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

Anita Schuchardt, Miray Tekkumru-Kisa, Christian D. Schunn, Mary Kay Stein, Birdy Reynolds

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 1 Citations

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.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages1015-1033
Number of pages19
JournalScience Education
Volume101
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

curriculum
learning
student
teacher
science
mathematical modeling
Curriculum
Professional Development
Student Learning
Learning Outcomes
Prediction
mathematics
classroom
cause
ability
resources

Keywords

  • educative curriculum materials
  • mathematical modeling
  • Next Generation Science Standards
  • professional development
  • student learning

Cite this

How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes. / Schuchardt, Anita; Tekkumru-Kisa, Miray; Schunn, Christian D.; Stein, Mary Kay; Reynolds, Birdy.

In: Science Education, Vol. 101, No. 6, 01.11.2017, p. 1015-1033.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schuchardt, Anita ; Tekkumru-Kisa, Miray ; Schunn, Christian D. ; Stein, Mary Kay ; Reynolds, Birdy. / How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes. In: Science Education. 2017 ; Vol. 101, No. 6. pp. 1015-1033.
@article{809f04fbe7384fcb8070df4aeb3d36e8,
title = "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.",
keywords = "educative curriculum materials, mathematical modeling, Next Generation Science Standards, professional development, student learning",
author = "Anita Schuchardt and Miray Tekkumru-Kisa and Schunn, {Christian D.} and Stein, {Mary Kay} and Birdy Reynolds",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/sce.21302",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "1015--1033",
journal = "Science Education",
issn = "0036-8326",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes

AU - Schuchardt, Anita

AU - Tekkumru-Kisa, Miray

AU - Schunn, Christian D.

AU - Stein, Mary Kay

AU - Reynolds, Birdy

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - educative curriculum materials

KW - mathematical modeling

KW - Next Generation Science Standards

KW - professional development

KW - student learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026447613&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026447613&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sce.21302

DO - 10.1002/sce.21302

M3 - Article

VL - 101

SP - 1015

EP - 1033

JO - Science Education

T2 - Science Education

JF - Science Education

SN - 0036-8326

IS - 6

ER -