1

HOW TEACHERS CREATE A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

A Look at PD Content & Execution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Spring 2009

Mike Ames is a science teacher at The Philadelphia High School for Girls in Philadelphia, PA. He teaches

Chemistry at Advanced and Honors levels, Organic Chemistry Honors and Environmental Science. He has

been teaching for six years and became a teacher through the Corporate to Classroom Program after a

career in business.

Brad Beckman is a physics and chemistry teacher at Roman Catholic High School in Philadelphia, PA. He

teaches physics at Honors and Academic levels. Brad is currently instructing his second year of AP

chemistry. Brad is teaching his seventh year in the US; he taught middle school mathematics and high

school science for one year in Kuwait.

Grace Kim is a chemistry teacher at Cresskill High School in Cresskill, NJ. She teaches all levels of

Chemistry—AP, Honors, and Academic, and is in her sixth year of teaching. She became a teacher

through NJ’s alternate route certification program after graduating from college with a chemistry

degree.

INTRODUCTION

As part of our class work for the MCEP program, we were responsible for jointly creating a professional

development (PD) activity for our fellow classmates. After much discussion, we decided to develop a PD

about how to integrate applets and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) worksheets

centered upon applets into one’s instruction.

The POGIL is an inquiry-based tool first created by Spencer and Moog at Franklin and Marshall College to

improve their Chemistry courses. The primary goal was to move students away from a teacher-

centered, rote understanding of Chemistry toward a more student-constructed, intuitive understanding.

POGILs are therefore designed to parallel the constructivist learning cycle (i.e. Karplus learning cycle) in

which learners familiarize and explore information, construct concepts by identifying or analyzing the

information gathered, and then eventually integrate, apply, and extend their conceptual

understandings. Each POGIL begins with an information model that students explore. For example, the

information model could be an analogy, picture, or formula. This exploration of the model is

accomplished by asking students to find specific information that is readily available and apparent upon

closer examination. The concept construction is accomplished by asking students to identify patterns

and relationship and generate possible explanations and causalities—little to no outside information is

necessary. The last portion of the POGIL guides students toward integrating and applying their

conceptual understandings by having students solve problems that require previous knowledge to be

2

meshed with newly acquired information. We encountered POGILs in the context of our graduate

courses in the MCE program and had seen their potential for increasing student interaction, authentic

learning, and concept retention.

The applets we were most interested in were interactive software applications that help students

visualize and better understand chemical properties and concepts at the atomic level (sometimes also

referred to as the micro scale level of chemistry). We thought that while these applets were good

supplements to traditional teaching methods, their full potential was brought out by pairing them with

POGILs that allowed students to engage with the applets in a way that guided them toward constructing

key understandings of atomic level phenomena.

Organization & Brief Overview of Metalogue

This metalogue is a compilation of the ideas that informed our design process; it serves to ratchet up the

conversation about the mélange of research articles, classroom observations, and personal experiences

that we exploited to create a PD that would be informative, effective, and easily applicable.

In this metalogue, we have loosely structured the conversation around four themes that parallel our

creative process in producing a successful professional development. The first two themes, or first half

of our metalogue, center around the content of our PD—the problem we identified and the proposed

solution to that problem. The last two themes, or second half of our metalogue, are more concerned

with the execution and assessment of our PD—how we would get teachers to change their practice,

whether or not we were successful, and what we could improve.

In discussing the content of our PD, we wanted to identify an area of the curriculum (i.e. chemistry

content) that students struggled with and propose a pedagogical tool that would simultaneously address

the content area and improve students’ overall construction of concepts. The beginning of our

conversation is led by Grace, in which we identify a common content-based problem we would like to

address in our classroom. We needed to identify an obstacle to learning that was specific enough that it

could be addressed with a change in classroom practice (both curricular and structural), but was broad

enough that it would be applicable to the majority of Chemistry teachers. Having sufficiently narrowed

our focus in this first exchange, Brad facilitates the conversation around the next theme, in which we

look into specific constructivism-based practices that would specifically address the previously identified

area of concern. We felt it useful to share our brainstorming process. Student obstacles to

understanding are usually multi-dimensional in their scope, and we hoped to show that we were aware

of the complexities of classroom interactions when proposing solutions.

Mike begins the second half of our metalogue in which we discuss the logistics of our PD. Our discussion

centers around the particular design and approach we think would best engage and interest our

classmates, and thus promote the fluent integration of the improved pedagogical tools into each

teacher’s classroom practice. This conversation was of particular importance because excellent tools

and practice are often not incorporated into classrooms because they are presented improperly.

Professional developments fail to produce change when they provided inadequate training or

3

insufficient resources. They also fail to be successful when teachers leave unmotivated or unconvinced

that their current practice can be modified to incorporate new techniques.

Our last exchange concludes our metalogue with reflections upon our shared experience and upon the

reaction of the PD participants after having presenting the PD. We wanted to focus on what we did

well, what we could improve, and summarize the salient points of our conversation.

Content-based Obstacles to Understanding Chemistry:

Student misconceptions about submicroscopic chemistry

Grace 1: In the reading done for my research proposal in EDU536, I encountered the idea that students

had particular difficulty in understanding the micro scale aspect of chemistry (Nakhleh, 1992; Johnstone,

1993). This jives with my own experience. Students that have a good grasp of the easily observable

macro-scale aspects of chemistry or even the symbolic equation- and formula-based aspects of

chemistry sometimes cannot easily explain how these observations and symbols are connected to the

underlying interactions on the atomic level.

I assume that this difficulty arises because the micro scale level of chemistry cannot be directly

observed. I’ve looked into teaching tools that address this conceptual obstacle, and even explored the

use of manipulatives in the classroom as a visualization aid. I still feel, however, that there is room for

improvement in helping students foster an intuitive understanding of what is happening at the atomic

level.

Brad 1: Grace, this difficulty that you identified through research and observed in your own classroom is

evident in my students, too. Without direct observation of the micro level phenomena taking place

throughout chemical interactions, students face real challenges in understanding all that may be taking

place when chemical or physical changes occur.

Regarding the request for tools to represent the micro level interactions of matter, I recently attended a

district science meeting that highlighted applets. Applets are online resources, many of which are free

to use, that may be used to represent a specific interaction or phenomenon that would be otherwise

too small to observe or too costly to demonstrate in our own classrooms. The presenter of the

professional development session was Dr. George Mehler, who has published a website on these

instructional tools, learningscience.org. I think many of the applets listed there could be useful for

multiple levels of instruction.

Mike 1: Brad and Grace, I encountered similar difficulties with the majority of my students as well. As a

teacher, I found my ability to transfer abstract knowledge to my students challenging whenever atomic

level interactions were involved. I began to realize that there was a disconnect between the micro scale

visualizations that I possessed and could “see” in my mind’s eye and what the students “saw” in their

mind’s eye. These internal constructs that I have did not transfer verbally to most of my students and

4

had limited transfer when I used static visualizations on the blackboard. I tried using animated visual

clues for concepts such as the motion of particles in different states of matter. For example, I would

hold my fists next to each other and vibrate them in place to show how solids look on the atomic level; I

would roll my hands over each other to demonstrate liquid molecular motion, and I would make wild

motions with them to illustrate gases. While I think I got a better transfer, there was still a great deal of

disconnect.

I think that all teachers of abstract concepts which lack direct transfer to observable macro-scale

phenomena experience similar challenges. However, chemical concepts are almost entirely based on the

behavior and interactions of submicroscopic particulates. This severely impairs a student’s ability to “get

it.” Nakhieh (1992) found that student misconceptions about chemical concepts can stem from an

inability to “spontaneously visualize chemical events as dynamic interactions.” Furthermore, she asserts

that many of the misconceptions are derived from differences in the everyday versus scientific meanings

of words. It becomes difficult, therefore, to verbally communicate abstract ideas that we as science

teachers “see” to students who are not “looking” at the same thing we are.

I have used some of the applets that Brad refers to but only on a limited basis. The idea has great

promise if well constructed applets can be found and student activities can be designed and integrated

into instruction.

Grace 2: We all seem to agree that the dynamic, interactive nature of applets has potential for

addressing the disconnect students experience when trying to learn about atomic level interactions.

Having looked at some of these applets, which I have only been exposed to recently and have used only

very occasionally (and inconsistently) in my classrooms, I think it is important to create a learning tool

that will effectively guide students in interacting and exploring these applets in a manner that helps

them come to desirable understandings. I am not impressed with all that is out there, and I feel that

without some type of accountability or structure, students will enjoy the interactive or colorful nature of

applets but won’t learn much.

In his chapter on aporias in science, Roth (2006) discussed how demonstrations could actually reinforce

wrongful conceptions if the time and energy spent on student exploration (and ensuing familiarity) was

inadequate, or if there was minimal focus on evoking students’ preconceptions and having the students

amend and align them to accepted views. I feel that this observation is easily extended to the use of

applets. While applets are clearly a great resource, instructors’ use of applets, at its best, should ensure

that students encounter observations that challenge their incorrect or incomplete conceptions and that

the students are then held accountable for integrating and explaining their newly evolved

understanding.

Mike and Brad, please feel free to contribute further in this round before we discuss tools geared

toward addressing the problems identified in this round.

Constructivist, Content-based Tools that Address Student Misconceptions

Applets and POGILs

5

Brad 2: Pre-(mis-)conceptions are a shared experience for learners and educators. With these

preconceptions in mind, much of the “real learning” that happens in my classes occurs when students

share pre-knowledge that we reform together. Finding ways for our students to navigate their own

preconceptions in order to process new information presented in class is at the heart of effective lesson

planning.

The sum of our experiences shared in these writings reminds me of our first experiences in Dr. Roberts’

CHEM501 class. Our introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) pedagogy

brought to light a new way of thinking about knowledge for me. The constructivist notion associated

with POGILs assumes that learners must “fit” or mesh observations of new information into a pre-

existing framework of knowledge. Student pre-(mis-)conceptions can only be dealt with when the pre-

existing framework is actively engaged in the learning process.

Applets work well in the POGIL methodology as the information models that students must explore and

observe with their pre-existing frameworks as the first step of the learning process. The use of applets,

therefore, allows for inquiry-based learning experiences. For example, students could use an applet to

investigate a phenomenon and derive some empirical data. Guiding questions would then lead them

toward constructing the conceptual understanding established as learning objectives. Further use of the

applet would provide students with opportunities to apply the concepts and predict outcomes for novel

sets of information.

Mike 2: Brad, I agree. The constructivist approach of POGILs, when combined with applets, holds

promise for addressing the misconceptions in the knowledge schemes held by learners by bridging the

macro and micro level understanding of chemical concepts. When students are attempting to build

understanding of micro level concepts using macro level ideas, observations and concepts, the pre-

existing knowledge framework can lead to observational experiences that bring about problematic

misconceptions. Bodner (1986) found that the tendency of learners to “fit” rather than “match”

observations to concepts leads to ingrained misconceptions that are difficult to break. In order to

overcome this tendency and allow chemistry students to construct new frameworks of understanding

and knowledge schemes, the observations should match the concepts and provide students with new

ways of looking at pre-existing observational knowledge that is already part of their knowledge frame.

The particulate nature of matter, which is a major part of the basis for the conceptual understandings of

the behavior and properties of matter and energy, requires students to build knowledge schemes that

visualize the affects of the interactions and changes that can occur in matter or systems of matter.

Without this ability, applying knowledge to novel sets of information or experiences becomes

challenging and may lead to misconceptions that provide students with plausible but incorrect solutions.

While science educators visualize the particulate nature of matter and use it as part of their contextual

knowledge frame for understanding chemical concepts, attempting to transfer that knowledge frame to

students may not be the best approach. Instead, a constructivist approach could be more effective by

allowing students to construct their own knowledge frame with guided inquiry that provides concrete,

6

conceptual and visual frames of reference that each student can incorporate into their existing

knowledge scheme. A well made POGIL built around the proper applet could break ingrained

misconceptions systematically while forming new connections between real-world observations at the

macro level and conceptual understandings at the micro level. These new observations would then

“match” rather than “fit” the concepts they are learning.

Grace 3: Mike and Brad, I also share the same insight in thinking that POGIL and student-centered,

inquiry-based methods provide the key to improving students’ successful interactions with applets.

While the applets are still good as an add-in to lecture or simply for unguided exploration, I think the

POGILs provide the means of having students explore the models and elicit previously learned

knowledge constructively.

This foundation can then be built upon with traditional pedagogy tools (e.g. wet labs and

demonstrations requiring student explanations linked to the original POGIL, or practice problems

requiring abstraction of the concepts learned in the POGIL) that are complementary to the applet POGIL.

I think it important to stress that POGILs do not completely replace other forms of instruction, but

rather complement and enhance the overall effectiveness of other instructional tools. I don’t think

POGILs are a cure-all, but they certainly provide the structure to guide student-driven exploration in a

way that guarantees foundational learning that can be built upon.

By using applet POGILs in a way that is related and meshes with their other forms of instructions,

teachers can really help students integrate and apply new and old information in a way that solidifies

the links between the submicroscopic level of chemistry (visually presented in the applet), the

macroscopic level of chemistry (experienced in a hands-on fashion in a lab or demo), and the symbolic

level of chemistry (experienced and mastered through practice problems and calculations related to the

concept learned in the POGIL). The POGIL worksheets won’t be used most effectively unless teachers

train themselves to fluidly bridge POGILs with their other forms of instruction. I want to emphasize that

Dr. Robert’s class was particularly effective not only because of the POGILs, but because he used

problem sets, readings, in-class lecture, and assessments that complemented and reinforced their use.

Brad 3: You have both brought up meaningful points regarding the integration of applets (with POGIL

instruction) into the repertoire of learning experiences we already provide our students. I agree that

students struggle with understanding when only one form of instruction is used; we should be sure to

mention that this instructional format is best used in concert with other teaching tools.

I would like to add that while applets clearly offer visual modalities for student operation, they also

impart a kinesthetic aspect to student exploration. Students’ control of how to engage with the applet

increases student motivation to achieve learning objectives. Students may even be tempted to “play”

outside the specified instructional goals of the POGIL/applet. This “play” should not be ignored or

squelched, but rather postponed. In fact, students should be encouraged to further investigate the

concepts related to but not specifically addressed within the activity after its completion.

7

POGIL instruction provides for a constructivist approach via exploration of the applet as a structured,

variable model of information. The visual representations of micro level chemical and physical

phenomena happen on the screen before students’ eyes. This gives students a unique opportunity to

bridge the micro-macro gap in understanding when paired with macro scale observations and learning.

I believe that we agree that POGIL/applet instruction is the direction we want to take.

Designing Effective Professional Development:

Resources,Cogeneration, Differentiation

Mike 3: The integration of an applet with a POGIL provides a unique set of problems that gives us an

ideal subject for professional development. These problems include locating quality applets and

designing POGILS that can be adjusted for differentiation. There are certainly other issues as well and we

should address these in the PD.

While many members of our cohort have designed and used POGILS, and may also use applets as part

of their instructional repertoire, it is unlikely that they have incorporated both into a lesson. This is a

good opportunity to showcase our understanding of inquiry based, constructivist learning while

incorporating technology and eliminating or reducing the macro-micro gap.

I have used some applets in my teaching and have several that are useful that I have not used in

conjunction with a POGIL. Currently I use them to bridge the macro-micro level understanding gap for

demonstrations and readings but under normal circumstances, I control the interactive applet and little

or no inquiry is required on the student’s part.

The development of a guided inquiry lesson or group of lessons around an applet requires first and

foremost, a well designed applet. Applets that are poorly designed or have too little interactivity may

not give students the interest level or information needed. Indeed, they may well serve to further

ingrain misconceptions or lead to new ones. These applets will need to be identified and then an

appropriate POGIL will need to be developed around it. I would be willing to write one if no one objects.

Grace 4: Mike, I think you’re right that we want to pick an applet and design a POGIL carefully to avoid

the pitfalls you mentioned—we should also try to make the design process transparent to our

colleagues. I’d like you to share the obstacles you ran into and how you addressed them. I know I still

have quite a ways to go in mastering the art of writing a POGIL so I think it would be constructive to

bring up issues that would be common to all of us in making an applet POGIL. In the article that

Zubrowski (2007) wrote about observational and planning tools for ssPDs promoting inquiry, he

mentioned that many descriptions of successful inquiry strategies are too vague to be of any real use in

creating or evaluating classroom practice. Since everyone in our cohort knows what a good POGIL looks

like, I think we can avoid that pitfall if we are transparent about the specific obstacles and issues that

8

creep up when applets are used as the information model and if we come up with a good example as a

final product.

In terms of structuring the PD, I think we should also focus on creating a tone that will be appreciated by

our classmates. Yamagata-Lynch and Haudenschild (2008) examined professional development

activities and came to the conclusion that “teacher participants and principals reported that professional

development events that focused on concrete classroom-based curricular issues without expecting

teacher to completely change their practice provided them with the most momentum to improve

classroom practices.” I think our central focus is sufficiently practical and content-based that it will be

well received, but I think it is important to know where our classmates are starting from in terms of their

applet use, and then find ways to “differentiate” the PD to provide everyone with something they can

take away and use. As you mentioned, all of us have some experience with POGILs, and I assume that

many of us know a little bit about applets, but it is important to check this assumption with other class

members before we present. We should try to create a dialogue or cooperative joint PD—I know there

are probably some people who have used applets extensively and successfully, and we need to engage

their support and have them contribute to the discussion so that they have a stake in this PD as well.

I feel the best way to accomplish this is through personal communications soliciting help and a pre-PD

survey gauging mastery of applet use. The pre-PD survey could also serve as a measure of their use of

appropriate technology as part of their classroom practice. If our classmates increase or improve their

use of applets, it would document participant growth and the efficacy of our PD.

Brad 4: Grace, pre-PD surveys are an excellent idea to help direct our efforts to better meet our

colleagues where they are, as well as provide them with as much useful information as possible. Framing

the PD with the concept of suggestions for educational enhancement also is sensible; we have all

experienced the “all or nothing” or “my way or the highway” professional development sessions that

often result in little to no participant investment following the presentation.

Mike, your offer to develop a POGIL around an applet that contains promising features is gracious. As

each of us has unique student populations, selection of an appropriate applet for the information model

of the POGIL is a matter of intended audience and teacher preference. This point is important to

acknowledge among our colleagues. Additionally, members of our cohort will undoubtedly have

personal opinions as to which chemistry concepts would benefit most from the use of applet/ POGIL

instruction in improving student understanding.

Thankfully, we all have some experience in POGIL learning and deigning POGIL instruction. Perhaps our

collaborative efforts will result in a useful applet/POGIL lesson. Together, we should be able to provide

our colleagues with ideas for incorporation into their classrooms.

Mike 4: I chose an applet from the PhET website from the University of Colorado at Boulder that

illustrates the properties of gases and wrote a POGIL around it for the Gas Law unit. The applet is highly

interactive, allows the student to manipulate and hold variables constant and take measurements to

accumulate data.

9

The POGIL development was challenging and I had several students aid me by running through the

POGIL to find areas where questions were unclear or confusing or they became uncertain about how to

manipulate the applet to achieve the desired results. After several revisions I have completed the

POGIL/Applet integration and will present it to the cohort during our PD.

I will also address the challenges I faced integrating the two instructional modalities, missteps I made in

constructing the POGIL and technological problems encountered during the PD. In addition, I would like

to address the need to design the POGIL to allow for differentiated instruction to alleviate difficulties

when student abilities or prior knowledge are highly diverse.

I think the Gas Law POGIL will give the cohort ample opportunity to see the benefits of POGIL/Applet

integration and provide the concrete curricular-based information that Grace discussed. If someone

could compile a list of Applet resources for our colleagues and categorize them, I think the cohort would

be most appreciative and would further enhance the usefulness of the PD.

Post-Reflection on the PD:

Commendations, Criticisms, and Suggestions

Grace 5: Having completed the professional development, I think it helpful to reflect upon what we did

well and what we could improve in the future.

As expected, I believe our cohort members appreciated the practical focus on curriculum that could be

readily adapted to their current needs and comfort levels. The list of applets divided by topic was

particularly well-received, as was just showing the class promising applets and encouraging those who

have not used applets to familiarize themselves with the resource before using the POGIL approach in

concert with them. One classmate said that she had re-evaluated her usage of applets in light of this PD,

saying that it made her feel “it’s way more affective and students will have more conceptual

understanding using applets.” Many people also noted that they would use the Gas Properties POGIL

that Mike made up in the very near future.

In terms of our presentation and interaction with our classmates, I think that actually going out among

our classmates to individualize/ differentiate our presentation and work with them and engage them

seemed to liven things up and break down the active presenter—passive learner dichotomy a bit. I am

curious to know what you thought was particularly helpful during the PD.

As for suggestions and criticisms, the following are comments taken from the post-PD surveys we gave:

more processing time should be built into the PD; it would be helpful to go through each applet on the

list together to visually present the range of applets out there; it would be great to have more applet

POGILs ready to use. As a starting point, I think these items could be addressed with better organization

and by having more time to produce quality resources. At the same time, I’d like to elicit your

suggestions for improving the manner in which fellow teachers encounter the resources we’ve

prepared.

10

One additional concern that came up which we had not anticipated and that we may need to more

deliberately address if we were to present our PD in the future, is how to adapt applet/ POGILs when

access to good computers is limited or simply unavailable. Offhand, I know that many applets can be

downloaded in advance, or, if hosted right off of an html page, can be downloaded and saved by using

Seamonkey, or some other combination internet browser/ composer. But, I am also curious to know if

either of you have any suggestions for addressing this particular issue.

All said, I think that I learned a lot in the process of giving the PD, and I was surprised by how much

better things came out because of our collaboration than if we had each done something individually—I

definitely believe that PDs should be presented by small groups of people with disparate personalities,

strengths and weaknesses—I thought that the conversations we had in developing our focus and our

presentation made the PD more effective. While the task set before us was at times difficult (also

because of our disparate personalities), I think we all contributed toward the production of a more well-

balanced, thoughtful resource for our classmates.

Brad 5: Grace and Mike, many thanks for your efforts with the PD. While I was involved in the early

stages of brainstorming and planning, you two provided the POGIL/applet lessons and pre-PD surveys

that were crucial to the success we had with the presentation. I agree that the collaborative effort

resulted in a product better than any one of us could have produced individually.

I also believe that more time devoted to the completion of sample lessons and investigation of specific

applets may have added to our cohort’s experience. Perhaps our PD would function better as an all-day

workshop format. That would certainly provide more time for classmates or colleagues to interface with

applet resources and POGILs designed around them.

In the future, we should provide information on POGIL modifications to overcome technology challenges

for our classmates with limited computing resources. However, we must remember that not all

pedagogies are useful to every educator’s student population. Each of us is mindful of unique limitations

we may have within our own schools and among our students. The post-PD survey responses are

indicative of the differences in our individual teaching experiences, as well as our common care and

concern for our students’ learning experiences.

Mike 5: Brad, I have to agree that in addition to the completed applet/POGIL, providing a variety of

applets, possibly paired with incomplete POGILs, may have been more advantageous to the members of

the cohort. Although a completed applet/POGIL gives a more comprehensive picture of the whole

instructional strategy, using a variety of applets that our classmates could complete or adapt to their

specific instructional environment would have provided more foundational material for them to take

home.

Although I also think that more time would have been beneficial, an all day workshop would be taking it

too far without a tremendous amount of preparation. That being said, a longer workshop may in fact be

a better way to present the material. The melding of two solid, research-based instructional strategies

11

into an instructional tool that bridges the macro-micro gap has obvious benefits that many teachers of

science would find interesting, practical and well worth the investment of time.

Regarding Grace’s concern for those with limited, outdated or inaccessible technology, I think

applet/POGIL instruction would be completely impractical only if there is no access for the teacher.

While student manipulation of the applet with guidance and input from their peers is preferred, when

necessary teachers could always project the applet on a screen for the students allowing them to collect

data and make observation as needed. This approach would require some adjustment in the POGIL but

should still provide a modicum of student interest and bridge the macro-micro gap which we all agree is

the key to increased conceptual understanding.

The PD itself went well although I think if we were to present it again it would need to be refined. In

particular, the material, the sequencing of the material and the time allowance for different aspects of

the PD need work to keep the audience focused and interested.

The challenges we faced, individually and as a group, provided opportunities for tremendous personal

and professional growth that I found simultaneously stressful, enlightening and enjoyable. The time

spent working on this PD was well worth the effort and I intend to build a few more applet/POGIL

instructional applications and present them at a department meeting in the fall.

CONCLUSION:

In this metalogue, we have endeavored to fully present the ideas we considered and the difficulties we

faced in creating our professional development. We showed how research and our classroom

experiences identified a common content area we could address through a change in classroom

practice. We then delved into an exploration of how to improve and refine the pedagogical tools with

which we were familiar to maximize their beneficial effect on student learning. The most important

conversation or our metalogue, however, may have centered on how we could execute our PD in a way

to concretely influence and change the practice of our peers. We conclude this metalogue in the hopes

that it has been useful for others in more comprehensively revealing the details of how teachers go

about producing a professional development for their peers. We thank you for the time you have

devoted toward sharing this journey with us.

REFERENCES:

Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10),

873-878.

Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing

demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.

12

Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of

Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.

Roth, W-M. (2006). Ch 1: Aporia of perception in science. Learning Science: A Singular Plural Perspective.

Rotterdam: Sense Publications, 27-66.

Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. & Haudenschild, M.T. (2008). Using activity systems analysis to identify inner

contradictions in teacher professional development. Teacher and Teacher Education, 1-11. Doi:

10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.014

Zubrowski, B. (2007). An observational and planning tool for professional development in science

education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 861-884.

WEBSITES OF INTEREST:

Mehler, G. learningscience.org

www.pogil.org

University of Colorado at Boulder

http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/sims.php?sim=Gas_Properties