collected data from the MSSE program, generalizability to other science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program is limited, but possible
through the recommendations provided in the literature and emergent themes in the data.
114
As a cross section of MSSE students was selected, the results can be generalized
specifically to the MSSE program, but can also inform a larger audience of gradate
programs and professional developers.
Responses to survey questions were of concern since respondents can potentially
answer questions not as they see themselves, but as they would like to see themselves.
Without firsthand, thorough observations of the respondents, the survey data collected
was subject to a variance in accuracy. However, the portfolio provided evidence to
support the self-perception of professional learning.
As there are no control groups, it was challenging to determine if MSSE was the
sole contributor to the professional learning of the participants. Even with a control
group, it would still present challenges. Other extraneous factors may have influenced
the respondents besides participation in the MSSE program and provided rival
explanations (Krathwol, 1998). Efforts were made through the case studies to understand
other influences on the professional learning. The MSSE Student Case Study Interview
Questions asked for specific examples, which provided information to understand the
influences. Another challenge was that participants had self-selected participation in the
MSSE program. Self-selection can be the result of a higher level of motivation.
Teachers may have had other motivations for participation beyond increasing their
professional learning.
Another limitation of the Student MPLS was the number of courses a respondent
had taken when answering the questions. The perception of influence may be limited to
115
only a single course. Other respondents may have taken several courses at the time of the
survey.
Participants were selected based the demographic profile by the researcher. The
MSSE Program Director provided the names of potential participants. The final selection
process was left to the researcher to remove influence by the MSSE program staff. The
Program Director was asked to send an email to the selected participants after they had
been selected to provide legitimacy to the request.
116
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THIS STUDY
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of data collected in this mixed
methods study. In keeping with the same consistency and format of the discussion of the
data collections procedures in Chapter 3, the following results are presented and
discussed in five sections:
1. The MSSE Professional Learning Survey for Students
2. The MSSE Professional Learning Survey for Faculty
3. Summary of the MPLS
4. Case Studies of MSSE Students
5. Summary of Case Studies
6. Summary of Overall Findings
A brief, explanatory introduction is given at the beginning of each section, followed by
the presentation and discussion of results, and concludes with a brief summary of the
results obtained in that specific area of the study. The last section provides an overall
summary of all of the findings.
MSSE Student Survey
This section describes the results of the analysis of the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Survey, which can be found in Appendix C. The survey was
117
designed to assess the ways in which the MSSE program influenced the professional
learning of the participants and which program components contributed to this learning.
Specifically, this survey was designed to answer the following research questions:
Question 2: How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree program perceived, and how have program
experiences influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning
because of their participation in such a program?
b. What program experiences, from a program teacher’s perspective,
contribute to participants’ professional learning?
c. What evidence of teacher professional learning can be identified?
Question 3: How does the distance mode of delivery of this science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate program impact the science
teacher’s professional learning?
Appendix J provides a concordance of the research questions methods of analysis and the
MPLS questions. There were 369 student surveys and 24 faculty surveys returned and
included in this analysis. The response rate for the student survey was 60 percent and the
response rate for the faculty survey was 75 percent.
Section I Student Survey –Professional Experience and Education
The purpose of this section of the survey was to gather background and contextual
information on the participants. The largest percentage (39.4%) of the respondents was
118
from graduates of the MSSE program. The remaining respondents were still enrolled in
the program with 17.7% in their first year, 22.3% in their second year and 16.8% in their
third year. A small group (3.8%) of the respondents were in their fourth year. The
graduate respondents ranged from all years of the program with the majority graduating
in the last three years (Table 12). Not all respondents indicated the year that they
graduated.
Table 12.
MSSE Respondents Graduation Dates, (N = 183)
Year of
Graduation
Number of Respondents Percentage
1999 8 4.37%
2000 6 3.28%
2001 3 1.64%
2002 4 2.19%
2003 13 7.10%
2004 10 5.46%
2005 25 13.66%
2006 22 12.02%
2007 31 16.94%
2008 22 12.02%
2009 27 14.75%
Unknown 12 6.55%
Respondents were also asked about their years of teaching experience in science.
One third (31.5%) of the respondents had between five and ten years of teaching
experience with nearly one quarter (23.9%) who taught fifteen or more years. Only 6.3%
of the respondents had taught between one and two years as a teacher of record in
science, yet had also taught other subjects in other years. In addition, 4.1% had not been
119
a teacher of record in science. The MSSE program also attracts a number of informal
science educators who may not be teaching in a school setting.
In examining the educational background of the respondents, 45% of the MSSE
students and graduates have attained an undergraduate degree in biology. The rest of the
respondents had a variety of science degrees with chemistry and broad field science being
reported as the next highest with 14% each. Fifty-four respondents entered the MSSE
program with an elementary education degree. In the category of Other Education,
twenty respondents reported having a master’s degree, with thirteen who had a master’s
in biology, and ten in earth/space science. Eight of the respondents had earned a
doctorate degree. Figure 7 shows the various degrees of the MSSE students and
graduates who responded to the survey.
Figure 7. Types of University Degrees of the MSSE Students and Graduates.
120
The vast majority of the respondents were currently teaching (91.6%). The grade
levels and courses spanned the spectrum of science with high school biology, a range of
high school courses in the physical sciences, and middle school life and earth science
being subjects taught most frequently. Other respondents reported teaching
environmental science, elementary science, math, college chemistry, and advanced
placement courses.
The respondents to the survey represented twenty countries with the majority of
the respondents from the USA. All fifty states were represented with the largest number
of respondents living in Montana, followed by California, and Colorado. The U.S.
Territories were represented by Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Precision of Responses and MPLS Instrument Reliability
A 95% confidence interval was calculated based on the percent of respondents
returning useable questionnaires (surveys) for analysis. Three hundred and sixty-nine of
the 610 MSSE program graduates returned completed surveys yielding a 60% response
rate. The 95% confidence interval for a 60% response and a population of 610 is +3.
This result indicated there was a 95% confidence that the true percentage of the student
MSSE population choosing a certain response would be within + 3 of the percent of the
sample choosing the same response. For example, if 65% of the MSSE student sample
“Agreed” with a certain statement on the MPLS, then it is expected that between 62 and
68 percent (65% + 3%) of the entire MSSE student population would also indicate that
they “Agreed” with the statement. The MPLS also has a very high confidence level for
responses. A sample size of 369 indicates a 99 percent confidence that the true
121
population percentage would fall within the 95% confidence interval. In other words, if
65% of the sample “Agreed” with an MPLS statement, there is a 99% confidence the true
percentage of the population “Agreeing” with the statement would fall within the 62 – 68
percent confidence interval.
The MPLS was found to be highly consistent for assessing the professional
development constructs the questionnaire items were written to assess. The Cronbach’s
Alpha for the each section of the MPLS was high indicating high internal consistency
reliability. The overall internal consistency reliability represented by Cronbach’s Alpha
for the Student MPLS was .95. The Cronbach’s Alphas for each section of the Student
MPLS were as follows: Content Understanding and Knowledge = .836, Professional
Learning = .946, Content Knowledge = .834.
Section II Student Survey – MSSE Students’
Science Content Understanding and Knowledge
The purpose of Section II of the survey was to gather information about the
experiences of the MSSE program and the influence of the experience in fostering
science knowledge and practice. Table 13 provides the means, standard deviations, and
the number and frequency of responses for each survey question from the MSSE students
for this set of questions. In Section II of the Student MSSE Professional Learning
Survey, the questions were assessed using a five-point Likert scale with the value of 1
representing Not at All and a value of 5 representing To a Great Extent on questions one
through thirteen. Specifically, the question asked, “To what degree did your experiences
in the MSSE program foster your knowledge and practice in the following areas
122
pertaining to your role as a science learner?” A total of 369 teachers responded to the
survey, although for some parts of the survey the number of responses dropped because
sections were left blank or questions were skipped. Although the Likert responses were
ordinal data, item and combined items mean may be compared because the data was not
found to be significantly non-normal. In addition, the statistical results were supported
by comments from a later section of the survey that solicited open-ended comments when
appropriate.
Table 13
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences on Knowledge and Practices in the
Following Areas Relating to Science Content. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency of Responses, (N =
369).
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
1. Working on problems based in
contexts from my daily life. (N = 354) 3.57 1.003
3.1%
(11)
10.2%
(36)
30.5%
(108)
38.1%
(135)
18.1%
(64)
2. Analyzing and drawing conclusions
from data, observations, and other
forms of scientific evidence. (N = 355)
3.86 .956
1.4%
(5)
7.3%
(26)
22.8%
(81)
40.6%
(144)
27.9%
(99)
3. Providing evidence to support my
scientific ideas. (N=355)
3.75 .950
2.3%
(8)
5.6%
(20)
28.7%
(102)
40.8%
(145)
22.5%
(80)
4. Participating in on-site fieldwork
(e.g., water testing, species counting in
a natural setting, astronomical
observations of the night sky).
(N=355)
3.56 1.349
12.7%
(45)
9.9%
(35)
17.2%
(61)
29.0%
(103)
31.3%
(111)
5. Working with pen and paper
problem sets (e.g., problems from a
textbook or worksheet). (N=354)
2.90 1.232
16.1%
(57)
21.8%
(77)
28.0%
(99)
23.4%
(83)
10.7%
(38)
123
Table 13 - Continued
6. Interacting with physical materials
or models (e.g., mixing solutions,
building circuits, scale models).
(N=354)
3.19 1.223
10.5%
(37)
18.9%
(67)
26.3%
(93)
28.8%
(102)
15.5%
(55)
7. Using computer-based animations,
games, or simulations (e.g., virtual
dissection, SimEarth, flash
interactives). (N=354)
2.89 1.333
21.8%
(77)
15.5%
(55)
27.1%
(96)
22.0%
(78)
13.6%
(48)
8. Articulating scientific ideas in a
discussion. (N=355)
4.13 .883
0.6%
(2)
4.5%
(16)
16.1%
(57)
39.2%
(139)
39.7%
(141)
9. Reflecting upon earlier scientific
ideas. (N=352)
3.89 .975
1.1%
(4)
8.5%
(30)
21.0%
(74)
38.6%
(136)
30.7%
(108)
10. Reflecting upon the scientific ideas
of other students. (N=353)
3.96 .968
1.1%
(4)
8.5%
(30)
17.3%
(61)
40.2%
(142)
32.9%
(116)
11.Carrying out procedures of
scientific investigations designed by
instructors or course developers (e.g.,
lab exercises, kitchen experiments).
(N=355)
3.56 1.093
4.2%
(15)
13.0%
(46)
25.1%
(89)
36.3%
(129)
21.4%
(76)
12. Designing my own scientific
investigation(s) (e.g., developed
hypothesis or question and procedure.
(N=352)
3.43 1.139
6.0%
(21)
15.3%
(54)
27.3%
(96)
32.4%
(114)
19.0%
(67)
13. Carrying out procedures of
scientific investigations I designed
(e.g., collected data, made
observations. (N=353)
3.48 1.154
5.9%
(21)
13.6%
(48)
27.8%
(98)
30.9%
(109)
21.8%
(77)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, a mean rating of 3.75 or more was used to support the “more influenced”
determination for an item. As there was a tendency for students to assign higher ratings
124
than faculty, a slightly higher mean was used for student results than for faculty results
for determining the threshold for designating an area as “more influenced” by course
experiences. The decision to handle the student and faculty thresholds differently was
made after consultation with a university mathematician with expertise in applied
mathematics and statistical analysis.
Results reported in Table 13 indicated that almost 79% of MSSE students ranked
the ability to articulate scientific ideas in a discussion as the area with more influence on
their science knowledge and practice as fostered by the program experiences. Further
analysis using a combined rating found that MSSE students perceived that an emphasis
on reflection was an area influenced by the program experiences. Respondents reported
the opportunities to reflect upon the scientific ideas of other students (73.1%) and to
reflect upon earlier scientific ideas (69.3%) were areas fostering their knowledge and
practice through program opportunities. One student commented, “The MSSE program
has allowed me to reflect on my own teaching experiences as well as my content
knowledge.” Other areas that were influenced by program experiences included;
analyzed and drew conclusions from data, observations, and other forms of scientific
evidence (68.5%); provided evidence to support my scientific ideas (63.3%); worked on
problems based in contexts from my daily life (56.2%).
Respondents reported the capstone project, which is part of the action research
sequence, as area that was influenced in supporting the ability to examine data and to use
that data to create a change in practice. While many of the capstone projects are
pedagogically focused, the educational research processes students are exposed to during
125
the capstone, drawn from the social sciences, parallel the research the students have been
exposed to in their MSSE science courses. One student described the research process
stating, “The capstone project based on classroom research-developing surveys,
analyzing data, reporting, and applying the results to the classroom contributed to my
science understanding.” The mean rating for the areas that the MSSE students perceived
as being most influenced by the course experiences are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to Science
Content Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
Articulating scientific ideas in a discussion. 4.13
Reflecting upon earlier scientific ideas. 3.89
Reflecting upon the scientific ideas of other students. 3.96
Analyzing and drawing conclusions from data, observations, and other
forms of scientific evidence.
3.86
Providing evidence to support my scientific ideas. 3.75
Areas perceived to be “less influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of 1 (Not at All) and
2. The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination. Generally, a mean
rating of less than 3 was used to support the “less influenced” determination for an item.
Two areas stood out as being less influenced by the program to the MSSE
students. Opportunities to use computer-based animations, games, or simulations (e.g.,
virtual dissection, SimEarth, flash interactives), if included in a course, were areas of
knowledge and practice not perceived to be fostered by program experiences by 37.3% of
126
the respondents. Nearly 38% of respondents stated that working with pen and paper
problem sets (e.g., problems from a textbook or worksheet) were less influenced by
program experiences. The mean rating for areas pertaining to students’ science content
understanding that were perceived as being least influenced by experiences in the MSSE
courses are shown in Table 15.
Table 15
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to Science
Content Least Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
Using computer-based animations, games, or simulations (e.g., virtual
dissection, SimEarth, flash interactives).
2.89
Working with pen and paper problem sets (e.g., problems from a
textbook or worksheet).
2.90
Section III Student Survey – Professional Learning
The purpose of Section III of the survey was to gather information about the
MSSE students’ professional learning. Table 16 provides the means, standard deviations,
and the number and frequency of responses for each survey question from the MSSE
students for this set of questions. In Section III of the Student MSSE Professional
Learning Survey, the questions were assessed using a five-point Likert scale with the
value of 1 representing Not at All and a value of 5 representing To a Great Extent on
questions one through twenty-eight. Specifically, the question asked, “To what degree
did your experiences in the MSSE program foster your professional learning, including
your knowledge and practices, in the following areas pertaining to your role as a science
127
teacher? ” A total of 369 teachers responded to the survey, although for some parts of the
survey the number of responses dropped because sections were left blank or questions
were skipped. Although the Likert responses were ordinal data, item and combined items
means may be compared because the data was not found to be significantly non-normal.
In addition, comments from the open-ended responses from the Student MPLS that
supported the statistical analysis were included when appropriate.
Table 16
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences on Professional Learning. Descriptive
Statistics and Frequency of Responses. (N = 369)
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
1. Using my learning to improve
students' learning.
4.55 .639
0.0%
(0)
1.7%
(6)
6.0%
(21)
33.3%
(116)
58.9%
(205)
2. Drawing on good practice from
other teachers as a means to further
my own professional practice. 4.48 .679
0.3%
(1)
3.5%
(12)
8.1%
(28)
36.1%
(125)
52.0%
(180)
3. Reading research (practitioner
reports and journal articles) as one
source of useful ideas for improving
my practice.
4.08 .874
1.4%
(5)
7.2%
(25)
18.4%
(64)
39.1%
(136)
33.9%
(118)
4. Using the Internet as one source of
useful ideas for improving my
practice.
4.24 .834
0.6%
(2)
4.0%
(14)
15.6%
(54)
36.6%
(127)
43.2%
(150)
5. Consulting and observing students
about how they learn most effectively 4.16 .903
2.3%
(8)
8.6%
(30)
15.2%
(53)
36.5%
(127)
37.4%
(130)
6. Relating what works in my own
practice to research findings and best
practices.
4.21 .865
1.7%
(6)
4.9%
(17)
16.7%
(58)
38.2%
(133)
38.5%
(134)
128
Table 16 - Continued
7. Using insights from my professional
learning to feed into my school’s or
organization's policy development
3.67 1.050
7.8%
(27)
15.0%
(52)
26.0%
(90)
30.6%
(106)
20.5%
(71)
8. Understanding how instructional
strategies that work in one context
might be adapted to other contexts.
3.91 .896
0.6%
(2)
11.5%
(40)
20.7%
(72)
38.6%
(134)
25.1%
(87)
9. Reflecting on my practice as a way
of identifying my professional
learning needs to better meet the needs
of students.
4.31 .746
2.3%
(8)
4.0%
(14)
12.1%
(42)
39.4%
(137)
42.2%
(147)
10. Experimenting with my practice as
a conscious strategy for improving
teaching and learning.
4.43 .719
0.3%
(1)
3.4%
(12)
10.1%
(35)
33.3%
(116)
50.0%
(174)
11. Modifying my practice in light of
performance and feedback from
students
4.35 .768
0.3%
(1)
4.6%
(16)
9.8%
(34)
34.2%
(119)
46.3%
(161)
12. Modifying my practice in light of
published research evidence.
3.75 .835
3.7%
(13)
7.8%
(27)
28.5%
(99)
37.2%
(129)
18.2%
(63)
13. Modifying my practice in light of
evidence of self-evaluations of my
teaching practice.
4.16 .780
1.7%
(6)
3.4%
(12)
13.5%
(47)
39.7%
(138)
37.4%
(130)
14. Modifying my practice in light of
evidence from evaluations of my
teaching practice by administrators or
other colleagues.
3.54 1.000
13.3%
(46)
15.1%
(52)
22.6%
(78)
24.6%
(85)
10.1%
(35)
15. Carrying out joint
research/evaluation with one or more
colleagues as a way of improving my
practice.
3.07 1.255
18.1%
(63)
15.8%
(55)
19.0%
(66)
21.3%
(74)
10.1%
(35)
16. Collaborating to plan my teaching.
3.30 1.175
11.5%
(40)
20.4%
(71)
21.6%
(75)
23.3%
(81)
12.4%
(43)
17. Reading/discussing other teachers
experiences in the classroom and
giving each other feedback.
3.87 1.052
4.3%
(15)
10.1%
(35)
18.6%
(64)
38.0%
(131)
25.5%
(88)
18. Engaging in team teaching with
someone at my school as a way of
improving practice.
2.87 1.381
23.0%
(80)
13.2%
(46)
18.7%
(65)
11.8%
(41)
11.5 %
(40)
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for
help if I have a problem with my
teaching.
3.53 1.049
6.4%
(22)
18.2%
(63)
23.7%
(82)
27.5%
(95)
16.2%
(56)
20. Posting suggestions, ideas or
approaches for colleagues to try in
class.
3.55 1.118
5.2%
(18)
13.5%
(47)
22.7%
(79)
30.5%
(106)
21.0 %
(73)
129
Table 16 - Continued
21. Testing out new ideas in class.
4.34 .766
0.0%
(0)
3.5%
(12)
11.6%
(40)
37.3%
(129)
43.9%
(152)
22. Discussing openly with colleagues
what and how you the teacher are
learning.
3.89 .976
2.9%
(10)
9.5%
(33)
21.6%
(75)
37.4%
(130)
25.3%
(88)
23. Frequently using informal
opportunities to discuss how students
learn.
3.85 .989
2.3%
(8)
11.8%
(41)
22.7%
(79)
34.8%
(121)
25.3%
(88)
24. Offering other colleagues
reassurance and support. 3.91 .973
1.7%
(6)
9.2%
(32)
20.2%
(70)
38.3%
(133)
27.4%
(95)
25. Believing that all students are
capable of learning. 4.10 .946
3.2%
(11)
5.5%
(19)
15.5%
(54)
36.5%
(127)
37.1%
(129)
26. Encouraging students in my school
to enjoy learning. 4.29 .859
2.0%
(7)
4.9%
(17)
14.9%
(52)
31.0%
(108)
45.7%
(159)
27. Regularly celebrating student
success. 3.90 1.017
2.6%
(9)
11.0%
(38)
23.6%
(82)
31.1%
(108)
29.4%
(102)
28. Discussing with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn how
to learn. 3.97 .883
2.3%
(8)
6.0%
(21)
21.65
(75)
40.2%
(140)
27.0%
(94)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
The data was analyzed and organized based on the research questions of this
study. Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, a mean rating of 3.75 or more was used to support the “more influenced”
determination for an item. As explained earlier, since students tended to assign higher
ratings than faculty, a slightly higher threshold was established for identifying areas
perceived by students to be “more influenced” by course or program experiences.
It was apparent from this data that the MSSE students perceived that experiences
provided by the instructors influenced their professional learning. The data was analyzed
130
and organized based on the research questions of this study. Four groupings were formed
based on questions and responses that focused on similar ideas or aspects of teaching and
learning. Those four areas, designated here as “themes” for discussion purposes,
included Using Research to Inform Best Practice, Collaboration, Reflective Practice, and
Supporting Student Achievement.
The theme of Using Research to Inform Best Practice was defined by the
questions that focused on accessing research on teaching and learning and implementing
those research based ideas, lessons and strategies within one’s classroom. This theme
also included teachers experimenting in their own classes as a means to improve their
practice. Survey questions and responses that related to reading research (practitioner
reports and journal articles), using the Internet as one source of ideas, and utilizing the
research findings about best teaching practices were placed in this group.
The theme of Collaboration was defined by the survey responses to questions that
focused on working with others for support, feedback, and new ideas. Offering
colleagues’ support, reading/discussing together, team teaching, requesting advice from
or posting ideas for colleagues; and using informal opportunities to talk about how
students’ learn were the types of responses that were grouped into the theme of
collaboration.
The theme of Reflection encompassed questions and responses pertaining to self-
evaluation as a means to improve teaching practice. Though the process of reflection,
one’s own professional learning needs could be identified. Questions and responses
131
pertaining to using various kinds of evidence and feedback to influence change, and to
improve teaching practice, were also grouped under this theme.
The final theme was Supporting Student Achievement. This theme focused on
believing in all students, and creating a positive learning experience for them. The
questions and data that centered on encouraging students to enjoy learning and
celebrating successes were also grouped under this theme. The other question that was
included in this grouping was believing that all students were capable of learning. These
four themes were used below to describe how the program experiences influenced the
participants’ professional learning.
Professional Learning through Using
Research to Inform Best Practice. It was clearly evident from the results reported
in Table 16 that using my learning to improve students' learning (92%) was reported to
be an area of professional learning influenced by course experiences. One student
commented, “I have gained tremendously in science content knowledge and how to apply
that knowledge to my classroom…The combination of content and pedagogy helps me
give my students what they need in class.” Other comments described particular courses
that had direct application to the MSSE teachers’ classroom. “The (Field Course) gave
the most useful hands-on information that I can use with my students.” A middle school
teacher remarked, “ (Course) integrated my prior knowledge into useable and practical
laboratory applications for my middle school students.”
Further analysis indicated that the MSSE students perceived experimentation with
their practice in order to improve learning (83.3%) was an area influenced by the
132
program. Comments from the students indicated that the MSSE program offered
opportunities to experiment with their practice in order to find what worked for them.
“(Courses) allowed me to examine my practices and learn new ways to help my
students,” stated one student. Other comments focused on the overall experience that
“helped me expand my teaching techniques and expose me to new practices.”
Results reported in Table 16 also indicated that nearly 80% of the respondents
ranked using the Internet as one source of useful ideas for improving my practice as an
area significantly influenced by the experiences provided by the instructors. A twenty-
year veteran teacher remarked, “Doing the Action Research preparation showed me some
new ideas and got me using the internet more for research.” Another student said, “I
have learned how to use the internet for resources on certain topics and how to improve a
specific area of teaching.”
Further analysis found that other areas in which the majority of the MSSE
students felt course experiences influenced their professional learning was drawing on
good practice from other teachers as a means to further my own professional practice
(76.5%) and reading research (practitioner reports and journal articles) as one source of
useful ideas for improving my practice (73%). Many comments identified the capstone
project and the associated research as a learning experience. Others identified a specific
course. As one student said, “The campus classes were great. I felt they built my
knowledge base and exposed me to current research in various fields.” Others viewed the
exposure to research more holistically. “Being forced to use research to support changes
133
in the classroom instead of making changes that I hoped would make a difference,” stated
one student.
There were others areas in the Using Research to Inform Best Practice aspect of
professional learning that were influenced. Further analysis indicated that: understanding
how instructional strategies that work in one context might be adapted to other contexts
(63.7%) and testing out new ideas in class (81.2%) were all reported as areas that were
influenced to some degree by the course experiences made available to students. Another
area of professional learning was influenced was modifying my practice in light of
published research evidence (55.4%). The mean ratings for the areas of professional
learning connected to Using Research to Inform Best Practice that were most influenced
by course experiences as perceived by the faculty are shown in Table 17.
Table 17
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to Professional Learning
Through Using Research to Inform Best Practice Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
1. Using my learning to improve students' learning. 4.55
10. Experimenting with my practice as a conscious strategy for improving teaching
and learning.
4.43
21. Testing out new ideas in class. 4.34
4. Using the Internet as one source of useful ideas for improving my practice 4.24
6. Relating what works in my own practice to research findings and best practices. 4.21
3. Reading research (practitioner reports and journal articles) as one source of useful
ideas for improving my practice.
4.08
8. Understanding how instructional strategies that work in one context might be
adapted to other contexts.
3.91
12. Modifying their practice in light of published research evidence. 3.75
Professional Learning through Collaboration. The collaborative practice of
learning from other colleagues (88.1%) was perceived as an area of the MSSE students’
134
professional learning influenced by course experiences. A large number of responses
spoke to the influence of “wonderful peer collaborations.” One student clearly
articulated that the collaboration influenced his or her professional learning by stating,
“Interactions with the professor were all very helpful and collaborations with my peers on
WebCT has definitely helped me grow as a science teacher.” WebCT is an online course
based management system.
Results reported in Table 16 indicated that nearly 66% of the respondents reported
program experiences influenced the area of offering other colleagues’ reassurance and
support. One student commented that “ongoing communication and support from my
colleagues and faculty supervising my Capstone project” fostered his or her professional
learning. One individual described the MSSE program as “a forum for motivated
educators to give constructive criticism and support for each others' practice.”
Results further indicated the MSSE Program fostered professional learning in the
area of frequently using informal opportunities to discuss how students learn (60.3%).
Comments often connected theses types of experiences with the online discussion groups
or conversations in the vans traveling to a field site. These were described as “student-
led discussions of successful practices.” Discussing openly with colleagues what and
how you the teacher are learning (62.7%) was another form of collaboration that
appeared to be influenced by program experiences. “The online component of discussing
with the other teachers in each class and ‘hearing’ how they teach has influenced me the
most,” affirmed one student.
135
Reading and discussing other teachers’ experiences in the classroom and giving
each other feedback (63.5%) and discussing with colleagues how students might be
helped to learn how to learn (67.2%) were areas of collaborative professional learning
reported in the results that were influenced by the program experiences. “We had in
depth (online) dialogue on student learning and how to effectively teach and assess,”
declared a student. The mean ratings for the areas of collaborative professional learning
that were most influenced by program experiences are shown in Table 18.
Table 18
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning Through Collaboration Most Influenced by Course Experiences (N
= 369).
M
2. Drawing on good practice from other teachers as a means to further
my own professional practice.
4.48
24. Offering other colleagues reassurance and support. 3.91
23. Frequently using informal opportunities to discuss how students
learn.
3.85
22. Discussing openly with colleagues what and how you the teacher
are learning.
3.89
17. Reading/discussing other teachers experiences in the classroom and
giving each other feedback.
3.87
28. Discussing with colleagues how students might be helped to learn
how to learn.
3.97
Professional Learning through Reflective Practice. The MSSE program
experiences fostered reflective practice in multiple ways. Reflecting on my practice as a
way of identifying my professional learning needs to better meet the needs of students
was an area of professional learning experiences identified by many students (81.6%) as
136
influenced by the MSSE program. One comment described the overall reflective process,
as “It was an amazing personal journey!” Another student summed up the experience as
“The (courses) have really made me cognizant of my own teaching practices and areas
that I need to improve upon.” Another student was more eloquent and stated, “This class
made it clear to me that, while I like to learn about and teach science to students, there is
much more that I can learn about my own teaching and that there are simple and useful
ways to evaluate teaching practices and student learning in your own classroom.”
Modifying practice based on feedback and reflection (80.5%) was reported as an
area of professional learning influenced by the program. One student stressed, “The most
valuable aspect of the courses has been the courses that have forced me to reflect on my
own teaching in order to help improve student learning.” Another student asserted, “The
MSSE program encouraged me to reflect and think critically about pedagogy for the first
time.”
One other area found to be influenced by the program experiences was modifying
my practice in light of performance and feedback from students (77.1%). “The on-
campus, lab-based classes I have taken also required me to reflect on ways I could
develop my pedagogy skills…” stated one student. “The readings and discussions that I
had to do in my education courses made me reflect deeply about how I teach science,”
asserted another student. One student stated that the self-study that was part of his/her
capstone project “made me more reflective and aware of my teaching.” The mean ratings
for the areas of professional learning through reflection that were most influenced by
program experiences are shown in Table 19.
137
Table 19
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning Through Reflection Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N =
369).
M
11. Modifying my practice in light of performance and feedback from
students.
4.35
9. Reflecting on my practice as a way of identifying my professional
learning needs to better meet the needs of students.
4.31
13. Modifying my practice in light of evidence of self-evaluations of my
teaching practice.
4.16
Professional Learning about Supporting Student Achievement. The results
reported in Table 16 indicated that almost 77% of the MSSE students ranked
encouraging students in my school to enjoy learning as the area of professional learning
greatly influence by the experiences offered by the instructors. Many of the MSSE
students described their experiences as “positive.” One student felt the experience of
having one-on-one time with the instructor was influential. This same student wanted to
embed that practice in his or her own class and stated the MSSE program supported him
or her with “How to arrange class work so students get individual time to meet with the
teacher.” Further analysis revealed that the MSSE students perceived consulting and
observing students about how they learn most effectively (73.9%) was an area influenced
by program opportunities.
Respondents reported that believing that all students are capable of learning
(73.6%) was a dimension of professional learning fostered by the MSSE program
experience. Many comments identified that learning how to use formative and
138
summative assessments offered a lens through which to view all of the students. “Using
assessment to drive instruction helps to differentiate learning experiences for our
students,” stated one MSSE teacher. For some students the professional learning was
about creating awareness, “I try to be more aware of how different materials and
approaches can help more students.” For another student, “The development of the
capstone project made me feel empowered to individualize each student's education
without compromising the flow for the class.” Further analysis indicated that regularly
celebrating student success (60.5%) was also perceived to be an aspect of professional
learning influenced by the MSSE program. The mean ratings for the areas of
professional learning associated with supporting student achievement that were most
influenced by program experiences are shown in Table 20.
Table 20
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning about Supporting Student Achievement Most Influenced by
Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
26. Encouraging students to enjoy learning. 4.29
5. Consulting and observing students about how they learn most
effectively.
4.16
25. Believing that all students are capable of learning. 4.10
27. Regularly celebrating student success. 3.90
Areas of Least Influence. Areas perceived to be “less influenced” by the MSSE
program experiences were determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale
139
ratings of 1 (Not at All) and 2. The mean rating for each item was also used in the
determination. Within this subset of areas perceived as “less influenced” (see Table 20
below), the mean ratings were greater than 3 with one exception. In general, a relatively
small percentage of respondents saw these areas as significantly influenced by program
experiences. Yet in some instances the results were mixed, as about the same percentage
of students found the area more influenced as those who found it less influenced. Nearly
all of the aspects of professional learning that were less influenced by the program
involved collaboration with colleagues. Further analysis of the questions showed they
referred to collaborative activities that could be challenging for geographically distributed
students to undertake.
Two other areas of professional learning received ratings of 4 or 5 from slightly
more than 50% of respondents, yet the mean rating was less than 3.75. The areas of
posting suggestions, ideas or approaches for colleagues to try in class (51.5%) and using
insights from my professional learning to feed into my school or organization's policy
development (51.5%) were selected as influential by a higher percentage of respondents
than the other aspects of professional learning whose mean ratings were less than 3.75.
A relatively small proportion of MSSE students perceived that the program
experiences had influenced several types of joint collaboration presented in the survey.
Areas that were perceived as having been less influenced were engaging in team teaching
with someone at my school as a way of improving practice (44.8%), and carrying out
joint research/evaluation with one or more colleagues as a way of improving my practice
(33.9%). Interesting to note, 31.4% of the MSSE students identified carrying out joint
140
research/evaluation with one or more colleagues as a way of improving my practice as
being influenced by the program. Modifying my practice in light of evidence from
evaluations of my classroom practice by administrators or other colleagues (28.4%) was
an area perceived as having been less influenced, yet 34.7% rated it as an area influenced
by the program experiences. Over 30% of the students rated collaborating to plan my
teaching as an area less influenced by the course experiences, yet over a third of the
respondents felt it was relatively greatly influenced.
Turning to colleagues/peers for help if I have a problem with my teaching was an
area perceived as slightly less influenced by the program experiences than other areas
addressed in the survey. Although 44% found this area to be significantly influenced by
program experiences, 24.5% perceived it as less influenced. The mean ratings for the
areas of professional learning that were perceived as least influenced by program
experiences are shown in Table 20.
Table 20
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Types of Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning Least Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
14. Modifying my practice in light of evidence from evaluations of my
classroom practice by administrators or other colleagues.
3.54
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for help if I have a problem with my
teaching.
3.53
16. Collaborating to plan my teaching. 3.30
15. Carrying out joint research/evaluation with one or more colleagues as
a way of improving my practice.
3.07
18. Engaging in team teaching with someone at my school as a way of
improving practice.
2.87
141
Content Knowledge and Associated Learning Strategies. Another dimension of
professional learning was content knowledge, which was defined as developing an
understanding of the “big ideas” as well as the intricate details of a particular science
discipline. This dimension also included providing appropriate learning strategies and
techniques for understanding science concepts. Table 22 provides the means, standard
deviations, and the number and frequency of responses for each survey question in this
section.
In Section III of the Student MSSE Professional Learning Survey, the questions
were assessed using a five-point scale with the value of 1 representing Not at All and a
value of 5 representing To a Great Extent on questions 29 through 35. Specifically, the
question asked, “To what degree did your experiences in the MSSE program foster your
professional learning, including knowledge and practices, in the following areas
pertaining to your role as a science teacher?” The N was 369, although in some part of
the survey the N dropped as some respondents left a section blank or skipped a question.
The Likert responses were ordinal data, so the magnitude of the means allows for
comparison between the assessed areas, as they were not non-normal.
142
Table 22
MSSE Student Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences on Science Content Understanding and
Knowledge, and on Learning Strategies for Furthering Content Understanding. Descriptive Statistics and
Frequency of Responses. (N = 369).
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
29. Deepening my own science content
knowledge. (N = 347) 4.41 .829
0.9%
(3)
3.5%
(12)
6.3%
(22)
32.3%
(112)
57.1%
(198)
30. Understanding student thinking in
science. (N = 347) 4.02 .863
0.9%
(3)
4.3%
(15)
18.7%
(65)
45.4%
(158)
30.7%
(107)
31. Using inquiry/investigation-oriented
teaching strategies. ((N = 348) 4.08 .945
1.7%
(6)
4.6%
(16)
17.0%
(59)
38.2%
(133)
38.5%
(134)
32.Using technology in science
instruction. (N = 345) 3.74 1.053
3.8%
(13)
8.7%
(30)
24.1%
(83)
37.7%
(130)
25.8%
(89)
33. Assessing student learning in science.
(N = 346) 4.25 .900
1.4%
(5)
4.0%
(14)
10.4%
(36)
36.4%
(126)
47.7%
(165)
34. Teaching science in a class that
includes diverse student populations (e.g.
students with disabilities, from
underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of
abilities). (N = 346)
3.19 1.210
10.7%
(37)
18.2%
(63)
30.3%
(105)
24.6%
(85)
16.2%
(56)
35. Providing a challenging science
curriculum for my students. (N = 346) 3.99 .924
2.0%
(7)
4.0%
(14)
19.7%
(68)
42.5%
(147)
31.8%
(110)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, an item with a mean rating of 3.75 or more was placed in the “more
influenced” category. A higher mean was used for students than was used with the
faculty results as students tended to assign higher ratings than faculty.
143
Over 89.4% of the respondents perceived that the MSSE program greatly
influenced the deepening of their science content knowledge through experiences
provided in the courses. Nearly all of the students commented on a class, classes,
instructors, or experiences that “contributed significantly to my content knowledge.”
Respondents reported that the MSSE program experiences also influenced their ability to
support their own students’ content learning, for example by fostering skills in assessing
students in science (84.1%). Course experiences were reportedly powerful in changing
classroom practice pertaining to formative and summative assessment. One student
remarked, “We wrote and used CAT's and probes with our students. These tools made an
immediate and positive impact on my teaching. I put them right to use and value how
they inform me about my students' learning.” Over 75% of the respondents reported the
MSSE program experiences influenced the area of understanding their own students’
thinking in science, using inquiry investigative teaching strategies, and providing a
challenging curriculum for their students. Using, modeling, and experience with inquiry
learning generated numerous responses from the students. As one student stated, “This
was among the best courses that I ever took, online, part of the MSSE program or
otherwise. It was well structured and truly showed how science inquiry should be taught
and carried out”. The mean ratings for the areas of professional learning about science
content understanding, and strategies for promoting such understanding, that were
perceived by students as most influenced by program experiences are shown in Table 23.
144
Table 23
MSSE Student Perceptions of Areas of Science Content Understanding and Associated
Learning Strategies Most Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 369).
M
Assessing student learning in science. 4.25
Deepening my own science content knowledge. 4.41
Understanding student thinking in science. 4.02
Using inquiry/investigation-oriented teaching strategies. 4.08
The only area pertaining to science content knowledge, or strategies for
promoting content learning, that did not receive a relatively high rating from over 50% of
the respondents was teaching science to diverse student populations. Only 40.8% of the
respondents felt this area was influenced “To A Great Extent” (rating of 5), or slightly
less (rating of 4) through MSSE program experiences.
Section IV Student Survey – MSSE Students’
Enhancement and Change in Practice Skills and Knowledge
The purpose of Section IV of the survey was to gather information about the
MSSE students’ enhancement and change in practice, skills, and knowledge as affected
by course type. A one within subjects repeated measures of analysis of variance was
used to compare teachers’ mean ratings to determine which types of MSSE courses most
influenced their science content knowledge. Science content knowledge was compared
across the types of courses offered in the MSSE program: on campus science lab courses,
on campus science field course, online science courses, education required core courses,
education elective courses, or the capstone project. The means and standard deviations
for each type of course are presented in Table 24.
145
Table 24
Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Science Content Knowledge
by Course Type, ANOVA comparisons of Means Across Course Types and Science
Content Knowledge.
Response Scale MSSE Course Types
1 = Not at All
5 = To a Great
Extent
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
la
b
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
fi
e
ld
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
li
n
e
s
c
ie
n
c
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
R
e
q
u
ir
e
d
C
o
re
C
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
E
le
c
ti
v
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
C
a
p
s
to
n
e
P
ro
je
c
t
(n
=
1
1
2
)
R
e
s
u
lt
s
o
f
2
-t
a
il
e
d
P
o
s
t
H
o
c
T
e
s
ts
(p
>
.0
5
)
Science
Content
Knowledge
3.92
(1.164)
4.25
(.973)
4.26
(.857)
3.71
(1.166)
3.69
(1.139)
4.11
(1.085)
2, 3 >
1,4,5
6 > 4,5
Note: Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found to be significant for this analysis, therefore
adjusted F ratios based on the Greenhouse-Geisser correction were reported to control for
Type I error rate. Results from this analysis indicated a significant effect for types of
courses F (3.582, 397.56) = 8.757, p < .001.
Results from pairwise comparisons revealed that science field courses were found
to be a significantly greater influence on teachers’ science content knowledge than the
science on campus lab courses, education required courses, and the education elective
courses. The mean rating for science field courses did not differ significantly from the
online science courses or the capstone project. Further comparisons indicated that the
online science courses were found to be a significantly greater influence than the science
146
lab course, the education core course, and the education elective courses. The online
science courses did not differ significantly from the science field courses or the capstone
project. Additionally, the capstone project was rated as having a significantly greater
influence on science content knowledge than the education core courses or the education
elective courses. The capstone project did not different significantly from any of the
science courses.
Accompanying the Likert-style questions was an open-ended question designed to
elicit more details and feedback about which types of courses influenced the respondents’
science content knowledge. Specifically, the question asked, “To what degree did the
following MSSE program components foster your science content knowledge?” There
were 341 responses to this item. The data was organized and coded based on the research
questions of this study. The respondents cited a wide variety of program experiences,
courses, components, and instructors that contributed to their science content knowledge.
Quotes from the survey were included as they were written. Spelling and grammatical
errors were left in the quotes that were typed by the participants.
Open Ended Survey Responses
Regarding Science Content Knowledge. It was apparent from the responses that
the MSSE students perceived that the program influenced the science content knowledge.
There were 328 responses that identified specific courses and experiences that influenced
the science knowledge of the respondents. Respondents specifically named 46 different
courses that were a significant influence and every course named was identified more
than once. The most frequently named courses were in physics and geology.
147
There were several terms that respondents used frequently to describe the MSSE
courses identified as influencing science knowledge. Three students used the term
“interdisciplinary” to describe the selection of courses they took that influenced the
science knowledge. Two respondents also used the term “integrated” and appeared to use
it with a similar connotation to “interdisciplinary”. One student’s response explained,
“…the program is an integrated science rather than focused on one area allowed me to
take classes from disciplines I need more knowledge in.” The MSSE program was
designed to be interdisciplinary across course offerings, and at times within individual
courses, and this was an aspect of the program that participants valued.
Five MSSE students used the terms “challenging” and “rigorous” to describe the
science content. Several responses included specific skills learned as part of the MSSE
program such as “essential assessment strategies, questioning techniques, and effective
teaching methods” or “inquiry science” or “field observations, experiments, and hands-on
learning”. Ten responses indicated the MSSE program “helped me fill in many gaps in
my knowledge”. Four students stated that the MSSE program gave them “confidence” to
teach science concepts. Overall, the respondents felt the courses provided solid content
understanding of concepts that were relevant and “cutting edge.”
There were three comments from respondents who that felt that the content did
not meet their needs. One person wrote, “The science components could as easily been
gleaned from a textbook. On-line science experiences have been no more than that.”
Another student mentioned one class that was particularly influential, but summed up the
rest of the experience when he or she said, “I feel like almost every other class was not at
148
a master's level, but at an introductory level.” The third person felt the students in a
particular course had a better understanding of the science content than the instructor.
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Connections to the Pedagogy of Teaching Science. Although the question stem
addressed in this section pertained to science content knowledge, it appeared that the
teachers experienced the program more holistically. Thus the responses often mentioned
how one or more MSSE courses influenced the ability to teach science content. Sixty-
four responses included a reference to methods for teaching science content. Thus
equating or intermingling content and pedagogy perhaps mirrored the way teachers work.
The responses that addressed pedagogical strategies for teaching science often
mentioned a cluster of courses rather than a specific course that influenced the MSSE
students’ science knowledge. One respondent stated, “…those classes because they not
only allowed me to learn more about science, but also gave me strategies for teaching that
information and made me think about what I know and how I learned.” Responses also
included statements such as the courses “gave me insight into how my teaching can be
improved.” Some teachers commented that the pedagogical strategies modeled by
faculty during instruction provided insights into how the specific science concepts should
be taught.
While the majority of the courses mentioned were science courses, twenty-one
responses identified the education courses, not including the capstone project, as
influential in contributing to the MSSE students’ science content knowledge. Again, the
connection between understanding the content and integrating the content within one’s
149
teaching seemed evident. One student described how the science courses improved his or
her content knowledge and “the Educational courses have helped me understand how to
improve my teaching.” The respondents perceived the strategies presented in the
education courses provided an avenue to put the content knowledge into practice.
Open Ended Responses on Science Content
Knowledge: Connections to Action Research. The capstone project, which is the
culmination of the action research component, had a significant influence on science
content knowledge as perceived by the MSSE students. Nearly ten percent, 27 of 328
total responses identified the capstone as contributing to science content knowledge. One
student stated, “The capstone project helps me put everything together.” Many of the
respondents described the capstone experience as an event that pulled together all of the
aspects of the MSSE program.
The capstone was also a way for the MSSE students to connect the individual
learning to the classroom. The application of content and pedagogical content knowledge
was what made the experience powerful as perceived by the respondents. The action
research component allowed, “reflection on my own teaching in order to help improve
student learning.” The actual process of action research from “classroom research-
developing surveys, analyzing data, reporting, and applying the results to the classroom,”
connected the science to the pedagogy.
Open Ended Responses On Science Content Knowledge:
Connections to Categories of Professional Learning. Based upon the survey
responses presented above, it is evident that one aspect of the MSSE program’s influence
150
on professional learning was contributing to science content knowledge. Over half of the
328 students, 162 in all, identified specific examples of this category of professional
learning that occurred in the MSSE program. Many of these responses included the
phrase “increased my content knowledge”, yet also referenced the pedagogical influences
of the courses. Professional learning was evident through comments that indicated a
change in classroom practice.
Participants also described the connection between content and pedagogy as the
influential professional learning experience. One student remarked, “I really enjoyed
those classes [science] because they not only allowed me to learn more about science, but
also gave me strategies for teaching that information and made me think about what I
know and how I learned.” The metacognitive process described could be connected to
critical and responsive learning, a dimension of professional learning.
Another professional learning dimension that was noted in 28 of the comments
focused on the collaboration with other MSSE students. One student responded, “The
online discussions as part of every class creates a learning and sharing environment
unmatched even by classroom experiences.” The collaboration with others was perceived
to create a powerful professional learning experience by providing the opportunity to
discuss content and how to teach that content. The opportunities to ask colleagues
questions and discuss ideas allowed for participants to learn from each other. The ability
to exchange ideas in this manner was building social capital, a dimension of professional
learning.
151
Open Ended Responses on Science Content Knowledge:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to Face Learning. Analysis of the open-ended
responses regarding science content knowledge indicated that on-campus science courses
were cited slightly more often than online science courses when teachers were asked to
give an example of a course or experience that had influenced this aspect of their
learning. Nearly one third of the 328 respondents, or 127 in all, identified a field course
or another category of on-campus course as influencing science content knowledge, while
about one quarter, or 78 respondents, named an online science course. Slightly more than
20% of the respondents, or 64 in all, named both online and on-campus courses as
contributing to the science content knowledge.
The individuals who selected an on-campus course as influencing science learning
often included a rationale with the statement. One student said, “…contact with scientists
in the field--absolutely invaluable! Without this component, the MSSE program would
lose a valuable component for teachers.” The responses that provided a rationale were
passionate about the face-to-face aspect as described by this respondent, “The personal
interaction with the extremely knowledgeable profs, the interaction with a wide variety of
other students from many diverse backgrounds and interests and the hands-on component
of getting outside the four walls of a classroom and getting immersed in the content is
astounding!” Others found the personal connections and the time spent with other
professionals a strength of the program.
Those participants who identified specific online science courses, or online
courses in general, as contributing to content knowledge were equally passionate about
the experiences, often emphasizing the interaction with peers available in online courses.
152
One student commented, “The online collaborating with other teachers has been huge for
me. I have learned a great deal from my peers and grown as a teacher from them.” Other
comments mentioned personal growth as a result of online discussions. “Collaboration
with other teachers has allowed me to identify my own deficiencies in my knowledge and
teaching.” Interestingly, while teachers selecting on campus courses as influential often
mentioned the importance of interaction with university scientists, those selecting online
courses often highlighted the importance of interaction with peers.
Summary. The opened-ended responses confirmed the statistical analysis in
many respects. Although there was some variation in the types of courses respondents
identified as having influenced the science learning, the field based, online and lab-based
science courses were selected most often, and the education courses less often.
Somewhat surprisingly, the capstone project, which is part of the action research
sequence, also was perceived to influence the science content knowledge of the MSSE
students. Some respondents expressed the connection between the inquiry processes used
in the capstone, normally to study classroom phenomena, and inquiry processes
introduced in the science courses. There was no clear preference between the online and
on-campus courses with respect to influence on science learning.
A variety of professional learning experiences were described in the open-ended
responses. In keeping with the criteria for professional learning, these responses all
alluded to a change in teaching practice. Several comments referred to the opportunities
within the program for teachers to reflect on practice, a characteristic of critical and
responsive learning. The process of reflection sometimes led to a concerted effort to
153
meet the needs of all students. This was an aspect of valuing learning, a dimension of
professional learning. Lastly, respondents articulated that collaboration with colleagues
or the instructors contributed to science content knowledge. Such collaboration is a type
of professional learning referred to as building social capital.
Survey Responses Regarding Pedagogy for Teaching Science
A one within subjects repeated measures of analysis of variance was used to
compare teacher’s mean ratings to determine which type of MSSE course most
influenced knowledge of pedagogy for teaching science. Pedagogy for teaching science
was compared across the types of courses offered in the MSSE program; on campus
science lab courses, on campus science field course, online science courses, education
required core courses, education elective courses, or the capstone project. The means and
standard deviations for each type of course are presented in Table 25.
Table 25
Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Pedagogy for Teaching Science by Course Type,
ANOVA Comparisons of Means Across Course Types and Pedagogy for Teaching Science.
Response
Scale
MSSE Course Type
1 = Not at
All
5 = To a
Great Extent O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
la
b
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
fi
e
ld
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
li
n
e
s
c
ie
n
c
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
R
e
q
u
ir
e
d
C
o
re
C
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
E
le
c
ti
v
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
C
a
p
s
to
n
e
P
ro
je
c
t
(n
=
1
1
2
)
R
e
s
u
lt
s
o
f
2
-t
a
il
e
d
P
o
s
t
H
o
c
T
e
s
ts
(p
>
.0
5
)
Pedagogy
for teaching
Science
3.53
(1.156)
3.40
(1.143)
3.81
(.981)
4.08
(1.006)
3.81
(1.034)
4.39
(.771)
4, 6 >1, 2, 3,5
3, 5 > 1, 2
Note: Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
154
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found to be significant for this analysis, therefore
adjusted F ratios based on the Greenhouse-Geisser correction were reported to control for
Type I error rate. Results from this analysis indicated a significant effect for types of
courses F (3.131, 335.06) = 22.589. p < .001.
Results from pairwise comparisons revealed that education core courses and the
capstone project were perceived as having a significantly greater influence on pedagogy
than all other types of courses offered. The mean ratings for the influence of education
core courses did not differ significantly from those for the capstone project. Further
analysis indicated that the online science courses and the elective education courses were
rated as being significantly more influential that the on campus science lab or field
courses. Results further found that the online science courses did not differ significantly
from those of the elective education courses.
Accompanying the Likert-style question was an open ended questioned designed
to elicit more details and feedback about which types of courses influenced the
respondents’ understanding of science pedagogy. Specifically, the question asked, “ To
what degree did the following MSSE program components foster your knowledge of
pedagogy for teaching science?” There were 341 responses to this item. The data was
organized and coded based on the research questions of this study. The respondents cited
a wide variety of program experiences, courses, components, and instructors that
contributed to pedagogical content knowledge in science. Quotes from the survey were
included as they were written. Spelling and grammatical errors were left in the quotes
that were typed by the participants.
155
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Content Knowledge. Once again it appeared that some MSSE
teachers view the program holistically in that the responses did not delineate between
content knowledge and pedagogy. Nine of the 341 responses indicated that the content
influenced pedagogical understanding or the pedagogy of teaching science supported the
understanding of the content. One student described this connection by stating, “The on-
campus, lab-based classes I have taken also required me to reflect on ways I could
develop my pedagogy skills...” In each of the nine responses, students identified a
particular course or variety of courses that were influential on understanding of both
science content and pedagogy.
Either the program, or perhaps the culture of teaching, appeared to foster this
blending of content and pedagogy in that teachers responding to the open-ended item on
science pedagogy sometimes referred to content only, not pedagogy. For example, one
student said, “The courses have given me greater knowledge of the content area as well
as helping me to organize thoughts.” Through discussions with the instructors and other
students, the MSSE students had opportunities to talk about and reflect on the
experiences in a manner that was meaningful to the understanding of content and
pedagogy.
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy: Connections
to General Pedagogy and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The MSSE program
was perceived to have a strong influence on the pedagogy for teaching science on the
students enrolled in the program. Two hundred eighty-eight of the 341 respondents
mentioned that the program influenced pedagogy for teaching science. A student
156
summed up the experience by stating, “The transition from teaching science content to
teaching for critical thinking and application were the greatest part of the experience.”
Over two thirds of the responses, or 210 in all, identified a course or courses that
contributed to the understanding of the pedagogy for teaching science.
Further examination of the responses indicated that the MSSE students made
general pedagogical references. Specific practices and implementation of instructional
strategies were not clearly evident. Pedagogical content knowledge is defined as
providing appropriate learning strategies and techniques based upon a deep understanding
of content (Shulman, 1987). It was difficult to decipher exactly what was shared or
learned in the discussions that related specifically to pedagogy or pedagogical content
knowledge. Despite the generalities, pedagogical themes emerged from the data.
One theme that emerged from the responses was the strong influence that
assessment strategies had on the MSSE students’ practice. Over 15% of the responses to
this open-ended item, 50 comments in all specifically included a reference to assessment.
One student remarked, “Understanding how to assess individual learning in an informal
way was an important part of this learning process.” The responses indicated that
understanding and using formative and summative assessment strategies had a profound
impact on the teachers’ classroom practice.
Another common theme in the responses regarding influences on the teachers’
knowledge of science pedagogy, was that the opportunities to collaborate, discuss, and
share ideas with other educators influenced the teachers’ pedagogy. “By sharing with
other teachers I gained insight into practical ideas that could be implemented in my
157
classroom, and ideas that could be implemented school-wide to improve my practice,”
stated one student. While specific strategies were not mentioned, the implication was
made that pedagogy was influenced. The shared experience of the course(s) offered
common ground in which to discuss pedagogical strategies specific for the content. Ten
percent of the respondents, or 38 teachers in all, felt that the social connections and in-
depth dialogue provided a powerful mechanism to build pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK).
A cluster of 15-20 responses added that the ideas and resources shared in the
courses were influential on pedagogical understanding. These resources were often a part
of a specific course named in the response, yet a small group of responses identified the
larger collective of students and instructors sharing resources as a benefit of the course(s).
The exchange of ideas and resources at times had direct impact on practice. For example,
one student commented that as a result of resource sharing in the program, “My teaching
has become more student-focused, rather than content-focused.”
Reflective practice was also reported to have influenced the pedagogical
understanding of the MSSE students. “I felt that much was learned by reflecting on my
teaching strategies and by communicating with other science teachers,” said one MSSE
student. The opportunities for reflection created introspection into one’s teaching
practice and “fostered our critical thinking and problem solving skills.” Several
responses alluded to the reflective process forcing the MSSE students to examine practice
in a manner that had not been done prior to participation in MSSE. This reflection
“helped me learn about my own teaching.”
158
A small handful of comments indicated there was no influence on science
pedagogy in any of the courses. One student stated, “ I did not change the pedagogy of
my teaching. Most of the theories and strategies I already used in my teaching.” One
veteran educator remarked, “…that after teaching for over 20 years, I don't expect great
advances in content or pedagogy knowledge.”
Overall, the majority of courses that influenced the MSSE students’
understanding of pedagogy were the education courses. “I am disappointed when the
class is entirely content based and there is little to no communication with other educators
regarding their classroom practices,” said one student. Not embedding material in the
content courses that explicitly addressed how to teach the target content appeared to be a
missed opportunity.
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Action Research. A strong influence on the pedagogy of teaching
science of the MSSE students was the capstone project. One quarter of all of the
responses indicated the capstone and the action research process was the MSSE program
component or experience that contributed the most to the knowledge of pedagogy for
teaching science. As this was the culmination of the MSSE degree and the focus was on
the MSSE students’ classroom, it was not surprising that the capstone rated so high.
Many of the responses stated that the capstone “pulled it all together for me.”
Using best practice and research, the capstone offered the opportunity to examine one’s
teaching practice in-depth. “The capstone project allowed for reflection of my teaching
practices. I feel like I can better assess the validity of various teaching strategies and
159
lessons in my science classes,” said one student. Another response indicated the capstone
“assisted my development as a science educator.” Other responses honed in on the fact
that capstone supported the MSSE students’ ability to focus on an area they felt needed
improvement.
For many respondents the action research was the initiation into a continued
practice of evaluating one’s teaching. “I have continued performing action research in
my classroom to give me insights into my teaching practice,” said one student. Other
students mentioned that the literature review offered insights into teaching practices.
Using research to modify or change practice were outcomes that the teachers said
resulted from the exposure to the action research process.
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Connections to Professional Learning. Many of the professional learning
experiences focused on generalities of the pedagogy of teaching science aforementioned.
The exposure to using assessments was a commonly mentioned learning, as were
opportunities to learn from others in discussions online and face-to-face. In addition,
reflective practice was cited as a professional learning experience in 20 out of 341
responses, or about five percent of all responses.
Several of the responses focused on a new outlook on examining one’s teaching
practice. The professional learning experiences empowered the MSSE students to self-
reflect, evaluate, and assess teaching practices. “I feel like I can better assess the validity
of various teaching strategies and lessons in my science classes. I can make sure that my
teaching is (in) agreement with best research practices and is effective for the learning of
160
my students,” remarked one student. These comments tied into critical and responsive
learning, a dimension of professional learning.
A few responses identified understanding inquiry as the professional learning that
occurred in the program. One student commented, “My experience as a student in that
course was eye-opening in terms of what good inquiry looks like.” Others stated that the
modeling of inquiry opened up a “whole new teaching style I continue to use to this day.”
Truly understanding inquiry was a result of participating in the MSSE program,
according to these respondents, that can be connected to the professional learning of
inquiry.
A subset of the MSSE population came to the program with a limited pedagogical
base. One student commented, “My undergrad degree was very content based with little
information on HOW to teach it.” A small number of responses mentioned that exposure
to problem based learning and the 5 E model were deficits in previous education
experiences. One student referred to professional learning, that is learning resulting in
changes in practice, by stating, “the outstanding education required core courses helped
to guide and develop my teaching skills in a more directed (research based) and
constructive (constructivist philosophy) manner.” Once again, these comments can be
categorized as representing the professional learning dimension of inquiry.
Open Ended Responses on Science Pedagogy:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to-Face Learning. Analysis of the 341 open
ended responses in this category indicated that over one third identified as influencing
respondents’ science teaching were online courses. The online courses mentioned were
161
primarily education courses. Nearly half of the remaining comments, or roughly one-
third of all the responses, were not specific enough to clarify if the influence was
associated with an online or on campus course.
A key theme that emerged from the responses was that the online discussions with
others in the courses were highly valued as influencing pedagogy. One student stated,
“Discussing with the other teachers in each class and ‘hearing’ how they teach has
influenced me the most.” Opportunities to share success and challenges with others were
deemed to be a powerful way to learn. The online discussions not only allowed students
to share and exchange ideas, but also offered an opportunity to reflect on the
conversations.
Summary. Once again the opened-ended responses confirmed the statistical
analysis; the education core courses and the capstone project were a greater influence on
the teachers’ understanding of science pedagogy than all other types of courses, yet
interestingly the content courses were cited as contributing in this area too. The capstone
project, which is part of the action research sequence, also was perceived to influence the
science teaching knowledge of the MSSE students. The statistical analysis indicated the
education core courses did not differ significantly from the capstone project in this
respect and the open-ended responses confirmed this statistical analysis.
The analysis of the open-ended responses identified four recurring themes in the
data despite specific comments identifying pedagogical or pedagogical content
knowledge. Many MSSE students reported an increased understanding of how to
effectively assess student learning. Another theme that appeared often in responses was
162
the value MSSE participants placed on opportunities to collaborate with other teachers.
This can be linked to building social capital, a dimension of professional learning
identified by the literature. A third theme that emerged was that the resources and ideas
that were shared among program participants, including use of the Internet, influenced
participants’ science teaching practice. Finally, the informal and formal opportunities to
reflect on teaching that occurred in the program also surfaced as an influence on
participants’ classroom practice.
Survey Responses Regarding Science Curriculum
Another cluster of survey items asked teachers the degree to which various types
of MSSE courses influenced the knowledge of science curriculum, including how to
arrange topics over time. The types of courses offered in the MSSE program whose
influences were compared included: on campus science lab courses, on campus science
field course, online science courses, education required core courses, education elective
courses, and the capstone project. A one within subjects repeated measures of analysis of
variance was used to compare teachers’ mean ratings regarding how different types of
MSSE courses affected science curricular knowledge. The means and standard
deviations for each type of course are presented in Table 26.
163
Table 26
Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Science Curriculum by
Course Type, ANOVA Comparisons of Means Across Course Types and Science Curriculum
Response
Scale
MSSE Course Type
1 = Not at
All
5 = To a
Great
Extent
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
la
b
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
fi
e
ld
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
li
n
e
s
c
ie
n
c
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
R
e
q
u
ir
e
d
C
o
re
C
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
E
le
c
ti
v
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
C
a
p
s
to
n
e
P
ro
je
c
t
(n
=
1
1
2
)
R
e
s
u
lt
s
o
f
2
-t
a
il
e
d
P
o
s
t
H
o
c
T
e
s
ts
(p
>
.0
5
)
Science
Curriculum
3.30
(1.237)
3.14
(1.233)
3.64
(1.171)
3.57
(1.169)
3.43
(1.161)
3.67
(1.193)
5 > 2
3,4,6 > 1,2,5
Note: Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found to be significant for this analysis, therefore
adjusted F ratios based on the Greenhouse-Geisser correction were reported to control for
Type I error rate. Results from this analysis indicated a significant effect for types of
courses F (3.425, 342.522) = 8.156, p < .001.
Results from pairwise comparisons revealed that on-campus science field courses
were significantly less of an influence on science curricular knowledge than either the
education elective courses or the capstone project. Comparison of mean ratings indicated
that there were no significant differences between the education elective courses and the
other types of courses. Further analysis revealed that the online science courses, the
education required courses, and the capstone project had a significantly greater influence
164
on science curricular knowledge than the on-campus science lab courses, the on-campus
science field courses, and the elective education courses.
Accompanying the Likert-style question was an open ended questioned designed
to elicit more details and feedback about which types of courses influenced the
respondents’ knowledge of science curriculum, including how to use resources and
arrange topics over time. Specifically, the question asked, “ To what degree did the
following MSSE program components foster your knowledge of science curriculum,
including how to use resources and arrange topics over time?” There were 338 responses
to this item. The data was organized and coded based on the research questions of this
study. The respondents cited a wide variety of program experiences, courses,
components, and instructors that contributed to knowledge of science curriculum. Quotes
from the survey were included as they were written. Spelling and grammatical errors
were left in the quotes that were typed by the participants.
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum: An Overview. It was clearly evident
from the responses that influencing the MSSE students’ knowledge of science
curriculum, including how to use resources and arrange topics over time was part of the
program. The National Research Council defines curriculum as “the way the content is
delivered. It includes the structure, organization, balance and presentation of the content
in the classroom” (NRES, 1996, p. 22). And although 234 responses indicated the
program influenced the participants’ knowledge of science curriculum, just a few of the
possible aspects of curriculum were mentioned in the comments. Furthermore improving
one’s knowledge of curriculum seemed to be more of a serendipitous event, rather than a
165
planned outcome of the program based on an analysis of the comments. Over one quarter
of the responses, or 84 in all, explicitly stated there was no influence, marked their
response as “N/A”, or used their response to go off topic.
One theme apparent in the responses was the resources that were part of each of
the courses were useful in that teachers could integrate these into their own science
curriculum. The majority of the responses (234 responses) indicated that the MSSE
program components or experience were influential, yet the comments were lacking
substance and evidence into what the influence was. Some individuals remarked that
particular courses or the program as a whole comprised “a great source of resources” or
that courses “provided numerous resources and have helped me focus my curriculum for
this short class.” Another student commented, “I have more resources online than I did
before which is a huge impact to my instruction.” It seemed that the exposure to new
resources was influential in general.
Of those responses that indicated the MSSE program influenced the
understanding of science curriculum, 74 responses indicated that the online discussions
were the vehicle for this influence. “They (courses) have provided an avenue of
thoughtful discussion about how to bring relevance to the science that we are teaching, to
the students' experiences with the world around them. Other educators have shared great
ideas and have been an incredible sounding board,” stated one student. Online
discussions of course content were perhaps the major context in which program
participants addressed science curriculum. Yet, based on the NSRC definition of
curriculum it was an area that seemed to be only superficially addressed in the MSSE
166
program.
An elective science course that focused on the history of science curriculum was
one course that was explicitly identified in 17 of the open-ended responses pertaining to
curriculum. “ I was not familiar with the national standards nor the studies that had been
done about American students in science, “was the response by one student who
identified the curriculum course. Another student felt it “helped in revising my own
science curricula.” Many of the other responses that identified the curriculum course
only mentioned the course without any information explaining it’s influence, which may
have been substantial, on teachers’ curricular knowledge.
While a majority of the respondents felt that science curriculum was part of the
MSSE program, there was a large number who did not agree. One respondent stated, “I
cannot name one component that specifically contributed the most to my knowledge of
science curriculum...I feel the course work informed my knowledge of resources, but
there was little instruction on how to arrange topics over time.” While most respondents
mentioned resources as a “take away” from the courses, several commented they did not
feel those resources, and how to integrate these within a curriculum, were strongly
promoted. One respondent said, “I don't really think that any of the courses helped me to
know how to design a curriculum or arrange topics over time. There were a few
resources that we used in some science content classes and in the education courses, but
that was about it.” One individual wished curriculum design were a component when he
or she stated, “I wished some of my classes did address the curriculum more and show
how to use the information we were learning in the class and apply it in the classroom.”
167
The other spectrum of comments came from those individuals who felt the MSSE
program should not be about designing curriculum. One comment reflected this
succinctly, when he or she stated, “Fortunately, there wasn't a lot of time wasted on this
stuff.” Two comments indicated that curriculum would be a difficult topic for MSSE
since it was determined at the state level. “Different states have different requirements
for pacing and content so I don't feel that MSSE program really addressed that and I don't
think that it should. Our school districts handle that, I (came) to MSSE for science
knowledge and teaching practices.” In part because the MSSE program serves students
from across the U.S. and a number of foreign countries, some students assumed that
science curricular knowledge would not be a particular focus of the program.
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum:
Connections to Action Research. Further analysis of the responses included 30
students who identified the capstone project as the component that influenced the
knowledge of science curriculum. As with the other responses previously mentioned, the
rationale was vague or missing completely in most of the responses. One student
clarified why the capstone was an influence and stated, “The work on the Capstone
Project helped me most with recognizing the need for in-depth planning for each topic or
unit including the use of pre- and post teaching evaluations.” As with many of the
responses, it seemed to be challenging for the respondents to clearly articulate how a
component of the program was an influence. One student who identified the capstone
stated, “My capstone project directly involved arranging topics over time in a slightly
different way and using household resources to perform experiments.” While the student
168
answered the question, there was limited substance to the response.
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum:
Connections to Professional Learning. When considering course or program
influences on the knowledge of science curriculum, many respondents focused on the
exposure to a wide variety of resources and opportunities for discussions with colleagues
as pathways for professional learning. There were no clear themes that emerged from the
other responses. There was mention of professional learning experiences, but the
responses were individual and not connected to the other teachers’ ideas.
One student commented, “Many of the teachers I have come across may have
benefited more if they came into education as a second career,” indicating that curricular
learning may have been greater for MSSE participants who were not already experienced
educators. Another comment focused on an experience in a course by stating, “extensive
conceptual mapping was used to find how's one view on connected ideas changed
through the course.” This response seemed to indicate that the concept map supported
the understanding of curriculum in this course, but did not provide any supporting
evidence that there was long reaching influence.
It was interesting to note that there were ten responses that did not respond to the
prompt provided. Two responses offered criticisms - one of a particular MSSE course
and one commented, “what about negative experiences and classes that were a waste of
time???? this survey is very biased.” Off topic responses included comments such as,
“Found out that online courses are much harder than classes attended in person. I hated
the fake conversations. I would encourage others to get their degree in a more traditional
169
way.”
Open Ended Responses on Curriculum:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to-Face Learning. Analysis of the responses
regarding science curriculum revealed that many described a course or experience that
influenced the teachers’ understanding of science content. While some specific courses
were mentioned, often the courses were referred to collectively as “online classes” or
“required courses.
Of those responses that mentioned specific courses, 74 identified courses that
were offered online, and most of those were education courses. Twenty courses were
identified as on-campus field or lab courses. Once again, many of the responses only
stated a course name without any supporting details. One student who felt the field
courses influenced his or her curriculum knowledge commented, “It is the only way to be
consumed with a topic and really understand the material well. I am a hands on learner
so this works best for me.” It seemed apparent that students had a difficult time
articulating a clear response to this question.
Summary. The open-ended responses supported the statistical analysis. While
the responses were broad and often vague, the education courses and the capstone courses
were mentioned frequently. In addition, the statistical analysis indicated the online
courses were more of an influence on the teachers’ knowledge of science curriculum.
This was supported by the open-ended responses.
In examining themes in the data, there seemed to be three components that
influenced science curriculum. The exposure to resources in the courses was deemed to
170
be influential. In addition, many students perceived the online discussions contributed to
more in-depth understanding. Those students who took the elective curriculum course
stated specifically how the course influenced practice.
Nearly 25% of the 338 respondents to this item indicated the MSSE program did
not contribute to their knowledge of science curriculum. The range of responses included
those students who felt that a focus on science curriculum had no place in the MSSE
program to those who felt it was an area of deficiency.
Survey Responses Regarding Diverse Learners
A one within subjects repeated measures of analysis of variance was used to
compare teachers’ mean ratings to determine which type of MSSE course influenced the
knowledge of how to support diverse learners. Influence on knowledge of supporting
diverse learners was compared across the types of courses offered in the MSSE program:
on campus science lab courses, on campus science field course, online science courses,
education required core courses, education elective courses, or the capstone project. The
means and standard deviations for each type of course are presented in Table 27.
171
Table 27
Comparison of MSSE Students’ Perceptions of Influence on Teaching Diverse Learners by Course
Type, ANOVA Comparisons of Means Across Course Types and Diverse Learners.
Response
Scale
MSSE Course Types
1 = Not
at All
5 = To a
Great
Extent
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
la
b
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
-C
a
m
p
u
s
s
c
ie
n
c
e
fi
e
ld
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
O
n
li
n
e
s
c
ie
n
c
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
R
e
q
u
ir
e
d
C
o
re
C
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
E
d
u
c
a
ti
o
n
E
le
c
ti
v
e
c
o
u
rs
e
s
(n
=
1
1
2
)
C
a
p
s
to
n
e
P
ro
je
c
t
(n
=
1
1
2
)
R
e
s
u
lt
s
o
f
2
-t
a
il
e
d
P
o
s
t
H
o
c
T
e
s
ts
(p
>
.0
5
)
Diverse
learners
2.5
(1.202)
2.41
(1.107)
2.66
(1.134)
3.24
(1.237)
3.02
(1.135)
3.42 (1.277)
1 > 2
3 > 1, 2
4 > 1, 2, 3, 5
5 > 1, 2, 3
6 > 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Note: Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found to be significant for this analysis, therefore
adjusted F ratios based on the Greenhouse-Geisser correction were reported to control for
Type I error rate. Results from this analysis indicated a significant effect for types of
courses F (3.009, 312.905) = 36.163, p < .001.
Results from pairwise comparisons revealed that all types of courses were
significantly less of an influence on understanding the needs of diverse students than the
capstone project. Further comparisons indicated that the education courses and the
education elective courses were a significantly greater influence than any of the science
172
courses. Yet the education core courses were a significantly greater influence than the
education elective courses. Further analysis revealed the on-campus science courses
were significantly less of an influence that the online science courses. Finally, the on-
campus science lab courses were a significantly greater influence than the science field
courses.
Accompanying the Likert-style question was an open ended questioned designed
to elicit more details and feedback about which types of courses influenced the
respondents’ knowledge of how to support diverse learners. Specifically, the question
asked, “To what degree did the following MSSE program components foster your
knowledge of how to support diverse learners (e.g. students with disabilities, from
underrepresented populations, economically disadvantaged, range of abilities)?” There
were 338 responses to this item. The data was organized and coded based on the research
questions of this study. The respondents cited a wide variety of program experiences,
courses, components, and instructors that contributed to the knowledge of how to support
diverse learners. Quotes from the survey were included as they were written. Spelling
and grammatical errors were left in the quotes that were typed by the participants.
Open Ended Responses on Supporting
Diverse Learners: An Overview. Analysis of the open-ended responses indicated
that this was an area of the MSSE that was by far the weakest of those examined in the
survey. One third of the responses indicated unequivocally that this was not an area
emphasized in the MSSE program. Further analysis indicated that those who felt it was
addressed did not identify very many courses that included it as part of the design. Even
173
more revealing was that only three science courses were identified as contributed to
participants’ knowledge of diverse learners.
Similar to the results in the previous section, one theme that emerged from the
data was the perceived significance that the online discussions had on this aspect of
participants’ learning. One student remarked, “Sharing ideas with the other teachers
about how they might address these students' needs has helped the most.” Even those
courses that were reported to have an influence on participants’ knowledge of supporting
diverse learners were often mentioned with reservation, for example, by saying that a
course, “at least touched on the subject.” This indicated that this component was not an
obvious part of the course.
About one third of the comments, 100 out of 338, indicated that any reference to
supporting diverse learners was not an overt part of the course. Most of the ideas to
support diverse learners were generated in the discussions with other teachers. Many
commented that this was a missing component that needed to be addressed by the
program. One individual reflected, “This was the biggest gap in my educational
experience at MSU-Bozeman.” One respondent noted, “I teach in a very diversified
school with a large variety of languages, races, nationalities, etc. and truthfully I felt that
I had more to offer than I learned from others.” Another respondent remarked that the
knowledge was attributed to other experiences and stated, “ I also have recently received
a degree in elementary education. Most of the knowledge I have about #4 comes from
this degree; I've hardly learned anything new from the MSSE program.” Another
respondent mentioned that, “Diverse learners were addressed for behavior fairly often,
174
but rarely for academic suggestions.” The comments clearly indicated that meeting the
academic needs of a diverse student population was a concern and a void in the MSSE
program.
Four respondents commented they felt that this was not an area the MSSE
program needed to address. One respondent stated:
I cannot recall anything in the program that dealt specifically with
this issue. That is not really a bad thing. What I did learn were
sound science teaching practices. A good teacher will then adapt
those things to the students they have in front of them. I don't put
the labels indicated on this question on my students.
Another respondent mirrored this comment and said, “Again, all the courses have done a
great job of provided jumping points for all of us ...it really is up to us to know our
teaching situations and accommodate the programs for our students. Best the courses can
do is to provide lots of ideas, knowledge ... and we, as students, go with it.” The claim
that addressing diverse students’ academic needs was not a needed part of the MSSE
program represented only a small fraction of the comments received.
Another viewpoint that emerged from the survey was that a small subset of
students, 3 of 338, felt personal diverse learning needs were not being met. One
individual stated, “I don't feel that any of the professors differentiated in their classes.”
Another individual described it from a lack of access when he or she stated, “From
personal experience...You cannot take any field courses if you are handicap. This could
become a problem in the future.” Again, these sentiments represented only a few
responses.
175
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse
Students: Connections to Action Research. Although the MSSE program was
not perceived to be a strong influence on knowledge of how to support diverse learners,
those who found it to be an influence often reported that the capstone project was the
experience that was influential. Sixty-one respondents identified the capstone project as
the pivotal experience that provided insight into supporting diverse learners.
The responses that identified the capstone project as influential were very
individualized and clarified how the capstone project incorporated addressing the needs
of diverse learners. “ I had to make sure that the interventions of the research study were
accessible to all student areas and then adjust my teaching to make sure that
underrepresented students were given an equal opportunity for learning,” replied one
student. Another student commented about including access to the material for diverse
learners through the capstone project, “One of my goals was to include all achievement
levels of students.” The MSSE students selected the focus of the capstone projects
independently, and those who chose to study support for diverse learners approached this
from many directions.
Open Ended Responses on Supporting Diverse
Students: Connections to Professional Learning. The category of professional
learning that was evident in the responses was critical and responsive learning, and the
responses were very individualized regarding this aspect of professional learning. The
responses reflecting the perspective that meeting the needs of diverse learners was part of
the MSSE program, generally mentioned the capstone project if they provided details.
This group also tended to state that meeting the needs of diverse learners was addressed
176
within MSSE in online discussions with others.
Those individuals who made it a focus of the coursework or capstone articulated
evidence of professional learning. One student commented, “Because the courses
allowed me to focus on my own students, who are very diverse, I got a lot out of them in
that area.” Awareness of supporting diverse learners may not be a focus of some MSSE
students. “I've found that most of the ed courses reflect the classes you're teaching... so if
you don't teach a diverse population, you don't touch on diversity,” said one student.
Most science classrooms include students from diverse culture, language and income
groups, as well as students with different engagement or performance levels and learning
styles. However, some respondents viewed their own students as homogeneous, and
therefore there was no perceived need for MSSE to focus further on supporting diverse
learners.
Differentiation was mentioned in four responses as an aspect of the program that
began to address diverse learners. “In several classes we have discussed differentiated
instruction and reaching a diverse range of abilities, but we focus very little on supporting
learners with disabilities, etc.,” commented one student. It seemed apparent from the
responses that while differentiation may be a topic that was broached, it was not
extensive and inclusive of all students.
Two comments from teachers who work with Native American students brought
another perspective on professional learning. Both responses indicated the program had
increased the awareness and understanding of the abilities of the students in their classes.
One person said, “The MSSE program has helped me to understand that all children are
177
capable of learning no matter what their circumstances. There has been a lot of growth in
my classes these past two years.” One of the responses was from a Native American
teacher who felt the MSSE program made him/her feel included. “As a Native American,
I was thoroughly impressed by the openness of the instructors and their desire to help me
feel more valued and included - they also taught me how to help my students feel the
same way.”
While the majority of the comments regarding student performance differences
alluded to students who were low performing, diverse students might also be high
performing. Gifted students are also considered diverse learners. One respondent
addressed these learners by stating, “Encountering challenging problems for high-
achieving students. How to arrange class work so students get individual time to meet
with the teacher.” It may be inferred that this MSSE student felt the program enabled
him or her to meet the needs of high achieving students, although it was not clearly
articulated. As many teachers in the program teach AP level courses, it may be a missed
opportunity for the program if the needs of all diverse learners are not addressed.
Open Ended Comments on Supporting Diverse Students:
Perspectives on Distance and Face-to-Face Learning. Further analysis of the
comments indicated only a small number of responses identified specific courses beyond
the capstone that were perceived to be an influence in teaching diverse students. Four
individual courses were mentioned in science. The rest of the courses mentioned, 32 in
all, were broad groupings such as “ed core” or “online”.
Of the total courses that were mentioned, 36 of 338, only two were on-campus
178
and the remaining thirty-four were online courses. Nearly twenty percent of the
responses, 61 of 338, indicated a perceived influence identified the component or
experience was the capstone project that typically involved action research. As the
discussions with other students was a program component frequently cited as influencing
knowledge of teaching diverse learners, it made sense that the online courses were more
frequently mentioned.
Summary. Again, the open-ended responses supported the findings of the
statistical analysis. The capstone was determined to be a significant influence on
understanding the needs of diverse learners compared to all other types of courses or
program experiences. In addition, the education core courses, both required and elective,
were reported as a more significant influence than the science courses. It should be noted
that only four individual science courses were reported to have any influence on
participants’ knowledge of supporting diverse students. This again, seemed to be a
missed opportunity for the program.
Addressing the needs of diverse learners does not seem to be a strong part of the
MSSE program based on the open-ended responses. Those that felt it was part of the
program credited the discussions with other students to be the component that was
influential. A number of respondents felt this was a deficit of the program.
Other comments reflected a different perspective. These comments ranged from
those students who felt it was not a needed part of the program to those students who felt
the program gave them greater awareness of the students taught. Strategies for
differentiation were reported in four responses and another comment described how the
179
participant felt that the instructors do not differentiate as they teach MSSE students.
Summary of Student Surveys
The MSSE Student Professional Learning Survey results indicated that the
different experiences in the MSSE program have influenced the professional learning of
the MSSE students. Each of the four sections of the Student MPLS focused on a
particular aspect of professional learning as well as providing insights into other
influential aspects of the program.
In Section II of the survey, the focus of the questions was which areas did the
program experiences foster scientific knowledge and practice. Not surprisingly, the
MSSE students reported that the area that was cultivated through program experiences
was the ability to articulate scientific ideas in a discussion. Reflection on scientific ideas
was perceived to be an area of great influence by the program experiences. Practicing
and engaging in science process skills was also an area influenced by the program
opportunities offered by the instructors. These skills included analyzing data and
drawing conclusions from data and observations, and providing evidence for ideas.
Using the course content in the MSSE students’ context was also a practice that was
encouraged through the program experiences.
Section III of the Student MPLS focused on aspects of professional learning. The
data was analyzed and organized based on the research questions of this study. The data
from the descriptive statistics appeared to be clustered into four groupings based on
questions and responses. The groupings were focused on similar aspects of teaching and
learning. Those themes included Using Research to Inform Best Practice, Collaboration,
180
Reflective Practice, and Supporting Student Achievement. Aspects of using research to
inform best practice that were found to more influenced included using the MSSE
students’ learning experiences to influence the learning of their students’ learning.
Experimenting with teaching practices as well as using information from the Internet and
research were area perceived to be significantly influenced by program experiences.
An aspect of professional learning that was perceived to be influenced by the
program was collaboration with other MSSE students. Throughout the survey and open-
ended responses, the MSSE students consistently described the multiple opportunities for
collaboration as an influential part of the MSSE program experiences. In addition,
including not only self-evaluation and self-analysis but also classroom modifications, was
also an area that was highly influenced through course experiences. The feedback and
collaboration with others in the program appeared to enhance and encourage reflective
practice.
Lastly, the survey results indicated that the MSSE program experiences fostered
teachers’ knowledge and practice in the area of supporting student achievement,
including encouraging students’ enjoyment of the learning experience, believing that all
students are capable of learning, and regularly celebrating student success. Furthermore,
assessment strategies introduced in the MSSE program experiences were reported to be a
strong influence on building teachers’ understanding in the area of supporting and
meeting the needs of all learners.
The survey results illustrated that the MSSE program appears to deepen science
content knowledge. MSSE students also felt empowered to teach challenging curricula.
181
One area that was rated as being less influenced by the program experiences was teaching
science to a diverse student population. The MSSE program experiences did not seem to
foster the area of teaching science to a diverse student population as was reiterated in the
results in Section IV of the survey.
Section IV of the survey focused on determining which type of MSSE courses
most influenced science content knowledge, pedagogy of teaching science, curriculum
development and meeting the needs of diverse learners. Not surprisingly the science
courses fostered science content knowledge more than the education courses or the
capstone course. The education courses were more influential than the science courses in
the pedagogy for teaching science. Of the types of science courses, the on-campus
science courses were significantly more of an influence on pedagogy than the online or
field courses. Science curricular knowledge was influenced more by the science lab
courses than the other types of science courses, yet seemed to be more of a serendipitous
event than a planned outcome in the MSSE program. Learning how to support diverse
learners was influenced more by the education courses than the science courses although
this was not perceived to be a strong area of influence across the MSSE program.
MSSE Faculty Survey
This section describes the results of the analysis of the MSSE Faculty
Professional Learning Survey, which can be found in Appendix D. The survey was
designed to assess the ways in which the MSSE program influenced the science content
182
knowledge and professional learning of the participants from the faculty perspective.
Specifically this survey was designed to answer the following research questions:
How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content knowledge-based
graduate degree program perceived, and how have program experiences
influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning because
of their participation in such a program?
b. What program experiences, from a program faculty perspective, contribute to
the science teachers’ professional learning?
Section I Faculty Survey - Professional Experience and Education
The purpose of Section I of the survey was to gather background and contextual
information on the participants. Seventy five percent, or 24 out of 33, of the MSSE
faculty completed the survey. The MSSE faculty is quite experienced, as over 54% have
served in a faculty role within the MSSE program for more than five years. One third of
the faculty had between one and three years of experience teaching for the MMSE
program. Of the faculty respondents, 37.5% reported teaching on-campus science field
based courses or online science courses. Slightly less than a third of the faculty
respondents taught only on-campus science courses. The education faculty comprised
21% of those responding. Over one third of all the respondents advised the capstone
project.
More than half (58.3%) were adjunct faculty with the remainder being tenured
faculty at MSU. All the faculty members in chemistry, earth science, and education have
183
attained doctoral degrees. Nearly 80% of the biology faculty holds a PhD. While the vast
majority of faculty were based at MSU, other faculty members were located at University
of Great Falls; Casper College; Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the
Arts/Louisiana Virtual School; LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and the University of
Wisconsin – Oshkosh. The departments represented by the faculty respondents included
Chemistry and Biochemistry; Education; Earth Science; Physics; Ecology; Mathematics:
Land Resources; and Cell Biology and Neuroscience.
Precision of Responses and MPLS Instrument Reliability
A 95% confidence interval was calculated based on the percent of respondents
returning useable questionnaires (surveys) for analysis. Twenty-four of the 32 MSSE
faculty returned completed surveys yielding a 75% response rate. The 95% confidence
interval for a 75% response rate and a population of 32 is +9. A 95% confidence interval
indicates that a true percentage of the population would select the same response within a
range of + 9 percent. For example, if 65% of the sample “Agreed” with a certain
statement on the MPLS, it would be expected that between 56 and 74 percent (65% +
9%) of the population to also indicate that they “Agreed” with the statement. The large
confidence interval indicates a much more variable confidence level than that found for
the student survey. A sample size of 24 for a population of 32 total faculty indicates that
the true population percentage would fall within the 95% confidence interval. In other
words, if 65% of the faculty sample “Agreed” with an faculty survey statement, there is a
99% confidence the true percentage of the faculty population “Agreeing” with the
statement would fall within the 56 – 74 percent confidence interval. The preciseness of
184
responses from the faculty survey is much less than that of the student survey due to the
small population size of MSSE faculty.
The MPLS was found to be highly consistent for assessing the professional
development constructs that the questionnaire items were written to assess. The
Cronbach’s Alpha for the each section of the MPLS was high indicating high internal
consistency reliability. The overall internal consistency reliability represented by
Cronbach’s Alpha for the Faculty MPLS was .91. The Cronbach’s Alphas for each
section of the Faculty MPLS were as follows: Content Understanding and Knowledge =
.697, Professional Learning = .790, and Content Knowledge = .875.
Section II Faculty Survey- MSSE Students’
Science Content Understanding and Knowledge
The purpose of Section II of the survey was to gather information about the
MSSE Students’ science content understanding and knowledge from a faculty
perspective. Table 28 provides the means, standard deviations, and the number and
distribution of responses from the faculty for this set of questions. In Section II of the
Faculty MPLS, the items were assessed by respondents using a five-point scale ranging
from 1 = “Not at All” and 5 = “To a Great Extent.” Specifically, the question asked, “To
what degree do the course experiences you provide foster the MSSE teachers'
professional learning, including knowledge and practices, in the follow areas?” The N
was 24 for this section of the survey, although in some parts of the survey the N dropped
to 22 as respondents left a section blank or skipped a question. The Likert responses
were ordinal data, so the magnitude of the means allowed for comparison between the
185
assessed areas. For analysis purposes, the data in Section II was combined so that the
categories of 4 and 5 represented a “great influence,” while categories 1 and 2 were
combined to represent “none or little influence.”
Table 28
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences on MSSE Students’ Knowledge and
Practices in the Following Areas Relating to Science Content
Descriptive Statistics and Frequency of Responses, (N = 24).
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
1. Working on problems based in contexts
from their daily life
3.41 1.436
18%
(4)
4.5%
(1)
22.7%
(5)
27.3%
(6)
27.3%
(6)
2. Analyzing and drawing conclusions from
data, observations, and other forms of
scientific evidence.
3.91 1.151
4.5%
(1)
9.1%
(2)
13.6%
(3)
36.4%
(8)
36.4%
(8)
3. Providing evidence to support their
scientific ideas.
3.82 1.053
4.5%
(1)
4.5%
(1)
22.7%
(5)
40.9%
(9)
27.3%
(6)
4. Participating in on-site fieldwork (e.g.,
water testing, species counting in a natural
setting, astronomical observations of the night
sky).
2.73 1.778
45.5%
(10)
4.5%
(1)
9.1%
(2)
13.6%
(3)
27.3%
(6)
5. Working with pen and paper problem
sets(e.g., problems from a textbook or
worksheet).
2.86 1.583
31.8%
(7)
13.6%
(3)
9.1%
(2)
27.3%
(6)
18%
(4)
6. Interacting with physical materials or
models (e.g., mixing solutions, building
circuits, scale models.
2.73 1.579
36.4%
(8)
9.1%
(2)
18%
(4)
18%
(4)
18%
(4)
7. Using computer-based animations, games,
or simulations(e.g., virtual dissection,
SimEarth, flash interactives).
2.32 1.427
45.5%
(10)
9.1%
(2)
22.7%
(5)
13.6%
(3)
9.1%
(2)
8. Articulating their scientific ideas in a
discussion.
4.36 .953
4.5%
(1)
0%
(0)
4.5%
(1)
36.4%
(8)
54.5%
(12)
186
Table 28 - Continued
9. Reflecting upon their earlier scientific
ideas.
3.64 1.049
4.5%
(1)
9.1%
(2)
22.7%
(5)
45.5%
(10)
18%
(4)
10. Reflecting upon the scientific ideas of
other students.
3.77 1.066
4.5%
(1)
9.1%
(2)
13.6%
(3)
50%
(11)
22.7%
(5)
11.Carrying out procedures of scientific
investigations designed by instructors or
course developers (e.g., lab exercises, kitchen
experiments).
3.05 1.647
31.8%
(7)
4.5%
(1)
18%
(4)
18%
(4)
27.3%
(6)
12. Designing their own scientific
investigation(s) (e.g., developed hypothesis or
question and procedure.
2.86 1.490
31.8%
(7)
4.5%
(1)
22.7%
(5)
27.3%
(6)
13.6%
(3)
13. Carrying out procedures of scientific
investigations they designed (e.g., collected
data, made observations.
2.82 1.468
22.7%
(5)
27.3%
(6)
13.6%
(3)
18%
(4)
18%
(4)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, an item with a mean rating of 3 or more was placed in the “more influenced”
category. A lower mean rating was used with the faculty results as the faculty tended to
assign lower ratings than the students. This may be due to the faculty self-assessing
course experiences they provided with a certain level of modesty. Or as one faculty
member suggested, the difference may be due to the fact that many of the respondents are
research scientists, i.e. members of a profession that thrives on criticism and skepticism.
It was evident from the results reported in Table 38 that more than 90% of the
faculty perceived that the course experiences they provided influenced the MSSE
students’ ability to articulate scientific ideas to a relatively great extent, which we can
assume signifies an increase in students’ science content knowledge and understanding.
187
Further analysis indicated over 70% of the faculty reported that experiences in their
courses influenced students’ ability to analyze and draw conclusions from data,
observations, and other forms of scientific evidence, and to reflect upon scientific ideas,
to a relatively great extent. In their open-ended survey responses, a large number of
students described the capstone project as a mechanism through which their exposure to
scientific research was put into action, but they did not refer as often to other course
experiences where this occurred. “It helped with true data analysis and drawing
conclusions based upon my own research,” commented one student. Another student
made the connection between the capstone project and scientific research stating, “I feel
that the capstone project contributed the most, understanding on a large scale, how
important research and its analysis is to all science.” These student comments support
faculty perceptions that the MSSE program influenced students’ understanding of
scientific research, but not necessarily that this occurred in a broad swathe of courses.
Other areas of note included providing evidence to support scientific ideas, as an
area in which 68% of the faculty felt the course experiences they provided influenced
MSSE participants to a fairly great extent, and reflecting upon one’s own earlier scientific
ideas or those of other students, areas in which 63% and 73% of the faculty, respectively,
felt their course experiences had positively influenced the MSSE students. The mean
ratings of areas that faculty perceived as being most influenced by the course experiences
they provided for MSSE students are shown in Table 29.
188
Table 29
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Science Content Most Influenced by Course Experiences.
M
Articulated their scientific ideas in a discussion. 4.36
Analyzed and drew conclusions from data, observations, and other forms
of scientific evidence.
3.91
Provided evidence to support their scientific ideas. 3.82
Reflected upon the scientific ideas of other students. 3.77
Reflected upon their earlier scientific ideas. 3.44
Areas perceived to be “less influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of 1 (not at all) and
2. The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination. Generally, an item
with a mean rating of less than 3 was categorized as “less influenced”.
There were four areas of fostering scientific content knowledge and practices that
were ranked by the faculty as less influenced by the course experiences they offered.
Over half of the faculty reported that the course experiences they provided did not affect
MSSE students’ understanding of on-site fieldwork (e.g., water testing, species counting
in a natural setting, astronomical observations of the night sky) to a significant extent. In
addition, providing opportunities to interact with physical materials or models (45.5%)
or using computer-based animations, games, or simulations (54.6%) was not included as
part of the course design to a marked extent. Finally, over fifty percent of the faculty
responded that experiences provided in their course did not influence MSSE students’
ability to carry out procedures of scientific investigations the student designed (e.g.,
collecting data, making observations, etc.) to a particularly great extent. The mean
189
ratings of areas pertaining to students’ science content understanding that faculty
perceived as being least influenced by experiences in their courses are shown in Table 30.
Table 30
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Science Content Least Influenced by Course Experience, (N = 24).
M
Used computer-based animations, games, or simulations (e.g., virtual
dissection, SimEarth, flash interactives).
2.32
Interacted with physical materials or models (e.g., mixing solutions,
building circuits, scale models.
2.73
Participated in on-site fieldwork (e.g., water testing, species counting in a
natural setting, astronomical observations of the night sky).
2.73
Worked with pen and paper problem sets (e.g., problems from a textbook
or worksheet).
2.86
It should be noted that both the science faculty and education faculty responded to
the same set of questions. Some MSSE courses focus heavily on science subject matter,
others on how to teach science, and still others use a blended approach.
Section III Faculty Survey-MSSE Students' Professional Learning
The purpose of this section of the survey was to gather information about the
MSSE students’ professional learning from a faculty perspective. In Section III of the
Faculty MPLS, the questions were assessed using a five-point scale with 1 = “Not at All”
and 5 = “To a Great Extent.” Specifically, the questions asked, “To what degree do the
course experiences you provide foster the MSSE teachers’ professional learning,
including knowledge and practices, in the following areas?” Once again, some questions
have an N of less than 24 as some respondents left a section blank or skipped a question.
190
The Likert responses were ordinal data, so the magnitude of the means allowed for
comparison between the assessed areas.
Table 31 provides the means, standard deviations, and frequency of responses
from the faculty for the questions that related to professional learning. In addition,
comments from the open-ended responses from the Student MPLS that aligned with or
vary from the faculty positions revealed by the statistical analysis were included when
appropriate.
Table 31
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Course Experiences on MSSE Students’ Professional
Learning. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency of Responses, (N = 24.)
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
1. Use of learning by the MSSE
teachers to improve their students’
learning.
4.10 .852 0% (0) 0% (0)
30.0%
(6)
30.0%
(6)
40.0%
(8)
2. Drawing on good practice from
other MSSE teachers as a means to
further the MSSE teachers’
professional practice.
3.60 1.046
5.0%
(1)
0% (0)
50.0%
(10)
20.0%
(4)
40.0%
(8)
3. Reading research (practitioner
reports and journal articles) as one
source of useful ideas for improving
the MSSE teachers’ practice.
3.40 1.095
5.0%
(1)
10.0%
(2)
45.0%
(9)
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
4. Using the Internet as one source
of useful ideas for improving the
MSSE teachers’ practice.
3.68 1.157
5.3%
(1)
10.5%
(2)
21.1%
(4)
36.8%
(7)
26.3%
(5)
5. Consulting and observing the
MSSE teachers about how they
learn most effectively.
2.95 1.191
10.0%
(2)
30.0%
(6)
25.0%
(5)
25.0%
(5)
10.5%
(2)
6. Relating what works in the MSSE
teachers’ practice to research
findings and best practices.
3.25 1.070
0%
(0)
30.0%
(6)
30.0%
(6)
25.0%
(5)
15.0%
(3)
191
Table 31 - Continued
7. Using insights from the MSSE
teachers’ learning in the course to
feed into their school’s policy
development.
2.15 1.182
35.0%
(7)
35.0%
(7)
15.0%
(3)
10.0%
(2)
5.0%
(1)
8.Understanding how instructional
strategies that work in one context
might be adapted to other contexts
3.45 .887
0.0%
(0)
15.0%
(3)
35.0%
(7)
40.0%
(8)
10.0%
(2)
9. Using reflection as a way for the
MSSE teachers to identify their
professional learning needs.
3.25 1.410
15.0%
(3)
15.0%
(3)
25.0%
(5)
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
10. Experimenting with the MSSE
teachers' practice as a conscious
strategy for improving classroom
teaching and learning.
3.05 1.432
25.0%
(5)
5.0%
(1)
25.0%
(5)
30.0%
(6)
15.0%
(3)
11. Modifying the MSSE teachers'
practice in light of performance and
feedback in the course.
2.95 1.395
20.0%
(4)
20.0%
(4)
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
15.0%
(3)
12. Modifying the MSSE teachers'
practice in light of published
research evidence.
2.74 1.368
26.3%
(5)
15.8%
(3)
26.3%
(5)
21.4%
(4)
10.5%
(2)
13. In light of evidence of self-
evaluations, the MSSE teachers’
modify their practice.
2.35 1.496
45.0%
(9)
10.0%
(2)
25.0%
(5)
5.0%
(1)
15.0%
(3)
14. In light of evidence from
evaluations of classroom practice by
administrators or other colleagues,
the MSSE teachers’ modify their
practice.
2.05 1.276
45.0%
(9)
30.0%
(6)
5.0%
(1)
15.0%
(3)
5.0%
(1)
15. Carrying out joint
research/evaluation with one or
more colleagues as a way of
improving the MSSE teachers’
practice.
2.20 1.399
45.0%
(9)
20.0%
(4)
15.0%
(3)
10.0%
(2)
10.0%
(2)
16. Collaborating to plan teaching. 2.55 1.504
35.0%
(7)
20.0%
(4)
15.0%
(3)
15.0%
(3)
15.0%
(3)
17. Reading/discussing other
teachers’ experiences in the
classroom and giving each other
feedback.
3.20 1.508
15.0%
(3)
25.0%
(5)
15.0%
(3)
15.0%
(3)
30.0%
(6)
18. Engaging in team teaching with
someone at the MSSE teacher’s
school as a way of improving
practice.
1.40 .598
65.0%
(13)
30.0%
(6)
5.0%
(1)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for
help if the MSSE teachers have
problems with their teaching.
2.35 1.387
35.0%
(7)
30.0%
(6)
10.0%
(2)
15.0%
(3)
10.0%
(2)
20. Posting suggestions, ideas or
approaches for colleagues to try in
class.
2.90 1.683
35.0%
(7)
10.0%
(2)
10.0%
(2)
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
21. Testing out new ideas in class.
3.00 1.522
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
15.0%
(3)
15.0%
(3)
25.0%
(5)
192
Table 31 - Continued
22. Discussing openly with
colleagues what and how they, as
teachers, are learning.
3.40 1.273
10.0%
(2)
10.0%
(2)
35.0%
(7)
20.0%
(4)
25.0%
(5)
23. Frequently using informal
opportunities to discuss how
students learn.
3.35 1.226
10.0%
(2)
10.0%
(2)
35.0%
(7)
25.0%
(5)
20.0%
(4)
24. Offering other teachers
reassurance and support. 3.30 1.031
5.0%
(1)
15.0%
(3)
35.0%
(7)
35.0%
(7)
10.0%
(2)
25. Believing that all students are
capable of learning. 3.65 1.089
5.0%
(1)
5.0%
(1)
35.0%
(7)
30.0%
(6)
25.0%
(5)
26. Encouraging MSSE teachers,
and by extension their students, to
enjoy learning.
4.30 .733
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
15.0%
(3)
40.0%
(8)
45.0%
(9)
27. Regularly celebrating student
success. 3.15 1.226
15.0%
(3)
10.0%
(2)
30.0%
(6)
35.0%
(7)
10.0%
(2)
28. Discussing with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn
how to learn.
3.10 .978
0%
(0)
35.0%
(7)
25.0%
(5)
35.0%
(7)
5.0%
(1)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, an item with a mean rating of 3 or more was categorized as “more
influenced.” A lower mean rating was used as the threshold for “more influenced” with
the faculty results as the faculty tended to assign lower ratings than the students. This
may be due to the faculty self-assessing course experiences they provided, or belonging
to a professional culture that often takes a critical approach.
The results indicated that the faculty perceived encouraging MSSE teachers, and
by extension their students, to enjoy learning, as an area on which the course experiences
they provided had more influence (85%). One student commented, “I learned to learn in
a way that will serve me for the rest of my life,” which appeared to support the survey
results. “It reminded me of my own curiosity and taught me to be freer with my inquiries
193
and have a deeper passion to explore the answers,” was a reflection by another student.
In addition, the course experiences were believed by faculty to influence the area of
using the learning by the MSSE teachers to improve their students’ learning (70%).
Many examples of the transference of information to the MSSE teachers’ classrooms
were reported by the teachers themselves, including one who remarked, “I still use
diagrams from that class when teaching my freshmen about mountain building and river
erosion.”
The results reported in Table 31 showed that another area in which the majority of
faculty felt experiences in their courses had influenced teachers’ professional learning
was using the Internet as a source of ideas for improving practice (63.1%). A student
commented that the MSSE program “got me using the Internet more for research.”
Further analysis indicated that just over half of the faculty felt that experiences provided
in their courses influenced the teachers’ professional learning in the area of believing that
all students are capable of learning (55%). A student who said, “As a Native American,
I was thoroughly impressed by the openness of the instructors and their desire to help me
feel more valued and included,” supported this perception. The faculty perceived that
drawing on good practice from other teachers as a means to further professional practice
(60%) was an area that was influenced by opportunities made available in their courses.
Just 50% of the faculty reported that the experiences in their courses fostered
understanding how instructional strategies that work in one context might be adapted to
other contexts.
194
As reported by faculty in Table 31 reading research (practitioner reports and
journal articles) as one source of useful ideas for improving the MSSE teachers’ practice
(45%) was an area influenced by course experiences. Further analysis indicated that
discussing openly with colleagues what and how they, as teachers, are learning (45%),
frequently using informal opportunities to discuss how students learn (45%), discussing
with colleagues how students might be helped to learn how to learn (40%) and offering
other teachers reassurance and support (45%) were all reported by faculty as areas that
were influenced to some degree by the course experiences made available to students.
This connected to a large number of students’ comments that described how opportunities
to discuss with colleagues were “valuable in helping me become more aware of my
teaching.” Another student made the statement, “collaborating with other teachers has
been huge for me. I have learned a great deal from my peers and grown as a teacher from
them and feedback from my teachers on assignments,” which appeared to support the
faculty results.
The results reported in Table 31 indicated that reflection was an aspect of
teachers’ professional learning that was perceived by the faculty as influenced by the
course experiences they provided. The analysis indicated that using reflection as a way
for the MSSE teachers to identify their professional learning needs and
reading/discussing other teachers' experiences in the classroom and giving each other
feedback were both perceived by just 45% of the faculty as having been somewhat
influenced by the course experiences provided. Several student comments described how
the MSSE program influenced their reflective practice. “I had not taken a great deal of
195
time reflecting on my teaching as my school was private and required virtually no
teaching oversight. The MSSE program encouraged me to reflect and think critically
about pedagogy for the first time,” explained one student. “The readings and discussions
that I had to do in my (Courses) made me reflect deeply about how I teach science,”
remarked one student.
Forty-five percent of the faculty felt that the course experiences they provided
fostered the MSSE teachers’ ability to experiment with their practice as a conscious
strategy for improving classroom teaching and learning. A student commented, “The
action research project has encouraged me to try different ideas in teaching science and
also reflect on its effectiveness,” appeared to verify the faculty perception. “ (Course)
forced me to examine my practice and led to an improvement of my practice,” said
another student.
Another area that was perceived to have been influenced to some extent by the
MSSE course experiences was regularly celebrating student success (45%). Relating
what works in the MSSE teachers’ practice to research findings and best practices (40%)
was also perceived to have somewhat more influence on the professional learning of the
students as a result of their course experiences. The mean ratings of areas of professional
learning that were influenced by course experiences as perceived by the faculty are
shown in Table 32.
196
Table 32
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning Most Influenced by Course Experiences
M
26. Encouraging MSSE teachers, and by extension their students, to enjoy
learning.
4.30
1. Use of learning by the MSSE teachers to improve their students’
learning.
4.10
4. Using the Internet as one source of useful ideas for improving the
MSSE teachers’ practice.
3.68
2. Drawing on good practice from other MSSE teachers as a means to
further the MSSE teachers’ professional practice
3.60
25. Believing that all students are capable of learning. 3.65
8.Understanding how instructional strategies that work in one context
might be adapted to other contexts
3.45
3. Reading research (practitioner reports and journal articles) as one
source of useful ideas for improving the MSSE teachers’ practice.
3.40
22. Discussing openly with colleagues what and how they, as teachers, are
learning.
3.40
23. Frequently using informal opportunities to discuss how students learn. 3.35
24. Offering other teachers reassurance and support. 3.30
6. Relating what works in the MSSE teachers’ practice to research
findings and best practices.
3.25
9. Using reflection as a way for the MSSE teachers to identify their
professional learning needs.
3.25
17. Reading/discussing other teachers’ experiences in the classroom and
giving each other feedback.
3.20
27. Regularly celebrating student success. 3.15
28. Discussing with colleagues how students might be helped to learn
how to learn.
3.10
10. Experimenting with their practice as a conscious strategy for
improving classroom teaching and learning.
3.05
Areas perceived to be “less influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of 1 (not at all) and
2. The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination. Generally, an item
with a mean rating of less than 3 was categorized as “less influenced.”
197
The areas that were reported by the faculty to be less influenced by course
experiences were engaging in team teaching with someone at the MSSE teacher's school
as a way of improving practice (95%), in light of evidence from evaluations of classroom
practice by administrators or other colleagues, the MSSE teachers’ modify their practice
(75%), and using insights from the MSSE teachers’ learning in the course to feed into
their school’s policy development (70%). Other areas that were reported by faculty to be
less influenced by course experiences were carrying out joint research/evaluation with
one or more colleagues as a way of improving the MSSE teachers’ practice (65%),
collaborating to plan teaching (55%), and modifying the MSSE teachers' practice in light
of published research evidence (42%).
Turning to colleagues/peers for help if the MSSE teachers have problems with
their teaching (65%) was perceived by faculty as an area of professional learning that
was less influenced by course opportunities, yet the MSSE students perceived this to be
more influenced by almost the same percentage. The faculty also perceived that posting
suggestions, ideas, and approaches for colleagues to try in class (45%) was an area of
professional learning that was less influenced by course experiences, but 50% of the
students found this to be an area more influenced. Further analysis indicated that a final
area influenced less by course experiences was modifying the MSSE teachers' practice in
light of performance and feedback in the course (40%), yet 45% of the MSSE students
perceived it was more influenced. The mean ratings of areas that were perceived as
having less influence on professional learning through course experiences as reported by
the faculty are shown in Table 33.
198
Table 33
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of the Types of Student Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Professional Learning Least Influenced by Course Experiences.
M
18. Engaging in team teaching with someone at the MSSE teacher’s
school as a way of improving practice.
1.40
14. In light of evidence from evaluations of classroom practice by
administrators or other colleagues, the MSSE teachers’ modify their
practice.
2.05
7. Using insights from the MSSE teachers’ learning in the course to feed
into their school’s policy development.
2.15
15. Carrying out joint research/evaluation with one or more colleagues as
a way of improving the MSSE teachers’ practice.
2.20
13. In light of evidence of self-evaluations, the MSSE teachers’ modify
their practice.
2.35
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for help if the MSSE teachers have
problems with their teaching.
2.35
16. Collaborating to plan teaching. 2.55
12. Modifying their practice in light of published research evidence 2.74
Section IV Faculty Survey-MSSE Students’
Science Content Understanding and Knowledge
The purpose of Section IV of the survey was to gather information about the
MSSE students’ science and pedagogical content understanding. Table 34 provides the
means, standard deviations, and frequency of responses from the faculty for the questions
relating to the MSSE students’ science content understanding and knowledge. In Section
IV of the Faculty MPLS, the questions were assessed using a five-point scale with 1 =
“Not at All” and 5 = “To a Great Extent.” Specifically, the question asked, “To what
degree do the course experiences you provide foster the MSSE teachers’ professional
learning, including knowledge and practices, in the following areas?” Some questions
have an N of less than 24 as some respondents left a section blank or skipped a question.
199
For analysis purposes, the data in Section III was combined so that the categories of 4
and 5 represented a “great influence”, while categories 1 and 2 were combined to
represent “none or little influence.”
Table 34
MSSE Program Experiences Perceived by Faculty to Foster the MSSE Students’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency of Responses, (N = 24).
Frequency of responses
Question M SD
1- Not
at all
2 3 4
5 -
To a
Great
extent
29. Understanding student thinking in
science. 3.60 1.142
5%
(1)
10%
(2)
30.0%
(6)
30.0%
(6)
25.0%
(5)
30. Using inquiry/investigation-oriented
teaching strategies. 4.05 .945
0.0%
(0)
5.0%
(1)
25.0%
(5)
30.0%
(6)
40.0%
(8)
31. Using technology in science
instruction (e.g. simulations, probe ware,
digital imagery, etc.).
3.25 1.446
25.0%
(5)
0%
(0)
15.0%
(3)
45.0%
(9)
15.0%
(3)
32. Assessing student learning in science
3.20 1.399
15%
(3)
15%
(3)
30.0%
(6)
15%
(3)
15%
(3)
33. Understanding science curriculum,
including how to use resources and
arrange topics over time. 3.00 1.414
25%
(5)
5%
(1)
30.0%
(6)
25%
(5)
15%
(3)
34. Teaching science in a class that
includes diverse student populations (e.g.
students with disabilities, from
underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of
abilities).
2.20 1.361
45%
(9)
15%
(3)
25.0%
(5)
5%
(1)
10%
(2)
35. Adapting teaching to meet state
assessment requirements 2.05 1.234
45%
(9)
25.0%
(5)
15%
(3)
10%
(2)
5.0%
(1)
36. Adapting teaching to meet state
standards or curriculum framework
requirements.
2.05 1.276
50.0%
(10)
15%
(3)
20%
(4)
10%
(2)
5%
(1)
37. Understanding educational policies
and practices.
1.89 1.197
52.6%
(10)
21.1%
(4)
15.8%
(3)
5.3%
(1)
5.3%
(1)
Note. The numbers in parenthesis represent the frequency of participant responses.
200
Areas perceived to be “more influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of four and five (To
a Great Extent). The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination.
Generally, an item with a mean rating of 3 or more was categorized as “more
influenced.” A lower mean rating was used as the threshold for “more influenced” with
the faculty results as the faculty tended to assign lower ratings than the students. This
may be due to the faculty self-assessing course experiences they provided, or due to
normal behavior within their professional culture.
The results reported in Table 34 indicated that the area of inquiry/investigation-
oriented teaching strategies (70%) was perceived to be more influenced by the course
experiences provided by the faculty. A large number of student responses indicated that
“inquiry based teaching”, “learning through inquiry”, and “inquiry science” were key
aspects of the MSSE program. One student commented, “My experience as a student in
that course was eye-opening in terms of what good inquiry looks like,” which seemed to
support the faculty perception. Slightly over half of the faculty felt that the area of
understanding student thinking in science was influenced through course experiences. A
student supported the perception of understanding student thinking when he or she
remarked, “…challenging assignments, case studies, and etc. that taught me how to
research, how to critically think, and apply scientific research content to how my students
and I learn the best.” One other area of note that was somewhat influenced by course
opportunities provided by instructors was using technology in science instruction (60%).
It is interesting to note that only 40% of the faculty felt the MSSE course experiences
201
fostered the area of assessing student learning, yet this was a common theme in the
student surveys as an area that was more influenced. The mean ratings of areas of
pedagogical content knowledge most influenced through course experiences are shown in
Table 35.
Table 35
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of Students’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Most
Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 24).
M
30. Using inquiry/investigation-oriented teaching strategies. 4.05
29. Understanding student thinking in science. 3.60
31. Using technology in science instruction (e.g. simulations, probe ware,
digital imagery, etc.).
3.25
Areas perceived to be “less influenced” by the MSSE program experiences were
determined by combining the percentages of the Likert scale ratings of 1 (not at all) and
2. The mean rating for each item was also used in the determination. Generally, an item
with a mean rating of less than 3 was assigned the “less influenced” designation.
Further analysis of the results indicated one area of science content understanding and
knowledge less influenced by courses experienced was understanding educational policies and
practices (73.8%). In addition, adapting teaching to meet state assessment requirements (70%)
was an area of professional learning less influenced through course experiences. Other areas of
professional learning less influenced by course experiences provided by the faculty were
teaching science in a class that includes diverse student populations (60%) and adapting
teaching to meet the state standards or curriculum framework (65%). The mean ratings of areas
202
of content understanding and knowledge relating to professional learning least influenced
through course experiences are shown in Table 36.
Table 36
MSSE Faculty Perceptions of Students’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Least
Influenced by Course Experiences, (N = 24).
M
37. Understanding educational policies and practices. 1.89
36. Adapting teaching to meet state assessment requirements 2.05
34. Teaching science in a class that includes diverse student populations
(e.g. students with disabilities, from underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of abilities).
2.20
36. Adapting teaching to meet state standards or curriculum framework
requirements.
2.05
Summary of Faculty Surveys
When the MSSE faculty were surveyed about the extent to which they perceived
their courses fostered science content understanding and knowledge, the following areas
were noted as having more influence: analyzing and drawing conclusions, providing
evidence to support scientific ideas, working on problems based in real-life, articulating
scientific ideas in a discussion, engaging in science process skills and reflection on
scientific ideas of both self and others. One of the goals of the MSSE courses is to
connect science and/or education pedagogical content to the everyday practice of the
MSSE students (Montana State University, 2010). The concerted effort to provide a best-
practices approach to the development and delivery of course content is evidenced in the
results of the faculty survey.
203
In Section II of the survey, the questions focused on the extent to which program
experiences faculty provided fostered scientific knowledge and practice. Not
surprisingly, the MSSE faculty reported that the ability to articulate scientific ideas in a
discussion was an area cultivated in the program through course experiences. In addition,
course experiences were said to influence the area of participants’ reflection on scientific
ideas and analyzing and drawing conclusions from data, observations, and other forms of
scientific evidence. These items exemplified practicing and engaging in science process
skills. The areas of professional learning that included opportunities for on-site fieldwork
and interacting with models were found to be slightly less influenced by the course
experiences. It should be noted that not all MSSE courses are field-based nor use models
in the teaching of content. Less than one third of the faculty respondents teach on
campus courses which may account why these areas where rated as less influenced.
Section III of the Faculty MPLS focused on professional learning. Using the
Internet a source of ideas to improve teaching practice was an area of professional
learning influenced by the course experiences. Similar to the student survey, the faculty
results indicated that course experiences influenced an area of professional learning that
included providing opportunities to read research, both practitioner and journal articles
as way to improve practice. One of the case study participant’s comments supported this
statement when he or she said, “You get exposed to all this cutting edge information from
your content classes and then at the same time you get the research or background and the
guidance from science education researchers.”
204
Reflective practice is a hallmark of professional learning. Both the faculty and
the student survey results indicated that reflection was an area of professional learning
influenced by course experiences. The faculty reported an area that was influenced to
some degree by the course experiences was encouraging the MSSE students to regularly
celebrate student success. An area that MSSE faculty perceived as influenced through
experiences offered in their courses was the use of learning of the MSSE teachers to
improve their students’ learning. Findings from the student survey reported earlier in this
study appear to support this faculty position. An example of this alignment is provided
by the following MSSE student response to an open-ended survey item: “The courses
have offered a great opportunity to work with other students and use their experience to
improve my teaching.”
The faculty survey results illustrated that the MSSE program experiences
influenced the pedagogical content knowledge and the area of deepening science content
knowledge. Another area influenced by course experiences was using inquiry
investigation-orientated teaching strategies. Teaching science to a diverse student
population was an area that was less influenced by course experiences provided by the
faculty. These results were similar to the student results with one exception. Just 40% of
the faculty perceived that assessing student learning, which student responses sometimes
linked to providing differentiated instruction for diverse learners, was an area influenced
by course experiences. Yet was an area influenced by course experiences, yet the
students described this as a far greater influence on their thinking than on any other
aspect of pedagogy based on the student survey and open-ended responses. One
205
student’s comment supported this by stating, “…the formative assessments and the
research behind formative assessments really, really revolutionized my teaching and I
think really strengthened it.”
MSSE Student Case Studies
This section describes the professional learning of six MSSE students through
case narratives of both graduates and current students. Each participant was an
experienced teacher and all but one participant was teaching during the 2008-2009 and
2009-2010 school years, the period during which this study took place. The data in the
narratives was gained from personal interviews and a portfolio, when provided, and was
used to answer the following research questions:
2. How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content knowledge-based
graduate degree program perceived by students, and how have program
experiences influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning
because of their participation in such a program?
b. What program experiences, from a program teacher’s perspective,
contribute to participants’ professional learning?
c. What evidence of teacher professional learning can be identified?
3. How does the distance mode of delivery of this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate program impact the science teacher’s professional
learning?
206
In addition, the data was analyzed and synthesized across the six student cases to provide
more in-depth answers to the research questions.
Each case narrative provides a description of the case participant’s perceptions of
professional learning that was a result of participation in the MSSE program. Categories
that emerged within and across the cases included motivation to pursue a degree,
classroom connections, pedagogical influences, content knowledge, impact on student
learning, online opportunities, action research, reflective practice, and social connections.
These categories were used to organize the data.
Each narrative describes the influence of the MSSE program on the participants
from the dimensions of professional learning using the themes that emerged from the
data. Quotes from the interviews and the portfolios were used to support the findings.
All names of the participants were changed for confidentiality. In addition, any other
identifying information for MSSE faculty, staff, and courses were changed for
confidentiality. The experiences that led to professional learning were also highlighted to
illustrate the effective components of the MSSE program and the benefits to participants.
Through the analysis of the MSSE student case studies, it was evident that each
teacher valued a combination of program features, and this combination varied somewhat
from case to case. Therefore, no clear distinct categories emerged from the data. Rather,
three terms were used to describe prevalent program features that influenced the case
study participants. These features included the classroom connector, the assessor, and the
pedagogical learner. The features were developed after discovering philosophies and
perspectives from the case studies through participation in the program and their own
207
classroom practices. There was overlap between categories and the MSSE students
demonstrated behaviors or perspectives that fit into more than one feature. These are not
mutually exclusive features. These features were used when appropriate to add another
level of perspective when describing the case study.
The “classroom connector” was defined as those MSSE students who attempted
to connect their experiences in the program to their own classrooms. These teachers
looked at their courses from the perspective that they wanted to increase their
pedagogical and content knowledge, but in a manner that could translate directly into
their own classrooms. They viewed the MSSE course from the lens of how their own
students would directly benefit by enhancing their content knowledge.
Those MSSE students who found an assessment course required by the program
to be a transformative experience were delineated as “assessor”. The ideas of summative
and formative assessment became the driving force in which they examined their own
practice and all of the other MSSE courses they completed. They valued the feedback
that was given by the MSSE faculty. Feedback became a way to inform how they were
grasping the concepts and understanding their growth as educators. Reflection became
an integral part of understanding how to meet the needs of their students It then translated
into their own classrooms as a technique through which to inform themselves of their
own students’ understanding of concepts.
The “pedagogical learners” were those MSSE students who were educators in a
community college or informal education setting. The MSSE students were teachers, yet
had little to no formal pedagogical coursework. These MSSE students had a strong
208
science content background, yet had never been exposed to common K12 terminology or
pedagogical background as others in their MSSE cohort. The pedagogical issues and
strategies that were discussed became the lens through which they viewed their MSSE
experience.
In providing a clear picture of each category, direct quotations from the interview
and the portfolio are included to illustrate the case study. The quotations and excerpts
from the portfolio are presented as originally spoken or written. No attempt to correct
grammar, spelling, or phrasing was made. The only corrections made were those that
were needed to clarify the statements spoken or written. The names of the participants,
MSSE faculty or staff, and course names were sometimes changed for confidentiality
reasons. Word substitutions for confidentiality or clarity are enclosed in parentheses.
Charles
Charles is an experienced teacher from the west coast. He has taught high school
science for more than 10 years. Charles teaches Biology, Honors Biology, and Earth
Science. In addition, he serves as the department chair. Charles is also busy outside of
school as a baseball coach and father to four children. Charles is very passionate about
his personal educational goals and sought out a master’s program that had a strong
science component. He was concerned about the large number of “drive through
universities” that offered master’s degrees without substance. Charles described this in
detail when he stated, “They were in and out with meaningless degrees in my opinion. I
wanted to do science - science is my love. A colleague of mine was in the same
209
predicament: wanting to do a science master’s. He looked into this and signed on. He
said the classes are ‘real’ classes.”
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Charles was motivated to earn a master’s degree
because of the increased compensation his district offered for attainment of the degree.
He also needed a program that would fit into his busy lifestyle and cause the least impact
on his family. “I planned going back and earning my master’s probably zoology from
UC-Davis. That’s what I expected. Marriage, kids, job, it just wasn’t going to happen.
To be honest, I started seeing my colleagues earning more money so I was motivated to
get my master’s again because it was going to put me on a much higher pay scale,” stated
Charles. A colleague referred him to the MSSE program. Charles began by taking one
course. He wanted to get a sense of the rigor of the science content and if the program
was manageable with his work and family schedule. Charles had a positive experience
with the initial course and moved forward in applying to the program.
Charles’ overall impression of the MSSE program was that it had been
“outstanding”. The science content was what drew Charles to the program. It was the
content component that influenced Charles a classroom connector. Each and every
course Charles took, he wanted to ensure what he was learning was being transferred to
his classroom. He wanted his students to go beyond the textbook and connect with
content that was “cutting edge”. Describing his experience in the (course), the initial
course that convinced him this was the right fit for him, he stated:
210
…I was learning things that were beneficial to my classroom. I
Decided to go for it. It’s been good because I feel like I am in a
science major but at the same time every class I has taken had
given me something to take back to the classroom.
He wanted to share the passion he has for science with his own students by
bringing into his classroom strategies and content that was beyond what was the norm.
As Charles said, “We were able to take a lot of those labs that we did in class and I was
able to work that into my curriculum.”
Inquiry –Pedagogical and Content Influences. For Charles, the increased depth of
pedagogical content knowledge and change in perspective on particular topics in science
was a result of exposure to different courses in the MSSE program. Charles stated,
“Little things like that give me a way to connect with the kids. I am wondering is there a
way I can do that with my class.”
Charles described numerous courses and instructors that offered insights or
perspectives that added a new twist or dimension to his teaching. As a classroom
connector, Charles viewed his experience from the lens of how an idea or strategy might
be incorporated into his class. “My style is my style. What I’ve gotten is I’ve picked up
useful info. …. I don’t know if it has changed my style but it has made me a better
teacher, it has given me a more broad range of knowledge.”
The content that Charles was exposed to during his time in the MSSE program
also contributed to the inquiry aspect of his professional learning. The cutting edge
research, the scientists sharing their research, and the opportunities to mirror the same
laboratory techniques discussed in class added to the richness of the experience for
211
Charles. It also contributed to Charles connecting these experiences back to his
classroom. “I think because of the enhanced knowledge I am able to give them a broader
view of things rather than just –using our astronomy units. We were sticking to the text
books and we are pretty much talking about those things, but now we can go further it’s
going right back to them (the students).”
Charles mentioned several courses that influenced his practice and his own
content knowledge. In describing a course, he often made a reference to how it
challenged his thinking about how to share this with his students. In describing his
experience with the (course) he mentioned, “I hadn’t really got into how we see the
universe and how life relates. When I was taught it was - here’s this and this is this and
this is this - I got a whole different perspective. It opened my eyes to a lot of things.” He
felt that this was something that his own students would “get into.”
The online courses also added a new perspective of engaging his students with the
content. Charles found the online discussions a comfortable way of talking about
concepts with his colleagues. Charles described it as, “The online was good because I
was participating in discussion. But if I were in a class having to raise my hand I
wouldn’t have done it. It was much more comfortable for me.” For Charles, the online
discussions allowed him to open up in a manner he had never done before. It was that
insight into his own learning, which then moved him to connect his experiences with his
own students.
Charles described himself as someone reserved in small group settings. Charles
surmised that if he felt this way about speaking up in a face-to face course, perhaps some
212
of his students had a similar apprehension. Charles took this experience of online
discussions and conjectured his own students may benefit from an online experience:
Even though I was into technology, outside of a website, I didn’t
consider bringing it into a classroom. I didn’t realize how to do it
but it was so simple after having done these classes. After doing
these classes it was like “Why can’t we have discussions online?
- Why can’t they log in after hours like we do?”
This new perspective caused Charles to design and develop a weekly blog for his own
students to discuss the content. “I wanted to increase the success of my classroom
through a biology blog by increasing student participation.” This became the premise of
Charles’ capstone research. In describing the use of an online blog to engage all of his
students in a discussion, Charles reported:
But what ended up happening with my class is that they ended up
becoming a team of learners. Unknowingly. By the end they would
realize and they would say things in their interview like - well I knew
if I was wrong someone would come in and tell me what was right or
I knew you were on there all the time, so I knew you were going to log
in and say . . .” Usually I would send them private emails and then they
could go back to the group. It did work pretty well. So I am going to
incorporate it in my classes now on.
Charles described this as one of the aspects of the MSSE program that most influenced
his professional learning.
Charles also wanted to include technology in his courses more frequently, but in a
manner that influenced his students’ learning. Charles wrote about his goal to “increase
student interest and to provide content” in his portfolio:
While in the MSSE program I completed the (course) which required
students to develop PowerPoint presentations in order to deliver
subject specific content. Prior to this class, I hadn’t given thought to
the use of PowerPoint presentations as a delivery tool for information
in the classroom. The entire semester, I took great care to create
213
each presentation with the intention of using it during the appropriate
units in the upcoming school year. Also, I downloaded several
presentations written by other students (with their permission, of
course) in order to use, as well. I like the thought of using PowerPoint
presentations to provide information to the students. The use of this
technology has allowed me to provide written information, images,
and video during class lessons.
Charles included an example of a PowerPoint he developed for his class in his portfolio.
It was rich in physics and astronomy content, as well as containing vivid imagery. A
university faculty member whose research focus is in physics/astronomy education
reviewed the content of the PowerPoint. The faculty member reported that the content
was not only appropriate for a high school course, but it was in much more depth than is
generally covered in a similar science classes at this level.
Social Capital –Social Connections. Connecting with other teachers in the MSSE
program played a role in Charles’ professional learning. His strongest connections were
made in the online courses. The online discussions offered a comfortable and
nonthreatening way to engage in the course discussions with his colleagues. As Charles
stated:
I was the kind of student that comes even now to these presentations
and I want to sit in the back, I don’t want to be noticed. I am going to
do every thing that’s asked of me and I understand what’s going on
but I don’t want to speak…that’s just the kind of student I was. In the
online discussions, I was more likely—well, I had to get involved. It
wasn’t as intimidating.
The online discussion groups offered Charles the opportunity to engage and collaborate
with others in a manner he had never done before in a face-to-face course. Charles
articulated this when he said, “The discussion thing for me was the first time I had gotten
214
that involved in discussion. I have no problem collaborating with my colleagues or
someone in a discussion group like that.”
In his portfolio, Charles again alluded to the fact he was often one who sat back
and did what was expected, but was challenged to engage with others including the
instructor:
When I was an undergrad I felt as if I was inferior to professors
while in the classroom. I was there to complete assignments and
earn enough knowledge to pass the course. During my studies at
MSU in the MSSE program, I felt as if I was a contributing member
of a team of learners within in class population. My opinions and
contributions were valued as a professional.
The MSSE program changed that perspective for him.
Critical and Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice. Charles described himself
as a reflective practitioner. Through his participation in the MSSE program, he described
his reflection to be more focused. Charles felt his reflection was specific on a particular
strategy or concept he was teaching. Charles also commented that he now reflected with
colleagues with whom he worked. Charles described his professional growth in his
portfolio. “The feedback received was invaluable as I grew towards my MSSE degree
goals. It was the interaction between professionals that was probably most valuable
during my course of study. Each member of the course, from students to professors were
constantly providing feedback to help each other in the learning process.”
For Charles, the reflective process also included a resulting action. He was open
to what other MSSE students and faculty offered as suggestions and ideas, yet aware of
the need to contextualize it. As Charles described:
215
…..someone who had something you liked and you would take a
little bit from that person. And another teacher that you liked, you
took this. I think I got a lot of that from the different classes. There
wasn’t really a class that I thought wasn’t going to do it for me
teaching wise. There were always some small components. There
were certain things where you thought that will work for you but
not for me it’s not my style.
Charles felt strongly about incorporating new pedagogical strategies in his class. It
required him to ponder it and play it out in his mind before taking action. His reflection
made him think through the implementation of new strategies or concepts.
Charles described a reflective moment from a (course). The instructor used a
variety of PowerPoint’s in the presentation of the content. Charles felt they would have
value in his own classroom:
I got to thinking, “Wow, we’re sure spending a lot of time on these
power points.” It dawned on me that he wants me to use these in
my classroom. I thought about it and actually talked to a colleague
of mine. I said, “Hey what do you think? You’ve done these in these
classes too.” He said he thinks they’d be great but who has the time.
I said I’ve got all these from this class. So I started using them in my
Earth science class.
Charles needed the reflection time to make sure the implementation of a new strategy
would fit within his teaching context. Charles was not the type of teacher who
immediately integrated a new strategy into his repertoire. He needed time to process it
and figure out the best ways to use it with his own students.
Valuing Learning. Charles’ motivation to enroll in the MSSE program was based
on the fact the program is a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate
degree program. As a classroom teacher, Charles felt compelled to make sure that the
content he was teaching was not only relevant to his students, but also current and up to
216
date. Science is an ever-changing body of knowledge and Charles wanted to impress that
upon his own students. Charles described the caliber of the program in his portfolio
when he stated, “The MSSE program contained professionals who valued their role as
science instructors and professionals.”
Initially, the motivation driving Charles’ master’s work was financial. His
master’s degree would increase his salary. As he got more involved in the program, that
motivation shifted, and he began to value his own learning from a different perspective.
Charles stated, “Before I started doing this I wasn’t thinking about that, I was thinking
about the money. But now I am glad that I went through the whole thing and it leaves
you wanting to keep going.”
Content Knowledge. One of the key factors that drew Charles to the MSSE
program was the fact it was a science-based program. As much as he wanted to pursue a
master’s degree, he had personal requirements for the program he selected. He had
reviewed “drive-by universities.” These were online programs that he felt were inferior
and only required a series of tasks to jump through without any substance. Charles
wanted a program where he could pursue his passion of science.
Charles initial foray into the MSSE program was a single course. He used this as
a gauge of the type of program he was seeking. He immediately found value to the
course as, “I was learning things that were beneficial to my classroom.” Charles had a
strong commitment to his students and wanted to make sure his students were being
exposed to relevant and current information. He wanted to go beyond the text, and the
217
MSSE program offered that to him. As Charles stated, “The thing about science is you
have to keep up. If you don’t keep up you are way behind. More than any other subject.”
Several classes made an impact on Charles and resulted in a direct connection to
his classroom. Charles stated, “The experience made me more knowledgeable about
science but in a way that I could use in my classroom.” In the (course A), he felt “the
class enhanced my chemical knowledge of the greenhouse emissions and how they affect
the warming process and the climate change process.” The (course A) clarified his
understanding of the process in a way that he felt was simple and elegant – and
something that his own students would grasp and understand.
A second course caused Charles to reflect about its implications and influence on
student learning. He stated, “Like with the (course B) thing, I was wondering - is there a
way I can do that with my class? This whole experience gave me a broad range of
things.” This was a new way of looking at things for Charles. As a former researcher he
felt his focus was very “tunneled”. The background experiences influenced his teaching
until he began the MSSE program. Connecting his own content learning to the learning
of his students was a driving force for Charles.
There was a third course that influenced his learning as well as that of his
students. Charles had a research science background and described how he had done
some water quality testing previously. Before participating in this third course, he never
envisioned it as something he could do with his own students:
I knew water quality from a research point of view and how to test
water, but I hadn’t done it in a moving body of water. How to tell the
pollution index and so on. The experience made me more knowledgeable
about science but in a way that I could use in my classroom.
218
Even in an area of science Charles felt he was knowledgeable about before joining
MSSE, a course experience took his learning to a deeper level. In addition, it also
revealed ways that the subject matter and a related field investigation could be used
within his own classroom to deepen the level of understanding with his own students.
Charles summed up his professional learning in MSSE about content with a brief phrase,
“It really strengthened my content knowledge.”
As a classroom connector, it was important for Charles to connect his own
learning to his students’ learning. By increasing his content knowledge, he was
empowered to be a stronger classroom teacher. This excerpt from his portfolio describes
the connection (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Charles Portfolio Excerpt
Charles provided student work samples from one of the courses he teaches. The
activity he used for his portfolio was a direct result of a course he had taken in the MSSE
program. He wrote that he developed “lab assignments related to the current course
topic. The marriage of the presentation and lab activity provided a dynamic tool for
219
delivery of instruction. This is merely one example of how my scope of teaching has
broadened as a result of skills learned within the MSSE program.” The work sample
submitted related directly to his PowerPoint example. A university faculty member
whose research focuses on physics/astronomy education reviewed the content of the work
sample. While, there was a traditional approach to instruction, the astronomy content
being examined in the lab activity was deemed to be very solid. The sample provided a
clear sequence of concepts and learning progression. In addition, the questions being
asked required students to articulate their understanding with examples.
Online Learning. Charles represented a typical teacher, extremely busy with
school and extracurricular activities, and raising a family of young children. Time away
from his family and position was not an option for him as he sought a master’s program.
The online aspect of the MSSE program offered a solution to his busy schedule and
family commitments:
But being able to go on when I had time—when everyone has gone
to bed, during my prep period, on weekends. That was a big plus.
I didn’t feel like the class was diluted because of those things. It
was every bit as rigorous as a lot of classes I’ve taken or any class
I’ve taken.
Charles wanted a master’s program that was science based. But it was also important for
him to find a program that could accommodate his lifestyle.
Charles described the online opportunity as the only way he could earn an
advanced degree. Charles stated, “I don’t know how I would have been able to do if it
wasn’t for that. I don’t know how I would have went back to earn my master’s at a
220
respectful university.” The MSSE program offered Charles both the flexibility he desired
and the opportunity to engage in an academically rigorous science program.
Sue
Sue is a veteran teacher who has taught for eighteen years. Sue teaches in south
central U.S. in a town with a population of about 10,000. It is classified as a 3A school, a
mid-size school for the state, with a student population of 418. Sue teaches Chemistry,
Honors Chemistry, Advanced Placement (AP) Biology, and Anatomy and Physiology.
Some years, if there is an interest and enrollment, she also teaches Advanced Placement
Chemistry. Now that Sue has earned her master’s degree, a local community college will
allow dual credit for her students for the AP biology course.
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Sue was motivated to get a master’s degree in
science. Her rural location did not offer any opportunities for advanced degrees. Her
personal research led her to the MSSE program. She stated:
There’s nothing [master's degree] in science. There’s general
education, there’s counseling degrees, and you can do those in
the summers and at night and weekends. But in science, there’s
nothing. This was the first one. I think there’s a couple more now--
Maryland and Mississippi now have one that has cropped up in the
last couple of years. But this place has got it together and they’ve
got so much experience at doing it.
MSSE met her needs for the type of degree she was seeking and the online aspect offered
her the ability to pursue a degree without taking a sabbatical leave. Sue speaks highly of
the MSSE program and the experience. The on-campus classes were described as
221
“awesome.” The online courses exceeded her initial expectations. This was Sue’s first
experience with online courses.
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences. As a classroom connector, Sue’s
classroom connections focused primarily on content, but she commented on some
pedagogical strategies that she found powerful too. For example, Sue commented on her
experience in MSSE discussions as follows: “There’s a different level of communication
there than what there was before. Instead of - I’m the teacher in front of the room- it’s a
give and take. An exchange with them like the exchange with your classmates.” Sue felt
the MSSE program enabled her to facilitate her students learning rather than simply
imparting information.
Another pedagogical influence stemmed from the feedback she received in her
courses. Sue began to ask her students to submit lab reports electronically. Using the
reviewing feature in Microsoft Word, she commented on their work. Sue stated:
I even started doing that [reviewing in Word] with my AP Biology
kids. I started having them e-mail me their lab reports and I started
typing on there. They thought that was just the coolest thing. I
started actually doing that the way (Instructor) would do. That was
the way he would do that: type back in a different color and send it
back. And I took that and did that with those kids. They thought it
was great.
For Sue, it was not just that the students thought it was great technique, but she
felt the feedback she was providing was really assessing their work and made her
more accountable to the process.
Sue remarked on several instances in which the research she did influenced her
classroom instruction. Digging into the research allowed Sue to experiment with
222
different concepts that she had never used before with her students. Sue described the
research aspect:
The classroom research helps a lot. Because you are going to
choose something that goes with your job and what you are doing
to enhance that. It changes the way you address the students, the
way you address the problems, the learning styles and all that. It
just begins to come together. You look at everything a little bit
differently when you are looking at it from the researcher’s point
of view instead of the teacher: or you get both viewpoints, the
researcher and the teacher point of view.
Sue felt the research supported her making the classroom connections. “The work
that they assign you is really applicable to whatever you’re doing. You can take
some of your projects, take them right into the classroom and use them with your
kids.” As a classroom connector, Sue translated her learning into her classroom
practice.
In one course, Sue was tasked with creating a Winogradsky column. Until this
course, she had never heard of one. Her research, building one, and then asking her
students to do the same expanded her realm of learning. Sue described the experience,
“You might have done it before as a student, but I had never done it or even heard of it
before. And so we researched all that and then we built them and then we reported on
them. I just went right to the classroom and said - Look up this Winogradsky column and
read about it, and go out and build you one. And they did, and they are still in my room.”
Transforming her learning to her students’ learning was of great importance.
Sue also had a limited lab science background from her undergraduate experience.
One MSSE instructor created a special problems course for her to allow her the
opportunity to expand her understanding of lab procedures and techniques. Sue stated, “I
223
never had a really good lab experience for certain things. He planned that and then I
spent a week in the lab with one of his graduate students going through all the procedures
and everything.” The time in the lab and the additional research allowed her confidence
to begin to make changes in her own classroom through connecting her lab experiences to
experiences for her students.
As a classroom connector, Sue naturally described the MSSE experience as
exposing her to a vast amount of information that has a practical application. Sue
described this as, “They know we are teachers. And it seems that they have that in mind
all the time so the things you learn you can put them right into your classroom.”
Social Capital – Social Connections. Sue described the connections she made
with fellow MSSE students as a valuable part of her professional learning. For Sue, the
connections she made were another layer of the power of the MSSE program. She felt
they were an “invaluable part of the program.” She summed it up with the comment;
“I’ve kept contact with the people from ’07. People from last year were at my
presentation today they just happened to be here. It’s a community of a different sort.
It’s amazing how close you can get with people in a situation like that. The connection.”
The social connections that Sue made allowed her opportunities to share ideas.
The exchange with other MSSE students all across the country – and the advisors –
allowed her to view teaching from a more global perspective. Sue stated, “It’s a trading
of ideas and discussion. And you feel like you can always go back to your advisors
forever now. You’ve got these contacts you can go back to and get information from.”
224
The exchange of ideas also supported her as a classroom connector by expanding her
repertoire of ideas to use with her students.
Sue teaches AP Biology and feels the social connections she made with her
MSSE colleagues supported her in her challenge to teach this course. Opportunities to
ask for ideas and “how you do this” from the larger group strengthened her teaching.
One experience she described involved a person in China teaching International
Baccalaureate biology and exchanging ideas with Sue and others on content and
pedagogy. For Sue, this type of social connection strengthened the experience of the
MSSE program.
Critical and Responsive Learning – Reflective Practice. Sue found the MSSE
program caused her to become a more reflective individual. As a classroom connector,
Sue immediately described her reflection as being a student and how that it made her
empathetic toward her own students. She stated, “You go back to being the student again
and you realize what you are putting them through. How do they feel when they are
sitting there? Because the first few years you remember, but then you forget what that felt
like.” For Sue, relating her own experience to that of her students was part of the
professional learning process and being a classroom connector.
Sue described her reflection process in her courses as well, and the influence in
her own practice. Sue said, “You sit there and think about it and you type it and then you
say “um, no” and then you change it and you really put something into it instead of just
popping off like that. It changes the way you interact with your students too.” She goes
on to describe how the feedback that she got from other MSSE students and instructors
225
created a positive interaction. It was that positive interaction, based on reflection, which
she wanted to share with her own students. Sue stated, “You want them to feel confident
and feel successful. The way they make you feel when you get your feedback. Even
though you may be being corrected, it’s in such a way that’s encouraging. So you want,
in turn -oh, hey! I want my student to feel good like that about their work.” Again, Sue
made the connections with her learning to that of her students.
Valuing Learning. Sue walked away from the MSSE program with the sense of
being valued and appreciated by the instructors. This perception was developed from the
positive interactions she experienced with the MSSE faculty. Sue stated, “It’s changed
me a lot to be a student again.” Sue took this to heart and wanted to continue to create a
positive environment in her own classroom.
Sue enjoyed her time on campus and much of that stemmed from the interactions
with the MSSE faculty, MSU campus, and fellow MSSE students. Sue reflected on the
experience:
… it’s anywhere you go here, I don’t know what it is about this place,
but anywhere you go you are going to get a smile and a cheerful
response and a positive . . .. This is my third trip to campus and it’s
anything that they can do to make it easier for you—whatever they
can do, I’ve never seen another place like it.
It was that same environment of positive learning that Sue wanted to duplicate in her
home school.
Sue also shared with her students her pursuit of an advanced degree. Many of her
students may earn dual credit for some of their high school courses through online
226
courses. The shared experience of taking an online class was something Sue felt enabled
her to relate more to her students.
Content Knowledge. Sue relished the science content in the MSSE program. Sue
described her undergraduate experience as limited, particularly in the area of laboratory
science. The MSSE program nurtured her limited experience with a special course to
begin to fill in the gap in her learning. Sue felt she had heard about many of the concepts
that were discussed in her courses, but she did not feel she had a depth to her
understanding. She described this insight saying;
I think all the way back to the first summer of ’07 when I started
with the thermal biology and learning about the MRAs and where
it came from and all of that. I have heard of it since way back since
in my undergrad days which is a long time ago. Can’t remember
exactly when it was discovered. But I had heard about it at some
point but I never knew exactly what it was so that just opened the
whole field.
The content information from the courses and the additional research background
influenced Sue’s professional learning.
Sue delighted in the new information and “cutting edge stuff” that the MSSE
program had to offer. Each course was a new opportunity to embed the information from
the course into her own classes, thus enriching the experiences of her students. An
experience Sue fondly recollected was making biofilms.
I have a fish aquarium in my room and I was, “Oh my goodness,
I can grow a biofilm.” We had slides dangling in it and everything.
We had to stop and learn about. . .this was cutting edge stuff guys
and you need to know about that. I’ll even use it again this year.
My anatomy and physiology classes had to write a report on some
type of biofilm problem in the health field industry because they are
all health career oriented. Got that right from (the instructor).
227
Sue’s enthusiasm for the content courses flowed over into her other descriptions
of other experiences.
Sue had recently taken a (botany course). Her voice got higher as she
described the influence of the course:
This past week I took the most fantastic. . .the (botany course) with
(instructor). Oh my goodness, that was just unbelievable. ... and
people ask what good is that going to do: (Course) when you come
back here? They don’t understand, the way she approached it, we can
go anywhere now in any part of the world and take the key from that
country and go right out into that field. It’s not that easy, but you know
what I mean. It applies to everything. . . I can go right home and do it. . .
Sue always included a clause of how she took it back to her teaching context.
Sue described another course that was influential as follows: “(The instructor)
had experiments going up on the shuttle at the time that I was in his class. He was going
back and forth to NASA. It’s just so inspiring and it’s right there. You feel like you’re
on the cutting edge.” For Sue, these types of experiences not only pushed her
professional learning, but renewed her interest in particular content areas.
Online Learning. Sue teaches in a rural part of her state. She has access to a
small community college, but no other institutions of higher education. Sue was not
financially able to take a sabbatical to pursue a master’s degree. Sue had explored other
options:
I actually asked of my one-time favorite professors from my
undergrad, because I went back to college and graduated later at
age 40. So I asked him “Now, I want to get my master’s in biology,
I’ve got this teaching job, I’ve got this lab, I’ve got all this stuff.
Can’t we work something out so that I could do that?” He thought
that was hilarious. They aren’t laughing now because this has all
228
come up around them. They thought distance education was just
ridiculous.
The other issue for Sue was she did not want to get a general education master’s degree.
Sue stated, “There’s counseling degrees, and you can do those in the summers and at
night and weekends.” But Sue wanted a science degree. Through some research she
found the MSSE program.
The appeal of the MSSE program was in part that it could be completed via
distance. The ability to take rigorous science courses while still maintaining her position
as a high school science teacher was a strength of the program. Sue said, “ There’s no
way, being a traditional teacher in a rural community that you can go and be a traditional
graduate student.” Sue summed up the online opportunity with, “If not for the distance
part, I would not have been able to do it at all.” The online access offered Sue an
opportunity she otherwise would not have had.
Action Research. The MSSE program was Sue’s first exposure to action research.
It offered her a different approach to looking at data. As she described her past
experiences with analyzing student work, she often felt the intended outcome of the
analysis was not evident. With the experience of the capstone project, she began to view
data analysis with a different lens.
Sue shared a story of how her school was identified by the state due to low test
scores. A team from the regional educational service center provided professional
development for their staff. As she described the process:
People came to give a workshop because our science state test
scores were low. Of course they brought out all the pages and
229
pages of data from the test. Normally I would be, ugh, glazed
over. I would be, “I am not looking at any of those numbers, and
I don’t care about that. I am just going to teach my stuff and my
kids are going to learn it.” This time I was like, “Oh, data analysis.
Well, ok, let me have some of those pages. I can figure out what’s
going on here.” It gives the teacher/researcher outlook on everything.
It’s really powerful.
Her experience with her capstone project gave her insights into the data that allowed the
professional development to be more informative to her. Overall, Sue found the action
research “… fits in with your job and makes your job better and makes you more aware.
It makes you a better teacher. It doesn’t take away from the job that you have to do that
comes first.” Even with the action research, Sue connected it to her own students’
learning.
Barb
Barb is a young enthusiastic educator. She teaches in a north suburb of a large
urban area. It is a large four- year public high school. The student population is around
2000 students. The population is predominately Caucasian, with 20% of the students
from other ethnic groups. There is an English language learner program at the school,
including a transitional program in biology that Barb teaches. In addition to the
transitional program, Barb also teaches AP Biology, Honors Biology, and Biology
Survey. Biology Survey is a lower level biology for struggling learners.
Barb is very active in extracurricular activities. She coaches volleyball for boys
and girls. Volleyball is both a fall and spring sport, so it leaves little free time. In
addition, Barb has children of her own.
230
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Barb initially looked at a master’s degree as a
way of increasing her salary. Her husband is a stay at home dad, so they are a one-
income household. The increase in salary was a strong motivator. In addition to the
financial incentives, it was important for Barb to earn a science degree. Barb stated, “I
wanted really badly to get a master’s or graduate degree in this content area, in science.
This is actually the closest thing to it.”
Barb was a strong champion of the MSSE program. She described it as a
“phenomenal program”. The only suggestion she offered to improve the program was to
“market it more than it already has been.” Barb felt the MSSE program epitomized a
high quality master’s degree program.
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences. The most significant influence on
Barb was the assessment course. That course offered a new perspective to assessment
that she had not considered up to this point. It also gave her a lens to view all of the
courses she took in MSSE, as she observed how each instructor assessed her work and
how could she use that approach to assessment in her own practice. It was this focus that
identified Barb as an assessor. Barb described her use of formative assessment as, “I did
very little of it before I started in the program. And now, it’s kind of transformed the way
I do things.”
Up to this point Barb had only taken online courses. But it was the rich
discussions in the online courses that influenced her pedagogical strategies:
And in some instances I tried like “Oh that sounds like such a cool
example of how you got your kids through your content”. And I
231
tried it and it was a complete flop so I am like—ok. What happened
there?? There are other things you can take from different teachers
because it’s a whole community of different teachers working together.
You are sharing/they are sharing their research and allowing you to
grow more and use different learning strategies in your classroom that
I don’t know that you would actually tap into as well as if you are
sitting in a class of 50-60 students.
Barb found this exchange of ideas powerful. The access to ideas from the online
community met her professional learning needs.
Barb discovered that the action research component of the MSSE program
provided a way to make connections between the science content and assessment in her
own classroom. While she felt that her students were learning, she didn’t have clear
measures for assessing their growth. Barb surmised how the action research influenced
her assessment practices:
But when you can take action research and have it applicable to
where your students currently are at, what you need to do to help
them. They’re giving you feedback for your teaching and you’re
giving them feedback for their learning. And they structure it in a
way where you can actually look at data, statistically, from your
classes as they are currently going on. I think that’s a huge benefit.
Barb focused on data from her students as a means of assessing understanding.
The inquiry aspect of professional learning was powerful for Barb, in particular
the literature review for the action research she conducted for her capstone project. She
found the process “one of the most important and beneficial of the whole capstone
project.” In her portfolio, she wrote about the literature review, “It gives insights to what
works from teachers across the globe and establishes a foundation for best practice. It is
something that I would not have done if I had not been part of the MSSE program.” The
literature review focused on assessment.
232
Barb’s portfolio illustrated the influence of assessment on her practice. She
developed Diagnostic Learning Logs for her students as part of her action research. In
her portfolio, she wrote about how she used them in her classes:
The goals of the pretest with diagnostic learning log (were) to
allow students to engage in metacognitive behaviors in the
classroom, review their previous learning regarding background
content in Biology and to allow the instructor to assess students’
prior knowledge. In reviewing their own work in this manner,
students can develop analytic skills, develop problem solving skills,
adapt their study habits based on analysis of individual work and
cultivate a sense of responsibility for their own learning.
Barb included a copy of the Diagnostic Learning Log in her portfolio as an example of
how she utilized her professional learning from the MSSE program to influence her
students’ learning. A copy of the log is included below in Figure 9.
Diagnostic Learning Log
1. Briefly describe the test. What was it about?
2. Give one or two content examples of areas where you were felt most successful
on the exam. Try to explain what things you did that made them successful.
3. Look at the questions you got wrong, how many were strictly knowledge based
(i.e. vocabulary) and how many were application based (analyzing lab data)?
4. For each answer that was incorrect, explain what you did wrong in each case.
Explain the content of the problem.
Figure 9. Barb’s Diagnostic Learning Log
233
Barb used the logs as a way for students to earn points back on the exams, but her
students’ reported other value in using the logs. Barb shared the reflections of her own
students on the use of learning logs.
“I really had to go back and understand the content I missed, and
it helped my grade.” Another added, “I like being able to look up
and explain things so that I am able to know the information.” A
third student stated, “Diagnostic learning logs let me see exactly
what I don’t know and how to correct it.” With regards to the
diagnostic learning logs only two of the students mentioned earning
points back and one student mentioned that, “it helps you go over
your mistakes so you can get them right on the AP test.”
The learning log was a powerful tool in assessing her students’ understanding.
Barb shared some of her concerns about student understanding. The MSSE
program gave her a new perspective on assessment that she felt allowed her to push her
students academically. She stated:
There are students, especially the last couple of years when I have
been doing this [assessment], they are not used to it. And they are
just like “can you just tell me what we need me to know?” But their
depth of understanding is so shallow then. When you have them look
at things or do activities from a different perspective, I really do think
it increases their depth of learning. And so a year from know they’ll
understand the process and they’ll understand the depth of learning
rather than “I have no clue what we learned last year.”
Understanding what her students know and don’t know by looking at research, ideas from
colleagues, and best practice has strengthened her teaching. Barb explained the impact
from another lens:
Maybe this is my own perception: I think a lot of kids leave high
school not remembering a lot even though they may be 4.0 students.
I think there is so much content that we try to shove in them by the
time they leave high school that if it’s not done in some kind of depth.
The activities and how it’s structured and the content classes and the
action research allows us to be able to really look at things from a
234
different perspective so we can really enhance the depth of
understanding for our students.
Assessors continually gather data to better understand student thinking. They
may also introduce students to techniques to monitor their own learning. As an assessor,
Barb focused on getting into the minds of her students. Her understanding of how to use
assessments and building them into her practice was influenced by the MSSE program.
In her portfolio, Barb wrote about this change:
All students were able to identify what areas they knew were
successful in and what areas they needed to review, even at times
stating that they hadn’t heard of certain terms. Students were also
able to indicate what questions they missed that were strictly
knowledge based versus those that were application based. Students
also indicated when they had a “misread the question” type of error.
All of these factors give the students indicators of how to study and
how to take tests in order to achieve at a high level.
Being able to assess her students’ understanding accurately has empowered Barb and she
also familiarizes students with techniques to monitor their own learning.
Social Capital – Social Connections. Barb found the connections with others in
her MSSE cohort to be a strong influence on her professional learning. She emphasized
the shared experiences online and in the field courses added to her understanding of the
content. The exchange with other MSSE students all across the country – and the world
– allowed her to view teaching from a more global perspective. Barb stated, “And so to
be able to look at people that are teaching in different countries, let alone different parts
of the US, and see how they are handling things. And going back and forth and going,
‘Oh, I didn’t think about that—I’ll try this there.’ I think that’s just cool”.
235
The richness of different people and their perspectives resonated with Barb.
Gathering assessment ideas from other teachers and determining how they might be used
in their practice characterize assessors. As an assessor, Barb mentioned how she often
discussed with other MSSE students their assessment ideas and strategies. Barb
described this process in her portfolio:
Being able to hear what other teachers were doing/struggling with
throughout the country (and in other countries at times) was beneficial.
Sometimes it was directly related to what I was trying and even when
it wasn’t, it was often connected indirectly…Being able to share my
work and get feedback from a different and “outsider’s” perspective,
in my opinion, is an asset to the MSSE program.
Developing her repertoire of assessment strategies was key to ensuring her students were
learning. Barb stated, “I think, too, that the connections that you make with people are
very important and valuable.” Barb felt that connecting with others and incorporating
new ideas into her practice, both characteristics of her MSSE experience, were strengths
of the program.
Critical and Responsive Learning - Reflective Practice. Barb found the reflective
practice that was part of the MSSE program reinforced her learning. It was through
feedback from the professors and her reflection on that feedback that Barb shifted own
assessment practices. Barb described this process when she stated, “I like the online
discussions and the immediate feedback that your professors give you. When you read
you have to go ‘hmm’ and maybe think awhile before you write something that makes
sense and sounds good…just that small amount of additional thinking time almost forces
236
you to be more reflective.” Barb elaborated on the feedback received from MSSE
instructors and how this affected her:
The feedback the professors give you—like you (Sue) had
mentioned earlier—is very constructive and in a very positive
light and it really causes you, or caused me, to think about what
I was doing or to even think about things from a different perspective
than I had thought about. I think teachers have a control issue
something or territory issue with their work in their classroom.
It allows you to let go of some of that and really be open to
constructive criticism because it is in a very non-threatening way.
It was through this revelation that Barb began rethinking her assessment
strategies. Assessors use the reflective process to ensure the assessments used are a clear
measure of student understanding. She felt that feedback and opportunities to reflect like
those she was given in her coursework would perhaps influence her own students’
learning. It started small, simply using the track changes feature to comment on her
students’ formal lab reports. Barb felt the quality of her feedback to her students was
becoming of higher quality, as she was able to focus on certain pieces of the lab in more
depth.
Barb felt this small step was the beginning of improving the ways she assessed
her students. Barb described the process and the influence on her students:
I’ll be typing, because I just type my thoughts in a different color or
on the side. As I am reading their paper and then later I am like, “Oh,
ok, you clarified this here.” I think this kind of stuff, the students see
the process I am going through, and I think—and I haven’t done any
data collection on this—but I think that may help them also see this is
what I am looking for. When they see how I am going through grading
the paper or why they are not getting certain things. I think I have found
a lot less argument or digging for points because they say, “Oh, I see
what you did.” It’s clear and for some reason because it’s “tight,” they
get it more. I think even if I had hand written the same thing, it’s not as
valid as if it’s typed. Maybe that’s. . .with their technology. . .
237
Barb’s words reflect the position that the onus of assessment should not fall only on the
teacher, nor should the teacher be the only recipient of insights yielded by analysis of
student work. Barb’s statement illustrates her perception that when teachers enable
students to play a more active role in assessment, for example, by allowing them to
glimpse teacher thinking while grading a lab report, it may influence their learning.
Barb’s experience in the MSSE courses, particularly the online courses, and the feedback
and reflective experiences was instrumental in her moving her practice forward in terms
of assessment.
Barb repeatedly linked her MSSE experiences to how it translated in her own
classroom. From her portfolio, she described her shift in thinking about assessment:
Though I used student surveys, I didn’t look at student academic
work as data that could contribute to improving my practice as an
educator. Furthermore, I did not really understand the difference
between formative versus summative assessments even though I
was a certified teacher, already had one graduate degree and was
considered highly qualified by state and federal standards.
Her learning in the MSSE program influenced her practice especially in the area of
assessment. While she has implemented more formative assessments, including the
learning logs, the reflection of what was happening in her classes caused her to move her
practice forward once again. She wrote about this change in practice in her portfolio. It
was based on her reflection on what was working and not working in her classroom:
One of the changes I have made this year to my teaching practice was
how I use formative assessments. As stated, last year when I was
piloting the use of formative assessments in the classroom, one of the
obstacles was to get students to complete them for the sake of learning,
not for gaining points. I didn’t accomplish that last year. This year, I
decided to set up my classroom with formative assessments as a non-
238
negotiable classroom activity. Students are required to complete all
formative assessments as pass/fail. If they meet the requirements,
they pass, if not they don’t and must repeat. Setting up the classroom
like this from the beginning is hopefully setting a different learning
environment than “learning to count points.” This idea is just one of
the suggestions that came from not only online collaboration, but
having the opportunity to discuss learning strategies with other
presenters and advisors.
Valuing Learning. Barb described in detail how she came to value the MSSE
program due to the quality she perceived in the content and the action research
component. As she got further into the program, those components reinforced the idea
she had selected the right program to meet her needs. While Barb sought a master’s
program for financial reasons, she also had an innate sense of wanting a high quality
program that met her needs.
Barb’s enthusiasm for her learning carried over to the classroom. She extended
her own learning of new ideas and content into her own classes. She described one
experience:
So the class saw my excitement about learning something new
when I am twice their age and have my own family. I think they
pick up on that too. At some point they are like “Ok, Mrs. B enough
with the biofilms we get that you’re excited about it and think it’s
cool.” But I think that that really helps bring your rapport with your
students to a different level that I don’t think would have been there.
To be honest, my students for the last two years wouldn’t know what
a biofilm was if I hadn’t taken the class. But there’s so many places
where that is an application to help them understand what we are
talking about in class.
Barb shared her own learning with her students as a means of enhancing her own
teaching. Her students were able to push their learning further especially with the
239
addition of Barb’s assessment strategies. Not only were Barb’s students going beyond
the textbook, the feedback the students received from Barb pushed their thinking as well.
Another layer to Barb’s valuing learning was addressing the needs of what she
referred to as “marginalized students.” In her portfolio she wrote about how students
were historically selected for the AP courses. This process did not “provide equal access
to higher education options for all students who were interested in excelling in a science
field.” The other complexity to the problem was that the learning needs of those students
enrolled in the AP courses were not being met. She described how, “The strategies
presented in the education classes and the ability to have autonomy to choose what works
best for individual situations, was beneficial for both teachers and students.” She shared
this knowledge with her colleagues in her department. Barb wrote, “For a variety of
reasons, over the last 6 years, our school’s and department’s practices have changed and
now a wider range of students have the opportunity to enroll in AP Sciences.” She
attributed some of the shift in how the classes are taught and students are selected for the
AP courses to her MSSE experience.
Content Knowledge. During her interview, Barb frequently mentioned MSSE
courses that had influenced her learning. She emphasized how she sometimes knew a
concept at a superficial level, but the MSSE courses allowed her to go into depth and
further her understanding. Barb also mentioned that science is an expanding area of
knowledge and that it is a challenge to stay current. Staying on top of current research
and having access to scientists conducting that research was “one of the biggest benefits”
of the MSSE program.
240
She further notes that many of the courses connected directly to current research.
Barb said, “You can really see—not that we’re not scientists as teachers---but you can
really see what they [research scientists] are doing. There was just something in the news
about a coral reef they are restoring and in the news there’s video of him [the MSSE
instructor] doing it and we’re learning about it at the same time.” Being able to view and
participate in ongoing research made Barb feel empowered with her new knowledge.
Barb described content in several MSSE courses that had a direct influence in her
classroom. The content she was learning was being translated to her own students. She
remarked that often she was able to make connections to extending her students’ learning.
She described one example that involved having students look at biomes. Rather than
superficially look at the characteristics of a biome, her students could do “an activity that
looks at how you map things on the ocean floor and how they relate to the organisms.”
In addition, she proposed students could jigsaw the activity instead of every student
researching every biome. She felt that engaging the students with the activity and then
having them share their information with each would be a more effective strategy.
Barb also made connections to pedagogical content knowledge. As an assessor,
Barb was focused on increasing her students’ content knowledge, but had an interest in
improving her delivery of the content. Assessing student understanding allowed her
opportunities to reflect on her practice and the influence on her students. Barb stated:
I think one of the things is getting the kids to be more actively,
physically involved with the content. I am always looking for ways to
get involved—and that’s part of what my research was actually on was--
Getting away from the lecture/do a lab/take a test format. I think that
there’s so many places that that is what is done. All of the courses really
gave me alternative ways so I don’t have to be standing up there.
241
In Barb’s portfolio, she included an example of a “content form and function outline.”
This tool was a formative assessment strategy for subject area content. The outline is
shown below in Figure 10. Barb stated how using this form for assessment provided her
more insights into her students’ content understanding of the topic being discussed.
Content, Form and Function Outline
Content – what is it? Definition Form - how?
Elaborate
Function – why is
it biologically
important?
Hydrogen bonds
(example)
Weak
intermolecular ,
transient bond,
contributing to
electrostatic
attraction
Attraction
between the
partial negative
bond of oxygen
and the partial
positive charge
of hydrogen
Surface tension
resulting from
collective
hydrogen bonds –
animals that walk
on water
Polarity
Cohesion
Surface Tension
Adhesion
High Specific Heat
High Heat of Vaporization
Versatile Solvent
Unusual Phase
Characteristics
Dissociation/Ionization
Figure 10. Barb’s Content Form and Function Outline
242
Barb accredited the MSSE program with providing her access to the content, as well as
pedagogical strategies, particularly assessment, to influence her students.
Online Learning. As a coach, mother, and the sole income provider for her
family, Barb is cognizant of her time and commitments. The online aspect of the MSSE
program, offered an opportunity to earn a master’s degree. Barb commented, “I am
online a lot after my kids are in bed and there are other teachers popping up with things at
the same time. I don’t think that if it was offered any other way that I would have been to
do it at all.” The online aspect of the MSSE program made a master’s program
accessible to Barb.
While the online opportunity offered convenience, Barb felt the courses also
offered the academic rigor she expected. The courses were intense, but the interaction
with other participants also challenged her thinking. “I would say there is more time put
into the online courses than people expect”, noted Barb. The different perspectives and
opportunities to share ideas allowed for professional growth. Barb strongly felt that the
online discussions allowed for more exchange of ideas than would be found in a
traditional face-to-face course. Barb felt the MSSE program delivered a high quality
program that offered additional opportunities for growth as a result of the online format.
Action Research. Action research was not new to Barb. Her school had
started an action research lab seven years ago. Her assistant principal’s
familiarity with action research allowed her to get the MSSE program approved
for her professional development plan.
243
Barb also felt that the action research project was something you could “really
tailor to fit your interests and needs.” Barb indicated this was one of the strengths of the
MSSE program. Barb stated, “The action research allows us to be able to really look at
things from a different perspective so we can really enhance the depth of understanding
for our students.” The MSSE program’s action research requirement afforded her the
opportunity to conduct research that was applicable to “where your students currently are
at and what you need to do to help them.”
The action research project Barb completed offered her the opportunity to
“look more at school climate and marginalized students.” As an assessor, Barb was
perhaps more aware than many colleagues of the importance of gathering and sharing
accurate information on the learning needs of all of her students. In the portfolio
assembled for this study, Barb provided additional details about the influence of the
action research project:
The Action Research classes probably have had the biggest impact
on my change in developing and implementing classroom activities.
The focus on getting feedback from students and giving students
feedback, combined with being provided with tangible examples of
how to do this, has really influenced the way I teach.
She developed two tools from her capstone project, the learning logs and the form and
function outline. These tools have continued to be used and modified in her class. She
wrote in her portfolio, “The students’ feedback most clearly indicated what was working
and what wasn’t and most directly affected both immediate practice and long term
teaching goals.”
244
Julie
Julie is a science educator who had recently moved to a new state into a new
position as an instructional coach. This was her first year out of the classroom. Julie had
taught for thirteen years before transitioning into this new position. She credits the
MSSE program in part for attaining this position. Julie said, “because of the program, it
made me very qualified for this position.”
Julie’s portfolio provided more details about her teaching context prior to
becoming an instructional coach. She wrote that many of her students were English
language learners. The community where she had taught was a resort area and more than
one million tourists visited annually. Due to the nature of the community, the hospitality
industry was the major employer. This meant jobs were abundant yet there was “little, if
any, experience or specific skill sets including the ability to speak English.”
Julie already had earned a master’s degree. In addition, she had experience with
action research prior to enrolling in the MSSE program. Julie anticipated that she would
be graduating in less than a year from the time of the interview. She still had a thesis to
complete and finalize her research. She was well immersed into the MSSE program as
she spent a summer on campus and was able to earn 14 credits. The vast majority of her
coursework had been completed on campus. As she is doing a science research capstone,
she had spent a large part of her time in the field.
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Julie’s interest in the MSSE program stemmed
from the fact she “would prefer to do a hard science option” in a master’s program. Over
a year ago, she had a conversation with the director of the MSSE program and shared her
245
interest in doing science research. It turned out that a scientist at a wildlife refuge in the
region was looking for a graduate student to assist with a research project. It was shortly
thereafter that Julie enrolled in the MSSE program and began her studies.
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences. Julie described her
transformational experience in the MSSE program as the exposure to learning how to
really teach inquiry. The research she was exposed to on how students learn and how
that could translate to classroom practice influenced her entire curriculum. Julie found
the idea of assessing students to show understanding made the greatest impact on her
work. While Julie was focused on teaching inquiry science, as an assessor she wanted to
ensure her students understood the process skills of inquiry. She stated, “the formative
assessments and the research behind formative assessments really, really revolutionized
my teaching and I think really strengthened it.”
Julie found the idea of process skills to be her focus. Assessing her students using
process skills empowered her to advocate for additional resources and support. She
stated, “I was then able to go to my principal and say, ‘Hey, I need these resources
because research says.’ So, that was very, very powerful.” With an understanding of the
power of assessment and the research to support her, advocacy for her approach to
teaching was a result of being an assessor. Julie continued to describe how the idea of
assessing students influenced her teaching:
I’m an integrator so I cannot teach from a book for every different
subject of the day, I don’t know how to do that. And so for me,
integrating is everything. I wasn’t getting the results that I wanted
year after year. So taking the process skills or teaching that, you’re
having that light bulb go on and say, I have to teach them how to
246
think and I have to teach them how to think in each different skill
area and then I have to have them reflecting on their own learning
cognition in their writing and then maybe I’ll get the results.
It was the personal growth in her teaching practice that made Julie feel more confident.
Repeatedly Julie referred to the fact that the deep understanding of science inquiry was
key in influencing her professional learning. She said, “Changing my practice of
investigation. I was never a cookbook experiment teacher, but with the science inquiry
process, that took my Foss kit teaching to an entirely new level.” As an assessor, Julie
had a better understanding of her students’ understanding, which strengthen her inquiry
teaching.
In addition to the pedagogical changes, Julie felt she was able to assess her
students’ content understanding more thoroughly from her experience in the MSSE
program. One area that Julie discussed was the idea of misconceptions. She stated, “I’m
covering a misconception. That is something I had taught before, but this took it to a
whole new level and understanding that student misconceptions are there and what it
takes, that has been my most powerful learning experience, in addition to my research
project.” By developing her own content knowledge, Julie was able to support her
students’ learning more effectively.
The formative assessments she acquired in the MSSE program provided
information about her students’ learning. This information led her to revise and improve
her curriculum. Julie also explained how for the first time in thirteen years of teaching
she had finally repeated curriculum, as she felt confident her students were learning.
Confidence in her teaching was a result of being an assessor. She explained that she had
247
experienced frustration with what she had been teaching and wasn’t getting the results
she had hoped. Using process skills to teach the content and “being willing to scrap all
my plans,” she began seeing results. By adding formative assessments into her teaching,
she was able to collect data on her students’ learning that informed her practice. She now
knew if her students truly understood the process skills she was teaching.
The exposure to using research for her classroom practice and for her research
was a strong professional learning experience:
And I was reading all of these articles, doing my review, reading
scientific articles for the first time ….So “student” was working on
her doctorate and she and I had talked at great lengths about the
MSSE program and one of the things that she commented on that I
completely concurred with, how many science teachers have actually
read and analyzed and compared scientific articles? I’m going to have
to say not many. When I would get a teacher’s schedule and she’s
got 30 minutes of science a week, I’m going to guess that she hasn’t
spent a whole lot of time reading scientific articles.
Reading research became a way Julie built her confidence. Using research also supported
her ideas and innovations.
Julie provided examples of assessments she had used with her students in her
portfolio. In one excerpt, Julie illustrated the data she had collected from her students
and how that information would influence her practice. Her assessment and the data she
was using are shown in Figure 11:
Even though the test scores were all passing the students ranked
themselves low and inconsistently on their mastery of each science
inquiry process skill. As I looked at this data this was by far the most
meaningful piece to me as an educator. It was interesting to realize
that my students had such incorrect perception as to their abilities.
This will be a fun area to encourage them and watch them grow.
248
Figure 11. Julie’s Commentary on Student Data
Julie explained how this data allowed her insight into her students’ perceptions of their
learning and understanding. Despite the fact that all those tested scored well on a quiz,
her students’ perceptions of their learning were vastly different. This information
informed her practice as she began to plan her next unit. She described her reflection on
the process:
I feel confident in my instructional methods of the scientific
inquiry processing skills after administering this CAT. I will
continue my instructional techniques .I will continue to have
the student practice their writing skills daily. I have begun to
see an improvement as they answer the QOD. The students still
need guidance to wrote as much as they know regardless if they
think they can’ explain it in English. Sometimes, it just take me
speaking with the students individually and briefly to remind them
that they really do know the answer.
Once again, as an assessor, Julie evaluates her instructional methods as well as her
students’ learning with the assessments she utilized.
249
Social Capital – Social Connections. Julie found the collaboration with her
MSSE colleagues to be a valuable part of her learning experience. Julie felt isolated in
her teaching practice and “it was very exciting for me to get out of my box and hear what
other folks were doing.” Julie described two aspects of the social connections that
influenced her practice - networking and confidence.
Julie had taken a significant number of field courses. She described the time in
the van with other MSSE students as a tremendous learning experience. Making
connections with others who taught similar grades or disciplines offered opportunities to
build teaching strategies. Conversations like, “Oh, you’re teaching 6
th
grade. Hey, I’ve
got this idea. Have you ever tried?” –were common occurrences that Julie described as
one of the best parts of the courses she has taken. Julie looked to networking
opportunities to gather new ideas, particularly assessment strategies. In addition, those
conversations led to opportunities to network:
So, I think the networking has been a very powerful tool that’s
resulted from the types of collaboration that set up those face to
face, as well as on line. And the face-to-face field classes, you’re
in the van and the vans are fantastic because everybody sits and
talks and exchanges ideas and I loved that!
The connections made in the van were people she contacted throughout the year to share
and exchange ideas.
Julie also felt that the social connections empowered her with confidence in her
abilities and knowledge:
Having discussions online and for me, so many of the face to face
discussions last summer made me feel like, “Oh, maybe I do know
what I’m talking about …” and again, without that confidence,
I wouldn’t be sitting in this office right now as the instructional
250
coach for the entire district.
The confidence was evident in the way Julie spoke about all aspects of the MSSE
program, including her own experience doing a field science research study, rather than a
classroom study, for her capstone. In describing her confidence, she stated, “I’ll go back
to the confidence, being able to say, hey, this wasn’t working. I learned about it. Here’s
the research behind it. Here’s what I tried, and here’s my results.” This confidence
stemmed not only from her science research, but her research into assessment. As an
assessor, Julie grew in confidence in her abilities as a teacher as her ability to discover
what her students knew improved.
Critical and Responsive Learning - Reflective Practice. As an assessor, Julie
keyed in on reflective practice as the part of the MSSE program that influenced her
teaching practice. Reflection allowed her to see how to best meet the needs of her
students by teaching inquiry. As her knowledge and skills improved, the ability to
measure the impact on her own students was becoming more evident. Julie explained in
the following statement from her interview:
What is it that I want them to be able to do, understand and
demonstrate? What do I want to see at the end of this? And
how am I going to get them there? That was a very powerful,
transformative experience; in addition to (Instructor’s) class
where I had to really look at the different kinds of assessments
and what is it that I’m looking for? How can I differentiate it
and how can I -- for me, I always want to translate it into how
can I make this work for English language learners.
251
As a reflective practitioner, Julie felt she was able to make better educational choices for
her students as a result of her experiences in MSSE course on assessment. Assessors use
reflection to make informed decisions about learning opportunities for their students.
The online discussions offered Julie additional opportunities to become a better
reflective educator. Julie stated, “Articulating your answer in writing is very different
that spouting off what you’re thinking about at the moment. It’s at the tip of your tongue.
So that reflective piece that was built in by just answering the discussion questions ended
up being very powerful for me.” Julie found through reflection she wanted to keep the
new ideas and thinking fresh. She developed binders to use and refer to later as a way of
reflecting. “I actually have a binder. I’ve learned to keep evidence, keep a binder and so
I have whole inquiry binder. I have my (course) unit binder, which really combines a lot
of elements I have. I have student journals that I’ve kept.” Through this organizational
method, Julie continues to reflect on her learning and how it integrates with her work.
Valuing Learning. Julie’s enthusiasm for her research was evident by the detail
she provided about her study. Julie pursued the MSSE program because it offered her the
opportunity to do actual science research for her capstone project. While she felt there
was value in action research, she had her sites set on immersing herself in a true scientific
study. Julie described how the process influenced her and how she hoped to convey that
to her students:
So I think it’s enhancing my content area of knowledge as well
as my own thinking skills. And I talked to a very good friend of
mine who has a master’s degree in ecology and I said, what is it
about going through these articles and disseminating the main point?
I said, for some reason I’m feeling like there’s something going
252
on in my brain and I’m trying to identify it so that I can then be
aware -- metacognition, but I also want to be able to encourage
that in my students.
Julie’s immersion into her research study stretched her thinking, skills, and
content knowledge. Julie stated, “It was a very interesting process for me…I wouldn’t be
in this way of thinking right now and I really feel like it has stretched my brain in
amazing directions for critical things and analysis.” Julie summed her experience when
she said, “ The whole investigation procedure has been monumental to me as a learner.”
As an assessor, Julie examined her own learning and assessed her progress and
understanding.
Julie was eager to implement this same enthusiasm for learning with her students.
Through the process of assessing her students, Julie began to get them to think about their
own learning as explained in the statement from Julie’s interview below:
They completed a process skills test, I guess; and at the end of it,
for each skill, they had to give a value to themselves as learners. I
feel like I’m giving myself a 5, I feel like I’m an expert at this. I can
teach something about making predictions. Or a zero, I still have no
idea what a prediction is. Or a 3, I feel pretty comfortable
understanding what predictions are. And so what I did is I took those
values as individuals and I took them as posters and I drafted them in
Excel and I made a big poster and as their confidence increased over
time, I made new posters to show them that they are taking
responsibility for their own learning and that they’re ownership of
that is very important for themselves as they build more confidence
and as they gain more knowledge.
Julie felt that using this method has caused her students to be more aware of their
learning. Julie reported increased student engagement as a result of the student self-
253
assessment. A characteristic of an assessor is engaging students in the process of
assessing their own learning. This was similar to Barb’s use of learning logs.
Content Knowledge. Julie chose the MSSE program as it offered her the
opportunity to do actual scientific research for her capstone project. This was a huge leap
for Julie to immerse herself in the program as a science researcher. Julie stated, “I really
have a very weak academic background in science and math. And so if you look at my
history alone, you’d be scratching your head and wonder why I’m in the position that I
am in today.” It was her interest in science and determination that led her to the MSSE
program and her current position.
Julie was very animated as she discussed her field research. She described her
research project as starting “from the ground up and really being let loose by (two
instructors) to make mistakes and then they’d reel me back in and going through that
whole investigation procedure…. It’s just, oh, this is doing science rather than learning
science.” For Julie, her experience in the program was about being in the role of a
scientist and ultimately how she translated that experience for use with her students. As
she described her research, Julie was specific about the skills she was learning. “And I
go through all of them [notes] for my written review and really pull out some very
specific things and then be able to make hypotheses to test for my investigation and also
be able to make predictions.” These experiences translated back to her classroom as a
need to teach her students science process skills so they could really do inquiry science.
254
While Julie felt the science research was a key element in her professional
learning, there were other classes she described that influenced her content
understanding:
I didn’t know what recombinant RNA was. I didn’t know how to
test for a certain gene and something so that you can replace it with
another gene to make a better thing. You know, that was huge for me.
The (course) reaffirmed something and it taught me so many other
things…that was a great class because he had us go to the IPCC
reports. Never would have done that. Gave me so much more factual
information about global warming and climate change. So, I would
have to say that all of the content classes enhanced my knowledge.
Julie felt courses she took in the MSSE program greatly enhanced her content knowledge.
As she had limited background knowledge in most science disciplines, often the content
was new to her.
Adding to the scientific research and content courses she chose to take, she also
felt strongly that the instructors that taught in the program contributed to her
understanding. She stated, “The quality of educators that they hire, the personal
investment and background experience of (the program staff), they’ve got the
infrastructure to support what goes out to the students.” In addition, the design of the
courses allowed her to experience inquiry, but it was the attentiveness of the instructors
that made the program what it was for her. “Some of the classes were more inquiry based
and that was a very powerful experience. But the quality I think was there, and their
responsiveness”, according to Julie’s statements during the interview.
Julie’s portfolio provided examples of how her content knowledge was conveyed
to her own students. In the first example, Julie provided examples of a final project for
the quarter. The project was used to represent a culmination of the lessons presented in
255
her class. Students were offered opportunities to select a topic, research it more deeply,
and then create a final project to present. As an assessor, Julie wanted to be able to assess
her students understanding, but in a way that met their learning needs. To address this,
she offered choice in the final project. The overview sheet that was used with her
students is shown in the example in Figure 12. It was evident from this sample that Julie
offered a variety of options for the final product to meet clear objectives that were
provided to the students.
Figure 12. Julie’s Project Handout
256
The MSSE program influenced Julie in the area of inquiry science, in particular
using process skills to teach content. Julie included several examples of student work
that illustrated how she used process skills to convey conceptual understanding. Julie
made comments on their work, included in the examples, as well as a reminder that the
samples were from students who were English language learners. The samples of student
work were also indicators of students understanding. Blending her focus on teaching
inquiry with assessment, Julie taught the content at the same time she was assessing their
understanding. This seamless connection between content and pedagogy is a
characteristic of an assessor.
In the first sample shown in Figure 13, Julie showed an example of observing.
The students generated their own questions as well as what types of observations would
be relevant.
Figure 13. Student Work Sample on Observation
257
The next example in the portfolio was of a Question of the Day (QOD). This was
a formative assessment strategy used to gauge understanding at the beginning of a lesson
or the next day after a lesson. As Julie had a large population of English language
learners, she encouraged pictures and diagrams as a way to help students clarify their
ideas. This example is below in Figure 14. The comments Julie made indicated that she
is assessing understanding of the student by interpreting the diagram.
Figure 14. Question of the Day Student Work Sample
258
A final example of student work from the portfolio, illustrates a student beginning
to set up an investigation. Students were encouraged to design their own inquiry-based
experiment. This example is seen in Figure 15 below.
259
Figure 15. Investigation Student Work Sample.
Julie attributes her students’ abilities and skills to design an inquiry-based investigation
from her learning in the MSSE program. In addition, she was able to adapt the content to
what was meaningful for her own students.
Online Learning. While the majority of Julie’s coursework was field or lab based
, she experienced some online courses. Online was not her preferred method of learning.
She stated in her interview, “I was totally resistant. I like talking to people. I like
interacting with them so I thought, ‘on line learning?’ This is so weird.” Her
preconceived notions of what an online course would be like were quickly dispelled. She
felt it would be isolating and impersonal. Instead in was a powerful learning experience.
Julie quickly found the community building that was part of her online courses
not only a pleasant surprise, but also another venue to network and collaborate.
Networking and collaborating are common traits of assessors, as they seek out new ideas
260
from others. In one course, she was able to share some of her insights from her own
research. Julie felt that this type of collaboration and shared experiences would not have
occurred face to face:
I wouldn’t have done that outside of the class and I wouldn’t have
done that if I were in a class because I don’t think the same type of
discussion would have precipitated because we’re so busy as teachers
and we’re so excited to talk to each other, that the details of what I
was allowed to do in writing, I don’t think would have been articulated
in person to person.
It was the writing and reflection that occurred in the online courses that also influenced
Julie’s professional learning.
Julie recognized the reflective practice that was inherent in the online learning.
The delay in responding due to writing caused her to be more careful and thoughtful of
her responses:
Articulating your answer in writing is very different than spouting
off what you’re thinking about at the moment. It’s at the tip of your
tongue. So that reflective piece that was built in by just answering
the discussion questions ended up being very powerful for me.
The written responses allowed her to go back and reread and review what she wrote and
what others had responded. Julie stated, “And it was really interesting to see in writing
what I had learned and I wouldn’t have done that outside of the class.” Once again, as an
assessor, the reflection process allowed her the opportunity to assess her own learning.
Caleb
Caleb presented a different perspective for the MSSE program. A recent MSSE
graduate, Caleb teaches at a community college. Caleb had previously earned a master’s
degree in a specific science area. He teaches science courses at a community college
261
located in the eastern United States. He describes the school at which he teaches as
affluent. Faculty members are encouraged to seek additional education and are provided
with financial assistance for ongoing professional development. A friend of his was in
the program and Caleb came to Montana with him one summer to see what the program
entailed. He felt that what the program offered, especially the field courses, was what he
was looking for to advance his career.
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Caleb’s motivation to continue his higher
education was based on career advancement. At the community college where he
teaches, the faculty has a tiered system of advancement. Additional coursework beyond a
master’s degree up through the attainment of a Ph.D. offers both financial incentives and
varying levels of professorships. As Caleb described, “Essentially, I accrued enough
credit to make the jump to assistant professor and all along, I’ve been -- I said, well, if
I’m going to go ahead and be earning credits, I might as well get another degree as well.
So that was sort of like motivation for getting into the program.” A combination of career
advancement and earning an additional degree was the impetus behind Caleb’s decision
to enroll in the MSSE program.
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences. As Caleb described the influences
of the MSSE program on his practice, he clearly articulated that the pedagogical content
knowledge and pedagogical practices were very revealing for him. As an instructor at a
community college, the expectation was he knew his content, not how to teach it:
Just to give this some context. I work in a building with a bunch
of Ph.D.’s and people that have MS degrees and various other areas
262
like biochemistry, physics, biology, whatever. But very few, if any
of them, have ever taken that education class. Yet, we’re all in the
business of educating kids. It’s kind of this weird, screwed up
situation where the requirements to get in the door is to prove that
you can do science by having earned a master’s or Ph.D. Yet the job
in here is not to do science. The job here is to educate. And I think
that’s kind of weird. So for me in comparison with some of my peers
in the program, and for them I think it was good. And everything
that they’ve had, educational classes before and so some of this stuff
they were not hearing for the first time. But for me, it was all new.
Learning the pedagogy was empowering to Caleb, although his learning curve with
terminology was steep. Caleb described one experience, “The first week of the first
class, one of the discussion topics was how has your life changed since NCLB. I was like
what is that? I had to ask. No Child Left Behind, you heard of it? And I was like, oh
that. Right. Okay. That’s sort of outside my understanding.”
Caleb didn’t describe himself as an innovative educator, as he stated, “And I give
lectures and we do labs and I was told that those are of high quality but in terms of being
an innovator, someone coming in as an educational practice, I’m not sure that’s me.”
Caleb felt strongly that there were parts of the MSSE program he could adapt to his own
teaching context. “And taking these on-line classes have given me ideas about ways to
use blackboard better and also I guess what doesn’t really work and how are things can
be richer than they are. I use a lot of imagery and stuff like that now,” said Caleb. Caleb
viewed the teaching strategies used by the MSSE instructors as a way to influence his
practice. He stated, “I’ve got a lot of interest in implementing technology into things so
like I’ve got this blog and there’s regional field geology class, all the students there, it’s
their final project has to be something that’s web sharable.”
263
Caleb was very confident in his understanding how he saw his own professional
learning. While he found the education courses resonated with him the most, he viewed
each MSSE instructor, including the scientists, as providing a new lens through which to
view instructional strategies. Caleb stated, “If I ever find myself in a lousy presentation
or a boring class, then I try and learn a little bit about like what’s going wrong with the
ways that the presenter is presenting things. So I am kind of chewing on that even if the
actual content of whatever they are saying are boring me to tears.”
Social Capital – Social Connections. Caleb stated he did not have a strong need
to connect or collaborate with his MSSE cohort. He stated, “Collaborating with MSSE
colleagues. There are very few people in the MSSE program working in my same
shoes.” He strongly believed that, as he was in a different teaching role than many of the
K-12 teachers, he did not need to engage in discussions about classroom implementation
or connecting content to curriculum.
Caleb viewed his social connections from a different perspective. Caleb stated, “I
think I served a good role in some of these classes where the professors were talking at a
relatively high level. People weren’t quite sure what was going on so I could serve as a
translator.” Caleb was confident in his content, which made him appear somewhat
arrogant. He recognized that and stated, “I haven’t really hit it off especially well with
my collaborative groups.”
While interpersonal connections were not a strong aspect of the MSSE program
for Caleb, he did connection with others through a blog. Caleb stated, “I read a geology
blog and so sharing some of the stuff I learned through the program either that geology
264
blog with an audience that -- initially was intended to be like interested people here but
once you put it out on the Internet, the whole world especially got reasonable readership
around the planet.” This type of social connection suited Caleb, as he was the
disseminator of information.
In reading through Caleb’s blog, there were references to the social connections
and learning that he experienced in MSSE:
In the evenings, we discussed scientific papers about field technique,
the Hell Creek Formation, taphonomy, and the extinction of the
dinosaurs. All our meals were cooked for us by (Instructor), and so
it was really ideal: Go out and learn all day, come back to camp to a
hot meal, a cold beer, and a discussion of big picture ideas. My fellow
teachers and I also played a lot of horseshoes and frisbee. To top it all
off, when we got back to Bozeman yesterday, a group of us rented
Jurassic Park and watched it over pizza and ale.
While Caleb did not see the social connection as a strong part of his learning, his blog
provides evidence to the contrary.
Critical and Responsive Learning - Reflective Practice. Caleb described himself
as a reflective practitioner, but the MSSE program influenced his reflective practice
further. Caleb stated, “But I definitely got to be more reflective as a result of engaging
with these programs. I really value that. I mean that’s something major that I’m taking
away from participation in the program.”
One area that caused Caleb to reflect on his practice was when he assessed his
students. By utilizing assessment strategies with his students, he began to get a better
grasp on their understanding. The results from those assessments caused him to reflect
on his practice:
265
… I do a little what they call CAT - class assessment technique at
the end of the class. …And it was the day I taught about minerals.
And I got back that. A lot of people didn’t get what their own mineral
was, which was a mineral break in a preferred direction. But I
evidently didn’t explain that. I just basically said, okay, minerals,
some of them break in very characteristic ways. But I didn’t get into
the details of why, even though I laid the foundation for that earlier.
So that really -- looking over that data seemed how ominous that was
among their responses. I was like, wow, I totally didn’t cover this. So
I went back in the next class, along with that information, and had a
couple fresh analogies for them. Including like the splitting of a log.
It’s easier to split one way than to split across the grains. And the
same with minerals. …And then after that, they all claimed to have
gotten it. That would be I guess one example where there was a
misconception, or a lack of conception, and by reflecting on the
feedback that they gave me, I was able to remedy it.
Caleb explained that assessing and then analyzing the assessment, offered opportunities
for him to reflect on his pedagogical practices more than he had in the past. Caleb said,
“I really do appreciate being forced through the program to engage in much more
reflective practice and data gathering and I really liked the aspect of basically asking
students for feedback.”
Valuing Learning. Caleb described himself as someone who has a “pretty high
value to learning in general.” The structure that was part of the MSSE program was also
something that resonated with Caleb’s learning style. The community college that Caleb
is associated with encourages and supports continuing education of the faculty. Caleb
capitalized on that opportunity, not only for career and salary advancement, but also for
the sake of continuing his own professional learning. Caleb described this by saying, “It
makes life interesting to figure things out. Gaining new appreciation for the way the
world works.”
266
Caleb was more thoughtful about how he demonstrated his valuing of his own
students’ learning. He grappled with what that would look like beyond personal praise or
“when they figure something out, get excited.” Caleb built on this idea, noting that
sharing his own excitement for learning could influence his students’ valuing of learning.
Caleb took a variety of courses that allowed him to experience the geology of the
Rocky Mountains. He wanted to extend his own students’ learning with his experiences
in Montana. The end result was a field trip to Montana with his students to study
geology. His excitement about the geologic formations generated an interest in his own
students. Caleb stated, “So that was really important because it allowed me this year
after I finished the MSSE degree to actually have a group of students from my
community college to fly out to Montana and we did a two-week tour of the state,
regional field geology class.”
Content Knowledge. Caleb felt that he entered the MSSE program with a strong
content knowledge understanding. Yet, he found value in the experience:
I really appreciate the program. I found it different from my geology
master’s in several ways. I didn’t find it as challenging in terms of the
content that is such a good thing because I was losing sleep when I was
in geology graduate school. Stressing out a lot. This was more relaxed
but I wouldn’t say it was so relaxed that it lacked academic rigor. I
definitely felt like I was expected to perform well in a way that I could
be proud of for the program.
Even with his confidence in his subject area background, Caleb found ample challenge in
his science coursework in MSSE. For example, in the following passage he described the
intricacies of interpreting the geochronology of a field site in eastern Montana that
included some dinosaur remains:
267
The boundary formerly known as "K/T" is therefore between the two,
and it records the changing of the eras: from Mesozoic to Cenozoic.
I say "formerly known as K/T," since Tertiary is an archaic term that
has been replaced (sort of) with Paleogene. The Paleocene is the first
epoch in the Paleogene period. The sedimentologically-defined
boundary between the two formations is the lowermost "significant"
coal layer. We found this coal, the so-called "Z Coal," and you'd think
that would be the K/Pg boundary, but it ain't that simple. True, there
are dinosaurs below and no dinosaurs above, and it's also true that the
Z Coal has been shown (rather shoddily, by the description we got) to
have an iridium anomaly at its base. But there aren't any dinosaur fossils
at all for 3 meters below the Z Coal, so the dinosaurs could have gone
extinct well before the Z Coal was deposited (and before the iridium-
rich clay layer was deposited). And of course, there's nothing in the
deposition of a layer of coal that indicates it should be contemporaneous
with a mass extinction -- it's just coal. Furthermore, the coal is lake
coal, and the lake wasn't necessarily regionally extensive. It's a funny
way of defining a critical geochronologic boundary: by the lowermost
layer of lake coal in an area -- a criterion which could vary temporally
from one place to another. Tricky business!
He described numerous other examples of specific content experiences that influenced
his thinking.
Many of Caleb’s examples of describing the influences on his content knowledge
were tangible items he could use in his own teaching. He specifically mentioned rock
samples he collected and photographs that he took during different field courses. In
addition, many of the courses he took added to his content understanding:
And I really have gained not only a new appreciation for courses
in the system that I didn’t really understand as well. The earth
sciences. I have expertise in part of the earth sciences but not
everything. And so it’s like really good for me to go and think
about the screen depositional environment of the Hell Creek
formation and I did that in a (course).
268
Although Caleb entered the MSSE program with confidence in his content
understanding, he learned that he too held misconceptions, as illustrated in the following
example:
But even better was when I got something wrong and it was like
one day, we were out looking at these stream deposits and the stream
deposits I’m familiar with basically tilts in a certain direction. They
tilt in a downstream direction. And so I was looking at the wall of
the little canyon. I was like, (Instructor), these things are pointing the
other way. He was like yeah. Well, that can actually happen if the
stream flows high enough. And I was like what? It can be the opposite
of what I thought was true.
For Caleb, an experience that challenged his thinking was not only memorable, but gave
him an appreciation for the MSSE program.
Caleb’s blog served as his portfolio. The blog is a detailed description of his
work and interests in geology, and the MSSE program often served as a backdrop:
I was there on one of my four MSSE classes this summer, and I
learned a lot. As many of you know, I'm trained as a structural
geologist, not a sedimentologist. Though I use a lot of sedimentology
(and fossils) in my (course), there is much I have left to learn. Some
of those gaps got filled in this week during "Dino Camp," though.
Caleb stated that one of the benefits of the MSSE program was learning about the
Rocky Mountain geology. This added to his repertoire of geologic regions in the U.S.
This new knowledge of the regional geology was a significant part of his blog during one
of his trips to Montana. Photographs, diagrams, video, and scientific descriptions
comprise the content on his blog. Examples of these and the detail to the content
presented can be seen in Figures 16, 17, and 18.
269
Figure 16. Video Segments on Caleb’s Blog.
Figure 17. Diagram from Caleb’s Blog.
270
Figure 18. Photograph of Geologic Formation from Caleb’s Blog.
Online Learning. The majority of Caleb’s program of study was field courses.
He took some online courses and found the experience to be mostly positive. The one
exception was an online science course. His preference was taking field courses and he
did not feel that the one science online course he took was well done.
Although he did not like the online course, he still found value in the pedagogical
strategies that were utilized. He found strategies that influenced his practice. Caleb
stated, “The online classes have given me ideas about ways to use blackboard better and
also I guess what doesn’t really work and how things can be richer than they are.”
In addition to finding value in the pedagogical strategies that were utilized in the
online courses, Caleb found the education courses to be very revealing. Caleb was not
familiar with the pedagogy in teaching science and that added value to the experience.
Caleb often put strategies he was learning in his online education courses to practice in
271
his own classroom immediately. The application from the course to his class was an
aspect of the program he found valuable. He stated, “I think it’s one of the best things
about this program is that we’re all there doing our job and then taking these online
classes that are about doing our job at the same time.”
Sean
Sean’s teaching experience in K12 would be categorized as informal. His only
formal classroom experience was during his student teaching. Sean described his
teaching experience as “all my K-12 has been more non-classroom based or it’s been
kind of short. It’s been classroom based but it’s been for short chunks where I’m going
into the classroom and then otherwise my experience has been more extensively with
university students.” Sean’s interests in science education are geared toward higher
education as he is now enrolled in a doctoral program.
Motivation to Pursue a Degree. Sean was looking for a master’s program that
could bridge his interest in science education and science content, particularly
environmental education. Another underlying goal was to continue toward a doctoral
degree. Sean stated, “And so I was looking for a program that continued to combine both
educational course work as well as science content course work – ecology and natural
science course work and that was one of the things that drew me to the MSSE program.”
Sean found that he was challenged academically, but his perspective allowed him
to view the program differently than the K12 teachers in his cohort. Sean said, “I had to
remind myself that it was designed as more of a professional -- it’s more of a professional
272
degree. And not really as much geared towards folks who are planning to move on
afterwards.”
Inquiry – Pedagogical and Content Influences. Although Sean had student taught
in a high school classroom, most of his teaching experience stemmed from his graduate
experience in another institutional setting. Sean described this experience as a “really
tight-knit living and learning community where our learning -- these conversations
moved beyond the classroom and beyond our teaching and occurred around the dinner
table or during a run or out skiing.” In this teaching role, Sean taught students in grades
K12 who were enrolled in the institution’s educational programs. Sean had the
opportunity to learn about education practice and then try it with the students he was
working with at the institution. As he described it, “we’d do course work and then be
teaching and we’d do course work and teaching.” Sean found the advertised mixture of
formal and informal learning experiences, for example, informal conversations with
faculty and peers during online and field courses, matched the type of graduate program
he was seeking. Sean transferred to Montana State University with a year of graduate
school credit from a previous institution.
Sean found that once he was immersed into the MSSE program it shifted his
thinking from exploring “pure science” to also developing an understanding of how to
teach science well”
Once I was in the program, it was a wonderful kind of continuation
of what I’d been doing, but then I found myself, through my own
professional work, that I was actually interested in -- I was shifting
a little bit away from purely teaching science to wanting to
273
continue teaching, but at the university level and exploring more
interdisciplinary issues around -- that you can clump into
environmental studies. So, that was kind of going on and I think it was
one of the impetuses for then continuing with my studies afterwards.
This “experience” caused Sean to think more about how to teach science.
Sean had limited experience with assessment strategies prior to the MSSE
program. As he said, “that was definitely newer material to me.” He found utilizing
those, even in the informal teaching settings, informed his practice. Sean described how
it influenced his teaching as, “Being able to use that kind of ‘in the process’ as compared
to kind of waiting until the end to get more immediate feedback.” He did feel that he had
not had a “chance to integrate and implement as much as I’d like to; but it’s been kind of
tucked away in the back – it’s something that I want to try to work on integrating more.”
Social Capital – Social Connections. Sean described his learning as very social,
but as he wrote in his portfolio, “Unfortunately, this culture is not yet found throughout
the field of education. When it exists, I am certainly a part of it.” He described the
learning situation at the place where he began his graduate studies, and had opportunities
to teach, prior to entering the MSSE program. The collaboration between the faculty and
the students, and the social learning that occurred there were very powerful. Sean
described it, “In that we had faculty members who were constantly coming out and
observing us or having peers observe us as well. Giving us feedback and having the time
to then debrief that as well, and talk through some of the observations and then reflect on
those.”
274
Sean felt the MSSE program offered a similar collaborative situation. The way
the courses were designed allowed opportunities for exchanging ideas with other MSSE
students. Sean said, “I think I always had kind of a tendency to want to work with other
folks to learn what was working for them, and what were some of the things they were
bringing to their classes or their courses or their teaching, and where they were finding
their successes and their failures.” Sean talked about the understanding of what good
teaching looks like he gained through discussions with peers in MSSE, and that he will
take away as he continues his education.
Critical and Responsive Learning - Reflective Practice. Sean was a newcomer to
reflective practice, but had, “opened up to the idea of being a reflective practitioner in my
practice as an educator,” as he pursued his graduate work. Transferring into the MSSE
program, “was definitely a nice segue because it helped to continue to cultivate that
[reflective practice].”
The MSSE program expanded Sean’s understanding of reflection and how it
could influence his growth. Sean said, “that really opened my eyes to the role of
feedback and the power of feedback and being open to how those can help with personal
growth.” Sean had a unique perspective on reflection from his previous graduate work
and teaching experience. He noted the differences in reflective practices between K12
teachers and university faculty. He felt the educational culture might influence
professional growth differently.
275
Sean described that sometimes he felt in the online discussion that, “It doesn’t
allow you to be as critical in regards of responses and feedback and learning; which I
think the potential exists, but I think it’s inhibited.” When asked to elaborate, he stated:
I think sometimes, too, the field of education or teachers are
sometimes … it’s a group of folks that -- it’s different than like
the academic field. Especially in the higher education in terms of
people willing to challenge each other or kind of strive to get the
best explanation or the best argument; or also being okay to disagree
on things, which I believe has it’s downsides as well, but you don’t
quite find that among teachers as much.
Sean believed these insights would support his professional goals of working with
teachers. His perspective was that reflection should challenge thinking in a way that
causes professional growth.
Valuing Learning. The path that Sean had taken for his own pursuit of higher
education speaks loudly for his sense of the value of learning. Sean’s interest in science,
led him toward thinking about how to teach science. It was that mind shift that caused
him to think more about science education. Sean’s passion is environmental studies and
the exposure to pedagogical content knowledge added a new dimension to this interest.
Sean now is studying interdisciplinary issues around environmental science at the
university level with the goal of teaching at the university level.
In his portfolio, Sean offered more insight into his perceptions of how he valued
learning. He felt the learning community that is created within a cohort of MSSE
students, especially those who take the education courses together, not only enhances
collaboration but also the valuing of learning. Sean wrote, “I absolutely loved watching
the learning that took place for many of the teachers that had been in the classroom for so
276
many years. So from that sense, the cohort model does a good job at creating/ developing
a learning community that fosters and values learning.”
Content Knowledge. Sean felt he entered the MSSE program with a solid science
content background. Prior to being in the MSSE program, Sean felt his higher education
pursuits would be more “pure science.” The exposure to science pedagogy broadened his
lens to include both science and science teaching. Sean also wrote that action research
experience influenced his content understanding especially with his own professional
goals of earning a doctoral degree. He wrote, “ I would also add that the Action Research
course work developed my content knowledge in research methodologies which has
proved to provide a better starting point now that I am back in graduate school in a
program which values pluralistic methodologies.”
Sean took both online and field science courses, which he described as
“absolutely fantastic.” He felt that all of the courses he took, “I felt were really
outstanding and really helped me to continue to increase my depth of understanding and
expand in both of those areas.” But more than the content, Sean noticed how the courses
were designed and delivered:
I think that was the biggest thing, was just kind of from watching
how they taught. As a participant, sometimes kind of stepping out
and looking from the outside in to being like, what are they doing
and how are they doing it; and why is this being effective right now
for me? And kind of taking some notes.
Sean’s teaching experience in formal settings was limited and he now viewed his
courses with a new lens.
And also because I came in with some foundational knowledge
277
and familiarity and then by taking those, it just kind of helped to
make some connections and also give me kind of tools just by
watching them on how they taught and I was kind of thinking about
how I might pick up new ideas for activities or new ways to frame
things or design courses and also ways to convey information as well.
For Sean, the pedagogical approaches to teaching science content were the foundation of
his professional learning in the MSSE program. Sean wrote in his portfolio, “I learned a
lot just from watching how the faculty presented, framed and taught the courses.”
Online Learning. The online component of the MSSE program was “one of the
things that drew me to the MSSE program along with the ability to participate in the
program on a somewhat low residency or remote basis,” according to Sean. While being
on campus was an option, Sean continued his role as an informal science educator at the
same time he was completing his master’s degree. Sean stated, “It allowed me the
flexibility to continue to work in the field and to engage myself professionally. And also
allowed me the opportunity to apply what was being learned within my own professional
setting.”
Action Research. Enrollment in the MSSE program allowed Sean to begin to
pursue the connection between science and science teaching. Sean described it as, “a
way to bridge the gap between theory and practice with undergraduate learning.” Sean
was able to put into practice what he had only conjectured. His action research project
blended multidisciplinary ideas of environmental education. Sean explained the process
and his professional learning.
I think the opportunity to one, kind of really dive into an idea or
concept and to explore that inward depth. And then the ability to
278
and the requirement to really do something that impacted and was
involved in work we were doing ourselves. There was an immediate
connection there. And lastly, the idea of being very methodical with
the work to really try to quantify or qualify what some of the outcomes
were and how to improve the idea or concept.
Sean wrote in his portfolio that he felt that through his action research project he “made
leaps and bounds in effectiveness due to the process of mindful and methodical data
collection and analysis.”
In addition to his own learning from the capstone experience, he also found value
in the capstone projects of others in his cohort. Sean said, “I was thoroughly impressed
and it was amazing the opportunity to go and watch other people’s presentations to come
together for that final symposium and to see the way that people have grown and what
they have learned was absolutely outstanding and astonishing.”
Summary of Case Studies
Each of the case study participants brought a unique context and perspective
through which to view the MSSE program. The dimensions of professional learning
were evident in each case study, but the importance of particular dimensions varied
according to participant. In addition, certain features or outcomes of the program were
especially influential for particular case study participants. These features are evident in
the labels selected to describe specific case participants including classroom connector,
assessor, and the pedagogical learner. The classroom connectors focused on ways to
bring the content learned in their coursework back to their own students. The assessors
viewed their learning experiences from a perspective of how they could gain a better
279
understanding of their own students’ learning. The pedagogical learners were those
MSSE students who entered the program with a strong confidence in their science
content understanding, but more limited knowledge of teaching science, and then became
intrigued by pedagogy.
One of the first themes to emerge was reason to pursue a master’s degree. In all
but one case, financial incentives from the teacher’s school or college provided the initial
reason to earn a master’s degree. Ranked closely in importance to financial gain, was the
desire to complete a master’s degree that was science based.
There were several themes that emerged from the data, many of which connected
with the dimensions of professional learning. The professional learning dimension of
inquiry included being exposed to different sources of evidence and research and using
that information to change practice. In all of the cases, the teachers reported that the
MSSE program contributed to their use of research methods and evidence to increase
their understanding of pedagogical strategies and content. Examples were provided in
the case data that illustrated the influence of these experiences on teaching practice.
Social connections were also a strong influence for all of the cases. Opportunities
to collaborate contributed to the professional learning of each of the case study
participants. Networking, sharing and exchanging ideas, and engaging in discussions
with others about their students and student learning were an integral part of the MSSE
program.
Reflective practice is a way for teachers to grow and learn. While each of the
case study participants felt they were reflective practitioners, the MSSE program pushed
280
their reflective thinking to new levels. Reflection was an inherent part of each of the
courses and the opportunity to reflect on their own learning often translated into a change
in practice in their own classrooms.
Each of the case study participants chose to complete a master’s degree. While
initially this may have been financially driven, the enrolling and participating in the
program was a demonstration of valuing learning. Several of the case study participants
shared their enthusiasm for learning with their own students, which in turn created a
sense of valuing learning for their students. Most cases felt that as they began to assess
their students more often, and provided feedback in greater depth, this also developed a
sense of valuing learning among their students.
The MSSE program attracted each of the case study participants because of the
rich science courses that were available. Even those cases that came to the program with
the perception of having a solid content foundation found the MSSE courses to be
academically rigorous and influential in increasing their science content knowledge.
Each case study participant cited specific courses that resonated with them and gave
examples of adapting content from those courses for their own students.
Another aspect of the MSSE program that was significant for the case study
participants was the online opportunities. As many of the courses are offered online, they
allowed access to people who are unable to attend a local college or university due to
busy family and professional schedules, or geographic challenges. In addition, the online
component allowed teachers to take courses while retaining their position. The flexibility
afforded by asynchronous communication was an added feature. Many of the case study
281
participants would not have been able to pursue a master’s degree if it were not for the
online component.
The capstone is an action research project. It offered participants a chance to
explore a topic in depth that is relevant to their teaching context. All of the case
participants mentioned the influence of the action research on their teaching practice. It
was a defining experience for many of the case study participants, which changed their
perspectives or practice.
The case study participants introduced in this section provided insights into the
MSSE program. During interviews and through their portfolio materials, the case study
participants provided evidence that all of the dimensions of professional learning were
present in their MSSE experiences, although not always sought or valued to the same
degree, and that their growth as educators was strongly influenced by the MSSE program.
Summary of Overall Findings
The results presented from both the Student and Faculty MPLS indicated that all
of the dimensions of professional learning as recommended by the literature were evident
in the MSSE program, although some aspects of each dimension were not evident. The
case study data provided additional evidence of professional learning to support the
survey results. In addition, the open ended responses from the student MPLS added
another layer of evidence that supported professional learning was clearly part of the
MSSE experience.
282
There were four broad areas that were analyzed across all data sets in an attempt
to answer the research questions in this study. The first was to identify what course
experiences in the MSSE program fostered the MSSE students’ content understanding
and knowledge. Results from both the student and faculty survey indicated that course
experiences influenced the MSSE students’ ability to articulate scientific ideas in a
discussion to a great extent. Further analysis found that both the MSSE students and
faculty perceived that course opportunities influenced the area of reflecting upon the
scientific ideas of other students and reflection upon earlier scientific ideas. The case
study data also supported the influence on content knowledge and practice as case study
participants described in detail specific instances in which their content knowledge was
impacted by the MSSE program.
The next broad area examined across all data sets focused on to what degree
MSSE program experiences fostered professional learning. The areas of professional
learning that emphasized using research to inform best practice were reported as areas
influenced by course experiences by both the faculty and students. The use of learning by
the MSSE teachers to improve their students’ learning was rated as an area of influence
in both surveys. Using the Internet and reading research was an area that was greatly
influenced by course experiences as reported by both faculty and students. Several of the
case study narratives described how reading research, both on science and educational
topics, influenced professional learning.
Both students and faculty perceived that course experiences influenced the area of
collaboration to a great extent. Both the faculty and students perceived that course
283
experiences influenced the area of drawing on good practice from other MSSE teachers
as a means to further the MSSE teachers’ professional practice. Offering colleagues’
support, discussions with colleagues, and informal opportunities to share experiences
were areas perceived by both the faculty and students to influenced MSSE course
experiences provided. Each of the case study participants commented on the
collaboration that took place in the MSSE program and how those collaborative
experiences enhanced the program.
Reflective practice was an area that the course experiences influenced. Both
faculty and students reported that course experiences influenced the practice of reflection
as a way that professional learning needs were identified. In addition, reflective practice
was seen as a tool to change and improve teaching practice that was influenced by the
course experiences. Each of the case study participants described the influence of
reflection on their teaching practice. The majority of the case study participants felt the
MSSE program caused their reflection to be more focused.
Supporting student achievement appeared to be influenced by course experiences.
Results from the faculty and students surveys indicated that creating an environment that
causes students to enjoy learning, believing that all students can learn, and celebrating
their learning were areas fostered by the MSSE program experiences. The case study
participants also supported the results from the survey. The case study data indicated that
the feedback and positive tone established by the instructors was influential in creating
constructive learning experiences.
284
The next broad section investigated the influence of program experiences on the
areas of science content understanding and knowledge. Again the faculty and students
responses were similarly aligned. Course experiences influenced the areas of using
inquiry/investigation-oriented teaching strategies substantially, as reported by both
faculty and students. However, the responses were mixed regarding the influence of
course experiences on engaging students in science processes. For example, the
proportions of faculty perceiving that their courses influenced students’ ability to conduct
and design investigations were low. Both groups also perceived that course experiences
fostered the area of understanding student thinking in science. Assessing students’
learning in science was an area also perceived as influenced by course experiences,
although the MSSE students perceived its influence as much higher than the faculty.
Once again, specific examples of how the MSSE program fostered science content
understanding and knowledge were reiterated in the case studies.
The last area of the survey that was analyzed was used to determine which course
types offered in the MSSE program influenced the understanding of science content,
pedagogy for teaching science, science curriculum, and teaching diverse learners. In
each of the four open-ended responses, specific course types were identified as being
significantly more influential, but there were two reoccurring themes that were evident in
all of the responses. These themes included collaboration and reflection.
Collaboration was a theme that appeared repeatedly in the open-ended responses.
Opportunities to collaborate with other teachers were valued by the MSSE students.
Collaboration can be linked to building social capital, a dimension of professional
285
learning identified by the literature. The collaboration with others was perceived to
create a powerful professional learning experience by having the opportunity to discuss
content and how to teach that content. The opportunities to collaborate, discuss, and
share ideas with other educators influenced the teachers’ pedagogy, including
pedagogical content knowledge. In addition, many students perceived the online
discussions contributed to more in-depth understanding of content and meeting the needs
of diverse learners.
Informal and formal opportunities for reflection on teaching that occurred in the
program were also highly valued by the MSSE students. Reflection, a characteristic of
critical and responsive learning, was referred to in comments throughout all of the open-
ended responses. Reflective practice was also reported to have influenced the
pedagogical understanding of the MSSE students. In addition, reflection that occurred
through completion of the capstone project was also a strong influence.
This study sought to identify program experiences that led to professional
learning. Both the student and faculty survey data and case study narratives indicated
that the design of the MSSE program has created a program founded in best practices of
professional development. The data presented in this chapter illustrated examples of
professional learning that occurred through participation in the MSSE program. In
addition, the case study narratives provided specific examples of program features that
influenced the case study teachers’ professional learning.
286
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
This chapter reports findings, conclusions, and implications of this study. The
first section is a summary of the study that includes a review of the problem and the
research questions. A brief overview of the focus of the literature review is included.
The data collection methods are also reviewed in this section. The next section
summarizes the findings of this study and includes a review of the statistical analysis and
qualitative analysis. The conclusion section presents evidence to inform each of the
research questions. The implications section addresses how this study can inform the
work of other MSSE and graduate programs for science teachers, administrators,
professional developers, and educators selecting a graduate program. The final section
offers suggestions for future research.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the professional learning of participants
of a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program, in
particular the MSSE program, through a concurrent mixed-methods design. The study
examined such a program from three perspectives: professional learning through
professional development, recommendations for a quality graduate program, and
accessibility for geographically distributed participants. The literature review provided
287
recommendations for effective professional development, graduate programs, and a
framework for online learning. The literature on professional learning was used to
develop the surveys and interview questions. Data was collected from surveys
administered to both MSSE students and faculty. In addition, case study data was
collected in the form of interviews and portfolios from six MSSE students.
This study sought to answer the following research questions.
Research Question 1: How do the characteristics of the MSSE program compare to 1)
research and policy recommendations for graduate education and 2) to professional
development standards for teachers?
a. What are the formal program requirements for the MSSE program?
b. What is the intended program experience?
c. How do these formal requirements and intended experiences align with
recommendations for graduate education programs and teacher professional
learning in research and policy literature?
Research Question 2: How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree program perceived, and how have program
experiences influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning because
of their participation in such a program?
b. What program experiences, from the program teachers’ perspective,
contribute to participants’ professional learning?
288
c. What program experiences, from a program faculty perspective, contribute to
the science teachers’ professional learning?
d. What evidence of teacher professional learning can be identified?
Research Question 3: How does the distance mode of delivery of this science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate program impact the science teachers’
professional learning?
The literature outlined recommendations for professional learning, professional
development, and recommendations for quality graduate programs. Figure 19 provides a
summary of the recommendations.
Figure 19. Essential Components for Professional Learning, Graduate Programs and
Professional Development as Described by the Research Literature and Policy
Recommendations.
Included in the population for this study were the MSSE students, current and
graduates, and MSSE faculty. The MSSE students were asked to complete the Student
289
MSSE Professional Learning Survey. The survey had a 60% response rate. The intent of
the survey was to elicit perceptions about the professional learning experiences in the
MSSE program. From the survey respondents, six case study participants were selected
through maximum variation sampling. The case study participants were interviewed and
completed a portfolio to that was used to provide additional insights and evidence of
professional learning.
The faculty completed the Faculty MSSE Professional Learning Survey. The
intent was to collect data from the faculty perspective on the MSSE students’
professional learning. The survey was administered to all faculty with a 75% response
rate. The data from the surveys and the case studies along with recommendations from
the literature were used to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the results.
Findings
This section presents a review of all of the findings from the statistical analysis of
survey data as well as the qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey questions and the
case study data. In keeping with the same order and format of the discussion of the data
collections procedures in Chapter 4, the following review of results are presented and
discussed in three sections.
1. The Student MSSE Professional Learning Survey
2. The Faculty MSSE Professional Learning Survey
3. Case Study Findings
290
A brief, explanatory introduction is given at the beginning of each section, followed by a
review of the results, and concludes with a brief interpretation of the results obtained in
that specific area of the study.
The Student MSSE Professional Learning Survey
The MSSE Professional Learning Survey (MPLS) was administered to 611 MSSE
students, both current students and graduates. There were four sections to the survey.
The first section collected demographics, professional experiences, and education
information about the MSSE students. Section II of the survey focused on students’
perceptions of the degree to which the program fostered their science content
understanding and knowledge. Section III concentrated on students’ perceptions of
course opportunities that were provided that fostered the professional learning of the
MSSE students. Section IV examined the MSSE students’ knowledge gains and change
in practice, skills, and knowledge with respect to the types of courses offered in the
program.
An analysis of Section II indicated that, according to students’ perceptions, the
MSSE program, through course experiences, strongly influenced the ability to articulate
scientific ideas. Opportunities to reflect upon earlier scientific ideas, reflecting upon the
scientific ideas of other students, and opportunities to analyze and draw conclusions from
data, observations, and other forms of scientific evidence were areas reported to be
influenced through course experiences that enhanced students’ science knowledge.
“(Course) helped with true data analysis and drawing conclusions based upon my own
research,” remarked one student. Students’ responses in this section of the survey,
291
however, indicated that two learning opportunities were much less influential in the area
of learning science content perhaps because they appeared to occur infrequently in the
MSSE courses. These included the practice of working through problem sets with pen
and paper and using computer based animations, games, or simulations. It should be
noted that similar results were reflected in the faculty survey.
Section III of the Student MPLS focused on professional learning. Four themes
emerged from the data that were used to describe the findings. These themes identified
by the researcher included Research and Best Practice, Collaboration, Reflective Practice,
and Supporting Student Achievement.
Both the students and faculty reported that course experiences influenced the
broad area of research and best practice within professional learning. Research and best
practice included reading research (practitioner reports and journal articles), using the
Internet as one source of ideas, and utilizing the research findings about best practice as a
means to influence teaching practice. These areas of professional learning were all
influenced by the course experiences. As one student stated, “I can make sure that my
teaching is agreement with best research practices and is effective for the learning of my
students.” Both the faculty and student survey results indicated that using the Internet,
reading research, and the use of learning by the MSSE teachers to improve their students’
learning were perceived to be areas that were fostered through program experiences.
Collaboration was also a theme that emerged from the data. Collaboration
included offering colleagues support, discussions with colleagues, and informal
opportunities to share experiences and were areas of professional learning that were
292
influenced by course experiences. The “wonderful peer collaborations and extremely
helpful instructional strategies” offered different perspectives for the MSSE students. In
addition, opportunities to engage in reflective practice were rated as an area influenced by
course experiences. Reflection was described as a way to identify professional learning
needs and to influence change and improve teaching practice and was an area that
appeared to be influenced by the program experiences. Lastly, supporting student
achievement through encouragement, creating positive learning experiences, and
believing all students can learn was rated as an area that was influenced through the
MSSE program.
Science content knowledge and understanding was another dimension of
professional learning. Results indicated that most participants perceived the MSSE
program experience greatly influencing the area of science content knowledge. Another
area in which respondents reported a strong influence was in assessing students in
science. One student reported that understanding of, “Assessments as a way of
monitoring and helping students identify what they have learned,” was influenced by
program experiences. According to student survey responses, the MSSE program also
influenced students in the area of using inquiry, investigative teaching strategies,
understanding their students’ thinking in science, and providing a challenging curriculum
for their students. Results from the faculty surveys were more mixed regarding the extent
to which the course experiences they provided fostered students’ ability to design or
conduct science investigations. The only major area in which the program was not
293
reported as influential was fostering the ability to teach science to diverse student
populations.
Section IV of the survey was designed to gather information about the MSSE
students’ learning gains and change in practice, skills, and knowledge as related to the
type of program courses that were taken. Open-ended responses accompanied each of the
questions. A one within subjects repeated measures of analysis of variance was used to
compare teachers’ mean ratings to determine which type of MSSE courses most
influenced their knowledge of science content, pedagogy for teaching science, science
curriculum, and the ability to support diverse learners. The MSSE program courses can
be broken down into six basic types that were used for comparison: on-campus science
lab based courses, on-campus science field based courses, online science courses,
education required courses, education elective courses, and the capstone project.
In the area of science content knowledge, the statistical findings suggest on-
campus lab based science classes were less of an influence on science content knowledge
than were on campus field based science courses or online science courses. It may be
that the on-campus lab classes were less of an influence as there are significantly fewer
such courses offered and taken. The education core courses and the capstone project,
which is a product of the core coursework, were rated by teachers as having a
significantly greater influence on pedagogy for teaching science than the science field
courses. Teachers rated the online science courses as a significantly greater influence on
science curriculum knowledge than on-campus based field courses. One student stated,
“Online courses where we research a topic & discuss via online chatting, blogging,
294
etc…was most helpful.” The education required core courses, education elective courses,
and the capstone project were found to be a significantly greater influence on
understanding the needs of diverse students than either the on campus or online science
courses. Chapter 4 presents a detailed analysis of all of the findings of the Student
MPLS.
The Faculty MSSE Professional Learning Survey
The MSSE Professional Learning Survey (MPLS) was administered to 32 MSSE
faculty with 24 responding. There were four sections to the survey. The questions
paralleled the student MPLS. The first section collected demographics, professional
experiences, and the educational background of the faculty. Section II of the survey
sought faculty perspectives on the MSSE students’ growth in science content
understanding and knowledge. Section III concentrated on the professional learning of
the MSSE students from a faculty perspective. Section IV sought to determine learning
and growth regarding MSSE students’ science pedagogical content understanding and
knowledge as viewed by the faculty.
The results of Section II indicated that, as perceived by the faculty, the MSSE
program influenced the students’ abilities to articulate scientific ideas. Opportunities to
reflect on scientific ideas, and on participants’ previously held scientific ideas and
analyzing and drawing conclusions from data, observations, and other forms of scientific
evidence were also areas perceived by the faculty as being significantly influenced by the
course experiences. Faculty responses in this section of the survey indicated that there
were two areas that were much less influenced through program experiences. These
295
included using computer-based animations and interacting with physical models. The
findings were similar to the results in Section II of the student survey. Given the
structure of the survey questions, it is not clear whether experiences like these were rare
in MSSE, or whether they occurred but were perceived as having little influence on
participants’ knowledge and practice.
Section III focused on the dimensions of professional learning. The faculty and
students reported that course experiences influenced teachers’ knowledge and practice
relating to accessing and using research, and to transferring lessons from the research into
one’s science classroom. Both groups reported that course experienced fostered reading
practitioner reports and journal articles on science and educational topics and discussions
on how this information may be utilized as best practice“(Courses) have really helped
guide my questioning in my research and develop my knowledge of pedagogy,” stated
one student. These findings mirror the results in the Student MPLS. The area with little
to no perceived influence by the faculty was the area of peers working together on joint
research, either on a science or educational topic, to inform practice. The design of the
MSSE program does not seem to accommodate this practice currently.
Collaboration by offering colleague reassurances, reading and responding to
feedback from colleagues and discussing learning were all areas reported by the faculty
to be influenced as a result of the MSSE program and course design. These results were
similar to the Student MPLS results. The faculty rated joint research and team teaching
as areas less influenced by course experiences they provided. Once again, this result was
similar to the Student MPLS results.
296
Reflection on practice and feedback are the foundation of critical and responsive
learning. The area of reflection was a perceived to be strongly influenced by the MSSE
program experience. Results from the faculty, reiterated by the students, indicated that
the program opportunities influenced the area of reflection. One student described the
reflection process, “….the process of trying new ideas, checking students for
understanding and then reflection. This reflection is often forgotten but has been proved
to be a key component to changing what and how we teach.” Based on the open-ended
responses and case study data, it seemed apparent the instructors provide multiple
opportunities for reflection for the MSSE students.
Another area not perceived to be influenced substantially by course experiences
was using insights from the MSSE teachers’ learning in a course to inform or influence
the school’s policy development. We can speculate that the action research sequence,
which may be tailored to district needs and priorities, could influence the district policy if
the teacher was positioned and motivated to do so. In addition, there is a suite of high
priority issues that would be relevant in any district in the country. Those issues could be
included in the MSSE courses as a means of more strongly influencing policy locally.
Lastly, the MSSE program experience was perceived as influential on teachers’
knowledge and practice about creating positive learning environments. The perception of
valuing the learning of all students was an area that was influenced by the course
experiences as perceived by the faculty. The MSSE students’ results verified this
perception of the faculty. The survey, open-ended responses, and case study data
confirmed that program experiences influenced the area of creating a positive learning
297
environment. The MSSE students reported in both case study data and the open ended
responses that the faculty was responsive to their needs and provided positive
constructive feedback that influenced their professional learning and growth.
The next section of the survey examined the influence of course experiences on
the scientific and pedagogical content understandings of the MSSE students as perceived
by the faculty. The faculty rated gave mixed ratings to the influence of course
experiences on using inquiry/investigation-oriented teaching strategies. They felt that
teachers’ knowledge and practice regarding the use of technology, including digital
imagery and probeware, were strongly influenced through course experiences. Through
participation in the MSSE program and the associated experiences, the faculty perceived
these opportunities influenced the deepening of content knowledge, assessment
strategies, and understanding of student thinking of the MSSE students. One student’s
comment support this finding when he or she stated, “I have gained tremendously in
science content knowledge and how to apply that knowledge to my classroom.” In
addition, addressing the needs and challenges of teaching diverse learners was an area in
which the program experiences had little or no influence on professional learning as
perceived by faculty. These findings were similar to the student survey results.
Case Studies
The case study data presented a lens into the MSSE program from the student
perspective. The MSSE program was influential on the professional learning and growth
of each individual in specific and unique ways. In addition, certain program features
influenced how each case study participant viewed the program. It appeared from the
298
responses and the portfolios that the dimensions of professional learning were clearly
evident.
The interview questions were based on the Pedder’s dimensions of professional
learning. With respect to the dimension of inquiry, in all of the cases the teachers
reported that the MSSE program contributed to their understanding of pedagogical
strategies and content through exposure to different sources of evidence, to research on
science and on education, and by providing opportunities to apply the research and
evidence to improve practice. The social connections and opportunities to collaborate
were also reported as a strong influence on professional learning. Pedder described
collaboration as the dimension of building social capital. Reflective practice was also a
significant part of the program experience and reported as being influential on
professional learning by the case study participants. Described by Pedder as critical and
responsive learning, this dimension of professional learning was reported by the case
study participants to have created a change in practice in their classrooms. The last
dimension, referred to as valuing learning by Pedder, was also strongly influenced in the
MSSE program.
Each of the case study participants sought a master’s degree program that had a
focus on science. The course offerings of the MSSE program met the need for science
content courses yet offered a perspective for teachers. One case study participant
described the two science courses he had taken stating, “I felt (courses) were really
outstanding and really helped me to continue to increase my depth of understanding and
expand in both of those areas.”
299
The case study participants also described the online component of the MSSE
program as critical to their ability to pursue a master’s degree. Each of the case study
participants was a busy professional juggling families and extracurricular duties. The
asynchronous courses allowed each person to participate at times that were convenient
for him or her while maintaining personal and professional obligations and commitments.
Lastly, each case study participant described in detail their capstone project and
how it influenced their teaching practice. The opportunity to select a project that meets
the learning needs of each student allowed for each case study participant to become
immersed in a topic that was relevant to their context. The case study data confirmed the
survey results in providing rich detail and insights into the MSSE program.
Conclusions
The following section addresses each of the research questions posed in this
study. The literature base that surrounds each question is presented when appropriate.
The questions are also addressed in terms of which sources of data contributed to
answering these questions.
Research Question 1
The first research question that was intended to be answered by this study was:
How do the characteristics of the MSSE program compare to 1) research and policy
recommendations for graduate education and 2) to professional development standards
for teachers?
a. What are the formal program requirements for the MSSE
300
program?
b. What is the intended program experience?
c. How do these formal requirements and intended experiences align with
recommendations for graduate education programs and teacher
professional learning in research and policy literature?
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) influences the recommendations for
graduate programs. Both the CGS and a research study by Hirumi (2005) identified key
areas that institutions of higher education need to address in developing, evaluating, and
maintaining quality graduate programs. The CGS (2005) offered three broad components
that a graduate program should include: supportive program culture, informed faculty,
and a variety of learning experiences for the graduate students. Hirumi’s (2005) study
built upon those foundational pieces and organized them into subsets.
Conrad, Duren, & Haworth (1998) found that a master’s degree program for
teachers was a powerful professional development experience, especially programs that
offered learning that applied the classroom based knowledge into a professional setting
and the opportunity to put theory and research into practice. Minkel and Richards (1987),
in a synthesis of the research literature and through consensus of an expert panel,
identifed ten components of a quality master’s degree program. They found when the
emphasis was a professional degree the application of knowledge rather than original
research was a key measure of success. The Council of Graduate Studies (2005) in the
policy statement, Master’s Education: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators, outlined
specific program requirements and aspects including a minimum number of courses, a
301
core curriculum to be mastered and a culminating project and a faculty advisor for each
student. While all of these components are sugested in the literature, the literature does
not present compelling arguments for all of them to be included, nor do the results of this
study. In particular, the recommendation to include a comprehensive examination may
be more traditon or legacy than based upon research evidence. The recommendations
from the literature for a high quality master’s degree program, as compiled by this
researcher, are illustrated in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Graduate Program Recommendations
302
The professional development literature is quite extensive and offers a vast array
of recommendations of what constitutes effective professional development. Garet,
Birman, Porter, Desimone, Herman, and Yoon’s (1999) comprehensive national study
was one of the pivotal studies that examined the components of effective professional
development and was used as the framework for this study. The literature identified two
broad components for effective professional development; structural and core
components. Structural components include:
 Extended and Continuous Professional development: Sustained,
extensive contact hours, opportunities for practice and follow up.
 Participants in Similar Professional Contexts: Similarity between
educators who participate in the program with teaching assignments,
content, etc.
Core components include:
 Content Focused: A focus on deep understanding of disciplinary content
knowledge including how to deconstruct the knowledge for students.
 Active Learning: Discussions about pedagogical content knowledge,
instruction, planning for implementation, analysis of student work, and
presenting, reading and writing about the content with others.
 Coherence: Connection between the professional development and teachers’
curriculum, standards, and student assessment measures.
Another area of the literature with recommendations for professional development
came from the professional development standards. The professional development
303
standards relevant to this research study were those from the National Staff Development
Council [NSDC] (2001), the National Research Council [NRC] (1996), the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS] (1987), the Southern Regional
Education Board [SREB] Online Professional Development Standards, and the National
Science Teachers’ Association [NSTA] position statement. These standards overlap with
the recommendations for effective professional development.
The formal program requirements for the MSSE program and the intended
program experience are clearly articulated on the MSSE website (2009). The program
identifies the interdisciplinary nature of the program and the opportunity to complete the
majority of the courses via distance learning. The website clearly outlines the program
requirements and features. With only a few exceptions, the formal requirements and
intended experiences of the MSSE program seem to be aligned with recommendations for
graduate education programs and teacher professional learning from the research and
policy literature.
In reviewing the recommendations for an effective graduate program, this
research determined that the MSSE program addressed all of the recommendations. One
recommendation that was not defined consistently in the literature was the component of
research. Minkel and Richards (1987) who examined the differences between a master’s
degree that was a stepping stone for a doctoral program and a professional master’s
degrees found differences in the focus of the research. The emphasis with the
professional degree approach is directed toward the application of knowledge rather than
original research that may be the focus of study for a career. The action research that is
304
associated with a professional degree is applied in an immediate context in which the
reseacher is also a participant or even a leader. As the MSSE program is intended as a
professional degree, that level of research is appropriate for the professional degree.
The MSSE program also adhered to the recommendations in the literature for
effective professional development. The design of the program and the requirements
appear to ensure that professional development opportunities meet the recommendations.
Although some aspects of the core components of professional development are
addressed in the MSSE program, these aspects could be strengthened. More specifically,
there needs to be a stronger emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge a focus on the
analysis of student work, and a stronger connection to the MSSE students’ curriculum
that they are teaching. Recommendations to enhance this aspect of the MSSE program
are found in the implications section. The professional development standards also
appear to be addressed within the MSSE program. These standards focus on
collaboration, using data to inform instruction, and mastery of content.
Research Question 2
The next question this study intended to answer was:
Research Question 2: How are experiences in this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree program perceived, and how have program
experiences influenced participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers increase their professional learning because
of their participation in such a program?
305
b. What program experiences, from a program teachers’ perspective, contribute
to participants’ professional learning?
c. What program experiences, from a program faculty perspective, contribute to
the science teachers’ professional learning?
d. What evidence of teacher professional learning can be identified?
Five dimensions of professional learning, which were used for the analysis in this
study, were identified in the research literature. Pedder’s comprehensive research
indicated four dimensions. Pedder (2007, p. 235) identified the dimensions as inquiry,
building social capital, critical and responsive learning, and valuing learning. Other
research studies that supported the dimensions of professional learning identified by
Pedder included Day and Gu (2007); Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Wallace, and Greenwold,
(2005); Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999); National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning (1995); Elmore and Burney (1997); Department of Educational Training
(2005). These other studies added one additional component that Pedder did not identify.
This fifth dimension was content knowledge and it was determined that it must be
included for effective professional learning to occur especially for studying a program
like MSSE which has a strong emphasis on science content.
Two surveys were administered in this study. The surveys were designed to
collect data on each of the dimensions of professional learning that may be evident in the
MSSE program. The first was the MPLS for students. It was used to ask the students
about their perceptions of professional learning in the MSSE program. Four open-ended
questions allowed respondents to provide more detailed evidence of professional
306
learning. In addition, six case studies provided more in-depth perspectives of
professional learning and evidence as demonstrated in a submitted portfolio.
A second parallel survey was administered to the MSSE faculty. This survey
sought to understand, from a faculty perspective, the MSSE students’ professional
learning. The results of this survey and the student survey are found in Chapter 4. As the
results of the faculty and student survey were very similar they are used in tandem to
answer Research Question 2.
The first dimension of professional learning identified in the literature and used in
this study was inquiry. Pedder (2005) defined inquiry as using and responding to
different sources of evidence through reading research and using the Internet as well as
carrying out joint research and evaluations with colleagues. According to survey
responses, the MSSE program strongly promoted professional learning with some aspects
of inquiry, in particular applying research on best practices. The open-ended responses
identified both specific courses and experiences in which research and best practices were
influential on professional learning. The case study data supports this finding with
examples from the portfolios that added strong additional evidence of this dimension.
In terms of research and best practice, the surveys, open ended responses, and
case study data clearly indicated that these aspects of professional learning were
promoted in the MSSE program. The only aspect of the dimension of inquiry identified
by Pedder that was not perceived as being influential was joint research or team teaching.
Due to the program design, collaboration with other MSSE students to conduct research
is not an expected outcome. As participants are from all over the US, as well as some
307
international students, this would be a difficult, yet not impossible, aspect of professional
learning to address. The original research on professional learning, on which the survey
was based, focused on groups of educators who taught in the same school and district.
This was very different from the population in the MSSE program. Some may conclude
that this is not an aspect of inquiry that is appropriate for this program, yet schools that
are geographically separated face many of the same issues and capstone studies involving
multi site studies of a shared issue could certainly be conducted via the Internet. Cross-
site educational studies are complicated, yet rewarding, and present a unique opportunity
for programs like MSSE.
The next dimension of professional learning identified in the literature and used
for analysis in this study was building social capital or learning, working, supporting, and
talking with colleagues regarding teaching and student learning. This study confirmed
that this aspect of professional learning was strongly encouraged and promoted in the
MSSE program. This dimension was categorized as collaboration in this study. Both
students and faculty reported that collaboration to develop and share ideas was a program
experience used widely in the MSSE program coursework. Online discussions were
often cited as the program components that supported collaboration. Sharing experiences
and providing feedback to others was an integral part of the discussions, both formally
and informally. One case study participant described how the online discussions allowed
him for the first time in his higher education experience to have a voice in classroom
discussions. Throughout the open-ended survey responses it was made clear that
opportunities to collaborate with others in the program, other than in summer field
308
experiences or online discussion, were not provided frequently. However, this omission
was not reported to have a particularly negative effect on the professional learning that
took place.
The only components of building social capital identified in the literature that
were not identified as being influential in the MSSE program were those that focused on
joint research and evaluation or team teaching. Again, the demographics of the MSSE
program, and the design of the program may not promote that aspect of building social
capital. As stated previously, the literature that provided the framework for this study
examined professional learning within the context of a district or school rather than
geographically distributed participants. So in one sense it is not surprising that this
aspect of professional learning is not included in the MSSE design. Yet in another sense
this presents a promising opportunity waiting to be taken by distance programs like
MSSE.
Critical and responsive learning occurs through reflections, self-evaluation,
experimentation, and by responding to feedback. This was the third dimension used in
this study to examine professional learning. It is referred to as reflective practice in this
study. Both faculty and students reported this was an area influenced by course
experiences within the MSSE program. Teachers discussed experiences and practices
and offered each other suggestions and ideas to implement in their practice. The
feedback that the MSSE students received from instructors and other students often
created a change in practice as reported in the data. One of the case study participants
309
described how the feedback she received from an instructor caused her to reflect on how
she provided feedback to her own students.
Reflective practice was a theme in the open-ended responses, and was cited as an
influential part of the MSSE program. All case study participants provided specific
examples of how the reflective process impacted their teaching practice. Through
reflective practice, teachers were able to identify their own professional learning needs.
Opportunities to engage in reflective practice provided insight into the teachers’ practice
and were reported by both faculty and students to be an inherent part of the MSSE
program.
Academic success is noteworthy and the successes of students and teachers
should be recognized. This was one aspect of valuing learning, deepening understanding
and learning through talking about and valuing learning with others, a fourth dimension
of professional learning identified in the literature and explored in this study. This aspect
was sometimes referred to in this study as supporting student achievement. Within this
dimension, teachers are committed to the concept that all students are capable of learning,
they find ways to recognize, even celebrate, student learning, and they themselves model
life long learning. The attitude that learning should be an enjoyable experience for all
involved is evident in their classrooms. As reported by the student and faculty
respondents, valuing learning was overwhelmingly promoted and embedded in the MSSE
program. A case study participant described how one instructor went out of the way to
provide an experience of working in a science research lab. Her previous lab experience
was weak and she wanted an opportunity to improve her skill set. The instructor not only
310
made the arrangements for her, but made her feel valued by his actions. Once again, both
the open-ended responses and case study data provided specific examples of how the
MSSE program created a positive learning experience for the students. This was a
practice that was then emulated in the MSSE students’ teaching practice.
Both the research literature on professional development and the research on
professional learning identify content knowledge as a dimension of professional learning.
This was a fifth dimension used for analysis in this study. The MSSE program allows
students to “develop interdisciplinary combinations of science courses” (MSSE, 2009)
for their graduate programs of study. The analysis of faculty and student surveys
indicated that content is addressed in the MSSE program from multiple angles. These
include the content of the course, the instructors, and the collaboration with other MSSE
students. The case study data and open-ended responses provided specific examples of
courses and experiences that influenced the content knowledge of the MSSE students.
Evidence of teacher professional learning in all of the dimensions was identified
in both the open-ended responses to the student survey and the case studies. Chapter 4 of
this study provides excerpts from the open-ended responses that specifically illustrate the
dimensions of professional learning that helped in answering the research questions in
this study. The portfolios submitted by the case study participants offered a wide range
of evidence to support these dimensions of professional learning. These included
PowerPoint presentations, a blog, student projects, and assessment tools. Some portfolios
included student work samples that illustrated the transfer of learning to the student level.
311
Analysis of the survey and case study data clearly indicated that experiences in the MSSE
program contribute to the professional learning of its participants.
Research Question 3
The final question this study intended to answer was:
How does the distance mode of delivery of this science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate program impact the science teachers’ professional learning?
Distance learning provided opportunities for professional development that may
not have been available to teachers separated geographically from a campus. In addition,
distance learning offered flexibility and convenience for educators who have busy lives
and multiple levels of responsibilities. The MSSE program offers participants the
opportunity to complete a master’s degree with a minimal amount of time on campus.
In examining the demographics of the MSSE students, participants represented all
fifty states, as well as 20 foreign countries. This was a testament to the access of the
program to a geographically distributed audience. The program can be customized to
meet the needs of each individual almost regardless of where they reside.
The strongest evidence to support the influence of the distance mode of delivery
came from the case studies. Several of the case study participants remarked that the
online component of the program was what allowed them to pursue a master’s degree and
personal professional learning goals. Family obligations, extracurricular activities, or
limited or no access to a university or other higher education facility nearby were cited as
the reasons that the MSSE program was beneficial to their continuing education. As one
participant stated, “if it weren’t for the online course, I couldn’t get a master’s degree.”
312
In addition, the online discussions offered the opportunity to reflect on and think about
issues before responding to discussions. This experience is unlike opportunities in the
face-to-face classroom.
Implications
The following section addresses the implications of this study. The implication
section includes recommendations for those designing research-based professional
development for science educators. Within these recommendations are issues that are
worthy of consideration. From a larger perspective, the study may offer insights into the
design and development of future pedagogical, content focused graduate programs. The
study added to the literature on effective science and pedagogical content knowledge-
based graduate degree programs. The results may inform similar programs regarding
effective policies, procedures, and practices. In addition, the study may benefit
professional developers in creating programs to influence effective professional learning
for graduate level professional development for science teachers. The study also
explored the aspects of the MSSE program to inform the MSSE program staff of the
program’s influence on professional learning.
Recommendation for a Comprehensive, Research
and Experience-Based Framework for Graduate
Level Professional Development for Science Teachers
Past research and literature on professional development, professional learning
and graduate programs clearly outlined recommendations for the design and
implementation of effective programs. These guidelines should serve as the starting
313
point for the initial design and architecture of a graduate program. As seen in this study,
these same recommendations can be used as a method to examine program effectiveness.
While there are overlaps in the recommendations from the Council of Graduate Studies
and other higher education policy makers, there are common aspects across the research
and policy literature that might be used to influence professional learning.
Professional developers and administrators of graduate programs should look to
these policy recommendations and embed those features in their programs if their
intention is to create a change in practice through professional learning. While the
research on graduate programs from the student perspective is small, there are few
recommendations in those existing studies that specifically address graduate programs
from a students’ perspective. Those recommendations co-exist with the
recommendations in the graduate program recommendations. They can be used as
another layer of features to include in the design of professional development. The
MSSE program whether intentionally or serendipitously has clearly embedded many of
these recommended features and serves as a model program.
Recommendation to Explicitly Strengthen the
Focus on Student Learning in Graduate Level
Professional Development for Science Teachers
The education climate today demands high levels of accountability from all
stakeholders. In addition, it is expected that professional development outcomes include
some measures of impact on student achievement. The open-ended responses included
references to examining student achievement data and how to use that data. One student
remarked, “The (course), which was an elective, also helped me to see and try different
314
techniques to use for student achievement.” Another student commented, “My capstone
project data forces me to look at support for diverse learners.” Guskey (2000) advocated
that student learning outcomes should be the starting point of any professional
development. Thoughtful planning of a professional learning experience should include
connecting the professional development experience to student achievement.
Within the MSSE program, this could be accomplished by adding K20 student
outcomes as a part of all course assignments. The outcomes could be framed as what the
MSSE participants’ students should be able to do after completing a learning experience
or sequence designed by the MSSE student. In addition, examination of K20 student
achievement data could be a required element in all course assignments, or at least within
a major assignment within each course. If the goal of professional learning is to create a
change in practice that influences student achievement, student achievement should be
embedded in all components of the MSSE program that require any type of lesson
planning or research on students’ learning.
Another pedagogical strategy recommended by the literature is to examine student
achievement through the process of analysis of student work. This recommendation was
included as a part of active learning. Garet et al. (2007) advocate that the analysis of
student work offers teachers the opportunity to not only identify learning gaps, but to
begin to think about differentiation to meet the needs of their students. It was not clearly
apparent in the data that analyzing student work was an integral part of the MSSE
program.
Assignments that require the analysis of student work should be an integral part of
315
any professional development at the graduate level. There are recommended processes
for analyzing student work in the professional development literature and this is an
integral part of the National Board Certification process. Establishing a program-wide
protocol for the analysis of student work as part of a lesson design assignment would
further address meeting the needs of a diverse student population. A core component of
professional development is active learning that includes not only the analysis of student
work, but also planning and implementing different learning strategies carefully designed
to support students’ science learning. Creating a process of analysis of student work and
including the other aspects of active learning would be a way of strengthening the MSSE
program.
An offshoot of the analysis of student work is creating differentiated learning
experiences for students with varying academic preparation, cultural background, special
needs, and ways of learning. Although the open-ended responses indicated that
differentiation was a topic that was broached, it was apparent it was not addressed
explicitly. Differentiation of learning experiences should be an added component to
assignments that require the MSSE students to develop a lesson plan or module. The
differentiation should be extensive and inclusive of all students. There were a number of
open-ended student survey responses in this study reporting that identified differentiation
for low achieving students, including students from diverse culture, language and income
groups, or special education students was not addressed by the MSSE program. This
omission probably occurs in many professional development and graduate programs for
science teachers, and certainly needs to be addressed within MSSE or wherever a similar
316
omission occurs. Yet only one comment focused on high achieving students. As the
MSSE program attracts a large number of teachers who teach AP course and higher-level
courses, it would be an enhancement to the program to explicitly discuss differentiation
for high achieving students.
Recommendations for MSSE Faculty and Program Staff
The participants view the MSSE program positively. The surveys, open-ended
responses, and case study provide both qualitative and quantitative evidence that the
MSSE program influenced professional learning. There are still recommendations that
were offered by the students and supported by this researcher to improve and enhance the
program even more. There are also recommendations from the literature that could be
implemented to enhance the MSSE program.
Focusing on content is a dimension of professional learning recommended in the
professional development literature. One aspect of science content knowledge is the
knowledge of science curriculum, including how to use resources and arrange topics over
time. Curriculum as defined by the National Research Council is not an explicit part of
the MSSE program, except in one elective course on this topic. The professional
development literature recommends coherence, for example, by making connections
between the professional development and the teachers’ curriculum, standards, and
assessment measures.
Given the fact that the program caters to a national and international audience,
traditional curriculum development may not be an appropriate shift in the goals of the
program. Rather, it may be more appropriate to link the content of the courses to the
317
curriculum and standards being used in the school district of the MSSE students. Being
more explicit in expecting students to make the connection between their learning and the
curriculum they are teaching offers an opportunity to influence the professional learning
of the MSSE students.
In addition, it may also benefit the MSSE students for the instructors to address
the sequencing of the content in the courses. Explicitly stating why concepts are being
sequenced and taught in a specific order, that is addressing learning progressions that
faculty experiences or the research literature have shown to be effective, may offer a
deeper understanding of the content. Sequencing content may be a component of science
curriculum that perhaps should be more transparent in the design of the science courses.
Connected to content and curricular knowledge is pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK). While an overwhelming number of open-ended responses expressed that the
MSSE program influenced the pedagogy of teaching science, no responses clearly
described PCK. Addressing PCK in the science courses would add a more focused
learning experience that would be more transparent for the MSSE students to use in their
own classrooms. The professional development literature identified core components
including a content focus, active learning, and coherence. Each of these components
clarifies that deepening the content knowledge must include a deconstructing of that
knowledge so it can be taught effectively to students. Discussions about PCK and
planning instruction are essential is creating a change in practice. Connecting the content
and the PCK to the MSSE students’ curriculum would strengthen the program.
In both the faculty and student surveys, an area that was not addressed strongly in
318
the MSSE program was learning how to meet the needs of a diverse student population.
Diverse learners range from low achieving to academically gifted students. Such learners
may also include students with varying cultural backgrounds, students identified with
special needs or requiring modifications or adjustments to assignments, and varying
learning styles. While there are some references that this aspect is included in the
education courses, it is an area that needs to be included as part of all courses. Only four
science courses were identified in the open-ended responses as offering recommendations
to meet the needs of diverse learners. Addressing diverse learning needs of students
cannot be an exclusive practice in the education courses.
In an era of increased accountability, teachers are expected to differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of all students who may be diverse learners. While
differentiation may begin to address the learning needs of most students, students
identified with special needs require a more intensive approach. As more and more
special education students are included in the general education classroom, there needs to
be an increased awareness on adapting curriculum and making modifications.
The data analyzed in this study found that the MSSE program influenced the
professional learning of the MSSE students. From the open-ended responses and case
study data, it was apparent that pedagogical strategies were an integral part of the
program. It also appears that the formal program curriculum has a far greater influence
on teachers’ thinking about assessment than on any other aspect of pedagogy. The
assessment course is a required course that may have contributed to the significant
number of comments about the influence of assessment strategies. It is recommended
319
that the MSSE program develop as powerful and coherent an approach to other aspects of
teaching and learning. For example, this same emphasis could be placed on inquiry
science teaching that is so central in the national standards. Technology integration
would be another area that may be emphasized.
The courses offered in the MSSE program are designed to meet the needs of a
wide array of science educators. Many of the participants in the program may have may
entered with a broadfield degree or may be teaching out of their content area. There is a
broad range of science discipline specific courses offered, yet a number of MSSE
students would recommend that more chemistry courses be made available. Currently
there are nine chemistry courses offered. In reviewing the demographics of the MSSE
enrollment, chemistry and broadfield science teachers make up a large proportion of the
MSSE students. As chemistry is a challenging subject, the need for more chemistry
courses, especially for those who teach it, may be warranted. It may be that there are
enough chemistry courses offered, but an emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge in
those that are offered would address the perceived need for more chemistry. It may be
that the request stems from a need to better understand how to teach chemistry
effectively. One of the core components of professional development is a focus on
content and understanding how to deconstruct the knowledge for students.
The experience level of educators enrolling in the program is vast as well. This
creates chasms of understanding in both content and pedagogy. For the experienced
educators who have engaged in a variety of professional development, the pedagogical
strategies and/or the content information may not be new. Differentiating the
320
assignments and discussions and allowing students to serve as discussion leaders at times
may offer those MSSE students who have higher levels of expertise to challenge their
learning. This would also support the dimension of building social capital and the active
learning recommended in the professional development literature.
Many MSSE students may enter the program with diverse learning needs and
abilities. It may be reasonable to assume a certain percentage of MSSE students have
been identified as having a learning disability or other health impairments that impact
their ability to participate in certain course experiences or their academic performance.
Access to learning opportunities should be available to all who meet the graduate
entrance requirements. The academic rigor does not need to be diminished, but rather
differentiation for the MSSE student should be a part of any course to meet the adult
learning needs of the participants. The MSSE program strives to differentiate at the
program level, that same approach may be a consideration at the course level. Offering
options for assignments or using different types of textual material to present content may
support different learning styles of the MSSE students. Also, students with physical
disabilities may be excluded from some learning opportunities like field courses.
Appropriate accommodations should be offered to all students who have the mental
aptitude for a course.
The addition of science courses designed specifically for elementary teachers –
for example, by focusing on national science education standards at their grade levels –
was perceived as a need, as more elementary teachers have begun enrolling in the
program. There seems to be a desire for more science courses with an elementary focus
321
particularly with a focus on highly qualified teachers and increased accountability
Considerations for Teachers Selecting a Master’s Program
Teachers who are exploring master’s degree programs should review the
recommendations for a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate
degree program. These recommendations would inform the decision when selecting a
master’s program. Science educators, especially those teaching multiple subjects, need to
have a high level of understanding of content across many disciplines. Teachers should
select a program that embeds the dimension of professional learning that includes a
strong content component. Most teachers who seek a master’s degree seek a professional
degree rather than a stepping-stone to a doctoral program. The program selected should
include the recommendations for graduate education that support a professional master’s
degree. These recommendations included specific program requirements and aspects
including a minimum number of courses, a core curriculum to be mastered, a culminating
project and a faculty advisor for each student.
Future Research
The following sections address areas of future research. In the review of the
literature, it was found that the research in the areas of teachers’ professional learning
leading to changes in practice, as well as research on the design of graduate programs for
teachers, was very limited. As the MSSE program has not been the subject of many
research studies, recommendations for future research on the MSSE program are also
included.
322
Additional Research on Professional Learning
The term professional learning is often used in the context of education in a more
colloquial manner. The National Staff Development Council, the largest non-profit staff
development association, has recently changed their purpose to, “Every educator engages
in effective professional learning every day so every student achieves (NSDC, 2010)”.
While a more detailed examination of the purpose included several of the dimensions of
professional learning from the literature, there were still some discrepancies.
The largest study on teachers’ professional learning and its dimensions came from
the work of Pedder et al. (2005) in England. No large-scale studies on professional
learning have been conducted in the United States. The focus of this study examined one
aspect of professional learning in a graduate program, but there is room for additional
studies on professional learning within school districts and other professional
development programs.
The additional research on professional learning was primarily from case studies.
Most of the case studies offered limited understanding about teachers’ professional
learning. The ultimate outcome from professional learning is a change classroom
practice. The research literature reviewed for this study speculated on the influence of
professional development experiences on teachers’ practice, but offered no corroborating
evidence, particularly at the student level. Futher studies are needed to contribute to
understanding how professional learning through professional development can influence
a change in practice. Continued research through case studies examining student artifacts
323
would begin to create a better understanding of how professional learning of the teacher
transfers to the learning of the student.
Additional Research on Graduate Programs
There are a number of policy advocates and organizations that make
recommendations for graduate programs such the Council of Graduate Schools. These
organizations serve to inform high education administrators on policy for compliance and
quality. Yet the research on how these recommendations influence graduate programs
are limited. The recommendations intent to set high standards, yet there is no measure of
impact or effectiveness built into those recommendations.
There is a lack of research on the student experience and perspective in graduate
programs. The research that exists primarily consists of overviews of graduate programs
in general. A few case studies are included in the literature, but additional research from
the student perspective would add to the literature on effective graduate programs.
Additional Research on the MSSE Program
To date, there have only been two other studies on the MSSE program. Graves’
(2002) study examined the action research component of the MSSE program. The NTEN
study by Horizon (2001) only looked at a subset of the MSSE courses. Based on the
findings of this study, the MSSE program stands as an exemplar in professional learning
and could serve as the basis for additional studies on professional learning.
The case study data presented in this research began to tap into the transfer of
their teachers’ learning to the students of the MSSE teachers. Additional research
324
examining the influence of the program on the MSSE students’ classrooms would inform
the program staff of the effectiveness of courses and content. Student work samples,
analysis of student work, student achievement data, and pre and post data of the MSSE
teachers’ students would all be useful in determining the nature and extent of the transfer
of learning. In addition, the interview questions focused on the dimensions of
professional learning, which do not explicitly address pedagogical content knowledge.
Additional questions about the pedagogical content knowledge addressed in the courses
would have added depth to understanding the influence of PCK on the MSSE students’
practice.
After reviewing the data collected in this study, modifications to both the student
and faculty MPLS should be considered. Within the survey questions, the open-ended
responses could be restructured to elicit more substantive answers from respondents.
Open-ended questions should be included in the faculty MPLS which may offer
additional insights into the faculty perspective. Combining the content questions in
Section II and the pedagogical and content questions in Section III could make the survey
more concise. The questions in these two sections are similar and combining the two
would provide additional clarity to the intent of the questions.
There were questions on the MPLS that focused on joint research with a peer and
team teaching. Although there are creative ways in which those may be addressed, the
questions should be rephrased to elicit more responses on collaboration, reflection, or
best practice. These types of questions may provide stronger insights into the dimensions
of professional learning.
325
The timing of the survey may have influenced the response rate. The final student
MPLS was not administered until July, a time when many teachers are on vacation or
infrequently checking email. As many email addresses were sent to schools, the emails
may have been inadvertently deleted or forgotten over the summer. Similar timing issues
may have impacted the response rate of the faculty survey.
The faculty perspective on the MSSE students’ professional learning was included
in this study. Research on the professional learning of the MSSE faculty as a result of
their program experiences is another potential area of informative research. As many of
the instructors are practicing scientists who are working closely with K12 educators for
the first time since their own school days, further study of the influence the teachers have
on faculty professional learning about science teaching and learning would be intriguing,
and round out our understanding of the learning and growth of faculty and students in the
MSSE program.
In this study, the case study data presented artifacts demonstrating professional
learning from the perspective of the MSSE students. Case study data provided by the
faculty that would include artifacts of the intended professional learning of students and
evidence of such may offer additional insights into the professional learning of the MSSE
students.
Summary
This study explored the professional learning of participants of a science and
pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program through a concurrent
mixed-methods design. The study examined the program from three perspectives:
326
recommendations for teachers’ professional learning through professional development,
recommendations for a quality graduate program, and accessibility, as the program is
offered online. A science content-based program for teachers, such as MSSE, has the
potential to create strong science education leaders through the collaboration with other
teachers and scientists and the lab and field experiences offered in the courses.
Using student and faculty surveys and case study data from the MSSE students,
the results indicated that the MSSE program influences professional learning, including
changes in the participants’ own classroom practice. Specific descriptive statistics to
support this statement are found in Chapter 4. Case study data that includes portfolio
evidence of professional learning is also found in Chapter 4.
There were five dimensions of professional learning identified in the literature:
inquiry, building social capital, critical and responsive feedback, valuing learning, and
content. All five dimensions must be present in a professional development experience if
the expected outcome is a change in teaching practice. The MSSE program included all
five dimensions in the design and delivery of the program.
Professional organizations for graduate programs, and advocates for the value of a
graduate education, recommend policy to institutions of higher education. A review of
the policy recommendations indicated there are ten components of an effective graduate
program. The MSSE program included all of them in the design of the program, except
the comprehensive examination. The comprehensive examination may be a remnant of
tradition rather than supported through any research.
The MSSE program offers many of its courses through distance learning
327
asynchronous, computer-mediated communication. The flexibility of distance learning
allows access for educators who may not be able to pursue a master’s degree any other
way. The MSSE students represent all fifty states and twenty foreign countries. These
demographics speak loudly to the opportunity created by the MSSE program to
geographically distributed participants.
Designing a science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree
program that adheres to the recommendations in the literature for professional learning,
graduate programs, and access through distance education requires vision and
commitment from all levels of an institution of higher education. Based on the results of
this study, the MSSE program emerges as a program that has done this successfully to
influence the professional learning of its graduates.
328
REFERENCES CITED
329
American Council on Education. (2008). Strategic Plan. Retrieved February 3, 2008,
from American Council on Education: http://www.acenet.edu
American Distance Education Consortium. (2002). ADEC Guiding Principles for
Distance Learning. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from American Distance Education
Consortium: http://www.adec.edu
American Educational Research Association. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional
development to improve student achievement. Research Points , 3 (1).
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching
presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 5 (2).
Asbell-Clarke, J. & Rowe, E. (2007). Learning Science Online: A descriptive study of
online science courses for teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 11(3)
Association of American Universities. (1998). Association of American universities
committee on graduate education: Report and recommendations.
Ball, D. (2000). Bridging practices -intertwining content and pedogogy in teaching and
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education , 51 (3), 241-247.
Bender, T. (2003). Discussion based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory,
practice, and assessment. Sterling: Stylus Publishing LLC.
Bezzina, M. (1994). Empowering the principal through professional development. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association.
Bice, L. (2005). Construction of knowledge about teaching practice and educating
students from diverse cultures in an online induction program. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertaion . Montana State University.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., (2005).
Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities. Universities of
Bristol, Bath and London Institute of Education. University of Bristol.
Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (2002). Foundations (vol. 3): Professional development that
supports school mathematics reform. National Science Foundation.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher , 33 (8), 3-15.
330
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. E. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. The National Academies Press.
Chickering, A. & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology
as lever. AAHE Bulletin , pp. 3-6.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Princliples of good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin , 39 (7), 3-7.
Cohen D, Crabtree B. "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." February 2009.
http://www.qualres.org/index.html
Commission on Colleges. (2007). Distance Education -Policy Statement. The
Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Conrad, C., Duren, K., & Haworth, J. (1998). Students' perspectives on their master's
degree experiences: Disturbing the conventional wisdom. New Directions for Higher
Education , 101, 65-76.
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practice in exploratory facotr analysis: Four
recommnedation fro getting the most form your analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research, & Evaluation, 10 (6), 1-9.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Banff Principles on Graduate Education.
Washington, D. C.: Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Graduate Education The Backbone of American
Competitiveness and Innovation. Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2006). Public Policy. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from
Council of Graduate Schools: http://www.cgsnet.org/Default.aspx?tabid=142
Council of Graduate Schools. (2005). Master's Education - A Guide for Faculty and
Administrators. (D. Denecke, & P. Tate, Eds.) Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate
Schools.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
Approaches (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan , 76 (8), 597-604.
331
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching:
Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6),
5-17.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning
and development: sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review
of Education , 33 (4), 423-443.
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy , 24 (2), 81-112.
Denzin, N. (1978). The Research Act A theorectical Introduction to sociological Methods
(2nd Edition ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill .
Dotterer, R., Klasen, J., & Smith, S. (2001). Volume 1 Participant Satisfaction with
NTEN and Overview of Impacts. Horizon Research.
Eaton, J. (2006). An Overview of U.S. Accreditation. Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (2006) .
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City. National
Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.
Extension, University of Wisconsin. (2006). Enhancing the educational impact of
distance learning. Retrieved November 5, 2006, 2006, from
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/cybela.cfm
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to
improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education ,
19, 643-658.
Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interactions, the critical predicators in
distance education. The Americal Journal of Distance Education , 7 (3), 8-21.
Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning: think 'system' and not 'individual
school' if the goal is to fundamentally change the culture of schools. School
Administration , 10 (5).
Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Herman, R., & Yoon, K. (1999).
Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the eisenhower program.
U.S. Department of Education.
332
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning:
The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C.
Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction. Volume 4 in
the Sloan C Series, Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education , 2 (2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education , 15 (1), 7-23.
Grant, C. (1996, May 1). Professional development in a technological age: New
definitions, old challenges, new resources. Retrieved February 2008, from LSCNET:
http://lsc-net.terc.edu/do.cfm/paper/8089/show/use_set-tech
Graves, J. (2002). Determining teachers' perceptions of self empowerment through
professional development facilitated by asynchronous distance delivery instruction in
classroom-based action research. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation . Montana State
University.
Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (1991). Complexities in evaluating the effects of staff
development programs. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association.
Chicago.
Harris-John, M., & Ritter, S. (2007). e_based Professional developement (e-PD) for
effective teaching and leadership. Connections Module , 1.
Haworth, J., & Conrad, C. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education. Developing
and sustaining high-quality programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Higher Education Program And Policy Council of The American Federation of Teachers.
(2000). distance education guidelines for good practice. American Federation of
Teachers.
Hirumi, A. (2005). In search of quality an analysis of e-learning guidelines and
specifications. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 6 (4), 309-330.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2007). About IHEP. Retrieved February 3, 2008,
from Institute for Higher Education Policy: http://www.ihep.org/
333
Isenberg, J. (2003). Using national board standards to redesign master's degrees for
teachers: A guide for institutions of higher education. National Board For Professional
Teaching Standards.
James, M., Pedder, D., Swaffield, S., Conner, C., Frost, D., MacBeath, J. (2003). A
servant of two masters: Designing research to advance knowledge and practice. A paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Chicago.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on
learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International , 39 (2), 153-162.
Kasworm, C., & Hemmingsen, L. (2007). Preparing professionals for lifelong learning:
Comparative examination of master’s education programs. Higher Education , 451-468.
Kedzior, M., & Fifield, S. (2004). Teacher professional development. Education Policy
Brief , 15, pp. 1-6.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. NISE Brief , pp.
1-20.
Killion, J. (2000). Log on to learn to reap benefits of online staff development, ask the
right questions. Journal of Staff Development , 21 (3).
Kleiman, G., (2004). Meeting the need for high quality teachers: e-Learning Solutions.
Education Development Center, Inc. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education.
Krathwohl, D. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research An
integrated approach (2nd Edition ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Kumari, D. (2001). Journal of Aysnchronous Learning Networks. Retrieved September 2,
2007, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol5_issue2/Kumari/Kumari.htm
Lewis. A. (2002). School reform and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 83
(7), pp. 488-489.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Creating intentional learning communities. Education Leadership,
54(3), 51-55.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
334
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1995). Principles of effective professional
development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE
Brief , 1 (1).
MacCallum, R., Widaman, K., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor
analysis. Psychological Methods. 4(1), 84-99.
McAleer, D. (2008). Professional growth through mentoring: A study of experienced
mathematics teachers participating in a content-based online mentoring and induction
program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Montana State University.
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. (2004). The supply and demand for special
education teachers:A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special
education teachers. The Journal of Special Education , 38 (1), 5-21.
Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Minkel, C., & Richards, M. (1987). components of quality in master's degree programs.
the master's degree: Jack of all trades . (J. Green, Ed.) Asheville, NC: State Higher
Education Executive Officers Association.
Montana State University. (2009, January 26). Division of Graduate Education.
Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.montana.edu/gradstudies/
Montana State University. (2008). Master of Science in Science Education. Retrieved
September 12, 2008, from http://www.montana.edu/msse/
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1991). Teacher education and
learning to teach (TELT) study. Michigan State University.
NSDC. (2010). About NSDC. Retrieved Oct 2009, from National Staff Development
Council: http://www.nsdc.org/about/index.cfm
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
D. C. : National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC's standards for staff development.
national staff development council.
335
National Staff Development Council. (2001). e-Learnign for educators: Implementing the
standards for staff development. Oxford: National Staff Development Council.
Neal, L., & Miller, D. (2004). The basics of e-learning: An excerpt from handbook of
human factors in web design. In R. W. Proctor, & K. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of Human
Factors in Web Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Obink, K., & Tuthill, G. (1998). Taking the distance out of distance learning. Montana
State University. Bozeman: Montana State University.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2007). U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved June 1, 2008, from Technology and Distance Learning:
Pedder, D. (2007). Profiling teachers' professional learning practices and values:
differences between and within schools. The Curriculum Journal , 18 (3), 231-252.
Pedder, D., James, M., & MacBeath, J. (2005). How teachers value and practise
professional learning. Research Papers in Education , 20 (2), 209-243.
Peine, J. (2007). The educator's professional growth Plan: A process for developing staff
and improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Perdue, K. (2003). Web-based continuing professional education: Uses, motivations, and
deterrents to participation. In M. Moore, & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance
Education (pp. 615-630). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and
perforance in an online course. Journal of Aysnchronous Learning Networks , 6 (1).
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to
say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher , 29 (1), 4-15.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social
presence in aynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance
Education , 14 (2), 50-71.
Salmon, G. (2000). e-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (2nd ed.).
Oxon, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Saskatchewan Education. (1997). Native studies 30: Canadian studies curriculum guide.
Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.
336
Selke, M. (2001). The Professional development of teachers in the United States of
America: The practitioners’ master’s degree. European Journal of Teacher Education, ,
24 (2), 205-214.
Shea, P., Frederickson, E., Pickett, A., & Peltz, W. E. (2002). A preliminary investigation
of "teaching presence" in the SUNY Learning Network. Sloan Asynchronous Learning
Network Workshop .
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Peltz, W. (2003). A follow-up investigation of "teaching
presence" in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning , 7 (2), 61-
80.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review , 57 (1), 1-22.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Standards for online professional
development guidelines for planning and evaluating online professional development
courses and programs. Southern Regional Education Board.
Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses; the importance of Interaction.
Education, Communication and Information , 2 (1), 23-49.
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online
environments. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from Sloan C Series: http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf
Taylor, P. (2007). The effect of facilitator training on the development and practice of
participants in an online induction program for teachers of science and mathematics.
Unpublished Doctoral DIssertation . Montana State University.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line benchmarks for
succss in internet-based distance education. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association.
Thomas-Goodfellow, L., Perdue, K. J., & Valentine, T. (2001). Respiratory therapist and
the world wide web: Going online to satisfy continuing professional education
requirements. Respiratory Care Education Annual , 10 (3-13).
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Distance education at degree granting
postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: NCES.
Valentine, D. (2002). Distance learning: promises, problems, and possibilities. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 5 (3).
337
Van Hanegan, J., Pruet, S. A., & Bamberger, H. J. (2004). Mathematics reform in a
minority community: Student outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 9 (2), 189-211.
Vaughan, N. Building faculty learning communities: New directions for teaching and
learning. (M. Cox, & L. Richlin, Eds.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, S., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). A study of K–12
mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research,
Inc.
Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis
and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Sudy Research Design and methods (4th Edition ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zheng, L., & Smaldino, S. (2003). Key instructional design elements for distance
education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 4 (2), 153-166.
338
APPENDICES
339
APPENDIX A
MSSE STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT FOR
PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH FORM
340
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
FOR
PARTICIPATION IN HUMAN RESEARCH AT
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Title: Determining the Impact on the Professional Learning of Graduates of a
Master’s Degree Program for Science Teachers
You are being asked to participate in a study exploring K12 teachers’ and university
faculty members’ professional learning as a result of participating in the Master of
Science in Science Education (MSSE) program. In order to document professional
learning, data from MSSE students, both current and graduates, will be collected through
surveys, interviews, and portfolios.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey examining
your professional learning as a MSSE student. The survey will take approximately 15-20
minutes to complete and submit. You may also be asked to complete one or two opened
ended, standardized recorded phone interviews. Phone interviews, each approximately 30
minutes in length, will be scheduled at a time convenient for you. You may also be asked
to submit a portfolio. The portfolio may include instructional materials like lesson plans,
lab design, PowerPoint presentations, handouts, materials generated in class, etc. It will
also includes a brief cover page with an overview of the lesson and the intended
outcomes, two or three student work samples from each lesson that are part of the
instruction such as in-class assignments, assessments, journal entries, projects,
homework, etc., a reflection page for each student work sample, and an overall reflection
about your portfolio entry and your teaching. It is estimated that portfolios will take 4-6
hours to complete and submit. If you are selected to complete the interview and portfolio
and agree to participate, you will receive a stipend of up to $300 to compensate for your
time.
This consent form serves to cover all of the data collected in this study, which will take
place in the spring and summer of 2009. Your participation is voluntary and at any time
you may refuse to participate. In all study efforts, your confidentiality will be maintained.
No names or specific identifiers will be reported in this study. Results will be shared with
my doctoral committee members at Montana State University and with the leadership of
MSSE. The results may also appear in campus, regional or national research
presentations, and publications. All information you share will remain confidential,
minimizing any social risks associated with your participation. The risks for participating
in this study are minimal. I foresee no physical risks associated with your participation. A
possible benefit would be that your experiences and insights might affect future MSSE
management decisions and directions.
341
If you have additional questions about this research, please contact Elisabeth Swanson or
Alyson Mike at the Montana State University Science/Math Resource Center (406-994-
6768) or Peggy Taylor, Director, MSSE (406-994-1741). If you have specific questions
about the rights of human subjects regarding this study, please contact the Chairman of
the Institutional Review Board at Montana State University, Mark Quinn, (406) 994-
5721.
************************************************************************
AUTHORIZATION: I have read the above and understand the nature of my involvement
in the research study on the Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) program.
I, ______________________________________, agree to participate in this evaluation. I
understand that I may later refuse to participate, and that I may withdraw from the study
at any time. I have received a copy of this consent form and the accompanying
explanatory page for my own records.
________________________________________________ ________________
MSSE Student [current or graduate] signature Date
342
APPENDIX B
MSSE FACULTY INFORMED CONSENT FOR
PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH FORM
343
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
FOR
PARTICIPATION IN HUMAN RESEARCH AT
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Title: Determining the Impact on the Professional Learning of Graduates of a
Master’s Degree Program for Science Teachers
You are being asked to participate in a study exploring K12 teachers’ and university
faculty members’ professional learning as a result of participating in the Master of
Science in Science Education (MSSE) program. In order to document professional
learning, data from MSSE faculty will be collected through surveys, interviews, and
portfolios.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey examining
your professional learning as a MSSE faculty member. The survey will take
approximately 15-20 minutes to complete and submit. You may also be asked to
complete one or two opened ended, standardized recorded phone interviews. Phone
interviews, each approximately 30 minutes in length, will be scheduled at a time
convenient for you. You may also be asked to submit a portfolio. The portfolio may
include the syllabus, assignments, other course materials, and other artifacts that illustrate
how faculty members support different aspects of teacher growth in their course(s). You
will also be asked to submit an overall reflection about your portfolio entry and your
course(s). It is estimated that portfolios will take 1-3 hours to complete and submit.
This consent form serves to cover all of the data collected in this study, which will take
place in the spring and summer of 2009. Your participation is voluntary and at any time
you may refuse to participate. In all study efforts, your confidentiality will be maintained.
No names or specific identifiers will be reported in this study. Results will be shared with
my doctoral committee members at Montana State University and with the leadership of
MSSE. The results may also appear in campus, regional or national research
presentations, and publications. All information you share will remain confidential,
minimizing any social risks associated with your participation. The risks for participating
in this study are minimal. I foresee no physical risks associated with your participation. A
possible benefit would be that your experiences and insights might affect future MSSE
management decisions and directions.
If you have additional questions about this research, please contact Elisabeth Swanson or
Alyson Mike at the Montana State University Science/Math Resource Center (406-994-
6768) or Peggy Taylor, Director, MSSE (406-994-1741). If you have specific questions
about the rights of human subjects regarding this study, please contact the Chairman of
the Institutional Review Board at Montana State University, Mark Quinn, (406) 994-
5721.
************************************************************************
344
AUTHORIZATION: I have read the above and understand the nature of my involvement
in the research study on the Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) program.
I, ______________________________________, agree to participate in this evaluation. I
understand that I may later refuse to participate, and that I may withdraw from the study
at any time. I have received a copy of this consent form and the accompanying
explanatory page for my own records.
________________________________________________ ________________
MSSE faculty signature Date
345
APPENDIX C
MSSE STUDENT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
APPENDIX D
MSSE FACULTY PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
APPENDIX E
COMPARISON OF LANGUAGE AND PHRASING BETWEEN THE
LEARNING HOW TO LEARN SURVEY AND THE MSSE
STUDENT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY
369
Pedder et al (2005) - Learning How to
Learn Staff Questionnaire, Part B
Modified Questions for the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Survey
Overarching Question:
How important are these practices and
beliefs for creating opportunities for
students to learn?
Overarching Question:
To what degree did your experiences in the
MSSE program foster your professional
learning, including your knowledge and
practices, in the following areas:
1. Staff as well as students learn in this
school.
1. Using my learning to improve my students'
learning.
2. Staff draws on good practice from other
schools as a means to further their own
professional development.
2. Drawing on good practice from other
teachers as a means to further my own
professional practice.
3. Staff read research reports as one
source of useful ideas for improving
their practice.
3. Reading research (practitioner reports and
journal articles) as one source of useful ideas
for improving my practice.
4. Staff use the web as one source of
useful ideas for improving their
practice.
4. Using the Internet as one source of useful
ideas for improving my practice.
5. Students are consulted about how they
learn most effectively.
5. Consulting and observing students about
how they learn most effectively.
6. Staff relate what works in their own
practice to research findings.
6. Relating what works in my own practice to
research findings and best practices.
7. Staff are able to see how practices that
work in one context might be adapted
to other contexts.
7. Using insights from my professional
learning to feed into my school’s policy
development.
8. Staff use insights from their
professional learning to feed into
school policy development.
8. Understanding how instructional strategies
that work in one context might be adapted to
other contexts.
9. Staff reflect on their practice as a way
of identifying professional learning
needs.
9. Reflecting on my practice as a way of
identifying my professional learning needs to
better meet the needs of my students.
10. Staff experiment with their practice as a
conscious strategy for improving
classroom teaching and learning.
10. Experimenting with my practice as a
conscious strategy for improving classroom
teaching and learning.
11. Staff modify their practice in the light
of feedback from their students.
11. Modifying my practice in light of
performance and feedback from my students.
12. Staff modify their practice in the light
of published research evidence.
12. Modifying my practice in light of
published research evidence.
13. Staff modify their practice in the light
of evidence from self-evaluations of
their classroom practice.
13. Modifying my practice in light of
evidence of self-evaluations of my classroom
practice.
370
14. Staff modify their practice in the light
of evidence from evaluations of their
classroom practice by managers or
other colleagues.
14. Modifying my practice in light of
evidence from evaluations of my classroom
practice by administrators or other
colleagues.
15. Staff carry out joint research/evaluation
with one or more colleagues as a way
of improving their practice.
15. Carrying out joint research/evaluation
with one or more colleagues as a way of
improving my practice.
16. Staff regularly collaborate to plan their
teaching.
16. Collaborating to plan my teaching.
17. Staff regularly observe each other in the
classroom and give each other
feedback.
17. Reading/discussing other teachers
experiences in the classroom and giving
each other feedback.
18. Staff engage in team teaching as a way
of improving practice.
18. Engaging in team teaching with
someone at my school as a way of
improving practice.
19. If staff have a problem with their
teaching they usually turn to colleagues
for help.
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for help if I
have a problem with my teaching.
20. Teachers suggest ideas or approaches
for colleagues to try in class.
20. Posting suggestions, ideas or
approaches for colleagues to try in class.
21. Teachers make collective agreements to
test out new ideas.
21. Testing out new ideas in class.
22. Teachers discuss openly with
colleagues what and how they are
learning.
22. Discussing openly with colleagues
what and how you the teacher are learning.
23. Staff frequently use informal
opportunities to discuss how children
learn.
23. Frequently using informal opportunities
to discuss how students learn.
24. Staff offer one another reassurance and
support.
24. Offering other colleagues reassurance
and support.
25. Staff believe that all students are
capable of learning.
25. Believing that all students are capable
of learning.
26. Students in this school enjoy learning. 26. Encouraging students in my school to
enjoy learning.
27. Pupil success is regularly celebrated. 27. Regularly celebrating student success.
28. Staff discuss with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn how
to learn.
28. Discussing with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn how to
learn.
371
APPENDIX F
COMPARISON OF LANGUAGE AND PHRASING BETWEEN THE LEARNING
HOW TO LEARN SURVEY AND THE MSSE FACULTY
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY
372
Pedder et al (2005) - Learning How to
Learn Staff Questionnaire, Part B
Modified Questions for the MSSE Faculty
Professional Learning Pilot Survey
Overarching Question:
How important are these practices and
beliefs for creating opportunities for
students to learn?
Overarching Question:
As a MSSE faculty member, how
important are these professional learning
practices and beliefs fostered for the MSSE
students in your course(s)?
1. Staff as well as students learn in this
school.
1. Use of learning by the MSSE teachers to
improve their students’ learning.
2. Staff draw on good practice from other
schools as a means to further their own
professional development.
2. Drawing on good practice from other
MSSE teachers as a means to further the
MSSE teachers’ professional practice.
3. Staff read research reports as one
source of useful ideas for improving
their practice.
3. Reading research (practitioner reports
and journal articles) as one source of useful
ideas for improving the MSSE teachers’
practice.
4. Staff use the web as one source of
useful ideas for improving their
practice.
4. Using the Internet as one source of
useful ideas for improving the MSSE
teachers’ practice.
5. Students are consulted about how they
learn most effectively.
5. Consulting and observing the MSSE
teachers about how they learn most
effectively.
6. Staff relate what works in their own
practice to research findings.
6. Relating what works in the MSSE
teachers’ practice to research findings and
best practices.
7. Staff are able to see how practices that
work in one context might be adapted
to other contexts.
7. Using insights from the MSSE teachers’
learning in the course to feed into their
school’s policy development.
8. Staff use insights from their
professional learning to feed into
school policy development.
8. Understanding how instructional
strategies that work in one context might be
adapted to other contexts.
9. Staff reflect on their practice as a way
of identifying professional learning
needs.
9. Using reflection as a way for the MSSE
teachers to identify their professional
learning needs.
10. Staff experiment with their practice
as a conscious strategy for improving
classroom teaching and learning.
10. Experimenting with their practice as a
conscious strategy for improving classroom
teaching and learning.
11. Staff modify their practice in the
light of feedback from their students.
11. Modifying their practice in light of
performance and feedback in the course.
12. Staff modify their practice in the light
of published research evidence.
12. Modifying their practice in light of
published research evidence.
373
13. Staff modify their practice in the light
of evidence from self-evaluations of
their classroom practice.
13. In light of evidence of self-evaluations,
the MSSE teachers’ modify their practice.
14. Staff modify their practice in the light
of evidence from evaluations of their
classroom practice by managers or
other colleagues.
14. In light of evidence from evaluations of
classroom practice by administrators or
other colleagues, the MSSE teachers’
modify their practice.
15. Staff carry out joint research/evaluation
with one or more colleagues as a way
of improving their practice.
15. Carrying out joint research/evaluation
with one or more colleagues as a way of
improving the MSSE teachers’ practice.
16. Staff regularly collaborate to plan their
teaching.
16. Collaborating to plan teaching.
17. Staff regularly observe each other in the
classroom and give each other
feedback.
17. Reading/discussing other teachers’
experiences in the classroom and giving
each other feedback.
18. Staff engage in team teaching as a way
of improving practice.
18. Engaging in team teaching with
someone at the MSSE teacher’s school as a
way of improving practice.
19. If staff have a problem with their
teaching they usually turn to colleagues
for help.
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for help if
the MSSE teachers have problems with
their teaching.
20. Teachers suggest ideas or approaches
for colleagues to try in class.
20. Posting suggestions, ideas or
approaches for colleagues to try in class.
21. Teachers make collective agreements to
test out new ideas.
21. Testing out new ideas in class.
22. Teachers discuss openly with
colleagues what and how they are
learning.
22. Discussing openly with colleagues
what and how they as teachers are learning.
23. Staff frequently use informal
opportunities to discuss how children
learn.
23. Frequently using informal opportunities
to discuss how students learn.
24. Staff offer one another reassurance and
support.
24. Offering other teachers reassurance and
support.
25. Staff believe that all students are
capable of learning.
25. Believing that all students are capable
of learning.
26. Students in this school enjoy learning. 26. Encouraging MSSE teachers, and by
extension their students, to enjoy learning.
27. Pupil success is regularly celebrated. 27. Regularly celebrating student success.
28. Staff discuss with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn how
to learn.
28. Discussing with colleagues how
students might be helped to learn how to
learn.
374
APPENDIX G
COMPARISONS OF LANGUAGE AND PHRASING FROM THE
2000 NATIONAL SURVEY OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION,
QUESTION 12B, AND THE MSSE STUDENT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
SURVEY AND THE MSSE FACULTY PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY.
375
2000 National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education survey
administered by Horizon Research, Inc.
Modified Questions for the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Pilot Survey
Overarching Question
12b. Considering all the professional
development you have participated in
during the last 3 years, how much was
each of the following emphasized?
Overarching Question
To what degree did your experiences in the
MSSE program foster your professional
learning, including knowledge and
practices, in the following areas:
Deepening my own science content
knowledge.
29. Deepening my own science content
knowledge.
Understanding student thinking in science. 30. Understanding student thinking in
science.
Learning how to use science specific
teaching strategies.
31. Using inquiry/investigation-oriented
teaching strategies.
Learning how to assess student learning in
science.
33. Assessing student learning in science
Learning how to teach science in a class
that meets the needs of diverse learners.
34. Teaching science in a class that includes
diverse student populations (e.g. students
with disabilities, from underrepresented
populations, economically disadvantaged,
range of abilities).
376
APPENDIX H
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR QUESTIONS 12B OF THE
2000 NATIONAL SURVEY OF SCIENCE
AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
377
12b.1 Grade K-4 Science Teachers’ Opinions of Professional Development Emphasis
Percent of Teachers
Not at
all
1
2 3 4
To a
great
extent
5
Deepening my own science content
knowledge
28
(2.6)
24
(2.1)
30
(2.4)
13
(1.6)
7
(1.4)
Understanding student thinking in
science
27
(2.5)
19
(2.0)
32
(2.3)
15
(1.8)
7
(1.5)
Learning how to use inquiry/investigation
oriented teaching strategies
23
(2.2)
21
(2.1)
29
(2.2)
18
(1.8)
10
(1.8)
Learning how to use technology in
science instruction
39
(2.9)
22
(2.3)
23
(2.0)
9
(1.4)
7
(1.1)
Learning how to assess student learning
in science
30
(2.5)
23
(2.2)
30
(2.4)
13
(1.9)
4
(1.1)
Learning how to teach science in a class
that includes students with special needs
47
(2.5)
25
(2.2)
19
(2.2)
6
(1.3)
3
(0.8)
12b.2 Grade 5-8 Science Teachers’ Opinions of Professional Development Emphasis
Percent of Teachers
Not at
all
1
2 3 4
To a
great
extent
5
Deepening my own science content
knowledge
21
(3.0)
23
(3.3)
26
(3.4)
19
(3.6)
11
(2.2)
Understanding student thinking in
science
20
(3.1)
27
(3.1)
26
(3.4)
23
(3.3)
5
(1.3)
Learning how to use inquiry/investigation
oriented teaching strategies
15
(2.8)
20
(3.4)
29
(3.6)
24
(3.3)
12
(2.4)
Learning how to use technology in
science instruction
22
(3.3)
25
(4.0)
23
(3.4)
21
(3.1)
9
(1.7)
Learning how to assess student learning
in science
18
(3.0)
27
(3.7)
30
(3.2)
22
(3.3)
4
(0.9)
Learning how to teach science in a class
that includes students with special needs
39
(3.9)
28
(3.3)
20
(3.0)
10
(2.8)
3
(0.9)
378
12b.3 Grade 9-12 Science Teachers’ Opinions of Professional Development Emphasis
Percent of Teachers
Not at
all
1
2 3 4
To a
great
extent
5
Deepening my own science content
knowledge
24
(1.7)
22
(1.4)
27
(2.3)
17
(1.9)
10
(1.2)
Understanding student thinking in
science
19
(1.8)
26
(1.6)
34
(2.1)
15
(1.4)
6
(1.1)
Learning how to use inquiry/investigation
oriented teaching strategies
14
(1.5)
22
(1.8)
29
(2.0)
23
(2.3)
12
(1.4)
Learning how to use technology in
science instruction
11
(1.3)
19
(1.6)
23
(1.5)
30
(2.3)
17
(1.6)
Learning how to assess student learning
in science
19
(1.8)
27
(1.9)
30
(2.1)
18
(1.9)
6
(1.0)
Learning how to teach science in a class
that includes students with special needs
40
(2.1)
28
(2.4)
19
(1.5)
9
(1.4)
4
(1.7)
379
APPENDIX I
COMPARISONS OF LANGUAGE AND PHRASING FROM THE EMSS
(ELECTRONIC MENTORING FOR STUDENT SUCCESS) TEACHER GROWTH
SURVEY –MATHEMATICS AND THE MSSE STUDENT
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY.
380
eMSS (Electronic Mentoring for Student
Success) Teacher Growth Survey –
Mathematics
Modified Questions for the MSSE Student
Professional Learning Pilot Survey
To what extent do you feel that your
mathematics content knowledge has been
enhanced as a result of participation in the
following discussion areas?
To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your science
content knowledge?
Which discussion areas or other aspect of
the eMSS do you feel has contributed most
to enhancing your mathematics content
knowledge? Please specific in what ways
the discussion area or aspect of eMSS has
contributed to your professional learning?
Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has
contributed the most to your science
content knowledge. Please be as specific in
your description as possible.
Pedagogical content knowledge is defined
as content knowledge for teaching that
embodies understanding how to effectively
represent and teach the subject knowledge
to students as well as understanding what
makes the learning of topics easy or
challenging for students (Shulman, 1986)
To what extent do you feel that you
pedagogical content knowledge needed for
teaching mathematics has been enhanced
as a result of participating in the following
discussion areas?
To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your
knowledge of pedagogy for teaching
science?
Which discussion area or other aspect of
eMSS do you feel has contributed most to
enhancing your pedagogical content
knowledge for teaching mathematics?
Please specific in what ways this
discussion area or aspect of eMSS has
contributed to your growth.
Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has
contributed the most to your knowledge of
pedagogy for teaching science. Please be
as specific in your description as possible.
Curricular knowledge is defined as the
knowledge of how to use resources and
arrange topics over time to organize the
study of a discipline (Shulman, 1986)
To what extent do you feel that your
curricular knowledge of mathematics has
been enhanced as a result of participation
in the following discussion areas?
To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your
knowledge of science curriculum, including
how to use resources and arrange topics
over time?
381
Which discussion area or other aspect of
eMSS do you feel has contributed most to
enhancing your curricular knowledge of
mathematics? Please specific in what ways
this discussion area or aspect of eMSS has
contributed to your growth.
Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has
contributed the most to your knowledge of
science curriculum, including how to use
resources and arrange topics over time.
Please be as specific in your description as
possible.
To what extent do you feel that your
knowledge of how to support diverse
learners has been enhanced as a result of
participation in the following discussion
areas?
To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your
knowledge of how to support diverse
learners (e.g. students with disabilities,
from underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of
abilities)?
Which discussion area or other aspect of
eMSS do you feel has contributed most to
enhancing your knowledge of how to
support diverse learners? Please specify in
what ways this discussion area or aspect of
eMSS has contributed to your growth.
Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has
contributed the most to your knowledge of
how to support diverse learners (e.g.
students with disabilities, from
underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of
abilities)? Please be as specific in your
description as possible.
382
APPENDIX J
ALIGNMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS OF
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE QUESTIONS OF THE MSSE
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SURVEY.
383
Research Questions
2. How are experiences in this
science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree
program perceived, and how have
program experiences influenced
participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers
grow because of their participation in
such a program?
b. What program experiences, from a
program faculty perspective,
contribute to the science teachers’
professional learning?
c. What evidence of teacher
professional learning can be
identified?
Analysis:
Descriptive statistics
1. Use of learning by the teachers to improve
their students’ learning.
2. Drawing on good practice from other
teachers as a means to further the MSSE
teachers’ professional practice.
3. Reading research (practitioner reports and
journal articles) as one source of useful ideas
for improving the MSSE teachers’ practice.
4. Using the Internet as one source of useful
ideas for improving the MSSE teachers’
practice.
5. Consulting and observing the MSSE teachers
about how they learn most effectively.
6. Relating what works in the MSSE teachers’
practice to research findings and best practices.
7. Using insights from the MSSE teachers’
learning in the course to feed into their school’s
policy development.
8. Understanding how instructional strategies
that work in one context might be adapted to
other contexts.
9. Using reflection as a way for the MSSE
teachers to identify their professional learning
needs.
10. Experimenting with their practice as a
conscious strategy for improving classroom
teaching and learning.
11. Modifying their practice in light of
performance and feedback in the course.
12. Modifying their practice in light of
published research evidence.
13. In light of evidence of self-evaluations, the
MSSE teachers’ modify their practice.
14. Modifying my practice in light of evidence
from evaluations of my classroom practice by
administrators or other colleagues.
15. Carrying out joint research/evaluation with
one or more colleagues as a way of improving
my practice.
16. Collaborating to plan my teaching.
384
Research Questions
2. How are experiences in this
science and pedagogical content
knowledge-based graduate degree
program perceived, and how have
program experiences influenced
participants’ professional learning?
a. In what ways do science teachers
grow because of their participation in
such a program?
Analysis:
Descriptive statistics
17. Reading/discussing other teachers
experiences in the classroom and giving each
other feedback.
18. Engaging in team teaching with someone at
my school as a way of improving practice.
19. Turning to colleagues/peers for help if I
have a problem with my teaching.
20. Posting suggestions, ideas or approaches for
colleagues to try in class.
21. Testing out new ideas in class.
22. Discussing openly with colleagues what and
how you the teacher are learning.
23. Frequently using informal opportunities to
discuss how students learn.
24. Offering other colleagues reassurance and
support.
25. Believing that all students are capable of
learning.
26. Encouraging students in my school to enjoy
learning.
27. Regularly celebrating student success.
28. Discussing with colleagues how students
might be helped to learn how to learn.
29. Deepening my own science content
knowledge
30. Understanding student thinking in science.
31. Using inquiry/investigation-oriented
teaching strategies.
32. Using technology in science instruction
33. Assessing student learning in science
34. Teaching science in a class that includes
diverse student populations (e.g. students with
disabilities, from underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of abilities)
35. Providing a challenging science curriculum
for my students.
385
b. What program experiences, from a
program teachers’ perspective,
contribute to participants’
professional learning?
Analysis:
Descriptive statistics, one within
repeated measures analysis, and
qualitative analysis
1. To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your science
content knowledge?
1a. Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has contributed
the most to your science content knowledge.
Please be as specific in your description as
possible.
2. To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your knowledge of
pedagogy for teaching science?
2a. Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has contributed
the most to your knowledge of pedagogy for
teaching science. Please be as specific in your
description as possible.
3. To what degree did the following MSSE
program components foster your knowledge of
science curriculum, including how to use
resources and arrange topics over time?
3a. Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has contributed
the most to your knowledge of science
curriculum, including how to use resources and
arrange topics over time. Please be as specific
in your description as possible.
4a. Please describe the MSSE program
component or experience that has contributed
the most to your knowledge of how to support
diverse learners (e.g. students with disabilities,
from underrepresented populations,
economically disadvantaged, range of
abilities)? Please be as specific in your
description as possible.
386
APPENDIX K
MSSE STUDENT CASE STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
387
MSSE Student Case Study Interview Questions
I am conducting a study examining the professional learning of students, current and
graduates, of the MSSE program. I would like to speak with you about your experiences
with the MSSE program and your professional learning.
A. Introduction
For currently enrolled students:
 How long have you been in the MSSE program?
 When is your anticipated graduation date?
 How would describe your overall experiences with the program to date? (Probe
for types of courses completed (Face-to-face vs Online), quality or relevance of
experience.)
For graduates of the MSSE program:
 When did you graduate from the MSSE program
 How would describe your overall experiences with the program?
MSSE faculty and staff are very interested in the ways the program affects participants’
learning and teaching practice, and the following questions address those areas. (We
recognize that any participant may be affected in only a few of these ways.)
B. Inquiry
 Do you use sources of evidence (such as research, consultation with students and
colleagues) differently than before to understand and modify your teaching
practice?
C. Building Social Capital
 Are there any ways in which your tendency to collaborate with colleagues [MSSE
or others] to explore how students learn, and to experiment with new approaches,
have been modified? (Probe for specific examples.)
D. Critical and Responsive Learning
 Are there ways that your reflection on practice has been influenced? (Probe for
specific examples.)
 Are there ways that you respond to feedback (from other teachers, students,
administrators, parents) differently now?
E. Value Learning
 Has the value you place on your own learning changed in any way? Explain.
 Have the ways you convey to your students that you value their learning changed?
Explain.
388
F. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
 To what extent has your knowledge of science content been enhanced as a result
of your participation in MSSE? Explain (Probe for specific examples such as
changes in depth of understanding of “familiar” topics; grasp of connections
across topics; updating information; knowledge of research methods...)
 To what extent has your knowledge of science pedagogy, and your tendency and
ability to implement varied approaches, been have been influenced as a result of
your participation in MSSE? Explain (Probe for specific examples of
understanding of “advanced” science teaching practices, frequency of
implementation, tendency to use more varied practices.)
G. Evidence of professional learning.
 If you were asked to describe your most powerful learning experience(s) in MSSE
to a group of applicants, what would you tell them? (Probe for specific examples.)
 If I visited the place where you teach and said, “Show me some proof – a new
product, a strategy, even a changed student – of the impact of MSSE on your
practice, what would you show me?”
H. Distance mode of delivery
 How has the distance mode of delivery of the MSSE program affected your
professional learning? (Probe for examples regarding access to learning
opportunities, personal learning style, richness of experience, tools to use with
own students…)
I. Other
 Do you have any other comments or thoughts about the MSSE program that
might be useful for me to know?
 What other graduate or professional development experiences have you
participated in that were of high quality? Why did you feel that way? (Probe for
examples)
389
APPENDIX L
MSSE STUDENT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PORTFOLIO
390
MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio
The goal of the MSSE program in to enhance a teachers’ professional learning and
improve the teaching skills that are specific to science disciplines. Through participation
in the MSSE program, current students and graduates, have multiple opportunities to
collaborate with other students and faculty, examine current research and best practice,
apply new strategies and learning’s in the classroom and reflect on one’s teaching
practices.
A portfolio can provide a lens in which the MSSE program can be examined by
documenting professional learning. The portfolio can also provide a documentation of
your own personal and professional learning. The portfolio will contain a variety of items
chosen to represent what is happening in your classroom that can be connected to your
experience in the MSSE program. Portfolio items will include the following items for
one (1) lesson.
1. Instructional Materials like lesson plans, lab design, PowerPoint presentations,
handouts, materials generated in class, etc. that includes a brief cover page with
an overview of the lesson and the intended outcomes.
2. Two or three student work samples from the lesson that are part of the instruction
such as in-class assignments, assessments, journal entries, projects, homework,
etc. [OPTIONAL, IF SAMPLES ARE AVAILABLE]
3. A reflection page for each student work sample [OPTIONAL, IF SAMPLES
ARE AVAILABLE]
4. An overall reflection about your portfolio entry and your teaching.
5. A reflection about your professional learning in the MSSE program.
The graphic organize shown below outlines the structure of the portfolio. It was created
by the researcher to provide clarity of the expectations of the portfolio.
391
Instructional Materials Cover Sheet
1. Briefly identify:
 The type of school/program in which you teach, and the grade/subject
configuration. (single grade, departmentalized, interdisciplinary teams etc.)
 The grade(s), age levels, course, number of students taught daily, and the average
number in each class:
Grades Age Levels Number of Students
Average Number of Students in Each Class
Courses
2. Briefly describe the lesson being taught including what you did and what the students
did.
3. Briefly state the intended goals, objectives, or intended outcomes of the lesson.
4. Briefly describe how this lesson can be connected to your experience in the MSSE
program. (If applicable, include ways that MSSE affected student learning.)
392
Student Work Sample Cover Page
(Please complete one page for each student work sample)
1. In examining the student work sample, what are indicators the student met your intended
goals, objectives, or outcomes for this lesson?
2. What does this student work sample tell you about the student’s understanding of the
content?
3. Briefly describe how your experience in the MSSE program has moved your practice
forward in meeting the needs of this student.
393
Professional Learning Dimensions
A. Inquiry: Using and responding to different sources of evidence sometimes leading to
joint research with colleagues.
This dimension may include using research, consultation with colleagues and students,
use of the Internet, or examining practice in other schools as part of an inquiry process
intended to improve professional practice.
B. Building social capital: Learning, working, supporting, and talking with colleagues
with the intent of understanding and improving students’ learning.
This dimension involves interaction with MSSE colleagues or others.
C. Critical and responsive learning: Occurs through reflections, self-evaluation,
experimentation, and by responding to feedback from others.
This dimension is characterized by a teacher’s responsiveness to ideas, suggestions and
feedback on practice from multiple sources.
D. Valuing Learning: Deepening understanding and learning through talking about and
valuing learning with others.
This dimension is characterized by valuing and celebrating the learning of both teachers
and students and commitment to the concept that all students are capable of learning.
E. Content Knowledge: Developing an understanding of the “big ideas” as well as the
intricate details of a particular science discipline.
This dimension may also include providing appropriate learning strategies and techniques
for understanding science concepts.
394
Portfolio Reflection
1. Reflecting back on the lesson that you chose for this portfolio entry and your participation
in the MSSE program, what dimension(s) of professional learning had the greatest
influence on the design and development of the chosen lesson?
2. Reflecting back on your teaching of this lesson and your participation in the MSSE
program, what dimension(s) of professional learning had the greatest influence on your
actual teaching of this lesson?
395
Professional Learning Reflection
In what ways, if any, was each of these components of professional learning and practice
influenced by MSSE? Give an example when applicable.
a. Inquiry
b. Building Social Capital
c. Critical and Responsive Learning
396
d. Valuing Learning
e. Content Knowledge
397
APPENDIX M
MSSE STUDENT PROFESSIONAL RUBRIC
398
Professional Learning Reflection Rubric –
Portfolio
Dimensions of Professional Learning
To a
great
extent
To
some
extent
Very
little
evidence
Inquiry
 Draw on good practice from other teachers/faculty
 Read research [practitioner and journals] to
improve practice
 Use the Internet as a source of ideas
 Consult with students about how they learn
 Relate my practice to research and best practices
 Modify practice based on research and best practice
 Collaborate with others to improve practice
Building Social Capital
 Collaborate to plan teaching
 Collaborate with peers/colleagues if I have
problems with my teaching
 Suggest ideas for colleagues to try
 Discuss with colleague what and how they are
learning
 Use informal opportunities to discuss how students
learn
 Offer colleagues reassurance and support
Critical and Responsive Learning
 Examine how practice in one context may work in
another
 Reflect on my practice to identify personal learning
needs
 Experiment with my practice as a strategy for
improvement
 Modify practice in light of student feedback
 Modify my practice in light of self-evaluations
 Modify my practice in light of evaluations of my
practice from administrators, colleagues, peers
Valuing Learning
 My students learn as a result of my learning
 All students are capable of learning
 Encourage students to enjoy learning
 Celebrate student success
399
Dimensions of Professional Learning
To a
great
extent
To some
extent
Very
little
evidence
Content Knowledge
 Deepen my own content knowledge
 Understand student thinking in science
 Learning how to use science specific strategies
 Learning how to assess student learning in science
 Learning how to teach science to meet the needs
of diverse learners
400
APPENDIX N
MSSE STUDENT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PORTFOLIO RUBRIC
401
MSSE Student Professional Learning Portfolio Rubric
Each artifact submitted is assessed on evidence of each of the dimensions of profession
learning: inquiry, building social capital, critical and responsive learning, valuing
learning, and a focus on content.
For each artifact, check all dimensions that are evident in the artifact. Evidence comes
from key words, phrases, illustrations, etc., that connect to a dimension of professional
learning.
Dimensions of Professional Learning Evident
Not
evident
A. Inquiry: Using and responding to different sources of evidence
and carrying out joint research and evaluations with colleagues.
B. Building social capital: Learning, working, supporting, and
talking with colleagues to discuss how students learn.
C. Critical and responsive learning: Occurs through reflections,
self-evaluation, experimentation, and by responding to feedback.
D. Valuing Learning: Deepening understanding and learning
through talking about and valuing learning with others
E. Content Knowledge: A deep understanding of “big ideas” as
well as intricate details of a particular discipline
Student Work Samples
1. Does the student work sample response indicate goals and objectives that support the
dimensions of valuing learning?
To a great extent To some extent Very little evidence
3 2 1
2. Does the student work sample response support the dimension of content knowledge?
To a great extent To some extent Very little evidence
3 2 1
Portfolio Reflection
3. Does the portfolio reflection support the dimensions of professional learning in the
design of the lesson?
To a great extent To some extent Very little evidence
3 2 1
4. Does the portfolio reflection support the dimensions of professional learning in the
teaching of the lesson?
To a great extent To some extent Very little evidence
3 2 1