How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes

Abstract

There is little consensus on the kinds and amounts of teacher support needed to achieve desired student learning outcomes when mathematics is inserted into science classrooms. When supported by educative curriculum materials (ECM) and heavy investment in professional development (PD), teachers implementing a unit designed around mathematical modeling of scientific mechanisms substantially increased students’ ability to make both qualitative and quantitative predictions (Schuchardt & Schunn, 2016). Because of concerns about equitable access to support resources, we investigated whether variations in PD support while retaining ECM could differentially affect two student learning outcomes: Quantitative Predictions and Qualitative Predictions. Two contrasts were performed examining: (1) the effect of reducing PD and (2) whether eliminating PD entirely caused further harm to student learning. Reducing and eliminating PD had no significant effect on student gains in Qualitative Predictions, suggesting ECM can be sufficient for teachers to support student learning of conceptual science content. However, student gains in Quantitative Predictions decreased significantly upon reducing PD; eliminating PD did not cause significant additional decreases. Combined, these findings suggest that amount of face‐to face PD support necessary to achieve student‐learning gains can vary depending on whether the practice requires application of qualitative science content or quantitative reasoning.

Strategies to support teachers' professional development regarding sense‐making in context‐based science curricula

“…Based on a study regarding teachers using innovative units in the classroom, Vos et al (2011) found, however, that additional PD was needed to achieve the intended outcomes of the curriculum innovation. Following Schuchardt et al (2017), who related the need for additional PD to differences in intended learning outcomes, this might be due to the specific intended learning outcomes of this particular curriculum.…”

Identifying Levers Related to Student Performance on High-Stakes Science Exams: Examining School, Teaching, Teacher, and Professional Development Characteristics

“…The empirical research base on the effectiveness of PD in directly enhancing student learning and performance is mixed (Desimone & Garet, 2015;Kennedy, 2016). Several studies indicate positive effects of PD participation on student performance in science contexts (e.g., Doppelt et al, 2009;Fishman et al, 2013;Frumin et al, 2018;Lee, Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2008;Llosa et al, 2016;Price & Chiu, 2018;Roth et al, 2011;Schuchardt, Tekkumru-Kisa, Schunn, Stein, & Reynolds, 2017), especially if PD activities have a content focus, model teaching, and/or include active learning components (Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010;Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011). However, other studies were not able to detect positive effects of PD participation on student achievement, even if PD activities are aligned to the high-quality PD design characteristics (Garet et al, 2008(Garet et al, , 2011Jacob & McGovern, 2015).…”

Lecturer Support in the Implementation of a New Curriculum During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Based on a study regarding lecturers using innovative units in the classroom, Hartshorne et al ( 2020 ) and Marek et al ( 2021 ) found that additional PD was needed to achieve the intended outcomes of curriculum innovation. Almazova et al ( 2020 ) and Schuchardt et al ( 2017 ) observed that the related need for additional PD in the new curriculum is mainly due to the differences in intended learning outcomes between the new and the previous curriculum.…”