Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM From Professional Development to the Classroom: A Case Study of an Elementary Teacher’s Implementation of the Learning Cycle Deepika Menon Dr. Betsy Baker Dr. Deborah L. Hanuscin University of Missouri- Columbia 1 Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 2 Abstract Current reform efforts in science education focus on changing how science is being taught in classrooms, which requires an equal substantive change in professional development practices at all levels (NRC, 1996). One of the recent focuses of professional development programs for elementary science teachers is to help them understand the meaning and nature of inquiry and how to implement inquiry in their classrooms. This professional development program is designed for K-6 teachers to learn physical science content and instructional strategies for inquiry based teaching through the learning cycle. The purpose of this case study is to explore how the participant used the 5E learning cycle to teach physical science topics in his curriculum. Data were collected over a four month period and included classroom observations and interviews. The data analysis process generated three major assertions further supported by sub-assertions, or themes, which were supported by the participants’ voice across the multiple sources of data. These address the teacher’s success and enthusiasm in incorporating the learning cycle in his classroom teaching, but also the difficulties he experienced in implementing the model. The study makes a significant contribution towards our understanding of how teachers translate what they learn in professional development programs into their classroom practice. The study also informs professional developers about the challenges and successes teachers may face in implementing new practices, which can in turn be used to shape professional development programs. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM Introduction Rationale The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) state in Professional Development Standard A that professional development of science teachers should focus on learning science content through inquiry. The Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993) also recognized that scientific inquiry, as a means of gaining knowledge, may encourage students to think scientifically about events in everyday life. The NSES also state that the conventional view of professional development of science teachers needs to be shifted from providing them opportunity to work collaboratively and gain from each other’s experiences. In line with this, an important focus of professional development programs for elementary science teachers is to help them understand the meaning and nature of inquiry and how to implement inquiry in their classrooms. The learning cycle has been identified as an inquiry-based approach “consistent with the goals of the NSES” (Hanuscin & Lee, 2008, p. 51). As an instructional model, it can help teachers integrate inquiry within their science instruction in several phases (Marek, 2008). One version of the learning cycle is the 5-E model—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate (Bybee 1997). These phases build from understanding students’ prior knowledge and misconceptions, gaining new ideas from hands on explorations, assisting the students in developing explanations for new concepts, extending students’ thinking by finding relevant connections between new knowledge and the real world, and assessing their understanding in terms of the intended outcome (Renner, Abraham & Birnie, 1988). Thus, from an inquiry oriented perspective, the learning cycle serves as a planning tool that teachers can use to help students learn science effectively (Rubba, 1992). 3 Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 4 Problem Despite realization of the importance of teaching science as inquiry and efforts made by professional development programs to support teachers in doing so, inquiry-based instruction is not the norm in science classrooms. Teachers often have difficulty in understanding the meaning of inquiry in terms of pedagogy and assessment, and this confusion is one of the hindrances in translating inquiry into classroom practice (Wee et al. 2007). Furthermore, teachers may be reluctant to use inquiry in their classrooms because they lack understanding what inquiry is and how they can effectively incorporate it into their curriculum (Marek, Eubanks & Gallaher, 1990). This apprehension toward using inquiry in the classroom can be compounded by limitations in elementary teachers’ content knowledge, especially when teaching physical science (McDermott, 1990). Teachers must have in-depth knowledge of content in order to guide students in active scientific inquiry (Hernandez et al., 2002 There is a need for professional development which would not only help elementary teachers develop their confidence to teach inquiry, but also to enhance their comfort with teaching physical science content. ). According to the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), professional development programs “must be designed not just to impart technical skills, but to deepen and enrich teachers’ understanding of content knowledge” (p. 71), and ability to teach science effectively. One way that professional development programs can accomplish this is to provide a more intensive follow-up program to support science teachers in implementation of inquiry during the academic year (Wee et al. 2007). This particular professional development program uses the 5E Learning Cycle Model to help scaffold teachers’ implementation of inquiry-based Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 5 instruction, while providing support implementing this approach through a summer program for students as well as academic year support in the classroom. While several studies have examined teachers’ understanding of the learning cycle (e.g., Barman & Shedd, 1992; Marek, 1990; Settlage, 2000), few have extended their examination to teachers’ implementation of the learning cycle in their classrooms following professional development programs. The study is designed to explore how the participant understood the 5E learning cycle model, how he incorporated the 5E learning cycle into his instruction of physical science, and his perspective on the importance of this instructional method for student learning. Through case study, we hope to better understand factors that influence his adoption of the learning approach, as well as challenges and barriers he faced in implementing this model with fidelity. The overarching question framing this study was: • What are the challenges and successes faced by an elementary teacher in implementing the learning cycle following his participation in a professional development program? Context The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) states in Professional Development Standard A that professional development of science teachers should focus on learning science content through inquiry. Professional development must provide opportunities for teachers to assume the role of learners and build on participants’ knowledge, skills, and beliefs; should focus on understanding of content knowledge and practice; provide opportunities for feedback, revision, and success; and allow peer interactions with others and instructors of professional development program (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). This professional development program is a K-6 professional development program designed to improve teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogy. The program got its initiation with the model developed and Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 6 practiced by the Summer Kids’ Inquiry Program in Science (SKIPS) (Hanuscin & Musikul, 2007). It aligns with the Standards by providing opportunities for teachers to assume the role of both learner and teachers. During the first week of a summer institute, teachers learn physical science content through a 5E learning cycle approach, as well as learn about inquiry-based pedagogy. During the second week of the summer institute, teachers are guided in implementing what they learned by collaboratively teaching an outreach program for elementary-age students. Methodology This research relies on the case study approach (Stake, 1995). According to Hatch (2002), “Case studies investigate a contextualized phenomenon within specified boundaries” (p. 30) thus ‘elementary teacher and his classroom’ is the boundary for the study. The participant of this case study, Matt (pseudonym) is an elementary science teacher at a private school in the Midwest, and has participated in the professional development program for two years. He has been teaching for ten years, and currently teaches science for grades K-5. Matt was chosen for this case study because according to him, his experiences and teaching has been influenced by the program. He has been an active participant in program throughout the school year, and has special interest in improving his physics content knowledge and implementing the 5E instructional model. The purpose of the case study was to understand the nature of instruction in Matt’s classroom, and the degree to which he successfully implemented what he learned in the professional development program. Qualitative methods were used to explore the factors which influence his adoption and implementation of the learning cycle. Consistent with the qualitative method of triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), data were collected from observations, interviews, and artifacts. Data collection occurred over a 4-month period. Five classroom visits were made initially to help Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 7 build rapport and facilitate the development of an observation protocol. The protocol was then applied to four additional visits to Matt’s classroom, during which the researcher held informal conversations with Matt about her observations of his teaching. Field notes were maintained by the researcher in a research journal. An audio-recorder was used to capture the conversations between the participant and the students. At the conclusion of classroom observations, two formal interviews were held with Matt. Supplementary data included lesson plans, curriculum, and other materials that Matt utilized for instruction and designing both formative and summative assessments. Additional artifacts such as students’ work and notebooks, photographs, charts, or any other material used for classroom instruction were also collected as relevant to understanding Matt’s implementation of the learning cycle. Data analysis began with classifying observational data according to field notes, theoretical notes, methodological notes and personal notes (Corsaro, 1985). The next step of analysis consisted of ‘open coding’, or generating codes based on the emerging patterns from the observation data. As patterns were identified, data were searched for confirming or disconfirming evidence. After all the observation data was analyzed, interviews were analyzed using the same process. The codes generated from observations and interviews were further used in triangulating the findings. Negative case analysis (Padgett, 1998) was employed to enhance credibility of the findings. Findings In this section, we begin with a description of the way in which Matt incorporated the learning cycle into his teaching, along with his interpretation of the model and purposes of each phase within it. Following that, three major assertions that are further supported by sub- Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 8 assertions or themes, run throughout the data and are supported, in turn by the participants’ voice across the multiple sources of data. Implementing the 5Es: A View from the Classroom This section summarizes Matt’s teaching using the learning cycle, activities in each phase of learning cycle, the Matt’s rationale behind choosing these activities. The illustrations given below provide insights of Matt’s understanding of the learning cycle. These illustrations are further supported by the interviews, and provide evidence for assertions discussed in the following section. Engage phase: Matt said, “Meaningful learning builds from here” Matt starts his lesson with an open ended question, posing a problem or demonstration to elicit students’ thinking. The activities further vary according to topic to be address, availability of the space (hallways, spare room etc.), time of the day and the weather conditions. For introducing magnetism, Matt posed an open ended question-- What do I know about magnets? Students wrote their responses on their own sheets (provided by Matt in the beginning of the class). Matt made list of the students’ responses on the white board. Matt’s rationale for the activity and the engage phase Engaging students helps me “to capture students’ interest towards the lesson and setting the stage for proceeding with the lesson”. He further adds that this is “necessary for students’ attention and see what their thinking is”. For him this phase offer students the base to build upon meaningful learning. However, he adds that sometimes it is difficult for him to think about the activities to motivate students. Explore phase: Matt said, “Data from this phase could be used for further phases of the learning cycle”. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 9 The lesson proceeded with an activity called “Magnetic Hunt” where the students go around the class searching for objects which interact with the magnet. Students recorded their observations in their science journals while performing the activity. Matt’s rationale for the activity and the explore phase Matt said that the activity will help students to understand that magnet can either ‘push or pull’ objects. During the activity students will notice that objects interact with magnets in two ways. Data gathered by students will help them to “seek meaning out and answer the question posed”. Matt said that the activity is helpful as “data from this phase can be revisited again while working on activities designed for other phases”. Explain phase: Matt said, “Now is the time to explain what answer they found, based on what they get in explore phase”. Matt made chart on the whiteboard and put the responses in the table based on what students’ got in the hunt. During interview Matt said that he prefers to facilitate whole class group discussion at this stage depending on several factors: students’ explorations and data collected by them, students’ grade level, and diversity of students. He likes to explain them the “content in a nut shell depending on what they need to know” and introduce scientific vocabulary. Elaborate Phase: Mat said, “If students are exposed to real world application, they care what they learn”. Matt passed another type of magnet and a piece of rock, and asked students to place the object in one of categories of the table. When students completed the investigation, Matt Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 10 explained that the rock ‘lodestone’ is from which magnets are made of. He then discussed periodic table chart (pointed the wall) with elements: iron, nickel, and cobalt. Matt’s rationale for the activity Matt’s interpretation of elaborate phase was helping students’ make sense of what they have been doing until now and answering the question: “What is the purpose of…”??? This helps students care about their own learning and find relevance in what they learn. According to Matt this phase should help students to find connection to other disciplines; example language, and math and also should be linked to real world. The Matt’s idea behind introducing the students to periodic table is because he thinks that students should be introduced to elements. Matt constantly focused on one student who knew all the answers as he was from the gifted program. Matt also told that he specifically designed this activity keeping him as target, but did not realize that for other students it might be beyond their understanding at this point. This was essential piece of data contributing towards the ‘negative case’. Evaluate Phase: Matt said, “Evaluating students helps to understand how your teaching is going- speed, depth”. Matt gave students a tray filled with different materials and a magnet. Students were asked to classify these materials as magnetic objects or non-magnetic objects. This task according to Matt “helps students to show their own understanding of the concept they learned so far”. Matt’s Rationale Matt also added that there is a need to sum up the lesson, to see the student gains which reflect his own teaching. When asked on how he prefers to carry on this phase, Matt replied that he decided on assessment tasks which promote high level synthesis based on level of the class Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 11 and how things went in earlier phases. Some of the ways he prefers over another are paper-based tests and opportunity for students to conduct further research (did not specify how). Challenges and Successes From the above illustration, we see that Matt was receptive to the learning cycle approach; however, he did face some difficulties in implementing the 5E model in his classroom. Below, we provide support for the following assertions: 1. Matt was receptive to the learning cycle model, because it was consistent with his espoused role as a teacher. 2. Despite espousing student-centered instruction and enthusiastic support for the 5E approach, Matt’s classroom practice often reflected more traditional instruction 3. Matt experienced a tension between the flexibility of the 5E model and his own flexibility when designing instruction to address the needs of the diverse abilities of his students. Matt built his awareness of the 5E learning cycle model during the professional development program, and successfully transitioned to incorporating the learning cycle as an instructional strategy to guide his lesson development and support student learning. As Matt explained in an interview: Well firstly I did not really know [about the 5Es] at all, I think a little bit I knew that it existed, I think that over professional development program that I actually I started using it based on the way program was structured and the way they wanted us to use it during the workshop. So then I thought well how can I implement it or use it in my (ah) in the way I teach. And then I just thought I can do so, instead of always waiting to the end in the bigger task, instead I just wanted to use it during smaller assessments along the way to see if the students were understanding the material as I taught. He indicated that much of his satisfaction in using 5E learning cycle was due to the fact that it allowed him to shift from being teacher-centered to being student-centered. In this Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 12 manner, the 5E model was consistent with his espoused role as a teacher (Assertion 1). As Matt explained: Lots of times kids want to be told what the answer is or told exactly what to do, but sometimes it benefits them to go through the discovery process—inquiry-- to get the answer. It helps them create their own understanding better. It makes it more student-driven as opposed to always teachers telling them what to do. Matt further explained that he modified the 5E lesson plans from the professional development workshop (which were originally intended for teachers) according to his own students’ needs. He made this decision “to make things more dynamic and to incorporate more engage and explore activities according to their age-level”. He also believed that professional development program curriculum was sort of a teacher guide which could be adapted according to grade level and learners in the classroom. Thus, his aim of incorporating 5E model is based on his belief that the model would help students make sense of science concepts. Despite espousing student-centered instruction and enthusiastic support for the 5E approach, Matt’s classroom practice often reflected more traditional instruction. (Assertion 2) For example, during classroom observations, Matt would often create tables and write information for students to copy directly into their notebooks versus guiding students in developing their own explanations. This is related to assertion 2 in that Matt found designing and implementing these lesson plans is a challenge, and this challenge sometimes created a situation where the 5E model was replaced by traditional teaching where students are given worksheets and they were required to fill-in-the-blank. Thus, in few cases there was gap between Matt’s theoretical interpretation of learning cycle and his practice. Matt perceived the flexibility of the 5E model as appealing, in terms of using his curricular materials in more dynamic ways. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 13 I think it is the flexibility that you can take so many different lessons, and you know or actually teachers’ guide and then fit them to a 5Emodel and then it makes much more dynamic if you follow. It is a useful tool for instruction. Yet, this flexibility also posed a challenge in terms of identifying appropriate activities for the level of students he taught and their diverse abilities. Matt sometimes struggled with choosing appropriate activities for each phase of the learning cycle, so that they proceeded towards the bigger idea. He sometimes faced unanticipated outcomes (anomalous data) while trying to implement various activities. For instance, he decided to introduce the poles of a magnet using compasses. Several compasses gave results opposite of what he expected, showing the red end as South Pole instead of North. During whole class discussions, it became difficult for Matt to convince the students that this was incorrect by saying that compasses were defective. A similar situation arose when some of the magnets students hung from their classroom ceiling did not align themselves in a north-south direction as expected. Dealing with such unanticipated outcomes were difficult for Matt and he felt unprepared to address those and unsure of how to proceed. He viewed these situations as him having made an incorrect choice about the activity to use to teach the concept. As such, he found selecting activities for each phase of the learning cycle was not an easy task, especially coming up with multiple ways to explain the concept. , In other situations, Matt exhibited more capacity for dealing with unanticipated outcomes. For example, when choosing the right set of materials to use in the activities: Of course having the right material, I mean that’s always part of it too, you want to make sure you have adequate materials, supplies so you can deal with the class that way. You do not want students to verify what they already know; you have to come up with problem based situation which is relevant and then having students solve the problem. I think having them control of their learning is a big part of it. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 14 In one of the activity, the students were given their own set of magnets of different shapes; however, each student’s set of magnets may or may not be same as others. Some kids were interested in trying out their investigations with all kinds of magnets (ring, wand, cow magnet). They were fascinated to see their partners’ set of magnets, which created chaos in the classroom. However, Matt managed to come up with a different activity where the students could rotate their magnets so each student was able to test their ideas with different shaped magnets. Thus, he was better able at adjusting to unanticipated outcomes related to logistical matters. Some of the other challenges Matt experienced related to choosing activities that were both central to the main concept, and able to meet the diverse abilities and needs of his students: You are always trying to find the most relevant inquiry based [activities]-- you can always do the activities for the sake of doing them, but you have to be sure that they are linked to what you are teaching… and you are trying to address all different kinds of learners, like a lot of them like hands on, a lot of them like discussions and so you need to address all different kinds of learners to draw on their strengths. Matt admitted that individual differences in students’ ability levels (e.g., meeting needs of gifted learners) are challenging in terms of his decision making for designing appropriate activities. Conclusion Previous studies have examined how teachers interpret the learning cycle, but have not made the connection between teachers’ interpretation and implementation in the classroom. The present study addresses this by providing a rich description of a teachers’ practice, highlighting the specific successes and challenges Matt experienced in implementing the learning cycle. Although researchers have recognized learning cycle as the powerful tool for instruction, teachers often have difficulty implementing the learning cycle in the classrooms (Settlage, 2000). In a similar way, this study informs the specific challenges faced by the elementary teacher while deciding activities to fit in each phase of the learning cycle. The participants’ interpretation of Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 15 learning cycle was built from the experiences he received from his professional development program, 5E model lessons he created in collaboration with other teachers, and his own perception of learning cycle as an efficient tool. Matt was convinced that traditional methods to teach students do not encourage high level thinking among students. However, the findings clearly provide evidence of Matt reverting back to traditional practices. The results further reinforce that there is a relationship between teachers’ understanding of the theoretical strategies and teaching practices. This is consistent with the study where high school teachers showed misunderstandings of the learning cycle which further affected the activities they chose (Marek, Eubanks & Gallaher, 1990). Implications The study addresses some of the specific challenges faced by the elementary teacher in implementing the learning cycle after the professional development experience. Findings reveal that although learning cycle was appealing to Matt, he often shifts back to traditional teaching. Despite the efforts of professional developers to help teachers move towards reform-based teaching, teachers tend to repeat their traditional practices. Professional developers could be aware of possible challenges teachers may face, as Matt did, and provide academic year support. Furthermore, future research on factors which influence teachers’ better retention of concepts should be conducted. The study further informs professional developers that they should be explicit in conveying the instructional strategies in meaningful ways (Cohen & Hill, 2000). The study informs the professional developers to focus on reform which should be extended beyond few weeks of the professional development program to classrooms. Professional development should also assist teachers in linking their implementation of the 5E model to student learning outcomes. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 16 This study not only attempts to addresses this gap in the literature but also open grounds for further research on how professional development program could impact the teachers. There are ongoing ways of improving professional development programs which would help teachers to reform their current teaching practices in relation making shift from traditional practices to inquiry based teaching practices(Ingvarson et.al 2005). While recent studies have pointed out the awareness and need to prepare teachers to shift to inquiry based instruction using learning cycle to teach science (Barman & Shedd, 1992),further research is needed to guide these teachers in resolving the disconnect between their understanding and implementation of the learning cycle. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 17 References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Barman, C.R., & Shedd, J.D. (1992). An inservice program designed to introduce K-6 teachers to the learning cycle teaching approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 58-64. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bybee, R.W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: translating goals to practices. In B.J. Fraser, & K.G. Tobin (Eds.) International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 487– 498). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J.W. & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Application. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Cohen, D., and Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343 Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hanuscin, D. L. & Musikul, K. (2007). School IN for summer: An alternative field experience for elementary science methods students. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19, 57-68. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 18 Hanuscin, D. L., & Lee, M. (2008). Using the learning cycle as a model for teaching the learning cycle to preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 51-66. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings.Albany: State University of New York Press. Hernandez, P., Arrington, J. & Whitworth, J. (2002). Professional development of elementary science teachers: Implications for practice. Elementary Education. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n10/ Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Marek, E.A. (2008). Why the learning cycle. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 6369. Marek, E.A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T.H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821-834. McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special courses for teachers. American Journal of Physics, 58, 734-742. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Foundation (1998). The challenge and promise of K-8 science education reform, in Foundations, Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation. Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPEMENT TO THE CLASSROOM 19 Padgett, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Renner, J.W., Abraham, M.R., & Birnie, H. H. (1988). The necessity of each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 39-58. Rubba, P.A. (1992). The learning cycle as a model for the design of science teacher preservice and inservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 97-101. Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teacher. Science Teacher Education, 84, 43-50. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case-study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63-89.