Getting It Right: The MISE Approach to Professional ...issued a series of reports on its impact.1 In...

Getting It Right:Getting It Right:Getting It Right:Getting It Right:Getting It Right:The MISE ApprThe MISE ApprThe MISE ApprThe MISE ApprThe MISE Approacoacoacoacoach th th th th tooooo

Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentProfessional Development

Tom CorcoranSiobhan McVayKate Riordan

CPRE Research Report SeriesRR-055

December 2003

Consortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Graduate School of Education

© Copyright 2003 by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Getting It Right: The MISE Approach to Professional Development

i

ContentsContentsContentsContentsContents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. iiList of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iiBiographies ................................................................................................................................... iiiAbout MISE .................................................................................................................................. iiiCPRE’s Evaluation of MISE ...................................................................................................... ivOrdering Information ................................................................................................................. ivGlossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................ ivIntroduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology and Data Sources ......................................................................................... 2Research on Professional Development ................................................................................... 3The MISE Theory of Action ........................................................................................................ 5

The Partnership’s Professional Development .................................................................. 7The Leader Teacher Institute ........................................................................................ 8Peer Teacher Workshops................................................................................................ 9Principals’ Institutes ..................................................................................................... 13

Did the Partnership’s Professional Development Meet the Standards? .......................... 14Building District and School Capacity ................................................................................... 17

School Principals and Leader Teachers ........................................................................... 19Another Capacity-building Strategy ............................................................................... 20

The Impact on Classroom Practice ......................................................................................... 21Teacher Content Knowledge ............................................................................................. 21Classroom Practice .............................................................................................................. 23Summary of Impact on Practice ....................................................................................... 30

The Impact on Student Outcomes .......................................................................................... 31Summary: The Impact of Professional Development on Student Outcomes ........... 36

Lessons and Challenges ............................................................................................................ 37Challenges and Issues ......................................................................................................... 39

References .................................................................................................................................... 43Appendix A. Annual Reports on CPRE’s Evaluation of the Merck Institute for

Science Education .............................................................................................................. 47Appendix B. Additional Publications about the Merck Institute for Science

Education .............................................................................................................................. 49


ii

List of TList of TList of TList of TList of Tablesablesablesablesables

Table 1. Enrollments and Grade Spans of the Partner Districts, 1993-1994 to 2000-2001 ............................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Minority Enrollments and Poverty in the Partner Districts, 1993-1994 to2000-2001 ................................................................................................................................ 3

Table 3. Number of Peer Teacher Workshops and Enrollment, 1996 to 2002 ................ 10Table 4. The Principals’ Perspective of the Partnership, Results of the 2001

HRI Survey ............................................................................................................................ 14Table 5. Composition of Instructional Teams for Science Workshops,

1996 to 2001 ......................................................................................................................... 20Table 6. Mean Ratings for Teachers by Type of Professional Development, 1996-1997

to 1997-1998 ......................................................................................................................... 25Table 7. Average Authentic Pedagogy Ratings of Science Lessons for Teachers

with Varying Amounts of Professional Development .................................................. 26Table 8. Average Ratings for PTW Participants by Number of PTW Sessions

Attended and the Date of the Last Session .................................................................... 27Table 9. Breadth and Depth of Saturation, Grades K-4 — New Jersey Districts ........... 34Table 10. Breadth and Depth of Saturation, Grades K-3 — All Districts ........................ 35Table 11. Zero-order Correlations Between Breadth and Depth of Professional

Development and Science Assessment Results .............................................................. 36

List of FiguresList of FiguresList of FiguresList of FiguresList of Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of PTW Participants Who Found Selected Aspects of theirInstructional Team’s Delivery Very Effective or Extremely Effective,1996 to 2000 ......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2. Change in Leader Teachers’ Knowledge, Pre- and Post-Mean LTIRatings ................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3. Impact of Professional Development on Teacher-reported ScienceTeaching Practice ................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 4. The Relationship Between Standards-based Teaching Practice andStudent Performance .......................................................................................................... 32

Figure 5. Elementary School Proficiency Assessment 2001 General Education SchoolMean ...................................................................................................................................... 35


iii

BiographiesBiographiesBiographiesBiographiesBiographies

Tom Corcoran is co-director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE). Prior to joining CPRE, Corcoran served as the education policy advisor for NewJersey Governor James Florio, director of school improvement at Research for BetterSchools, and director of evaluation and later chief-of-staff of the New Jersey Departmentof Education. His research interests include the use of research to inform policy andpractice in public education, the efficacy of different approaches to professional devel-opment, the effectiveness of whole-school reform, the impact of changes in work envi-ronments on the productivity of teachers and students, and the factors affecting theeffectiveness of scaling-up strategies.

Siobhan McVay was formerly a Research Assistant with CPRE at the University ofPennsylvania. After completing her B.S. in animal science and secondary teachingcertification in the areas of chemistry and biology at Michigan State University, sheworked as a classroom teacher for six years. McVay initially served as a junior highschool science teacher in Chicago, and later as a chemistry teacher in the RahwayPublic Schools (New Jersey). She also was affiliated with the Merck Institute forScience Education (MISE), specifically as a content area specialist instructional teammember for Peer Teacher Workshops implemented through the MISE Partnership.Currently, McVay is pursuing a Master of Science in education degree with an empha-sis in teaching, learning, and curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania.

Kate Riordan is a Research Specialist with CPRE at the University of Pennsylvania.She joined CPRE in 2001 after completing her doctoral degree in educational policystudies at Pennsylvania State University. Her Master’s degree in Human Developmentand Family Studies is also from Pennsylvania State University. She is involved in twoevaluation studies at CPRE — the evaluations of MISE and the America’s Choiceschool design. Her research interests include school reform and other influences onchildren’s school readiness and achievement throughout school.

About MISEAbout MISEAbout MISEAbout MISEAbout MISE

In 1993, Merck & Co., Inc. began an endeavor to make a significant and visiblecommitment to improving science education by creating the Merck Institute for Sci-ence Education (MISE) and supported the new venture with a 10-year, $20-millionfinancial commitment. From its inception, MISE had two goals: to raise the interest,participation, and performance of public school students in science, and to demon-strate to other businesses that direct, focused involvement would hasten the improve-ment of science teaching and learning in the public schools. MISE initiated its work byforming partnerships with four public school districts — Linden, Rahway, andReadington Township in New Jersey, and North Penn in Pennsylvania — whereMerck has major facilities. To learn more about MISE, visit www.mise.org.


iv

CPRE’s Evaluation of MISECPRE’s Evaluation of MISECPRE’s Evaluation of MISECPRE’s Evaluation of MISECPRE’s Evaluation of MISE

CPRE, based at the University of Pennsylvania, was contracted by MISE in 1993 todocument the implementation of the initiative and assess its impact on districts,schools, classrooms, and students. Throughout the evaluation, CPRE conductedinterviews with teachers, instructional leaders, and district personnel; surveyed teach-ers; developed case studies of schools; and examined student achievement data inorder to provide feedback on the progress of the MISE Partnership.

OrOrOrOrOrdering Infdering Infdering Infdering Infdering Informationormationormationormationormation

Copies of this report are available free-of-charge. To obtain copies, write:

CPRE PublicationsGraduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania3440 Market Street, Suite 560Philadelphia, PA 19104-3325

GlossarGlossarGlossarGlossarGlossary of Ty of Ty of Ty of Ty of Termsermsermsermserms

Merck Institute for Science Education Partnership — Created in 1993 by Merck & Co.,Inc., MISE began a 10-year commitment to the goal of raising student interest, participa-tion, and performance in science. MISE formed partnerships with school districts inLinden, Rahway, and Readington Township in New Jersey, and North Penn in Pennsyl-vania.

Leader Teacher Institute (LTI) — Launched in 1995 to provide intensive professionaldevelopment to a select group of teachers from each partner school over a three-yearperiod. These teachers would then become the Leader Teachers within their schools.

Leader Teacher — Selected teachers who attended LTIs and worked with new teachersby orienting them to the new module-based science curriculum and provided instruc-tional guidance and support.

Peer Teacher Workshops (PTWs) — Launched by MISE in 1996, PTWs provided profes-sional development opportunities open to all K-8 teachers in an effort to engage moreteachers in science reform. PTWs were open for voluntary enrollment and each was ledby a team consisting of a combination of Leader Teachers, content specialists, instruc-tional specialists, and classroom teachers.

Principals’ Institutes — MISE offers Principals’ Institutes to make sure that principalsare remaining informed about, and support, inquiry-based instruction and other aspectsof the reform process.


1

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

With an initial 10-year commitmentfrom Merck & Co., Inc. the Merck Insti-tute for Science Education (MISE) wasfounded in 1993 to demonstrate thatvirtually all students could reach highlevels of scientific literacy. Shortly there-after, MISE formed partnerships withfour public school districts — Linden,Rahway, and Readington Township inNew Jersey, and North Penn in Pennsyl-vania — where Merck has major facili-ties and a history of providing employeevolunteers and supporting local scienceeducation initiatives. These districtpartnerships quickly merged into onemulti-district Partnership.

MISE’s approach to improvingscience teaching has been systemic,addressing both policy and practice inthe partner districts. MISE has helped itspartners plan strategically, select high-quality instructional resources, supportteacher learning, and carry out instruc-tional and curricular reforms. Workingtogether, MISE and its partner districtshave developed and implemented ashared vision of good science instructionbased on national and state standards.This vision has been the basis for thedesign and delivery of professionaldevelopment for teachers and adminis-trators. Sustained by the Partnershipsince 1994, this professional develop-ment program has helped the partnerdistricts make significant reforms in theteaching of science and mathematics. In1993, MISE contracted with the Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE) at the University of Pennsylva-nia to evaluate the effectiveness of itswork with the four districts. CPRE hasdocumented the activity and progress ofthe Partnership for a decade and hasissued a series of reports on its impact.1

In this report, we assess thePartnership’s approach to professionaldevelopment. Specifically, we addressthe following questions:

1. How has the Partnership’s profes-sional development measured upagainst the emerging standards forprofessional development?

2. Has participation in Partnershipprofessional development resulted inincreased teacher content knowl-edge?

3. Has participation in Partnershipprofessional development led tochanges in instructional practice?

4. Has participation in Partnershipprofessional development resulted inimproved student achievement?

5. Has MISE’s strategy strengtheneddistrict capacity to support theimprovement of teaching?

6. What lessons can be learned fromthe experience of MISE and thePartnership with professional devel-opment?

The report is organized into eightsections. The introduction describes theresearch questions and data collectionmethods used by CPRE. In the secondsection, we summarize findings fromrecent studies of professional develop-ment, and describe the consensus stan-dards of quality that have emerged inthe past decade. MISE’s theory of actionand the professional development pro-vided by the Partnership are described insection three. In section four, the latter isassessed against the consensus standardsof quality. Section five presents an ex-amination of the impact of the Partner-ship professional development strategyon the capacity of the partner districtsand schools to support reforms in sci-ence education, and in the next two

1 See Appendix A and B for a complete listingof reports.


2

sections, we look at the Partnership’simpact on teaching and learning. Weconclude by examining some lessons tobe learned from the experience of MISEand the Partnership, and consider theissues that it raises.

Methodology and DataMethodology and DataMethodology and DataMethodology and DataMethodology and DataSourcesSourcesSourcesSourcesSources

The data for this report come from alongitudinal evaluation of a business-ledpartnership seeking to improve thequality of science instruction in gradesK-8 in four school districts. Two of thedistricts served small urban communi-ties; one was suburban, and one was arapidly developing rural area. In Table 1,enrollment data are presented for the1993-1994 and 2000-2001 school years,representing the beginning and near theend of the study period.

Table 2 displays data on minorityenrollment and the percentage of stu-dents eligible for free and reduced-pricelunch. There is considerable variationamong the partner districts, which rangefrom blue-collar towns in New Jersey torural and suburban enclaves. The datashow increases in minority enrollmentsand the numbers of students living inpoverty in both Linden and Rahway.

Thirty-four schools served grades K-8in the four districts. The average schoolpopulation of the schools was 551

students. The largest school had 1,380students and the smallest had 284students. Eighty percent were elemen-tary schools and 20% were middleschools.

For a decade, CPRE has documentedthe work of MISE and the collaborativeit formed with its four partner districts,known as the Partnership. The CPREevaluation team has examined theevolution and efficacy of the theory ofaction guiding this work, focusing on thequality and impact of the professionaldevelopment and technical assistanceprovided by MISE and its partners. Wehave looked for evidence of impact ondistrict and school policy, school cultureand organization, curriculum andclassroom practice, and student out-comes. Between 1996 and 2002, thePartnership was funded in part by aLocal Systemic Reform (LSC) grant fromthe National Science Foundation (NSF),and CPRE cooperated with HorizonResearch, Inc. (HRI), the national evalu-ator of the LSC program. HRI providedsome of the interview protocols, anobservation protocol, and a teachersurvey. HRI also drew annual samples ofteachers to be observed. However, withsupport from MISE, CPRE broadenedthe HRI data collection activities tosurvey all K-8 teachers and administra-tors in the four districts and to conductadditional observations and interviews.As a consequence, each year CPRE staffconducted interviews with district and

Table 1. Enrollments and Grade Spans of the Partner Districts,1993-1994 to 2000-2001

District

K-8 Enrollment

1993-1994

K-8 Enrollment

2000-2001

Grade Span

# of Schools, Grades K-8 2000-2001

Linden 3,405 4,204 K-12 10

North Penn 7,759* 10,534 K-12 14

Rahway 2,229 2,747 K-12 5

Readington 1,473 2,113 K-8 4

* This figure represents grades K-7 as eighth graders attended the high school.


3

school staff, professional developmentleaders, and MISE staff, observed class-room teaching and professional develop-ment activities, and administered theHRI surveys. On average, 600 to 700teachers completed the annual HRIsurveys and response rates ranged from70% to 85%. Between 20 to 100 class-room observations and 50 to 100 inter-views were conducted each year. A set ofcase study schools was visited every twoyears.

CPRE has produced annual reportson the work of MISE and the Partner-ship.2 Also, CPRE issued a series ofreports on the long-term impact of MISEand the Partnership including this reporton professional development.3

Research onResearch onResearch onResearch onResearch onPrPrPrPrProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment

Policymakers and school reformersare calling for improvements in thequality of teaching, and there is broadagreement that this requires more andbetter professional development forteachers. Linda Darling-Hammond(1997) of the National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future has

recommended improving both thequality and quantity of professionaldevelopment in order to promote thecontinuous improvement of teaching.Elmore (2002) argues that both thepedagogical skill and content knowledgeof professional teachers must be en-hanced to produce the sustained gains instudent learning envisioned by theadvocates of standards. Yet, in spite ofthese and similar recommendations frommany other professional organizationsand reform leaders, as well as the pres-sures emanating from higher-stakesaccountability systems, at the beginningof the 21st century, most teachers in theUnited States experience limited oppor-tunities to improve their knowledge andskill (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Suk Yoon,& Birman, 2002). And these professionaldevelopment opportunities usually arefragmented, poorly aligned with thecurricula teachers teach, and inadequateto meet their needs for deeper knowl-edge of subject matter and understand-ing of pedagogy (Cohen & Hill, 2001;Corcoran & McDiarmid, 2000;Desimone et al., 2002; Elmore, 2002;Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, &Hewson, 1998; Supovitz, 2003). For toomany teachers, professional develop-ment opportunities consist of occasional“in-service programs” of limited dura-tion — typically half-day or full-dayworkshops in which they are exposed tofaddish teaching strategies or newtheories about teaching and learning.Often, the content of these programs isnot connected to their daily work, and

2 The eight annual reports are listed inAppendix A.

Table 2. Minority Enrollments and Poverty in the Partner Districts,1993-1994 to 2000-2001

3 These longitudinal reports are listed inAppendix B.

District

% Minority 1993-1994

% Minority 2000-2001

% Eligible for Free and Reduced-price Lunch 1993-1994

% Eligible for Free and Reduced-price Lunch 2000-2001

Linden 46.6 61.0 30.0 43.5

North Penn 12.7 18.3 NA 10.5

Rahway 47.4 65.0 22.0 30.0

Readington 3.5 5.2 NA 1.2


4

there is little or no follow-up support tohelp them use the knowledge or skillsthey have acquired.

In recent years, researchers havebegun to examine what works in profes-sional development. Supovitz, Mayer,and Kahle (2000) studied the effects ofintensive, standards-based professionaldevelopment on teachers of science inOhio and found that teachers becamemore positive about instructional re-forms and more likely to use inquiry-centered pedagogy. Cohen and Hill(2001) studied mathematics teacherswho participated in the intensive cur-riculum-based professional developmentoffered by the California Subject-matterNetwork in the 1990s, comparing thechanges made in their practice withthose made by teachers who receivedmore conventional professional develop-ment in mathematics. They found thatteachers who participated in the formerwere much more likely to make changesin their practice, and that these changeswere associated with gains in studentperformance. They concluded thatproviding teachers with extended con-tent-specific opportunities combinedwith follow-up support produced re-sults.

These findings are consistent withthose from other studies of the CaliforniaSubject-matter Network (Pennell &Firestone, 1996; Wilson, 2003), researchon the reforms in literacy and math-ematics teaching carried out in District#2 (Elmore & Burney, 1997), evaluationsof the National Writing Project (St. John& Stokes, 2003), and secondary analysisof data from NSF’s LSC projects(Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Moreover,studies of comprehensive school reformprograms like Success for All andAmerica’s Choice (Haslam & Seremet,2001; Supovitz & Taylor, 2003) and thenational Eisenhower program(Desimone et. al., 2002; Birman,Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000) haveyielded similar results. The general

conclusion is that extended opportuni-ties to engage in professional develop-ment that is aligned with the curriculumto be taught, and accompanied with on-site follow-up support, can producesignificant changes in classroom practiceand benefits for students.

These findings are consistent withthe experiences of those who design anddeliver professional development, and,as a consequence, a consensus hasemerged about what constitutes effectiveprofessional development. Researchersand designers of professional develop-ment have reached broad agreement ona set of principles or standards that theybelieve characterize effective profes-sional development programs; that is,programs leading to changes in teachingpractices.

According to this “consensus” view,high-quality professional developmentprograms:

• Are grounded in research and clini-cal knowledge of teaching andlearning;

• Are aligned with the curriculum andassessments in use in the setting;

• Are focused on student learning in aparticular context;

• Model good practice throughout theprogram, modeling methods ofconstructivist teaching or inquiry-based methods;

• Are active learning opportunities forteachers including practice, feed-back, and reflection;

• Are transparent about the limitationsof the evidence supporting thedesired practice;


5

• Are intensive and include follow-upand on-site support for teachers;

• Are sustained over time, allowingteachers to integrate new knowledgeand strategies into their practice andto reflect on the experience;

• Focus on building teachers’ peda-gogical skills and content knowledgein their subject areas;

• Utilize the expertise of teachers inschools and districts, cultivate lead-ers, and involve teachers in plan-ning;

• Provide structures that facilitatecollaboration among teachers bothwithin and across schools; and

• Respect teachers as professional,adult lifelong learners.

(Cohen & Hill, 2001; Corcoran, 1995;Desimone et al., 2002; Elmore, 2002;Lieberman & Wood, 2002; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; National ResearchCouncil, 1996; National Staff Develop-ment Council, 2001; Supovitz, 2003)

These 12 principles are consistentwith the standards for professionaldevelopment adopted by the NationalStaff Development Council (2001;Killion, Munger, Roy, & McMullen,2003), the American Federation ofTeachers (1999), and the National Insti-tute for Science Education (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, & Hewson, 1996). Theyreflect the findings from well-designedresearch studies as well as the clinicalexpertise of those who have designedand delivered professional development.While designing professional develop-ment according to these principles willnot guarantee success, it can increase thelikelihood that participants will usewhat they are learning to change theirpractice. We will use these principles as

a framework for assessing the quality ofthe professional development providedby MISE.

The MISE TheorThe MISE TheorThe MISE TheorThe MISE TheorThe MISE Theory ofy ofy ofy ofy ofActionActionActionActionAction

Guided by a board of advisors thatincluded representatives of the NationalScience Resources Center, the NationalScience Teachers Association, the Na-tional Academy of Sciences, and leadingscientists and science educators, and ledby a respected science educator, MISEdeveloped partnerships with educatorsin four districts in New Jersey andPennsylvania aimed at reforming scienceteaching in the elementary and middlegrades.4 MISE sought a dramatic trans-formation from textbook-based, memori-zation-oriented instruction to guidedinquiry in which students activelyengaged in science investigations basedon structured curriculum units such asthose developed by FOSS (Full OptionScience System) and STC (Science andTechnology for Children). While somereformers subscribe to a more radicalview of inquiry in which students deter-mine the topics and questions to beexplored and conduct their own inquir-ies, MISE advocated a more practicalvision suited to K-8 teachers. Whilesupporting student inquiry, the MISEstrategy used tested standards-basedcurriculum units as the backbone of thescience curriculum. These units framedclassroom inquiry and ensured that allstudents learned key concepts. MISErefers to this strategy as inquiry-centeredscience teaching.

MISE sought to make inquiry anintegral and regular part of the experi-ence of all students at all grade levels. In

4 A complete account of the story of MISE’spartnership with the four districts is found inCorcoran (2003).


6

inquiry-centered classrooms, studentswere expected to conduct scientificinvestigations under the guidance oftheir teachers; learn to collect, analyze,and interpret data; and explain theirobservations and results. This vision ofhigh-quality science education requiredmoving elementary science teachersaway from their dependence on text-books and this posed significant chal-lenges for many teachers. As in mostschool districts across the United States,elementary science in the four partnerdistricts was taught by generalist teach-ers whose science backgrounds werelimited — typically consisting of onlyone or two basic college courses. In fact,making sure science was taught at all inthe elementary grades was a challengewhen MISE began its work. There wereno state assessments in science in 1993,and the reputations of elementaryschools and their relationships with thestate departments in New Jersey andPennsylvania depended largely on theperformance of students in reading,writing, and mathematics, not science.Thus, in many elementary classrooms,science, when it was taught, was oftenmerely an extension of the readingprogram.

To put their vision of science teach-ing into practice, MISE staff helped thefour districts review and select commer-cially available science modules thatcould support student inquiry and coverthe key concepts identified in state andnational standards. To implement thisnew curriculum and engage in inquiry-centered teaching, teachers neededprofessional development, but otherchanges were needed as well. As aconsequence, MISE took a systemicapproach in its work with the partnerdistricts, and its theory of action in-cluded the following 10 components:

• Persuading districts to make theimprovement of science teaching apriority, and to engage in seriousplanning to address it;

• Developing a leadership team in thedistrict that shared a common visionof science teaching grounded ininquiry and consistent with state andnational standards;

• Helping districts develop new cur-riculum frameworks for science,select appropriate instructionalmaterials, and develop systems forthe management of the materials toensure they could be used effectively;

• Providing access to content-basedprofessional development for teach-ers over an extended period of timeand on-site follow-up support toenable teachers to use the curriculummaterials effectively;

• Building district capacity to plan anddeliver this professional develop-ment;

• Supporting the use of assessmentsthat were consistent with the visionof good teaching, including forma-tive assessments, end-of-unit assess-ments, and district-wide perfor-mance assessments and examina-tions;

• Developing leadership cadres whocould carry out this work;

• Developing professional cultures forthe districts and schools that wouldpromote and support continuousimprovement of science teaching anddevelop teacher expertise;

• Aligning district policies for curricu-lum, professional development,resource allocation, and teacherevaluation with the vision of re-formed practice and the strategies forimprovement; and

• Promoting supportive state policies.


7

The leaders of MISE believed that acomprehensive approach was needed tostimulate, support, and sustain theinquiry-centered classroom practice theysought. New curriculum materials andprofessional development were essential,but school and district policies governingcurriculum, assessment, professionaldevelopment, resource allocation, per-sonnel evaluation, and accountabilityalso had to be aligned with the vision ofhigh-quality science teaching if thereforms were to take root in classroomsand be sustained.

The PThe PThe PThe PThe Pararararartnertnertnertnertnership’sship’sship’sship’sship’sPrPrPrPrProfofofofofessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Devvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopment

Professional development is thecentral driver in the MISE theory ofaction. MISE and the Partnership havedesigned professional development withfour key objectives in mind: effectiveimplementation of newly adoptedcurriculum modules in science, the useof inquiry as a primary instructionalstrategy in science teaching, the use ofperformance assessment as a source offormative feedback for instruction, andthe development of teacher leadership.Over time, the Partnership has pursuedthese objectives through a variety ofcomplementary professional develop-ment activities. In the first two years ofMISE’s partnerships with the fourdistricts, priority was placed on thereview and selection of new standards-based science curriculum modules foruse in grades K-8. Although MISEsupported related district professionaldevelopment programs, it quickly be-came apparent that these local effortswere not robust enough to stimulate andsupport the changes in practice thatMISE envisioned.

It was at that point that MISE andthe four districts formed the Partnershipand adopted a common professionaldevelopment strategy. The Partnership

began its professional development workin 1994 with the selection of teams ofthree-to-four “Leader Teachers” fromeach school serving grades K-8. Theseteams attended three-week summerinstitutes and five-to-seven follow-upsessions each year for three consecutiveyears. Known as the Leader TeacherInstitute (LTI), these experiences werenot only intended to enhance partici-pants’ knowledge of science content andtheir skills in inquiry-centered teaching,but to prepare them to be leaders in theirschools and districts. The LTI was de-signed and delivered by instructionalteams that included specialists in sci-ence, pedagogy, and leadership. Theparticipating teacher teams were ex-pected to promote and support theimplementation of the new curricularunits, the use of inquiry-centered in-struction, and the introduction of perfor-mance assessment.

In 1996, a complementary strategywas introduced. With the support of anLSC grant from NSF, the Partnershipextended access to professional develop-ment in science and mathematics to allelementary and middle school teachersthrough multi-day summer programsknown as Peer Teacher Workshops(PTWs). Typically, a PTW focused on asingle multi-week science unit, address-ing curriculum content, classroom andunit management, pedagogy, assess-ment, and responses to common studentmisunderstandings and learning prob-lems. The selection of PTWs offered eachsummer was determined by the needsand interests of teachers and the adop-tion of new science units by the fourdistricts. PTWs were provided in math-ematics, technology, and assessment aswell as science. Teachers, including theLeader Teachers, could attend multiplesessions during the summer, and theycould participate in PTWs year afteryear. The PTWs were planned and ledby instructional teams composed ofdistrict staff, accomplished teachers,


8

MISE staff, and external consultantswho helped to ensure quality of thedesign and implementation. In the firsttwo years, the PTWs were jointlyplanned and were offered in centrallocations for teachers from all fourdistricts. Based on CPRE findings thatthis created a barrier to participation forsome teachers, the Partnership shifted toa district-based strategy for deliveringthe PTWs but the four districts contin-ued to collaborate on planning, andteachers crossed district lines to attendthe programs.

Careful attention to the design oflearning experiences for adults and thecontinuous improvement of these de-signs were hallmarks of the PTW pro-gram. Each spring, MISE held a two-daydesign retreat for the instructional teamsresponsible for designing and deliveringthe PTWs in all four districts. Teammembers were introduced to the expec-tations and standards of thePartnership’s curriculum-based ap-proach to professional development,provided with assistance as they de-signed the next round of summer insti-tutes, and introduced to a professionallearning community focused on thedevelopment and sharing of knowledgeabout effective strategies for engagingteachers and supporting their learning.This strategy of assisted design informedby experience contributed significantlyto the quality of the PTWs.

A third strategy focused on princi-pals. In the initial years, MISE providedprofessional development for the princi-pals around the science standards, theuse of inquiry, and how to work with theLeader Teachers to improve practice. Inlater years, the Partnership offered aseries of institutes for principals thatfocused on what to look for in the class-room, revision of observation instru-ments, and how to assist teachers withthe improvement of their practice.

The provision of on-site follow-upsupport, the fourth strategy, was anessential feature of both the LTI andPTW programs. The MISE and districtsupervisory staffs provided support forthe Leader Teachers. The Partnershiptook a four-fold approach to follow-upfor the PTWs: supporting formal meet-ings of PTW participants during theschool year, preparing district sciencesupervisors to support reformed class-room practice, organizing on-site sup-port from the Leader Teachers, andpreparing principals to know what tolook for in classrooms.

Finally, the Partnership supportedteacher networks. Teachers were re-cruited to work on curriculum frame-works, performance assessments for usein the science modules, and the adminis-tration of performance assessments inseveral grades. This work was typicallydone by study groups of teachers whoworked within, and across, the fourdistricts to develop these new tools forthe improvement of instruction. Sup-ported by MISE staff and other consult-ants, these study groups and networksprovided rich professional developmentfor many teachers in the four districts.

Below, we take a more detailed lookat the first three of these strategies.

The Leader TThe Leader TThe Leader TThe Leader TThe Leader Teacher Instituteacher Instituteacher Instituteacher Instituteacher Instituteeeee

The LTI was designed to prepareteams of Leader Teachers to support thespread of reformed science teaching intheir schools. The objectives were todeepen their knowledge of science,enhance their skills in inquiry-centeredpedagogy, and prepare them to lead theimprovement of science teaching in theirschools and districts. The Leader Teach-ers were expected to:

• Embrace and spread the use ofinquiry-centered teaching;


9

• Increase their knowledge of science;

• Implement inquiry-centered instruc-tion in their classrooms;

• Develop the “habits of mind” ofscience learners;

• Design and use assessments thatinformed instruction;

• Integrate science, mathematics, andtechnology with other disciplines;

• Create classrooms in which allstudents were fully engaged;

• Model and demonstrate these prac-tices for their colleagues;

• Assume responsibility for their owncontinuing professional develop-ment; and

• Provide leadership within theirschools and communities.

For several years, the LTI was thePartnership’s core activity. It raised thevisibility of science in the four districtsand spread the vision of inquiry-cen-tered science instruction. It helpedtransform four district partnerships withMISE into a single collaborative effort —the Partnership. It stimulated school-wide initiatives to improve scienceteaching, and it altered the roles of MISEstaff as they became change agents andproviders of technical assistance.

PPPPPeer Teer Teer Teer Teer Teacher Weacher Weacher Weacher Weacher Worororororkshopskshopskshopskshopskshops

In its third year, the Partnershipreceived a major grant from NSF’s LSCprogram. The primary objective was toprovide, over a five-year period, 100hours of high-quality professional devel-opment in science and mathematics to atleast 80% of the nearly 800 K-8 teacherswho taught these subjects in the four

partner districts. The NSF grant enabledthe Partnership to move beyond thepreparation of Leader Teachers anddirectly engage all K-8 teachers in thefour districts.

Three-to-four-day summer work-shops combined with follow-up sessionsduring the school year were first offeredin the summer of 1996. Participationwas voluntary but encouraged by thedistricts and all teachers were invited toattend. Principals, Leader Teachers,science supervisors, and others recruitedparticipants. Initially, the workshopsfocused on the science modules adoptedby the districts and they were organizedby grade-level clusters.

In the first summer of the PTWs, 169regular classroom and special educationteachers (87 in New Jersey and 82 inPennsylvania) participated in one ofthree theme-based sessions — Observingand Measuring in the Real World(grades pre-K-2), About Matter (grades3-5), and Environmental Science: Sus-taining the Earth (grades 5-8). Eachsummer since, PTWs have been offeredto teachers in Partnership schools. ThePTWs have been expanded over time tocover mathematics, technology, andassessment as well as additional sciencemodules. The PTWs broadened the scopeof the Partnership’s work, engagingmore teachers in the reform of scienceand mathematics education.

Participation in the PTWs grewsteadily during the first few years of theLSC project. Table 3 shows the numbersof teachers participating each summerfrom 1996 to 2002. From 1996 to 2002,more than 80% of the eligible teachersattended two or more of the summerworkshops, and over 60% attendedthree or more. Each PTW involved 30hours of professional developmentduring the summer and follow-upsessions during the school year, repre-senting a significant investment of


10

teacher time in professional develop-ment.

Instructional Teams. The PTWs weredesigned by teams of three or fourworkshop instructors including a scienceor mathematics content specialist, anexperienced professional developer, andone or two accomplished classroomteachers. The inclusion of accomplishedteachers from the partner districts was adeliberate effort to ground the PTWs inthe realities of classroom practice in theparticipants’ context. It also was in-tended to build the capacity of thedistricts by developing cadres of teacherswho could confidently and expertlydesign and lead professional develop-ment and serve as peer mentors andcoaches. The teams were brought to atwo-and-a-half-day retreat in Princeton,NJ each spring. Designed by MISE staff,the retreat was intended to provide theinstructional team members with ashared vision of high-quality profes-sional development, time to design theirPTW, and assistance with design. Theobjectives for the retreats were to:

• Establish good working relationshipsamong instructional team members;

• Make the roles of the team membersexplicit;

• Assess the strengths and needs ofindividual team members;

• Review the elements of effectiveprofessional development and applythem in designing the content andformat of PTWs;

• Establish expectations and guide-lines for designing workshop ses-sions, ordering workshop supplies,scheduling team planning meetings,producing workshop materials,documenting workshop planningand facilitation, and tracking partici-pant attendance; and

• Begin the planning of the PTWs forthe summer.

At the retreats, district and MISEstaff demonstrated good professionaldevelopment. Participants engaged inhands-on investigations and tried outstrategies for reviewing student work.They reviewed the standards for profes-sional development and discussedsituations that might arise in the courseof a PTW. Ample time was alwaysallowed for teams to meet to plan theirsummer workshops.

The instructional teams met through-out the spring to complete their designsand assemble materials; MISE staff met

Year

Number of

PTWs

Math PTWs

Math and Science PTWs

Science PTWs

PTW

Enrollment

# of Individuals

Summer 1996 6 0 0 6 169 169

Summer 1997 8 2 0 6 195 195

Summer 1998 22 8 1 13 506 287

Summer 1999 36 9 1 26 525 386

Summer 2000 32 9 2 21 667 490

Summer 2001 37 12 1 24 536 394

Summer 2002 25 0 0 25 581 361

Total 166 40 5 121 3,179 2,282

Table 3. Number of Peer Teacher Workshopsand Enrollment, 1996 to 2002


11

with them to assist as needed and toreview the science content with the teammembers.

From the second year on, the instruc-tional teams had the designs, materials,and evaluation data from the previousyears’ PTWs available to guide theirwork. As a result, the designs wereelaborated and improved over time. Ininterviews with CPRE evaluators, theinstructional team members gave glow-ing accounts of the retreats. They re-ported that they had learned a greatdeal about science and how to teach it,as well as acquiring knowledge abouthow to design and guide learning expe-riences for adults.

During the PTWs, the instructionalteams modeled the pedagogy they weretrying to get teachers to use, and partici-pants conducted investigations, workedin cooperative learning groups, analyzedinstructional activities against standards,and reflected on their current practicesand what they were learning. Teachersparticipated in guided inquiry them-selves, explored the science content ofthe modules, observed demonstrations toillustrate key concepts, designed chal-lenging instructional activities for their

students, considered alternative ways ofassessing student understanding, anddiscussed student engagement, logistics,and classroom organization.

The Quality of the InstructionalTeams. Did the PTW participants thinkthat the instructional teams possessedthe necessary knowledge and skills? Didthey find them helpful? Participantscompleted evaluation surveys at the endof each PTW. Year after year, the vastmajority reported being highly satisfiedwith the PTWs, and their responses toquestions about the PTW instructionalteams were overwhelmingly favorable.Teachers gave their highest ratings to theinstructional teams’ knowledge of sci-ence/mathematics content and theirability to model inquiry-centered instruc-tion.

Figure 1 presents aggregated partici-pant responses to some of the key ques-tions about the instructional team thatled their sessions. Ninety-six percent ofthe participants said the instructionalteam’s knowledge of science or math-ematics instruction was either very orextremely effective. In addition, almost90% of the participants felt that the

9689 89 87

0

25

50

75

100

Content Knowledge Ability to ModelInquiry

Ability to Respond toFeedback

Skill in InstructingAdult Learners

Per

cent

Figure 1. Percentage of PTW Participants Who Found SelectedAspects of their Instructional Team’s Delivery Very Effective or

Extremely Effective, 1996 to 2000


12

instructional teams were very or ex-tremely effective in their ability to modelinquiry-centered instruction, in theirability to respond to participants’ ques-tions and feedback, and in their skill ininstructing adult learners.

Each year, some of the instructionalteam members were conducting work-shops for the first time, and despiteMISE’s efforts to provide them withguidance and support (through thedesign retreat and the inclusion ofcontent experts on the instructionalteams), there was always some uneven-ness in the delivery of PTWs. However,the overall impression of CPRE evalua-tors was that only a modicum of qualitywas sacrificed by recruiting accom-plished teachers to serve on the teams,and the strategy helped build greaterdistrict capacity in the long run.

Based on the sessions observed byCPRE staff and follow-up interviewswith participants, most PTW leaderswere perceived by participants to beknowledgeable and skilled. Effectiveinstructional team members stimulatedparticipants’ interest in science andhelped them master the content of thecurriculum. A typical participant com-mented:

This has been perhaps one of the bestworkshops I have attended because ofthe facilitator’s preparedness, style, andknowledge of the classroom andprogram. I feel much better prepared toimplement the program, to assess it,and to share my knowledge andtechniques with my peers.

Another respondent said:

The instructional team did a wonderfuljob. This is the second time that I’vebeen in a workshop with [instructor].She makes us all feel that we arephysicists. Certainly, all aspects [of theworkshop] can be used, but I found thescience content and inquiry-centered

instructional techniques to be mosthelpful for me. Being able to revisitcontent in this new light helped torefresh my memory and made clearerfor me the great value of using inquiry-centered methods.

When asked what they intended touse in their classrooms, participatingteachers mentioned the inquiry ap-proach, better questioning techniques,specific content knowledge, and newassessment tools. These were the out-comes the Partnership was seeking.While intentions do not always predictchanges in practice, the data fromfollow-up surveys and interviews sug-gest that most of the participants puttheir newly acquired knowledge andskills to use in their classrooms.

CPRE evaluators also interviewedinstructional team teachers several timesin order to obtain their assessment of thePTW experience. Did they feel preparedto design and lead a workshop? Didthey receive the support they needed?Did they feel respected by other teammembers and the participants? Did theybelieve that the workshops were chang-ing classroom practice? The answers tothese and related questions were univer-sally positive. The strategies of focusingon curriculum units, co-constructing thedesigns, and using accomplished practi-tioners to lead them were perceived to bethe keys to their success. The teachersreported that they were clear about theskills they brought to the instructionalteam and that they were satisfied withtheir role on the team. As one teacherremarked:

I was part of the basic decision-makingprocess. We were given a basicframework, but we were allowed toshape it from the ground up within ourdiscipline, including what our themeswould be and what activities we mightuse. We all brought to the table what wehad or could find.


13

All of the teachers said that theywere initially uncomfortable as instruc-tors but quickly grew into the role. Theyall felt that the experience had deepenedtheir understanding of science andaffected their classroom practice, andmany indicated that it had empoweredthem and altered their aspirations asprofessionals and the opportunities forinfluence within their districts.

Principals’ InstitutesPrincipals’ InstitutesPrincipals’ InstitutesPrincipals’ InstitutesPrincipals’ Institutes

The implementation of instructionalreforms requires support from schoolprincipals. In study after study, research-ers examining the factors affecting theimplementation of reforms have con-firmed this finding (Elmore, 2000;Newmann & Associates, 1996; Spillane,Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Strongprincipals provide their staffs with visionand focus, creating coherence withintheir schools. They support the efforts ofteachers to improve their practice,building strong professional communi-ties that focus on results and promotecollaboration, and providing assistanceto teachers who need it. They allocateresources, including time to support theinstructional priorities of their schools,and buffer their staffs from distractions.In sum, principals play a critical role inimproving instruction.

Although MISE recognized theimportant role played by principals, itfocused on strengthening the sciencecurriculum, developing Leader Teachers,and providing professional developmentfor teachers. Initially, MISE introducedprincipals to the science standards andtheir vision of reformed practice, andworked with them on the effective use ofthe Leader Teachers in their schools. Butduring the middle years of the Partner-ship, 1997 to 2000, MISE focused moreon the engagement of central officepersonnel and teachers than it did onprincipals. The assumptions were thatthe superintendents, central office staff,and Leader Teachers would win over the

principals, gain their support for thePartnership’s work, and provide themwith whatever preparation they neededto support reforms in science teaching.

Feedback from the field soon indi-cated that the principals needed morepreparation to support the reforms inscience teaching. The CPRE evaluationof the work of the Leader Teachersrevealed that some did not receivesupport from their principals. Teacherswho attended the PTWs told CPREevaluators that the priorities and atti-tudes of their principals determined thedegree to which they could use inquirymethods in science. Also, teachers re-sponding to the HRI survey reportedconsiderable variation in the supportbeing provided by their principals.District leaders also expressed concernthat turnover meant that there weremany new principals who had onlyvague notions of the instructional visionof MISE and the Partnership.

The results of the HRI administratorsurveys provided a somewhat morepositive picture than the other datasources perhaps because the principalsfelt some pressure to indicate that theywere involved. Nevertheless, about aquarter of the principals reported some-thing less than active involvement in thePartnership’s work on the 2001 survey(see Table 4).

As a consequence, during 2000-2001,MISE convened a representative groupof principals from the four districts todiscuss what should be done to prepareprincipals to be effective instructionalleaders in science. The result was aprofessional development program forprincipals that focused on what to lookfor in science classrooms, distributedleadership and how to make effectiveuse of accomplished teachers, andsupporting teacher learning on the job.The first two-day institute in June 2001was attended by 41 principals and somecentral office staff. Three other sessions


14

followed, and were also well attended.These Partnership Principals’ Instituteswere planned by a committee of princi-pals from the four districts and MISE.

Principals’ responses to the instituteswere overwhelmingly positive. Follow-up interviews revealed a demand formore experiences focused on instruc-tional practice and an appreciation ofopportunities to interact with peers fromother districts. By bringing the principalstogether, the Partnership helped developa community of practitioners who couldlearn from one another. Participation inthe institutes was higher than expected,and the principals requested additionalsessions. One outgrowth of these ses-sions was the revision of local teacherobservation instruments to make themmore consistent with the Partnership’svision of good instruction.

Did the PDid the PDid the PDid the PDid the Pararararartnertnertnertnertnership’sship’sship’sship’sship’sPrPrPrPrProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDevelopment Meet theDevelopment Meet theDevelopment Meet theDevelopment Meet theDevelopment Meet theStandards?Standards?Standards?Standards?Standards?

Did the learning opportunities forteachers designed by the Partnershipmeet the consensus standards for high-quality professional development thatwe described earlier? Overall, CPRE’sassessment is that the Partnership’smodel of active and deep engagementwith curriculum content and pedagogycombined with follow-up during theschool year and in the workplace was

consistent with the consensus view ofquality and with the standards adoptedby the National Staff DevelopmentCouncil (2001; Killion et al., 2003), theAmerican Federation of Teachers (1999),and the National Institute for ScienceEducation (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, &Hewson, 1996). The MISE staff under-stood the standards and applied them,and they were committed to improvingthe quality of their work. They activelysought and used feedback on theirprocesses and designs from participants,district staff, and CPRE evaluators. Acyclical process of design, implementa-tion, feedback, and redesign was centralto their work. Here, we take a look athow well the Partnership’s work mea-sured up to the 12 standards presentedearlier.

The first standard states that profes-sional development should be solidlygrounded in research and clinicalknowledge of teaching and learning. Thescience content of the LTI and PTWprograms was based on the national andstate science education standards, whichare the best available syntheses of re-search and clinical knowledge in scienceeducation (National Research Council,1996; Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000).These programs focused on key conceptsin the physical, biological, and earthsciences included in the K-8 curriculumand on the use of inquiry, which istreated as an essential aspect of sciencecontent in the national standards. Theinclusion of expert teachers, districtsupervisors, and pedagogical experts onthe LTI and PTW instructional teams

Responses Item Not at all Somewhat To a great extent

How familiar are you with the LSC project?

6.5%

9.7% 83.9%

To what extent have you been involved?

13.0% 9.7% 77.4%

Table 4. The Principals’ Perspective of the Partnership, Results of the 2001 HRI Survey


15

ensured a solid grounding in clinicalknowledge of teaching and learning.

The second standard states thatprofessional development should bealigned with the curriculum that teach-ers are expected to teach, and the PTWscertainly were well aligned. Approxi-mately two-thirds of the PTWs weredesigned to help teachers implementspecific science curriculum modules. Theremaining workshops focused on writ-ing in science, mathematics, integratingtechnology, and student assessment.

The third standard recommendsfocusing on student learning in a par-ticular context. Both the LTI and PTWexperiences focused heavily on develop-ing teachers’ understanding of the corescience concepts covered in the localcurricula and on student understandingof them. The PTWs were designedaround specific curricular units beingoffered to particular groups of students.Considerable attention was directed tohow students might respond to theseactivities and what concepts or proce-dures they might misunderstand, how toengage students in inquiry, and how toassess student understanding. Since theinstructional teams included teacherswho had taught the units to similargroups of students, they were able tohelp participants make these connec-tions to their classrooms. The follow-upsessions sometimes involved looking atstudent work and almost always in-volved discussion of real teaching andlearning problems encountered in Part-nership classrooms.

The fourth standard recommendsmodeling of good practice. MISE staffcertainly encouraged this in the designretreats. They modeled good practicethemselves, and helped others do so bycoaching them. Both LTI leaders andPTW instructional team members mod-eled the pedagogy they were trying toget teachers to use. Participants con-

ducted investigations, worked in coop-erative learning groups, received feed-back from instructors and other teachersabout their instruction, and reflected onwhat they were learning. Leader Teach-ers were often asked to model the use ofinquiry for others who were havingdifficulty implementing it in their classes.MISE professional development wasdesigned to enable teachers to demon-strate and share their knowledge so itcould spread throughout their schools.

The fifth standard emphasizes theimportance of active learning opportuni-ties for teachers including practice,feedback, and reflection. Both the LTIand the PTWs provided low-risk, col-laborative environments and structuredopportunities for practice, peer feedback,and time for reflection. Participatingteachers conducted experiments, ob-served and critiqued demonstrations,planned and carried out inquiry-basedactivities, and reflected on their experi-ences. The follow-up sessions providedrich opportunities for reflection asteachers could share accounts of theirefforts to use the modules and strategies,discuss their students’ responses and theproblems they encountered, and exam-ine student work.

The sixth standard — the transpar-ency of the limitations of the evidencesupporting the desired practice — willbe discussed at the end of this section.

The seventh and eighth standardsaddress the intensity, duration, andpersistence of the experiences and thepresence of on-site support. The LTI andPTWs clearly offered teachers opportuni-ties to become deeply immersed inscience content and pedagogical contentknowledge about science. The LTI ranfor three weeks each summer, andincluded five-to-seven follow-up days.The PTW participants were together forthree or four days and received two half-days of follow-up during the year. And,


16

they received on-site support fromscience supervisors and Leader Teacherswho were familiar with the curriculumcontent. Moreover, these opportunitiesfor professional development weresustained over time, giving teachers timeto integrate inquiry into their practicegradually, to reflect on their experience,and to deepen their pedagogical knowl-edge. The typical teacher attended morethan three summer PTWs during thefirst seven years they were offered.

The ninth standard requires atten-tion to teachers’ knowledge of subjectmatter and their pedagogical contentknowledge. The Partnership’s intent wasto build and deepen teachers’ contentknowledge and strengthen their peda-gogical skills. The LTI concentrated onteacher content knowledge and teachers’mastery of critical concepts in the physi-cal, biological, and earth sciences. Sci-ence content was taught through lec-ture, demonstration, hands-on activities,and reading. The PTWs focused morenarrowly on the specific content andconcepts in the curriculum modules aswell as pedagogical techniques andassessment. Less time was devoted tocontent mastery in these four-day expe-riences as management of the unit,logistics, pedagogy, and assessment alsohad to be addressed. The emphasistended to be placed on the content thatstudents might have trouble with, andon ways of presenting or explaining thatcontent.

The tenth standard requires utiliza-tion of teacher expertise and leadership.Both the LTI and the PTW programsinvolved teachers and administrators inplanning, design, and delivery. Someteachers and local curriculum expertsjoined MISE staff to plan the LTI, and, ofcourse, the central purpose was toprepare teachers from each school to beLeader Teachers. As we have recountedelsewhere, many of the Leader Teachers

played significant roles in the develop-ment of curriculum and assessment intheir districts as well as serving as men-tors and coaches.5 A different, and moreinclusive, strategy was used for thePTWs. Teachers who had been success-ful in the LTI and other accomplishedpractitioners were asked to be instruc-tional leaders for the PTWs. LeaderTeachers were involved in district profes-sional development planning and in thedesign and delivery of the PTWs. Mem-bers of the PTW instructional teamsgained considerable skill and confidencein working with their colleagues. Theyreceived guidance from MISE and theirteam members, and the teams debriefedon a daily basis and reflected on how theactivities they had planned had workedand how well they had carried themout. This approach to learning to workwith adults proved quite successful, andover the years, this cadre of teachersexpanded until each district had asignificant number of teachers able tolead professional development.

The eleventh standard requirescollaboration among teachers withinand across schools. The Partnership useda variety of strategies to foster collabora-tion among teachers both within andacross schools — training LeaderTeacher teams, encouraging grade-levelteams to attend PTWs together, conduct-ing school meetings, supporting studygroups for assessment, and creatingelectronic networks. The high level ofparticipation in the PTWs over time isjust one measure of their success. TheLeader Teacher teams were expected tofunction as units in their schools, tobuild communities of practice aroundscience, and to encourage teachers tosign up for the summer workshops. Thesuccess of these teams varied, dependingon the status of the Leader Teachers inthe school, the support provided by their

5 See CPRE (1999) and CPRE (2000).


17

principals, and whether there was timefor teachers to meet. In most of theschools, however, they were successfulin getting most faculty engaged inimproving science instruction. Dozens ofteachers were also involved in studygroups that worked on the developmentof performance assessments to be usedwith the science modules. These teachersalso became members of professionalcommunities that cut across school anddistrict boundaries. Many of theseteachers later were involved in thePartnership-wide adaptation and ad-ministration of TIMSS (Third Interna-tional Mathematics and Science Study)performance assessments in selectedgrades. They worked together on revis-ing, scoring, and administering theseperformance tasks, and also on inter-preting the results.

Finally, consistent with the laststandard, teachers who participated inthe LTI and the PTWs consistently andalmost universally reported being treatedas professionals. At the instructionalteam retreats, facilitators modeled, andthen made explicit, the relationships thatinstructors should establish with adultlearners. Respect and use of prior knowl-edge were central themes. In the PTWs,instructors drew upon the knowledgeand experience of the participants todiscuss management of inquiry in theclassroom, common logistical problemsand their solutions, and common con-ceptual misunderstandings and alterna-tive ways to explain key concepts. Theeffects of this emphasis were apparent infollow-up evaluations: teachers consis-tently reported that they appreciatedbeing treated as professionals.

In sum, the professional developmentoffered by MISE and its partners satis-fied most of the standards we describedearlier in this report. In fact, most ofthese standards were articulated asprinciples of design at the PTW retreat.Perhaps the only standard that the

Partnership failed to meet consistentlywas the sixth one: making the evidencesupporting their vision of good practiceaccessible, transparent, and subject tocritique. MISE staff were strong advo-cates of inquiry-centered practice anddid not always address its limitations.Inquiry-centered pedagogy and thescience modules were generally pre-sented as “best practice” without muchdiscussion of the strength of the evidencesupporting these claims. Like mostreformers, they appealed to teachers onboth philosophical and practicalgrounds, and drew the strongest supportfor their advocacy from professionalorganizations rather than from empiricalevidence.

Building District andBuilding District andBuilding District andBuilding District andBuilding District andSchool CapacitySchool CapacitySchool CapacitySchool CapacitySchool Capacity

Did the Partnership’s approach toprofessional development build districtcapacity to stimulate and support con-tinuous improvements in teaching? Boththe LTI and PTW programs were de-signed to be capacity-building initiatives.Analysis of interviews conducted byCPRE evaluators with Leader Teachers,principals, instructional team members,and central office staff reveals persuasiveevidence that significant changes oc-curred in the capacity of all four dis-tricts. District leaders consistently ex-pressed confidence that their staffs couldplan and deliver the high-quality profes-sional development provided under theauspices of the Partnership, and in allfour districts, the model of instructionalsupport used in science was extended toother subject areas. The situation in theschools was somewhat more mixed, butmost principals and Leader Teachers feltthat their schools had gained the capac-ity to sustain reforms in science teachingand had developed strategies for intro-ducing new teachers to their concepts ofgood practice. They, too, reported thatthe Partnership experience had provided


18

them with the attitudes, know-how, andtools needed to make improvements inother areas of teaching.

CPRE collected substantial evidencefrom interviews and observations thatLeader Teachers took their responsibili-ties to provide instructional leadership intheir schools and districts seriously.Forty-two Leader Teachers were inter-viewed during the 1997-1998 schoolyear, and a second sample of 38 wereinterviewed in the 1999-2000 schoolyear. Based on the analysis of these data,Leader Teachers who took on responsi-bilities in their schools roughly fell intofive categories: serving as on-requestresources, providing individual outreachto teachers, providing individual out-reach school-wide, providing teamoutreach school-wide, and servingdistrict-wide needs. Both sets of inter-views found considerable variation inthe roles played by Leader Teachersacross schools, and the second set ofinterviews revealed a slight decline inLeader Teacher activity.

On-request Resources. Virtually allthe Leader Teachers said that theyregularly responded to requests forinformation from other teachers andserved as on-request resources in theirschools. They assisted individual teach-ers with science-related questions,explaining key concepts, sharing lessonplans, and helping to set up demonstra-tions or investigations. For most LeaderTeachers, this was just one dimension oftheir role, but some did not feel comfort-able going beyond responding to suchrequests. Some felt they should not be inother teachers’ classrooms and worriedthat other teachers would resent moreproactive roles. In either case, they wereuncomfortable taking much initiative toshare their knowledge.

Individual Outreach to Teachers.Many of the Leader Teachers reportedthat they worked on an individual basis

with other teachers. They referred to thiswork as coaching, in which they workedwith another teacher over time to helpthem teach one of the science or math-ematics modules, to design or modifyassessment tasks that were more authen-tic or more closely aligned with the unit,or to develop curriculum. Frequently,these other teachers were grade-levelpartners, or, in a few cases, studentteachers.

Individual Outreach School-wide.Some Leader Teachers reported organiz-ing or implementing activities for groupsof teachers or for the whole school. OneLeader Teacher said, “My role is buildingstrength at my grade level in a coopera-tive vein.” Leader Teachers from severalschools reported collaborating on cur-riculum with groups of teachers whohad participated in the PTWs. A specialeducation Leader Teacher described howshe facilitated a workshop on inclusionand inquiry-centered science for herschool’s staff. Another Leader Teacherexplained how she assumed responsibil-ity for revamping the school’s sciencecurriculum. Several Leader Teachersmentioned how they coached groups ofteachers at their grade level or providedongoing support to graduates of PTWs.

Team Outreach School-wide. LeaderTeachers in about half of the Partnershipschools worked as teams to provideactivities for their school or community.These activities varied, but were distinc-tive because the Leader Teachers workedcollaboratively in teams, and not just asindividuals. In several cases, the collabo-ration involved the design of workshopsfor teachers. Other examples includedorganization of science fairs or sciencenights for students and parents, andmathematics and science career days forstudents. In another case, Leader Teach-ers worked together to develop a school-wide structure for developing andsharing lesson plans. In a few cases,Leader Teachers developed curriculum


19

units around themes (the rainforest inone school, a woodland habitat inanother) that they used to model reformstrategies for other teachers. Thesestrategies included eliciting studentquestions, using assessment to gaugeprior knowledge, inquiry-centeredactivities, and linking curricula to stan-dards. One Leader Teacher said, “In thewhole school, there has been tremen-dous growth. As a group of LeaderTeachers, we did it [provided support] asnecessary. We all did different things tohelp within the building. It’s very infor-mal, but we all get around.”

District-wide Influence. A number ofLeader Teachers were involved at thedistrict level. Several Leader Teachers leddistrict in-service days. Leader Teachersalso assumed an increasingly prominentrole in planning and leading PTWs intheir districts. Leader Teachers in eachdistrict served on science and mathemat-ics curriculum and frameworks commit-tees. Leader Teachers were an integralpart of their districts’ representation onMISE’s Advisory Committee, whichbrings together leadership groups fromthe four partner districts to discussstrategic issues and formulating policiesand other reforms. A few Leader Teach-ers mentioned that they representedtheir districts in speaking at state scienceconferences.

School Principals andSchool Principals andSchool Principals andSchool Principals andSchool Principals andLeader TLeader TLeader TLeader TLeader Teachereachereachereachereachersssss

Almost all of the principals reportedthat they supported the work of thePartnership and the Leader Teachers intheir schools. Several principals metregularly with their Leader Teachers, asone principal described, “to foster theMerck initiatives throughout the school.”An elementary principal said, “TheLeader Teachers have had a presence inthe building. They are role models forothers to emulate.” One principal orga-

nized the school schedule so that LeaderTeachers could go to other teachers’classrooms to support their scienceinstruction. Several principals fromdifferent districts mentioned that schoolsand districts need to better define theroles of Leader Teachers.

Principal support was the mostpowerful predictor of reform-basedteaching practice. Teacher assessmentsof the amount of support provided bytheir principals were statistically associ-ated with reform-based teaching prac-tice (CPRE, 1999). Teachers in schoolswith supportive principals were farmore likely to use inquiry-centeredpractices than teachers in schools wherethe school leader was not supportive.

The importance of principals and thevariation in their support also wasrevealed in interviews with LeaderTeachers. Leader Teachers from severalschools across the Partnership describedreceiving outstanding support from theirprincipals. “Our principal is 150%behind the Merck initiative,” said oneLeader Teacher. A principal in anotherschool held monthly meetings with herLeader Teachers and involved them inschool decision-making about scienceand mathematics. A Leader Teacherfrom this school commented, “She treatsus as leaders. She looks for needs in thebuilding and...uses us as leaders in theschool.” Another Leader Teacher de-scribed how her principal “meets withus to discuss science and mathematicsissues before they are brought to the restof the faculty. We are appreciative thatshe asks for our input first. She respectsus for our efforts with Merck.”

Other Leader Teachers describedindifferent administrative support intheir schools. One Leader Teacher said,“It is passive support. They are support-ive but not involved.” Another LeaderTeacher felt that the continual change inthe administrative staff made stable


20

support of high-quality instructionimpossible. “It is not intentional,” shesaid. “But things are so vague, you justdon’t know from one day to the next,and these things play against the initia-tives such as Merck.” In several othercases, Leader Teachers felt there was noplace for teacher leadership in theirschools, and that authority rested withthe administrative staff, not the faculty.

Another Capacity-buildingAnother Capacity-buildingAnother Capacity-buildingAnother Capacity-buildingAnother Capacity-buildingStrategyStrategyStrategyStrategyStrategy

The inclusion of accomplished teach-ers on PTW instructional teams alsocontributed to the capacity of the fourdistricts. Table 5 shows the generalmake-up of the instructional teams from1996 to 2001. The composition of theseinstructional teams evolved over time; inthe first few years, the teams drewheavily on MISE staff and externalconsultants, but also included someLeader Teachers. The external consult-ants included individuals from nationalcurriculum development and technicalassistance organizations, other scienceorganizations, local and regional univer-sities, and other school districts. By 2001,the team members were predominantlyrecruited from the ranks of teachers andcentral office staff from the four partnerdistricts. Thirty-five of the 39 instruc-tional team members offering sciencePTWs in the summer of 2001 weredistrict staff including 6 from local highschools. This compositional changereflects MISE’s efforts to build districtcapacity to sustain the professionaldevelopment. Although MISE was

initially the force behind the professionaldevelopment, over time its role wasreduced as Leader Teachers gainedconfidence and took charge and thedistricts took on increased responsibilityfor the PTWs.

Interviews with members of instruc-tional teams also indicated that theywere assuming leadership positions intheir schools and districts. Some hadalready been playing such roles as theyhad been Leader Teachers, but othershad not. They reported that being mem-bers of instructional teams gave them anew status among their peers as well asincreased confidence in their knowledgeand skills. The experience of designingand leading professional developmentsessions prepared them to lead profes-sional development in their schools. Italso linked them to networks of schooland district leaders who were involvedin planning the PTWs for their districtsand a larger network of educators whowere working on these tasks across thePartnership.

One instructional team member whohad not been a Leader Teacher describedhow her role had been transformed:

I have always liked teaching science,and occasionally when I did somethingthat involved parents, my principal tooknotice. But since I have been doing thePTWs, he asks my advice all of the time,gave me a student teacher for the firsttime, and even asked me to do aworkshop on science for an in-serviceday.

Table 5. Composition of Instructional Teams forScience Workshops, 1996 to 2001

Background 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Consultants 4 5 6 11 20 4

District Staff 7 14 24 43 40 35

Total 11 19 30 54 60 39

Source: CPRE, 2001


21

Another member who had been aLeader Teacher said her colleagues nowviewed her differently:

When I was in the Leader Teacherprogram, I think that some of the otherteachers felt that I was trying to makemyself important and resented me orjust ignored me. But working in thePTWs seems to have changed how theylook at me. It took a while, but they nowseem to recognize that I knowsomething about science teaching andthey are coming to me for help. Twohave even asked me into theirclassrooms to observe.

It is clear from both the survey andinterview data that the instructionalteam members contributed to school anddistrict capacity in several ways: provid-ing their districts with the capacity tosustain the professional developmentindependently, serving as advocates forhigh-quality professional development,helping build and sustain professionallearning communities in their schools,and providing role models for otherteachers to take leadership roles.

The Impact onThe Impact onThe Impact onThe Impact onThe Impact onClassroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom Practice

In this section, we examine how theprofessional development offered by thePartnership affected the classroompractice of participants. To what extentwas the knowledge that teachers gainedthrough these professional developmentexperiences translated to classroompractice? This section assesses the evi-dence of impact on teacher contentknowledge and then presents findingsfrom five separate analyses of the impactof Partnership professional developmenton classroom practice conducted byCPRE between 1998 and 2002.

TTTTTeacher Conteacher Conteacher Conteacher Conteacher Content Knoent Knoent Knoent Knoent Knowledgewledgewledgewledgewledge

Strengthening the content knowl-edge of teachers was a major goal of thePartnership’s professional developmentprogram. However, no objective mea-sures of teacher content knowledge wereavailable to the district planning teams,the instructional teams leading the LTIand the PTWs, or the CPRE evaluationteam. CPRE’s evaluation team did haveaccess to a proxy measure, the numberof college science courses taken by theteachers. But this is at best a crudebaseline measure for relatively inexperi-enced teachers. It is less useful as anindicator of the knowledge of experi-enced practitioners. Classroom observa-tions provide little help in this regard.While observers can identify those withvery strong or weak command of theirsubject, single observations do notprovide reliable measures of teachers’practice let alone their content knowl-edge. So, for the most part, all partieshad to rely on teachers’ self-assessmentof their science knowledge as reportedon the workshop surveys. While thesemeasures are not robust, they do revealthat both LTI and PTW participantsbelieved that the professional develop-ment strengthened their content knowl-edge.

Participants in the LTI summersession were asked in September 1996 toevaluate the three-year LTI and indicatehow their knowledge and skills hadchanged as a result of the experience.Figure 2 summarizes their responses.The results suggest that the teachers hadgained significant knowledge in theareas of science, inquiry-centered in-struction, assessment, and cooperativelearning. Increased knowledge of sciencerepresented the major area of growthwhile increased knowledge of assess-ment was the smallest. Teachers’ initialestimates of their knowledge of inquiry-centered instruction and assessmenttechniques were higher than the previ-


22

ous year’s, suggesting that they per-ceived a real change in their capacity.

Similar questions were posed to thePTW participants each year. And eachyear, over 90% of those attending sciencePTWs reported that they had increasedtheir knowledge of the subject. Thisgeneral pattern was confirmed in inter-views in which teachers were asked togive explicit examples of the knowledgethat they had gained. The teachers alsoreported that the PTWs provided themwith the pedagogical content knowledgethey needed to implement the scienceunits successfully. The PTW instructionalteams assumed that teachers wouldneed help with the content of newcurriculum units and generally relied onanecdotal information to identify theseneeds. Those who were delivering PTWspreviously offered used the archivalbinders, which included notes fromprevious trainers about the concepts andtopics that were challenging for teach-ers. The instructional teams also at-tempted to address needs of individualsthrough tutoring and coaching withinthe context of the PTWs, but this waslimited by the time available and theneeds of the group as a whole. It shouldbe noted that participation in the PTWs

was voluntary, and teachers whosecontent knowledge in science wasparticularly weak may have chosen notto participate.

The attention paid to the contentknowledge of the participants variedsomewhat across the PTWs. It seemed toCPRE evaluators that in some cases lessattention was paid to content thanmight have been desirable, given thebackground knowledge of the workshopparticipants. The participants themselvesobviously did not share this view; theyfelt that content knowledge was ad-dressed adequately and reported so onthe annual CPRE surveys. They felt theircontent knowledge had been deepened,while both CPRE and MISE staff felt thatmore attention needed to be given to it.

In summary, CPRE evaluators agreedwith most PTW participants who feltthat they learned a great deal of sciencecontent through the PTWs, but theevidence to support this claim wasweak. CPRE’s conclusion was based onour observations of the content discus-sions in the PTWs, the amount of timedevoted to such discussions, the atten-tion given to content in the workshopmaterials, and teacher self-reports about

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Science Mathem atics Inquiry Assessm ent CooperativeLearning

Pre-Test 95 Post-Test 95 Pre-Test 96 Post-Test 96

Figure 2. Change in Leader Teachers’ Knowledge, Pre- and Post-Mean LTI Ratings


23

what they learned. However, CPREevaluators also concluded that evenmore attention needed to be given tocontent knowledge if the participantswere to be expected to make effectiveuse of the new science curriculum.

Classroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom PracticeClassroom Practice

Analysis 1: Teacher Participationand Changes in Practice. To examine theassociation between participation inPartnership professional developmentand instructional practice, CPRE evalua-tors constructed a statistical model totest the magnitude and significance ofthis relationship. This model controlledfor teacher background and schoolcharacteristics. A sophisticated form ofregression analysis, hierarchical linearmodeling, that recognizes that class-rooms are nested within schools, wasused (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).

The sample used for this analysisconsisted of 334 science teachers. Usingitems from the HRI surveys, CPREevaluators constructed a scale of re-formed teaching practice in scienceclasses. The items asked teachers howfrequently they used certain practices,such as requiring students to supplyevidence to support their claims, demon-strating a science-related principle orphenomenon, and using assessment tofind what students know before orduring a curriculum unit. The number ofcollege science courses taken by theteachers, years of teaching experience,and amount of professional developmentwere used as independent variables topredict teaching practice. The teachershad, on average, 2.36 semesters ofcollege science courses, and 6-10 years ofteaching experience. Twenty-eightpercent of the 334 teachers reported theyhad received no science-related profes-sional development during the previousyear, 33% reported receiving between 1and 39 hours, 17% reported receivingbetween 40 and 79 hours, and 22%reported receiving 80 or more hours.

The most striking result of this analy-sis was the statistically strong relation-ship between the amount of Partnershipprofessional development teachers hadparticipated in and their use of inquiry-centered pedagogy. After adjusting fordifferences in teachers’ content back-ground, teaching experience, and schoolenvironment, teachers with 80 hours ormore of professional development weresignificantly more likely to be usingreform-based teaching practices thanteachers who had less than 79 hours ofprofessional development.

Figure 3 depicts the relationshipbetween teaching practice and profes-sional development. It presents thepredicted use of reform-based teachingpractice for the average teacher (that is,a teacher having the sample’s averagecontent background and years of experi-ence) from the average elementaryschool (that is, a school of average size,having the average proportion of stu-dents eligible for free or reduced-pricelunch, and having average resourcesand principal support).

Teachers who had no professionaldevelopment and teachers who hadbetween 1 and 39 hours of professionaldevelopment had approximately averageteaching practice (that is, their scores onthe scales developed from the surveyitems were at about the mean). Teacherswho had between 40 and 79 hours ofprofessional development were slightlyabove average in terms of their use ofreform-based teaching practice. Teacherswho received 80 or more hours of pro-fessional development were much morelikely to have altered their practice.

A relationship was found between ateacher’s content familiarity, measuredby the number of college science coursestaken, and reform-based teaching prac-tice. Each additional semester of collegescience (a proxy for content familiarity)was associated with a statistically signifi-cant .11 of a standard deviation increase


24

in the model’s measure of reform-basedteaching practice. This suggests thatcontent knowledge is an importantmediator of the use of inquiry-centeredinstruction.

Analysis 2: Classroom Observations.In 1998, CPRE evaluators observed 68science classroom lessons. The observersdid not know how much Partnership-sponsored professional development theteachers had experienced, and theparticipation of the observed teachers inPartnership professional developmentvaried widely. Some individuals hadreceived no Partnership professionaldevelopment although they might haveparticipated in some other scienceprofessional development activitiesduring this period. However, as a group,they had limited opportunities as thePartnership was virtually the onlyprovider of professional development inscience in the four districts after 1993.

CPRE evaluators used two frame-works for these observations. The firstframework, developed by HRI for theLSC initiative, focused on the use ofinquiry methods in the classroom, withparticular attention to the design, imple-mentation, science content, and equitycomponents of the lesson. A second“authentic pedagogy” framework was

based on the work of Fred Newmannand Associates (1996) and focused moreon the interactions between studentsand teachers and teaching for concep-tual understanding. This observationframework used three general criteria:construction of knowledge, disciplinedinquiry, and value beyond the classroom.The results are presented in Analysis 3.

The HRI Ratings. The HRI classroomobservation system uses a seven-pointscale ranging from ineffective instructionto exemplary instruction. The score onthe scale represents a cumulative judg-ment based upon the design of thelesson, its implementation, subject-matter content, and the culture of theclassroom. The points on the scale are asfollows:

1. Ineffective instruction2. Elements of effective instruction3. Beginning stages of effective instruc-

tion - low4. Beginning stages of effective instruc-

tion - solid5. Beginning stages of effective instruc-

tion - high6. Accomplished, effective instruction7. Exemplary instruction

-.056 -.054.043

.523

-1.00

-.50

.00

.50

1.00

None 1-39 Hours 40-79 Hours > 80 Hours

Quantity of Profess ional D evelopment

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

s

Figure 3. Impact of Professional Development on Teacher-reportedScience Teaching Practice


25

Table 6 presents the mean ratingsfrom the CPRE observations of threegroups of teachers: Leader Teachers,participants in PTWs, and uninvolvedteachers. On average, the observedlessons of Leader Teachers were judgedto be slightly below a 4 in 1996-1997 onthe HRI scale and over a 5 in 1997-1998.In contrast, the observed lessons ofteachers who attended PTWs werejudged to be about 3.5 in 1996-1997 andimproved to slightly over 4 in 1997-1998.Given that the Leader Teachers werenominated for their program and re-ceived intensive professional develop-ment for three years, this is not surpris-ing. Most of the teachers attendingPTWs in these first two years had re-ceived between 32 and 80 hours ofprofessional development at the time ofthe observations whereas the LeaderTeachers had received over 300 hoursover three previous years. Lessons ofteachers who had not participated inPartnership-sponsored professionaldevelopment observed in 1997-1998were judged to be lower in quality thanthose of either of the other groups.

These results were statistically signifi-cant only for Leader Teachers. This maybe due in part to the small sample sizes,particularly for 1997. In the spring of1997, CPRE evaluators observed only 35science lessons (27 LTI and 8 PTWparticipants). It is worth reiterating

what these differences mean. They showconsistent — and in the case of LeaderTeachers in science, a statistically signifi-cant — change in practice from thespring of 1997 to the spring of 1998.Based on the HRI scale, Leader Teachersgrew, on average, from a high 3 to asolid 5. Peer teachers grew from a solid 3to a 4. These growth trends are particu-larly notable given the fact that themajority of the teachers in the samplewere observed in both years. These trendlines continued into the 1998-1999school year.

Beyond the numbers, the classroomobservations provided rich glimpses ofthe ways in which teachers were tryinginquiry-centered instruction. Most of theobserved lessons incorporated hands-onactivities designed for student inquiryand grouped students for cooperativelearning. Teachers used class discussions,rubrics, and performance activities forassessment. CPRE evaluators observedmany teachers attempting activities thatwould promote deeper student under-standing. These teachers implementedlessons that encouraged students toengage in the scientific process. Most ofthe observed teachers were aware of thekinds of activities and practices thatpromoted higher-order thinking in theirstudents, but they often struggled withtheir implementation. Some teachersappeared to be using a science activity

Table 6. Mean Ratings for Teachers by Type ofProfessional Development, 1996-1997 to 1997-1998

(with standard deviations in parentheses)

Category of Teacher

N

Average Rating 1996-1997

N

Average Rating 1997-1998

Leader Teachers 27 3.93 (1.49)

25 5.30** (1.35)

PTW Participants 8 3.44 (1.01)

25 4.08 (1.73)

Non-participants in Partnership Professional Development

NA NA 18 3.26 (1.86)

*** p<.001 ** p<.01 p<.05


26

simply for activity’s sake and were notable to articulate how the activity wouldenrich students’ conceptual understand-ing. Yet even these teachers were in theprocess of changing their practice.

Analysis 3: Authentic PedagogyRatings. The teachers observed by CPREevaluators were also rated using theauthentic pedagogy framework. Eachlesson was examined for the presence ofthe following aspects of instructionalquality:

• Higher-order thinking skills. Stu-dents manipulate information andideas by synthesizing, generalizing,explaining, hypothesizing, or arriv-ing at conclusions that produce newmeaning and understandings forthem.

• Substantive conversation. Studentsengage in extended conversationalexchanges with the teacher and/ortheir peers about subject matter in away that builds an improved andshared understanding of ideas ortopics.

• Deep knowledge. Instruction ad-dresses central ideas of a topic ordiscipline with enough thoroughnessto explore connections and relation-ships and to produce relativelycomplex understandings.

• Connections to the real world. Stu-dents make connections betweensubstantive knowledge and eitherpublic problems or personal experi-ences.

Overall, science teachers who hadparticipated in Partnership professionaldevelopment incorporated more higher-order thinking, substantive conversation,and deeper knowledge in their lessons.Table 7 presents observers’ ratings on theauthentic pedagogy scale for sciencelessons conducted by teachers havingdifferent levels of participation in Part-nership-sponsored professional develop-ment. The authentic pedagogy ratingsrange from minimal or no use to highuse on a five-point scale.

As the data presented in Table 7show, Leader Teachers exhibited moreaspects of authentic pedagogy than dideither teachers attending PTWs or thosewho had no Partnership professionaldevelopment. There were statisticallysignificant differences among the threegroups in all four areas. Leader Teachershad their classes engaged in morehigher-order thinking than teachers whoattended PTWs or the non-participants,but there was also a significant differ-ence between PTW participants andnon-participants. In classes led byLeader Teachers, CPRE evaluators alsoobserved more complex conversations

Table 7. Average Authentic Pedagogy Ratings of ScienceLessons for Teachers with Varying Amounts of Professional

Development (with standard deviations in parentheses)Type of Professional Development

Higher-order Thinking

Substantive Conversation

Deep Knowledge

Connections to the Real World

LTI (n=20) 3.40 (1.30)

3.55 (1.05)

3.35 (1.31)

2.79 (1.18)

PTW participant in 1996 or 1997 (n=25)

2.80 (1.22)

2.72 (1.14)

2.72 (1.12)

1.96 (.79)

No MISE Professional Development (n=13)

2.38 (1.04)

2.00 (1.15)

2.46 (1.13)

2.08 (.95)


27

(deep knowledge) than in those led byteachers attending PTWs. However, theratings of both groups were higher thanthose of non-participating teachers.Finally, Leader Teachers demonstratedsignificantly more connections to the realworld than did peer teachers, but wereno different than non-participants.

Three major points should be takenfrom this analysis. First, the LeaderTeachers’ classrooms differed signifi-cantly from those of all other teachers. Inthe classes of Leader Teachers, therewere more visible examples of higher-order thinking, more evidence of sub-stantive conversation between studentsand teachers and among students, andmore evident attention to the complexideas underlying deep understanding.Second, smaller differences were ob-served between participants in the PTWsand the non-participants. Again, we arereminded that the Leader Teachers wereselected because of their interest (andperhaps backgrounds) in science,granted special status in their schools,and therefore might be expected to bemore responsive to Partnership profes-sional development. And they hadreceived much more professional devel-opment in science by the spring of 1998than teachers who had only attendedPTWs.

Analysis 4: Cumulative Impact ofPartnership Professional Development.Evidence has already been presentedshowing the positive relationship be-tween participation in Partnershipprofessional development and inquiry-based teaching. But is there a greaterimpact for those teachers who partici-pated in more of the professional devel-opment? Is more necessarily better?CPRE also examined whether or notattending more than one PTW had evenlarger effects on classroom practice.

In Table 8, the average observationalratings of teachers (using the HRI seven-point rating scale) who had attendedtwo or more PTWs are compared tothose of teachers who attended only onePTW between 1996 and 1999. No dis-tinctions were made concerning theparticular content of workshops teachersattended, but rather the hypothesis wasthat attending more PTWs, regardless oftheir content, would increase teachers’commitment to and capacity for inquiry-centered and standards-based scienceteaching. The results indicate that, onaverage, the 11 teachers who attendedmultiple PTWs had significantly higherobservational ratings than the 14 whoattended only one PTW (t=2.07, df=23,p=.05). While these results suggest that

Table 8. Average Ratings for PTW Participants byNumber of PTW Sessions Attended and the Date of theLast Session (with standard deviations in parentheses)

Frequency Number of Observations Average Rating

One PTW 14 3.64 (1.86)

Two or more PTWs 11 5.00 (1.41)

Year of Last PTW

1997 10 4.00 (1.88)

1998 15 4.40 (1.76)


28

attending more PTWs might lead tohigher levels of practice, we cannotmake attributions of causation here. Itcould be that teachers with higher levelsof inquiry-based practices were moremotivated to attend the workshopsrather than the workshops causinghigher levels of practice.

Analysis 5: Analysis of InterviewData. In addition to the sample ofclassroom observations, CPRE alsocollected data on instructional practicethrough interviews with teachers, ad-ministrators, and district staff. Andalthough self-reports about classroompractice are not as valid as observations(because teachers may be inclined toindicate they are doing what they knowis desirable rather than what they actu-ally do), they are a useful complement toobservations and help place the observa-tional data in context. Similarly, whensurvey data are compared over time andare found to be consistent with thepatterns emerging from interviews andobservations, they strengthen the gener-alizations that can be made about thetrends in classroom practice.

CPRE evaluators found that most —over 90% — teachers attending PTWsinitially reported their goal was to learnto use the new instructional modulesproperly. However, CPRE evaluatorsfound that the Leader Teachers andthose who attended multiple PTWs hadmore ambitious goals that were moreclosely aligned with the Partnership’svision for reform. They were focused onincreasing inquiry-centered questioningand investigations in their classrooms.As one Leader Teacher reported,“...what changed was the focus. Wewere much more inquiry-based. I tried todo more questioning...had them do morediscovery.” Examination of the interviewdata collected over time suggest that thepurpose for science instruction changedin many classrooms over the life of thePartnership. As a result, each year, more

students were exposed to science in-struction aimed at developing under-standing and inquiry skills rather thanjust an interest in science.

Teachers also reported changing theway they conducted lessons in science.Over 80% of those interviewed reportedthat they either began to use inquiry orthat they increased the use of inquiry intheir classes. One primary teacherreported that, in the past, she read abook on science to her class and hadstudents complete worksheets. Now, shesits with the students, presents informa-tion, and asks them to explore, observe,and predict. This change in practice ledto “students exploring more…beingcreative in their explaining ofscience…and has enabled students totake more ownership [in science be-cause] it is more meaningful to them.”About two-thirds of those interviewedreported that they were using some formof performance assessment. Many wereusing performance assessments devel-oped by teachers with the support ofMISE.

Most principals and district staffinterviewed also reported that teachers’practices have changed, and that theybelieved that the changes were deep,permanent, and have become part of theschool fabric.

Three times between 1994 and 2002,CPRE evaluators conducted interviewswith principals in the four districts. Oneach of these occasions, the vast majorityof the principals reported being intellec-tually and pedagogically excited aboutthe Partnership and expressed strongcommitments to inquiry-based learning.They reported that both teacher andstudent interest in science was growing.They were effusive, exuberant, andinspired by changes in teaching they hadwitnessed in their buildings. Sometypical comments from elementaryschool principals follow:


29

Children love science. I love seeinghands-on, inquiry-based science. It’s socool to see the kids in action. And it’sneat seeing teachers allowing kids toinvestigate and discover.

…we’re now approaching science in awhole different way. The old textbookapproach is out; students think and lookat things analytically. We know how todo an observation and articulate whatare in those observations. It’s a pleasureto observe the science lessons. Theteachers are more knowledgeable aboutcontent and process. What it does, itgives them the tools for how to learn.They’re getting a philosophy of inquiry.

There are more children involved inscience and science is more meaningful.The evidence? I’m a former textbooklearner. I was afraid of science. I wasn’texcited about science. Now, students areexcited; they see it as a natural thing.It’s been a very effective Partnership. Alot of teachers have grown. Had it notbeen for MISE, teachers wouldn’t havetried hands-on…I had to learn to touchthe worm! And pretend that it didn’tbother me. It’s been enlightening.

The science program has been greatlyexpanded and enhanced. Science isemphasized and interesting. It’s higher-level science. Science has a high degreeof importance. It’s almost equal to otherareas. Teachers are more comfortableteaching science.

The staff development has refreshedteachers. I was an elementary teacherand I was afraid of science. Now, it’scommonplace. They [teachers] have thesame sense of wonder that the kidshave!

When I walk into a classroom now, I seea lot of sharing and dialogue andexcitement and the teacher roving andasking higher-level questions andhaving the kids ask, “Let’s see whathappens.” A lot of charts and data

collections and connections to everydaylife. I’m seeing evidence of their sciencein the classrooms. Collaborative effortsbetween students. The collaborativepiece, teaming with teachers, sharingdiscoveries, talking about their findings,sharing their scientific methods…

In addition, CPRE evaluators inter-viewed district staff members multipletimes over the past decade of evaluatingthe Partnership’s work. They also re-ported profound changes in teacherattitudes and teacher classroom practice.Describing the shifts in attitudes as“cultural changes,” one district staffmember said:

Teachers are now willing to go tomeetings without pay. The reward isintrinsic not extrinsic. A change hasoccurred in the culture. It’s now okay totalk about science.

Another said, “Practices havechanged. What teachers have learnedwill stay with them.” A superintendentphrased it more powerfully, “Teacherswho have been through MISE havechanged forever.”

District leaders provided examples ofhow teachers’ practices have changed asa result of their participation in Partner-ship activities with MISE. One individualdescribed changes in the look of class-rooms:

Kids don’t sit in rows facing the teacher.They sit in groups of four; there’scooperative learning. There’s moremovement in class. Classroommanagement has become [better]because there’s more movement andstudents feel more comfortable and freerto do their work.

Another individual noted the differ-ences in science classes:

Before, teachers might have done ademonstration, kids watched, or all kids


30

did the same science project. The text isnot the focus anymore. It’s inquiry-based. Kids are constructing their ownlessons. It’s hands-on. It’s fun for thekids. Science didn’t come alive [before].

A third district individual com-mented on the changes in teachers’confidence as science teachers as a resultof their experiences. In turn, teachers’increased confidence has led to changesin science classes, both in pedagogy andcurriculum development. She said:

The amount of teachers’ energy andtheir confidence to teach science. They’renot afraid to touch animals. That’sgreat! They’ve given up some controland they’re not afraid to do it.

Yet another district individual com-mented on teachers’ raised expectationsfor professional development:

They’ve [teachers] all become criticalconsumers. Before, it was almostexpected it [professional development]would be boring. You now know whatgood, high-quality professionaldevelopment looks like. You participate,you’re an active participant. They[teachers] demand more now. Andthey’ve become more vocal. The day ofaccepting just a lecture is almost over.

Without exception, district leadersand staff from all four districts readilyacknowledged that the Partnership hadbeen unprecedented in its commitment,quality, duration, scope, financial sup-port, and focus. One person said:

It’s the biggest plus for the scienceprogram ever. The amount ofprofessional development, leadership,guidance, purchase of materials. It’s justsomething we wouldn’t have been ableto do. We would not have had that kindof vision.

This individual’s final comment wasespecially telling: “We would not havehad that kind of vision.” While therehave been many successful school-business partnerships, MISE’s partner-ship with these four school districts hasbeen unusual in that one of its statedgoals has been to challenge the wayindividuals think about instruction,learning, science, and professionaldevelopment.

SummarSummarSummarSummarSummary of Imy of Imy of Imy of Imy of Impact onpact onpact onpact onpact onPracticePracticePracticePracticePractice

CPRE analyzed several types ofevidence about the effects of teacherparticipation in Partnership professionaldevelopment on teachers’ instructionalpractice and content knowledge. Apositive relationship was found betweenparticipation in professional develop-ment (both the LTI and PTWs) andinquiry-based instruction in all of theanalyses. In some analyses, the associa-tion between participation in the LTIand inquiry-based instruction wasstronger than the relationship betweenPTW participation and this type ofinstruction. One obvious explanation forthis difference might be that the partici-pants in the PTWs simply had lessprofessional development at the time ofthe data collection than the LeaderTeachers. There may not have beensufficient time for the PTWs to have asmuch impact on practice as the LTI. Thisis consistent with other findings showingthat it takes time for teachers to incorpo-rate new techniques into their practice(Supovitz, 2001). Another reason couldbe that the LTI directed more attentionto the development of content knowl-edge. A third explanation could be thatthe intense attention given to the LeaderTeachers over the three years of the LTImade them more confident about scienceteaching and the use of inquiry. Finally,the difference might be due to selectionbias; the Leader Teachers were invited to


31

participate because of their interest inscience and therefore may have beenengaged in reformed practice before theywere selected.

However, in general, the teachers inthe partner districts reported in bothsurveys and interviews that their teach-ing had become more inquiry-based as aresult of the professional developmentexperiences. Independent observers fromCPRE confirmed the changes amongteachers who had participated in the LTIand the PTWs. Principals and districtstaff also confirmed that Partnershipprofessional development had beeninstrumental in altering instruction inimportant ways that increased bothteacher and student enthusiasm forscience.

The Impact on StudentThe Impact on StudentThe Impact on StudentThe Impact on StudentThe Impact on StudentOutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomes

Did the students of teachers whoused more reform-based practices per-form better than the students of moretraditional teachers? Reports frominterviews and observations and in-depth case studies of several schoolssuggest that the nature of student class-room experiences and their work dra-matically changed over time (Kannapel,2003; McVay, 2003a, 2003b; Passantino,2003). Students were spending less timereading textbooks and memorizing termsand definitions and much more timedoing investigations, preparing labreports, writing in their journals, observ-ing demonstrations, and discussing bigideas. Everyone agreed that the studentswere gaining a better understanding ofscience and acquiring habits of mindassociated with scientific work. Butwhat about hard data on their perfor-mance? CPRE examined results fromseveral achievement tests to measure therelationship between Partnership profes-sional development and student out-comes. This report includes the results of

analyses using three of these tests — theSAT-9, the New Jersey state elementaryand middle school tests (ESPA-Elemen-tary School Proficiency Assessment andGEPA-Grade Eight Proficiency Assess-ment), and a performance assessmentthat was composed of items taken fromTIMSS (the Third International Math-ematics and Science Study). The resultspoint to the need for better assessmentsand better assessment systems in science.

Sources of Data. Information avail-able on student outcomes in science inthe Partnership schools was fragmentedand flawed. The primary assessment toolselected by the Partnership, the SAT-9science test, was not well aligned withthe content of the new K-8 sciencecurricula adopted by the districts or withthe vision of good science teachingadvocated by the Partnership. In fact,given that the science modules wereoften rotated across classrooms so thateach class of students would havecovered different units and in a differentsequence by the time the test was admin-istered in the spring, it would have beentoo difficult to achieve alignment withany uniform test. Moreover, the SAT-9was administered unevenly across theschools, and there were no incentives foreither teachers or students to take itseriously. It was simply an additional testadministered in grades 5 and 7, and wasoften referred to as the CPRE or MISEtest. For all of these reasons, the resultson the SAT-9 may under-estimate whatstudents gained from the reforms.

The state science assessment used inNew Jersey in grades 4 and 8 was avail-able only in the latter part of the periodcovered by this report. The tests werepresumably based on the state stan-dards, but the test specifications werequite broad and the items were neverreleased so it was impossible to examinetheir alignment with the content coveredin the fourth and eighth grades in the


32

partner districts. Hence, we did not havetrue baseline data for using these assess-ments to measure the impact of thePartnership, nor did we have a basis forinterpreting the results. We simplycannot make inferences about causallinks between reformed practice andstudent learning given the quality ofthese assessment data. Therefore, weframe our conclusions as hypothesesbased on associations rather than ascausal statements.

Analysis 1: Reformed ClassroomPractice and Student Performance.CPRE evaluators constructed multi-levelmodels, again using hierarchical linearmodeling, to examine the relationshipbetween teaching practice and studentachievement. CPRE evaluators con-ducted two analyses — one for fifthgrade and the other for seventh grade.The fifth-grade sample consisted of 727students in 34 classes in 17 schools; theseventh-grade sample included 1,236students in 16 classes in 7 schools. Thesewere the fifth- and seventh-grade stu-dents whose teachers had completed theHRI science survey. The outcome vari-able in the two models was normedstudent achievement (that is, measuredin normal curve equivalents) on the SAT-9 science assessment.

Results from these analyses indicateda relationship between teaching practiceand student performance for the fifthgrade, but not for the seventh grade. Inthe fifth grade, after adjusting for stu-dent and teacher background character-istics and differences between schools,there was a statistically significantincrease in student performance associ-ated with changes in teaching practice.An 8% difference in student perfor-mance on the SAT-9 assessment wasfound between students with teachersusing average teaching practice andstudents whose teachers used reformedpractice. In the seventh grade, no detect-able differences were found.

Figure 4 is a pictorial representationof the relationship between standards-based teaching practice and studentperformance. After holding constantdifferences in student background,teacher background, and schools, fifth-grade students, on average, scored 50 onthe SAT-9. Increased use of reformedpractice, as reported by teachers, waslinked to gains in student achievement.For the seventh grade, the line is flat,meaning that no statistically significantimpact on performance was associatedwith differences in practice. The lines for

Figure 4. The Relationship Between Standards-basedTeaching Practice and Student Performance

53.950.1

46.3

58.5

25

35

45

55

65

-2 -1 0 1 2

Teaching Practice ( in standard deviations)

NC

E S

core

s

5th Grade

7th Grade


33

both grade levels are dashed to showthat these test scores are derived, notactual scores.

Finally, the qualitative data shedsome light on these issues. Teachers andprincipals revealed in interviews thatstudents’ interest in and enthusiasm forscience were greater than in the pastwhen the science curriculum was text-book based. A hands-on approach wasclearly engaging students more andmaking good use of their energies, andthe inquiry-based curriculum was mak-ing them feel like real scientists — form-ing hypotheses, thinking critically, andusing resources to answer their ownquestions. Teachers and students alikegave science higher priority. This isreflected in the observations of manyteachers that students often pleadedwith them to do science every day andwere disappointed on days when itwould not be covered.

Analysis 2: Breadth and Depth ofProfessional Development and StudentOutcomes. After determining that therewas a positive relationship between theparticipation of individual fifth-gradeteachers in Partnership professionaldevelopment and student achievementin their classes, CPRE evaluators lookedat whether school-wide teacher involve-ment in the Partnership program wasrelated to student outcomes. It washypothesized that as the number ofteachers in a school participating in thePartnership professional developmentincreases, the proportion so engagedmight reach a tipping point after whichinquiry-centered instruction became thenorm and even teachers who were notparticipating would also adopt theinstructional practices, and that thislevel of engagement might affect school-wide student achievement. A secondhypothesis focused on Leader Teachers.The argument was that if a small num-ber of teachers participated intensely inthe Partnership professional develop-

ment, they might become instructionalleaders in their schools, share their ideasand materials, and shape the school-wide norms of practice.

To test these two hypotheses, CPREconducted an analysis of primary teach-ers using the results of the third-gradeperformance assessment conducted bythe Partnership and the results of thefourth-grade state science assessment forthe three New Jersey districts. Measuresof the percentage of teachers in a schoolwho participated in Partnership profes-sional development and the amount thatthey had received were used as mea-sures of the breadth and depth of thesaturation of the Partnership’s profes-sional development. These are measuresof the degree to which a professionalcommunity in a school was engaged inthe professional development. Thebreadth and depth variables were cre-ated by aggregating the individualteacher participation data to the schoollevel. All types of Partnership profes-sional development were included — theLTI, PTWs, service on instructionalteams, and participation in assessmentprojects.

The measure of breadth was thepercent of teachers in a school who hadexperienced more than one PTW be-tween 1996 and 2001. The means forthis variable in the three New Jerseydistricts were 84.3% for grades K-4 and83.5% for grades K-3. Depth was thepercentage of teachers within a schoolwho had participated in more than 200hours of Partnership professional devel-opment across the five years. The meansfor this indicator in the three New Jerseydistricts were 22.9% for grades K-4 and20% for grades K-3. This measure isfairly high because the original LeaderTeachers all participated in 300 hours ofprofessional development, and mostschools had two or three such teachersin their primary grades. The depthmeasure can be viewed as an indicator


34

of the leadership cadre within theschools. A school was characterized ashaving high depth if at least 20% of theteachers within it had more than 200hours of professional developmentduring the five years. A school qualifiedas having high breadth if greater than84% of teachers (the mean) had at-tended at least one professional develop-ment workshop from 1996 to 2001.

In this analysis, CPRE examined therelationship between the measures of thebreadth and depth of professionaldevelopment in the three New Jerseydistricts and the results on the fourth-grade state science assessment — theNew Jersey ESPA (Elementary SchoolProficiency Assessment) — for threeyears and one year of the performanceassessment scores (third grade). K-4teachers in the three New Jersey districtswere used for the analysis of the fourth-grade ESPA results. K-3 teachers in allfour participating districts were used forthe analysis of the third-grade perfor-mance assessment results. The teachersin both samples were current as of the2000-2001 school year. Thirteen NewJersey schools were included in the firstanalysis and 28 schools from all fourdistricts were included in the secondanalysis. Tables 9 and 10 provide theresults of the breadth and depth analy-ses.

Tables 9 and 10 reveal that thebreadth of participation in professionaldevelopment was positively related toESPA scores, but it was not stronglyrelated to the performance assessmentscores. The depth measure was not agood predictor of improved perfor-mance. It was not strongly related to the

1999 ESPA scores, 2001 ESPA scores, orthe performance assessment scores, andwas negatively correlated with the 2000ESPA scores. Since the depth measurewas a poor predictor, it did not makesense to combine it with the breadthmeasure. Breadth of participation ap-peared to be the aspect of saturation in aschool that was related to higher perfor-mance. The analysis, then, focused onbreadth and depth individually.

Because the number of cases wassmall, it was hard for statistical esti-mates, such as correlations, to reachsignificance levels. However, since thePartnership was engaged in district-wide reform, we were looking at theentire population of K-4 teachers withinthe three New Jersey districts (for theESPA scores) and the entire populationof K-3 teachers within all four Partner-ship districts (for the performanceassessment analysis). So we concludedthat these estimates were true for thesepopulations, regardless of their signifi-cance levels. However, we could notreach conclusions that extend beyondthese specific populations.

The next step was to examinewhether the relationship between inde-pendent and dependent variables wascurvilinear. This was done only for thebreadth variable, since there was not asubstantial relationship between thedepth measure and school mean scores.The results showed that the relationshipbetween broad participation in profes-sional development and the 2001 ESPAscores was curvilinear. Figure 5 showsthat a curvilinear model fits the databetter and explains more of the test scorevariation. The effect of the breadth

Table 9. Breadth and Depth of Saturation,Grades K-4 – New Jersey Districts

Saturation Variable

Mean Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation

Number of Cases

Breadth 84.3 45.5 100.0 16.1 13

Depth 22.9 11.1 46.0 10.6 13


35

variable was fairly flat until 78% or moreof the teachers in a school were engagedin Partnership professional development.The relationship was positive from thatpoint forward except for one case. Thissuggests that the tipping point for in-structional reform might be much higher— at least in science — than is usuallyassumed by school reformers. A ratherhigh proportion of teachers had to beengaged before positive effects on stu-dent achievement were observed on theresults of the 2001 ESPA. However, theresults of the analysis were mixed as therelationship between the breadth vari-able and the 1999 ESPA scores was notcurvilinear.

The results shown in Table 11 indicatethat the breadth of teacher participationin professional development was posi-tively related to the 1999 and 2001 ESPAscience scores. The relationship betweenthe 2000 ESPA score and breadth was notsubstantial. There is a curvilinear relation-ship between breadth of professionaldevelopment and the 2001 ESPA scores.This relationship is fairly flat until about78% of a school’s faculty has experiencedat least one form of professional develop-ment. While breadth appears to be relatedto higher scores, the depth of participa-tion does not.

Table 10. Breadth and Depth of Saturation, Grades K-3 — All Districts

Saturation Variable

Mean Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation

Number of Cases

Breadth 83.5 31.0 100.0 17.7 28

Depth 20.0 0 62.5 14.8 28

Breadth- % of faculty in school attending > 1 PD workshop 1996-2001

100908070605040Sch

ool m

ean

scie

nce

scor

e fo

r ge

nera

l ed

stud

ents 250

240

230

220

210

Observed

Linear

Quadratic

Figure 5. Elementary School ProficiencyAssessment 2001 General Education School Mean


36

These data suggest that achievingbroad faculty participation in profes-sional development may be more impor-tant than providing intense experiencesof some teachers. In the Partnershipschools, having a large number of teach-ers who have had some professionaldevelopment is more strongly associatedwith student performance than having asmall number of teachers who have beendeeply engaged in professional develop-ment. On the one hand, these findingsmake common sense. If more teachersare receiving training, more will be usinginquiry methods in their classrooms, andmore students will be exposed to inquiryscience. The findings are also consistentwith studies of professional communitythat have shown that having a sharedvision of good practice and a commonlanguage to discuss practice facilitate theimprovement of classroom practice.Also, they are consistent with earlierCPRE findings about the effectiveness ofLeader Teachers in spreading inquirymethods within their schools. Some ofthe Leader Teacher teams were unable tohave much impact on the practices oftheir colleagues because they lacked theopportunity to work with them and thecreation of such opportunities wereobstructed by norms of teacher au-tonomy and privacy, competing instruc-tional priorities, schedules, and lack ofprincipal support.

The findings are encouraging be-cause they are consistent with MISE’stheory of action. The provision of broadaccess to professional development

combined with on-site support contrib-uted to improved science instruction,which in turn contributed to betterstudent outcomes. While not definitive,this analysis suggests that more refinedwork using better-aligned outcomemeasures, student-level performancedata, and better measures of schoolconditions might reveal even strongerrelationships.

SummarSummarSummarSummarSummary: The Imy: The Imy: The Imy: The Imy: The Impact ofpact ofpact ofpact ofpact ofPrPrPrPrProfofofofofessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Deessional Devvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmenton Student Outcomeson Student Outcomeson Student Outcomeson Student Outcomeson Student Outcomes

Although hampered by inadequatemeasures of student performance inscience, CPRE conducted two analysesof the impact of the Partnership’s workon student outcomes. The first examinedthe relationship between teacher use ofreform-based classroom practice andstudent achievement in science and theother examined the relationship betweenlevels of participation in MISE profes-sional development in schools andschool-wide student achievement. In thefirst study, which used hierarchicallinear modeling, a statistically significantrelationship between reform-basedteaching practice and student achieve-ment was found in the fifth grade, butnot the seventh grade. In the secondstudy, CPRE analyzed the breadthversus depth of participation in MISEprofessional development. The mainfinding was that while breadth ofteacher participation in the New Jersey

Table 11. Zero-order Correlations Between Breadth and Depth ofProfessional Development and Science Assessment Results

ESPA School Means Performance Assessment

Scores

Test date 1999 2000 2001 2000-2001 school year

Breadth .261 .023 .398 -.032

Depth -.058 -.314 .013 .036

Number of cases 13* 28

* Total number of cases across all three years.


37

Partnership schools was related tohigher student scores on the New Jerseystate test (Elementary Science Perfor-mance Assessment), the depth of theirparticipation was not. These resultssuggest that reaching a broader audi-ence of teachers may help spread thereform vision and impact student learn-ing more than helping a small group ofteachers achieve deep understanding. Ofcourse, MISE and the Partnership didboth, and the interactions between thecapacity and commitment of the LeaderTeachers and the breadth and depth ofthe participation in the PTWs are notclear. It may be that broad participationhelps build a learning community com-mitted to the reform and produces thesocial pressures and supports needed forsustained change. Clearly, a small groupof trained teachers can choose to keepnew knowledge about content andpedagogy to themselves or they canshare it with colleagues and promote thegrowth of others. Which they choose todo may depend on the nature of aschool’s professional community and onits leadership.

Lessons and ChallengesLessons and ChallengesLessons and ChallengesLessons and ChallengesLessons and Challenges

What lessons can be drawn from theexperience of MISE and the Partnership?It seems to us that there are some impor-tant ones for those who want to improvethe quality of teaching, those who planprofessional development, and leaders ofreform support organizations that workwith schools. In our view, these lessonsare:

1. The importance of being both sys-temic and specific. MISE took a sys-temic approach to reform in thepartner districts, but they also real-ized that teachers needed a concretevision of good science teaching, goodinstructional materials, and acces-sible, practical professional develop-ment. They did not fall into the trapof believing that curriculum stan-

dards, aligned policies, and account-ability procedures would be suffi-cient to bring about the desiredchanges in classroom practice. Theirspecificity about high-quality scienceeducation that enabled them to workwith their partners to build a solidscience curriculum and designprofessional development whoseutility was recognized and embracedby the vast majority of teachers. Inaddition, the development andrecognition of Leader Teachers andthe engagement of district staff in thework made the Partnership’s profes-sional development more compellingand more powerful than it wouldhave been otherwise. Neither align-ing local policies with content stan-dards nor providing standards-basedprofessional development probablywould have produced the sameresults on their own. The combina-tion led to the development of dis-trict and school cultures and con-texts in which the professionaldevelopment was useful, valued, andshared.

2. The effectiveness of a comprehensiveapproach to professional develop-ment. The general professionaldevelopment model used by thePartnership combined extendedimmersion in curriculum contentand pedagogy with strong follow-upsupport. Over time, this generalmodel for teacher learning led tosignificant changes in classroompractice. Their experience shows thatthe combination of off-site immersionin content and pedagogy and on-sitesupport and reflection is a powerfulstrategy for promoting teacherlearning and changing classroompractice.

3. The importance of offering teachersrecurrent opportunities to participatein professional development. If theprofessional development is to bepractical, it must be focused on


38

specific chunks of curriculum. If it isto be effective, it must be intenseenough for teachers to get deeplyengaged in the subject matter andpedagogical issues surrounding it.Therefore, to have an impact on theentire curriculum, teachers musthave repeated opportunities toparticipate over a relatively longperiod of time. In this case, eachsummer, they could take one or eventwo new PTWs and over three orfour summers, they would havecovered the backbone of the curricu-lum at their grade level.

4. The enormous benefits of developing,using, and respecting Leader Teach-ers. The development of teacherleadership through the LTI and theinstructional teams was another keyto MISE’s success. These teachers notonly provided on-site support forother teachers attempting to useinquiry-centered approaches, theyalso recruited colleagues into thePTWs and built communities ofpractice in their schools that sus-tained teacher involvement andbegan a process of continuous im-provement through dialogue, reflec-tion, and collaboration. The develop-ment and use of Leader Teachers notonly built local capacity to designand provide professional develop-ment, but also altered district andschool cultures by redefining theroles available to teachers and gener-ating new respect for their expertise.

5. The importance of building princi-pals. CPRE’s analyses show that theunderstanding and support ofprincipals influenced the impact ofprofessional development on class-room practice and teachers’ roles.This was true for the Leader Teach-ers and for those who participated inthe PTWs. MISE initially involved theprincipals in the Leader Teacherprogram and then neglected themfor several years. Feedback from

their evaluation alerted them to thisproblem, and they responded withprincipals’ institutes that helpedprincipals understand the vision,gave them tools to monitor its enact-ment and spread, and helped princi-pals recognize the need to useteacher expertise to build effectivecommunities of practice.

6. The importance of persistence overtime. MISE invested in a long-termpartnership with the four districtsthat allowed for the development ofshared understandings and a com-mon culture that sustained the work.The PTWs and the Partnership’sfollow-up support provided time forteachers to master new content,integrate new strategies into theirpractice, reflect on the responsesthey were getting from their stu-dents, and engage in dialogue withothers who were trying similarapproaches. Teachers were able toattend PTWs each summer if theywished and the data show strongrelationships both between theirextended engagement in learningand the changes they made in theirpractice. It takes considerable timeand support to make inquiry-centered instruction the norm inclassrooms. Teachers showed thegreatest change in practice afterthree years of participation and morethan 80 hours of professional devel-opment. Prior to that tipping point,most teachers made only incrementalchanges in their practice.

7. Using tools as mechanisms for trans-ferring new knowledge. MISE’svision of inquiry-centered instructionguided its work, but it was thedevelopment and selection of toolsthat embodied the vision — curricu-lum frameworks, science modules,rubrics, performance assessments,and observation instruments — thatallowed teachers and administratorsto transform the vision into practice.


39

8. The importance of reinforcing re-formed practices in the workplace.MISE’s work shows that high-quality,high-utility professional developmentcan attract teachers and that manyof them will continue to participateover time. Volunteerism generallyworks, but not all teachers willparticipate in enough summer insti-tutes to reach a tipping point in theirpractice. This observation, alongwith the finding that a relativelyhigh proportion of teachers had toparticipate before school-wide effectson performance were realized, pointsto the need for robust, on-site follow-up support.

9. The relationship between coherence,sustainability, and impact. Therewas considerable turnover in thefour districts during the perioddescribed in this report. Staff mobil-ity and turnover mean that access tocurriculum-based professionaldevelopment has to be regular andongoing to have powerful effects onpractice. By aligning their policiesaround a specific vision of goodpractice, offering a menu of work-shops that were periodically re-peated, and providing new teacherswith orientations to inquiry-centeredinstruction, the districts were able todevelop and sustain particularnorms of good practice.

10. The importance of breadth as well asdepth in the design of reformstrategies. One of the strengths ofthe LTI was that it concentrated onincreasing teachers’ knowledge ofscience and skill at designing andmanaging student inquiry. Thestrength of the PTWs was that theyreached a wide audience, so thatmany teachers in a school experi-enced similar professional develop-ment and shared a common visionof good practice. Both gave teachersa common experience from whichthey built professional communities.

While the notion that depth ispreferred to breadth is a popularidea — less is more — the evidencesuggests that this argument may notapply to school change. It was broadparticipation in professional devel-opment that was shown to bepositively related to school-widestudent achievement, not the depthof the experiences of Leader Teach-ers. While it is no doubt true that thebest outcomes would be achieved bya program that provided both deepengagement in the content andbroad participation, the evidenceshould raise a red flag for those whodesign programs for small numbersof teachers and hope that theknowledge they gain will be trans-ferred to others.

11. The importance of seeking andusing evaluative feedback. Manyorganizations hire evaluators, butonly some make use of them. MISEhas been, and continues to be, alearning organization. MISE hassupported evaluation of its workand paid close attention to theresults. Over the years, CPRE evalu-ators have provided regular feed-back on the professional develop-ment provided by MISE and thePartnership and annually offeredrecommendations for the improve-ment of the entire initiative. MISEstaff have listened to this feedback,reflected on it, and typically mademodifications to their approach.Most of the recommendationsoffered in CPRE’s annual reportshave resulted in MISE takingaction. The title of this report,“Getting It Right,” reflects thiscommitment to continuous improve-ment.

Challenges and IssuesChallenges and IssuesChallenges and IssuesChallenges and IssuesChallenges and Issues

Challenges are simply lessons of adifferent kind, pointing to problems thatmust be addressed, pitfalls to avoid, or


40

obstacles to be overcome. The Partner-ship certainly faced some challenges,and others can benefit from its experi-ence.

1. First, there is the very importantproblem of identifying measures ofstudent learning that are sensitive tothe outcomes being sought by thereforms. Here, the principal investi-gator of the CPRE evaluation teammust take responsibility for provid-ing bad advice. In retrospect, itwould have been better to have usedsome form of student work samplingor to have developed some commonassessments for use with a sample ofkey science modules. Either strategywould have provided MISE and thePartnership with useful measures ofprogress over time and supportedstudies of the relationships amongparticipation in the professionaldevelopment, teaching practices,and student performance. It alsowould have permitted evaluation ofthe effectiveness of the modulesthemselves. Instead, concerned aboutpossible negative reactions fromteachers worried about the use ofstudent assessment data to assesstheir teaching performance, CPRErecommended use of the SAT-9 andthe state science assessment. Neitherof these measures proved to be well-aligned with the changes takingplace in teaching and learning. As aresult, the evidence available on theimpact of Partnership professionaldevelopment on student learning islimited, and we cannot adequatelydetermine how much impact thereforms in teaching actually had onstudent performance. Clearly, thestandardized tests were not alignedwith inquiry-centered instruction orthe science content being taught, andsome of the most important effects ofinquiry-centered teaching were notcaptured by these measures as theyare not designed to assess students’

understanding of the scientific pro-cess or their willingness to engage inobservation, analysis, and explana-tion. Data from interviews, class-room observations, and teacher sur-veys all suggest that there have beensignificant effects on student perfor-mance, but this is less persuasivethan having robust and independentmeasures. It will be important forfuture studies to use measures thatare more closely aligned with thereforms being sought in scienceteaching.

2. A similar problem arises from thelack of appropriate and acceptablemeasures of teachers’ knowledge ofthe subject matter. While tests ofscience knowledge exist, there arenot good measures of pedagogicalcontent knowledge available. Suchinstruments would allow for thecustomization of professional devel-opment to meet the needs of indi-vidual teachers and improve theoverall design of learning opportuni-ties for teachers. We also say accept-able because the problem is broaderthan the lack of adequate measures;it also involves the willingness ofteachers to subject themselves to testsof their content knowledge. Whilethe reluctance of experienced teach-ers to take subject-matter tests isunderstandable, it obstructs thecustomization of professional devel-opment and means that knowledge-able and skilled teachers have to besubjected to professional develop-ment curricula designed for teacherswho are less well prepared.

3. Variations in the science modules inthe four Partnership districts and thepractice of rotating science modulesacross classrooms in several of thedistricts made it difficult to buildprofessional learning communities inthe schools, hampered the design offollow-up procedures, and limitedthe ability of the Partnership to use


41

review of student work as a vehiclefor teacher learning. The Partnershipwould have been more effective if allof the districts had adopted the samescience units at the same gradelevels, and if all teachers had usedthem in the same sequence and atroughly the same time. This wouldhave permitted the follow-up sup-port to focus more attention onstudent work and would haveallowed more cross-school network-ing and benchmarking.

4. While the visibility and status ofscience education was raised enor-mously in the four districts, it was aconstant struggle in some schools tomaintain a focus on science. Theattention directed to the results ofstate assessments in literacy andmathematics by some school princi-pals was a perpetual threat to thePartnership’s work. Even the intro-duction of a state assessment inscience in New Jersey did not solvethis problem as some principalsadhered to the view that literacy andmathematics were foundationalsubjects and science was not. Yet,science provides an intellectualframework and a perspective on theworld that also is foundational. MISEattempted to address this by design-ing PTWs on science and literacythat helped teachers address literacyskills through materials containingscientific content. But the problem ofkeeping the quality of science teach-ing, and time for inquiry, on theagenda is a continuing challenge.

These challenges are important, andshould be addressed, but they should notovershadow what MISE has accom-plished in the past decade. MISE and thePartnership have provided hundreds ofteachers in the four partner districtswith high-quality professional develop-ment for almost a decade. They haveimproved teaching and learning inscience, and indirectly in other subjects,in hundreds of classrooms. They have

demonstrated that the capacities andcultures of local schools and districts canbe changed in fundamental ways. Thequality and impact of the professionaldevelopment experiences provided hasremained high even as the responsibilityfor planning and delivering them hasbeen shifted to Leader Teachers anddistrict staff. Science teaching in the fourpartner districts is fundamentally differ-ent now from what it was when MISEbegan its work. MISE’s theory of actionhas yielded good results, and because itcontinues to work to “get it right” bylistening, collaborating, and redesigning,it is likely to yield even better results inthe future.


42


43

RRRRRefefefefeferenceserenceserenceserenceserences

American Federation of Teachers.(1999). Principles for professional develop-ment: AFT’s guidelines for creating profes-sional development. Washington, DC:Author.

Birman, B., Desimone L., Garet, M., &Porter, A. C. (2000). Designing profes-sional development that works. Educa-tional Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. (1992).Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001).Learning policy. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Consortium for Policy Research inEducation. (1999). A close look at effectson classroom practice and student perfor-mance: A report on the fifth year of theMerck Institute for Science Education.Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research inEducation. (2000). Deepening the work: Areport on the sixth year of the MerckInstitute for Science Education. Philadel-phia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research inEducation. (2001). Steady work: A reporton the seventh year of the Merck Institutefor Science Education. Philadelphia:Author.

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachersteach well: Transforming professionaldevelopment (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-16). New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium forPolicy Research in Education, RutgersUniversity.

Corcoran, T. B. (2003). The Merck Insti-tute for Science Education: A successfulintermediary for school reform (CPREResearch Report No. RR-052). Philadel-phia: Consortium for Policy Research inEducation, University of Pennsylvania.

Corcoran, T. B., & McDiarmid, W.(2000). Promoting the professionaldevelopment of teachers. In R. Pankratz& J. Petrosko (Eds.), All children can learn:Lessons from the Kentucky reform experi-ence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doingwhat matters most: Investing in qualityteaching. New York: National Commis-sion on Teaching and America’s Future,Teachers College, Columbia University.

Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M.,Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Theeffects of professional development onteachers’ instruction: Results from athree-year longitudinal study. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a newstructure for school leadership. Washing-ton, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gapbetween standards and achievement: Theimperative for professional development ineducation. Washington, DC: AlbertShanker Institute.

Elmore, R.F., & Burney, D. (1997). Invest-ing in teacher learning: Staff developmentand instructional improvement in commu-nity school district #2, New York City.New York: National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, Teach-ers College, Columbia University, andPhiladelphia: Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education, University ofPennsylvania.


44

Haslam, M. B., & Seremet, C. P. (2001).Strategies for improving professionaldevelopment: A guide for school districts.Washington, DC: New AmericanSchools.

Kannapel, P. J. (2003). Three Bridges andHolland Brook Elementary Schools,Readington Township, NJ. Philadelphia:Consortium for Policy Research inEducation, University of Pennsylvania.

Killion, J., Munger, L., Roy, P., &McMullen, P. (2003). Training manual forassessing impact: Evaluating staff develop-ment. Oxford, OH: National Staff Devel-opment Council.

Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2002).Inside the National Writing Project. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E.,Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). De-signing professional development forteachers of science and mathematics, secondedition. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., &Hewson, P. W. (1996). Principles ofeffective professional development formathematics and science education: Asynthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1(1),1-6.

McVay, S. (2003a). Franklin ElementarySchool, Rahway, NJ. Philadelphia: Con-sortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion, University of Pennsylvania.

McVay, S. (2003b). Inglewood ElementarySchool, Lansdale, PA. Philadelphia: Con-sortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion, University of Pennsylvania.

National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future. (1996). What mattersmost: Teaching for America’s future. NewYork: Author.

National Research Council. (1996).National Science Education Standards.Washington DC: National AcademyPress.

National Staff Development Council.(2001). NSDC standards for staff develop-ment. Oxford, OH: Author.

Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996).Authentic achievement: Restructuringschools for intellectual quality. San Fran-cisco: Jossey Bass.

Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.)(2000). Inquiry and the National ScienceEducation Standards: A guide for teachingand learning. Washington, DC: NationalResearch Council.

Passantino, C. (2003). Highland AvenueSchool, Linden, NJ. Philadelphia: Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education,University of Pennsylvania.

Pennell, J. R., & Firestone, W. A. (1996).Changing classroom practices throughteacher networks: Matching programcharacteristics with teacher characteris-tics and circumstances. Teachers CollegeRecord, 98, 46-76.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Dia-mond, B. (2001). Investigating schoolleadership practice: A distributed per-spective. Educational Researcher, 30(3),23-28.

St. John, M., & Stokes, L. (2003). TheNational Writing Project: Five key evalua-tion findings (Slide presentation).Inverness, CA: Inverness ResearchAssociates.

Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teach-ing practice into improved studentachievement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.),From the Capitol to the classroom: Stan-dards-based reform in the states (pp. 81-98). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.


45

Supovitz, J. A. (2003). Evidence of theinfluence of the National Science Educa-tion Standards on the professionaldevelopment system. In K. S. Hollweg &D. Hill (Eds.), What is the influence of theNational Science Education Standards?Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D., & Kahle, J. B.(2000). The longitudinal impact ofinquiry-based professional developmenton teaching practice. Educational Policy,14(3), 331–356.

Supovitz, J. A., & Snyder Taylor, B.(2003). The impact of standards-basedreform in Duval County, Florida, 1999-2002. Philadelphia: Consortium forPolicy Research in Education, Universityof Pennsylvania.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000).The effects of professional developmenton science teaching practices and class-room culture. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Wilson, S. (2003). California dreaming.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


46


47

Appendix AAppendix AAppendix AAppendix AAppendix A. Annual R. Annual R. Annual R. Annual R. Annual Reporeporeporeporeports on CPRE’s Evts on CPRE’s Evts on CPRE’s Evts on CPRE’s Evts on CPRE’s Evaluationaluationaluationaluationaluationof the Merof the Merof the Merof the Merof the Merck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institute fe fe fe fe for Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Education

The following evaluation reports are available by contacting (215) 573-0700, extension1 or via email at [email protected].

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1995). The CPRE evaluation of the MerckInstitute for Science Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1996). Reforming science education: Areport on the second year of the Merck Institute for Science Education partnership, 1994-95.Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1997). Scaling up reform in scienceeducation: A report on the third year of the Merck Institute for Science Education, 1995-96.Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1998). Expanding the breadth and effectsof reform: A report on the fourth year of the Merck Institute for Science Education, 1996-97.Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1999). A close look at effects on classroompractice and student performance: A report on the fifth year of the Merck Institute for ScienceEducation, 1997-98. Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2000). Deepening the work: A report onthe sixth year of the Merck Institute for Science Education, 1998-99. Philadelphia: Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2001). Steady work: A report on theseventh year of the Merck Institute for Science Education, 1999-2000. Philadelphia: Au-thor.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2002). A report on the eighth year of theMerck Institute for Science Education. Philadelphia: Author.


48


49

Appendix B. Additional Publications about theAppendix B. Additional Publications about theAppendix B. Additional Publications about theAppendix B. Additional Publications about theAppendix B. Additional Publications about theMerMerMerMerMerck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institutck Institute fe fe fe fe for Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Education

The following publications are available by contacting (215) 573-0700, extension 1 orvia email at [email protected].

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2003). Systemic reform in practice: MerckInstitute for Science Education. Philadelphia: Author.

Corcoran, T. B. (2003). The Merck Institute for Science Education: A successful intermedi-ary for educational reform. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,University of Pennsylvania.

Corcoran, T. B., & Lawrence, N. (2003). Changing district culture and capacity: Theimpact of the Merck Institute for Science Education partnership. Philadelphia: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Kannapel, P. J. (2003). Three Bridges and Holland Brook Elementary Schools, ReadingtonTownship, NJ. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Universityof Pennsylvania.

McVay, S. (2003). Franklin Elementary School, Rahway, NJ. Philadelphia: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

McVay, S. (2003). Inglewood Elementary School, Lansdale, PA. Philadelphia: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Passantino, C. (2003). Highland Avenue School, Linden, NJ. Philadelphia: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Riordan, K. (2003). Teacher leadership as a strategy for instructional improvement: Thecase of the Merck Institute for Science Education. Philadelphia: Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Date post:	04-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Getting It Right: The MISE Approach to Professional ...issued a series of reports on its impact.1 In...

Documents