The Science TrainingResearch suggests that effectiveprofessional development inscience instruction should focuson four crucial skill sets.

Harold Wenglinskyand Samuel C. Silverstein

trouble. On the 2005 National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) science exam, 4thgraders were the only group of students whomade progress. Eighth graders' performance

remained stagnant, and that of 12th graders declined (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2006a). International compar-isons confirm the problem: Although U.S. students performclose to the international average in life sciences, they lagbehind other countries' students in chemistry, physics, andearth science (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

Of the many steps needed to improve U.S. science educa-

24 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/DECEMBER 2006/JANUARY 2007

tion, none is more important than improving teacher trainingand preparation. Individual classroom teachers determine thequality of instruction that students receive. Many studies showa close correlation between student achievement in science andteacher preparation in science. For example, using longitudinaldata, Monk (1994) found that the best predictor of studentperformance in science was teacher course-taking patterns: Themore science courses teachers had taken in college, the bettertheir students performed.

At first glance, U.S. teachers seem well prepared academi-cally Almost all U.S. public school teachers have a bachelorsdegree, and 42 percent have a master' degree (National Centerfor Education Statistics, 2006b). What accounts, then, for therelatively poor science performance of U.S. students?

One reason is that too many science classes are taught byteachers who have inadequate preparation in the subject.Ingersoll (2003) found that in 1999-2000, 43 percent ofpublic school life science classes and 59 percent of physicalscience classes in grades 7-12 were taught by teachers withoutan academic major or minor in those subjects.

But even if schools could ensure that all science classes weretaught by teachers who had majored or minored in the subjectsthey taught, we have no evidence that such an effort would

guarantee exemplary science instruction. Even teachers whoare highly prepared to teach their subjects need ongoingprofessional development that enables them to refine theirskills. The programs described here provide substantialevidence that well-formulated and sustained professionaldevelopment programs for teachers can significantly improvestudent achievement in science.

What Science Teachers Should KnowResearch points to the essential ingredients of effective profes-sional development in science. An analysis of the performanceof more than 7,700 8th grade students on the 1996 NAEP

science exam, along with their teachers' responses to a NAEPsurvey of teaching practices (Wenglinsky, 2000), found thatstudent scores tended to be higher when the teachers' profes-sional development experience included significant training infour areas:

m Laboratory skills. Overall, students whose teachers hadreceived professional development in laboratory skills scorednearly one-half a grade level above students whose teacherslacked such training. Teachers with laboratory skills trainingwere more likely to avoid cookbook laboratory exercises andencourage their students to make connections between labora-tory experiences and underlying scientific concepts.

Teachers Need

Many studies show a close correlationbetween student achievement in scienceand teacher preparation in science.

n Hands-on learning. Students whoseteachers had been trained to engagethem in classroom exercises and projectsthat involve physical activity-such asbuilding a functional, propeller-drivenairplane--did better on the NAEPscience assessment than students whoseteachers lacked such training. Overall,students exposed to hands-on scienceactivities once a week were 40 percent ofa grade level further ahead in sciencethan students exposed to such exercisesonly once a month.

m Instructional technology. Within theclassroom, students cannot view avolcanic eruption firsthand or peerthrough an electron microscope. But byusing the Intemet creatively, teacherscan enable students to observe eruptionsand experience how it feels to usesophisticated research instruments.Students whose teachers used such tech-nology in the classroom performedbetter on the NAEP science assessmentthan their counterparts in other class-rooms did (Wenglinsky, 2005).

m Frequent formative assessment.Students whose teachers administeredweekly point-in-time multiple-choiceand short-answer assessments werenearly a full grade level (90 percent)ahead of students exposed to such testsless frequently

The statistical significance of thesefindings is sufficiently robust to justifypilot studies of the effects of teacherprofessional development that supportsthese four practices. Columbia Univer-sity's Summer Research Program forSecondary School Science Teachersrecently conducted such a study

The Summer Research ProgramColumbia's program, initiated in 1990,enrolls 10-12 new participants eachsummer. The program selects teachers

26 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/DECEMBER 2006/JANUARY 2007

on the basis of a demonstratedcommitment to teaching (forexample, sponsoring a scienceclub); creativity (for example,implementing a new curriculum);and resourcefulness (forexample, creating a lab in aschool that does not have one).Participating teachers receiveappointments as visiting scholarsand conduct full-time researchin Columbia University laborato-ries under the mentorship ofuniversity faculty members foreight weeks during two consecu-tive summers. The two-summerrequirement is designed tostrengthen the commitment ofboth the students and theuniversity faculty members whowork with them.

Teachers receive a stipend of$6,000 each summer and anadditional $1,000 in classroomenrichment funds following eachsummer of participation. Theenrichment funds help theteachers transfer the conceptsthat they learn at Columbia totheir classrooms and students by givingtheir students firsthand experience withthe tools of contemporary science, suchas electrophoresis equipment, spec-trophotometers, and microscopes.Teachers also receive a ColumbiaUniversity library card and amodem/network card that enables themto connect their classroom computer tothe Internet.

Teachers work in laboratories in allscience departments at the universityEach teacher works with a differentfaculty mentor on a scientific problem.Through this experience, each teacheracquires in-depth knowledge and exper-tise in certain aspects of a specific scien-

One in-depth

experience in the

practice of science

can change an entire

teaching career.

tific discipline (for example organicchemistry, molecular biology, oceanog-raphy, or astrophysics) and mastersseveral technologies employed in thatdiscipline. All teachers are treated asprofessionals. They are challenged to

think independently andcreatively as they engage in thestudy of authentic contemporaryscientific problems. These expe-riences stretch teachers intellec-tually and personally and givethem a deeper understanding ofhow successful scientists practicescience.

Teachers meet weekly as agroup for seminars and profes-sional development exercises tohelp them incorporate theconcepts, skills, and technologieslearned at Columbia into theirclassrooms. For example, a dataanalysis seminar trains teachersto use standardized test resultsfor formative and normativepurposes. In their weekly meet-ings, teachers also network withone another. By the end of eachsummer, they have established aprofessional learning community

The program also providesfunds to enable Columbia grad-uate students and postdoctoralfellows who have worked withthe teachers during the summer

to visit the teachers' home schools eachmonth. Through these school visits,along with telephone consultations ande-mails, the graduate students andfellows help teachers design and imple-ment hands-on exercises in their classes.They also serve as role models forstudents, many of whom have never meta scientist.

Evidence of ImprovedTeaching and LearningFrom its inception, the SummerResearch Program for Secondary SchoolScience Teachers has strongly empha-sized program evaluation. This evalua-tion confirms that the program has a

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 27

positive effect on teachers and theirstudents.

Teachers who participate in theprogram undertake more constructivistpractices when they return to theirschools. They have a better under-standing of their students' difficultiesbecause of the challenges they them-selves experienced in adapting to aresearch environment. They also changethe ways they respond to -students. Theyno longer call students' responses to

questions "right" or "wrong"; instead,they ask, "Why do you think that?" Theyacknowledge their own uncertainty bysaying, "That's a good question. I don'tknow the answer, but I can tell you howwe can find out."

Teachers who have taken part in theprogram are also much less likely toleave teaching than are nonparticipatingteachers. Over the life of the program,fewer than 5 percent of all programparticipants have left education,

compared with an annual attrition rateof 15 percent for science teachers ingeneral (Weisbaum & Huang, 200 1).

Students also benefit from theirteachers' participation in the program. Inthe academic year following completionof the program, participating teachers'students are two and one-half timesmore likely to undertake a project for anational science competition, and nearlyfour times more likely to participate inschool science clubs, than are studentsof nonparticipating teachers in the sameschools. Most important, in theacademic year following teacher comple-tion of the program, 7-8 percent moreof their students pass the New York StateRegents exam in science than do otherteachers' students in the same schools.Studies in progress suggest that thesepositive effects persist for at least twoyears after teachers complete theprogram. It is possible that one in-depthexperience in the practice of science canchange an entire teaching career.

These findings regarding Columbia'sSummer Research Program confirm theconclusions of the analysis of 1996NAEP science results: Professional devel-opment that focuses on improvingteachers' laboratory skills and stimu-lating them to implement more hands-on, constructivist practices in theirclassrooms and laboratories can signifi-cantly improve student achievement inscience. But despite these encouragingfindings, it is premature to conclude thatprofessional development programsemphasizing these principles willroutinely produce similar outcomes.More research is required-ideallyrigorous, randomized, controlled trials.

One such effort is now underway inAlabama, where the state department ofeducation is conducting an ongoing

28 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/DECEMBER 2006/JANUARY 2007

study of the Alabama Math, Science, andTechnology Initiative. Hundreds ofAlabama schools have participated inthis initiative since 2002. its key activityis a two-week summer institute at whichall teachers in participating schools learnhow to implement hands-on activities,effectively facilitate student laboratorywork, use instructional technology toenrich and enliven the study of suchtopics as soil erosion, and link all of thishands-on work to higher-order thinking.

Preliminary evaluations show thatstudents in participating schools areperforming better in math and sciencethan their counterparts in nonpartici-pating schools (Alabama Math, Science,and Technology Initiative, 2006). TheAlabama Department of Education isnow conducting an evidence-based eval-uation that has identified 20 pairs ofroughly comparable schools andrandomly designated one school in eachpair as a participant in the initiative andone as part of a control group. Theresults of this methodologically robustevaluation will provide solid evidenceabout whether similar professionaldevelopment initiatives hold promise forraising science and mathematicsachievement.

Evaluating ProfessionalDevelopment in ScienceIn the future, we hope to see furtherevidence-based evaluations of the effectsof science teacher professional develop-ment. Such research can empiricallyverify the effects of a menu of profes-sional development activities. Althoughthe four key components of effectivescience teaching identified in the anal-ysis of 1996 NAEP data-laboratoryskills, hands-on learning, use of instruc-tional technology, and frequent forma-

tive assessment-provide a foundationfor such professional development,specific programs should emphasizesome components more heavily thanothers, depending on school-specificfactors, such as existing laboratory andtechnology resources as well as teacherexpertise.

Development and dissemination ofempirically verified professional devel-opment programs for science teacherscan improve the performance of thepresent generation of teachers andincrease their students' interest andachievement in science. Federal and

state governments could play key rolesin this process by including laboratoryskills in science standards and byproviding long-term financial supportfor demonstrably effective professionaldevelopment programs. If such supportleads to improvement in studentacademic achievement, the resourcesinvested will be repaid many timesover. M

ReferencesAlabama Math, Science, and Technology

Initiative (AMSTI). (2006). Summary ofAMSTI external evaluation, student achieve-ment data, 2005. Available: www.amsti.org/documents/AMSTIevalsummary5-06.pdf

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Out-of-field teachingand the limits of teacher policy. Seattle:Center for the Study of Teaching andPolicy, University of Washington.

Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation ofsecondary mathematics and science

teachers and student achievement.Economics of Education Review, 13(2),125-145.

National Center for Education Statistics.(2003). Highlights from the Trends in Inter-national Mathematics and Science Study:TIMSS 2003. Washington, DC: Author.Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005005

National Center for Education Statistics.(2006a). The nation's report card: Science2005. Washington, DC: Author. Available:http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006466

National Center for Education Statistics.(2006b). Digest of education statistics: 2005(Table 66). Washington, DC: Author.

Weisbaum, K., & Huang, D. (2001). IISME

teacher retention and program impact evalua-tion 1985-2000. Cupertino, CA: IndustryInitiatives for Science and Math Education.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teachingmatters: Bringing the classroom back intodiscussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technologywisely: The keys to school success. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Harold Wenglinsky is Research Asso-ciate, National Center on Addiction andSubstance Abuse, 633 Third Ave.,Newark, NY 10017; 212-841-5248;hwenglinsky@casacolumbia.org. SamuelC. Silverstein is John C. DaltonProfessor and Chairman of the Depart-ment of Physiology and CellularBiophysics, Columbia University, andFounder and Director of the SummerResearch Program for Secondary SchoolScience Teachers.

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 29

Of the many steps needed to improvescience education, none is more importantthan improving teacher training.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The Science Training Teachers NeedSOURCE: Educ Leadership 64 no4 D 2006/Ja 2007

WN: 0633503461004

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.