Teachers' salient beliefs about a problem-solving demonstration classroom in-service program

Teachers’ Salient Beliefs about a Problem-Solving Demonstration Classroom In-Service Program

Julie A. Luft

Department of Teaching and Teacher Education, College of Education, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona 85721

Received 2 August 1996; first revision 11 February 1998; second revision 21 April 1998; accepted 4 May 1998

Abstract: Each year science teachers have the opportunity to participate in a variety of in-service pro-grams, with the most traditional yearlong in-service agendas consisting of a preprogram, program, andfollow-up program. One alternative to the traditional program is the inclusion of demonstration classroomswithin the follow-up segment. This study specifically explored the beliefs of in-service teachers about onesuch program; the Problem-Solving Demonstration Classroom in-service program. To capture participants’beliefs, open-ended interviews, focus groups, and observations were conducted throughout a yearlongProblem-Solving Demonstration Classroom in-service program. The collected data were inductively ana-lyzed to identify the salient beliefs of participants. The results of this study suggest that the Problem-Solving Demonstration Classroom in-service program provided participating teachers an opportunity toaddress their instructional needs pertaining to problem solving, develop a view of the student in the con-text of problem solving, redefine their understanding of problem solving, reflect upon their own instruc-tional practice, and engage in a collegial and mentoring dialogue with peers. This preliminary investiga-tion suggests that the demonstration classroom program may be one variation to the traditional yearlongin-service program that is worthy of further exploration. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach36: 141–158, 1999

The current menu of professional development strategies for science educators includesconventions, workshops, institutes, in-service programs, and academic coursework. In the Unit-ed States, these programs are often supported by the Department of Education’s Dwight D.Eisenhower mathematics and science funds; Regional Educational Laboratories; National Sci-ence Foundation’s initiatives in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology; the Nation-al Diffusion Network; and major organizations (e.g., National Science Teachers Association, Na-tional Association of Biology Teachers). The funding provided by these organizations is oftensubstantial. In 1992, the National Science Foundation allocated approximately $50 million tostimulate curricular content and pedagogical change in science and mathematics (Suter, 1993),while the Eisenhower program spent $246 million to improve the skills of teachers and qualityof instruction in science and mathematics (Crudup, 1993). In addition to large-scale organiza-tions, regional agencies, state agencies, and local districts expend funds for the professional de-velopment of in-service teachers. The financial support provided for a variety of professionaldevelopment activities is one indicator of organizational and agency commitment to the im-provement of mathematics and science education.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 36, NO. 2, PP. 141–158 (1999)

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/99/020141-18

Although there is a substantial amount of funding for the improvement of science and math-ematics programs in the United States, current in-service practices and classroom impact maybe minimal at best. For example, Eisenhower science and mathematics funds are often spreadthin and provide only short-term in-service training experiences, with the average in-service be-ing about 6 h/year per teacher (U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, 1992). In addition,in-service formats that are destined for failure are frequently employed: one-shot workshops, in-service programs without dialogue with future participants, small amounts of follow-up, infre-quent follow-up evaluation, lack of individual need recognition, and lack of coordination forsystemic change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Klapper, Berlin, & White, 1994). In the excite-ment to create in-service programs that promote change in teaching, professional developmentcoordinators can easily achieve the opposite.

Creating an in-service program that is conducive to the advancement of a teacher’s prac-tice is possible–as is demonstrated by the plethora of literature in this area. Over the years, re-searchers and staff development specialists have examined the effects of in-service programs(e.g., Abell, 1988; Butts et al., 1993; Lawrenz, 1984; Luft & Pizzini, 1998; Marx et al., 1994;Richardson, 1994; Sparks, 1986), synthesized research on in-service programs (e.g., Korinek &Schnid, 1985; O’Brien, 1992; Showers, Joyce, & Bennet, 1987; Sparks, 1983; Wade, 1984), anddiscussed the structure of effective in-service programs (e.g., Constable & Long, 1991; Fullan& Stiegelbauer, 1991; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998;Sparks & Hirsh, 1997). Ultimately, this literature informs professional development coordina-tors who are planning in-service programs about possible in-service formats such as 1 week oftraining with follow-up sessions, a summer institute, or a yearlong university course; the train-ing processes of peer coaching, modeling of effective practice, and case studies that are con-ducive to the enhancement of a teacher’s practice; the various approaches to inquiry instructionthat support program goals; and the use of administrators, community, and teams of teachersfrom schools to ensure teacher participation and on-going support.

Given the financial commitment to in-service, the status of some in-service programs, andthe existing knowledge base pertaining to in-service programs for teachers, it seems appropri-ate to explore alternative in-service programs that can maximize current in-service efforts. Itwas the purpose of this study to explore the potential of one alternative in-service program forscience teachers, one that combines visits to a demonstration classroom with a yearlong in-ser-vice program. Specifically, this study examined the salient beliefs of science teachers who par-ticipated in a demonstration classroom program that focused on problem solving. The findingsabout participants’ beliefs reveal the potential of the Problem-Solving Demonstration Classroom(PSDC) in-service program to ultimately affect classroom instruction, while also contributing tothe knowledge base of demonstration classroom in-service programs.

Relevant Literature

PSDCs

The PSDC in-service program was originally developed to combine a traditional in-serviceprogram of training and follow-up with a demonstration program in which participants visit aclassroom engaged in Search, Solve, Create, and Share (SSCS) problem solving (Pizzini, Hu-ber, & Shymansky, 1988; Shepardson & Pizzini, 1992, 1993). Visits to classrooms were addedto assist participants in understanding the advocated in-service methodology. Participants in thePSDC in-service program, for example, attended a summer workshop on SSCS problem solv-

142 LUFT

ing, then used the methodology in their classrooms when school was again in session. After at-tempting SSCS problem solving in their classrooms, participants made two visits to a teacher’sclassroom that was actively engaged in SSCS problem solving and had a teacher who was ex-perienced in SSCS problem-solving instruction. Prior to and following the demonstration class-room visit, participants had the opportunity to discuss the implementation of SSCS problemsolving with the demonstration teacher. A few weeks after visiting the demonstration classroom,participants attended a follow-up session that specifically addressed the concerns of participantsthat became evident during the demonstration classroom visit. This cycle was repeated two timesduring the 10-month school year. A complete discussion of the theoretical framework of the pro-gram and the development and enactment of the PSDC in-service program can be found in Wil-son and Pizzini (1994, 1996) and Luft and Pizzini (1998).

Previous studies on SSCS problem solving and demonstration in-service programs providesignificant information to this study. Abell (1988) examined behavioral changes of teachers whoparticipated in an SSCS problem-solving in-service program. In a nonrandomized control group,pretest-posttest design containing 22 middle school teachers (Grades 5 and 8) in each treatment,she found that teachers who used SSCS problem solving spent less time on lecture and proce-dural talk and more time observing, listening, and questioning students. Luft and Pizzini (1998)in a one group pretest-posttest study of 13 teachers (Grades 3–6) found various instructionalchanges among the teachers who participated in the PSDC in-service program. Participatingteachers significantly increased the amount of time their students spent in cooperative groups,the amount of time their students actively participated in problem solving, and the responsibil-ity students had in generating a problem and plan. These teachers also significantly altered theirroles in their classes by increasing their questioning, clarifying, and observing behaviors. Thesestudies are significant in that they document the behavioral changes that teachers made, yet thesestudies do not address the underlying beliefs that directly influence teacher change. Under-standing the beliefs that influence teacher change may assist professional development coordi-nators in forming demonstration in-service programs that are more conducive to participants’needs.

Teacher Beliefs

Beliefs are personal constructs that can provide an understanding of a teacher’s practice(e.g., Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996); yet the nature of this relationship is notwell understood. Fang (1996) suggested that beliefs may or may not relate to practice. After re-viewing the research, Fang pointed out that practice can be consistent with a teacher’s beliefs,yet contextual factors may influence behaviors to be inconsistent with beliefs. Richardson(1996) suggested that beliefs and actions are interactive, with experiences and reflection on ac-tion leading to changes or additions to beliefs. Pajares (1992) supported the notion that beliefsof teachers influence their perceptions, which in turn affects their behaviors in the classroom.He also suggested that beliefs can change, but change is dependent upon the duration and for-mation of beliefs. Guskey (1985) concluded that beliefs change after a teacher’s classroom prac-tice changes. He suggested that when a teacher’s classroom practice changed, the student out-comes changed, thus a fostering the change in teacher beliefs. The varied discussion aboutbeliefs and practice supports the need to further examine the nature of beliefs and their con-nection to practice.

A direct beneficiary of beliefs research is in-service coordinators. Specifically, by under-standing in-service teachers’ beliefs, in-service programs can be better designed to meet teachers’

BELIEFS ABOUT DEMONSTRATION CLASSROOM PROGRAMS 143

needs as they revisit their practice. Richardson (1996) stressed the need to understand the beliefsof in-service teachers, as the beliefs of in-service teachers are more likely to change than those ofpreservice teachers. The Practical Argument Staff Development (PASD) program (Richardson,1994) eloquently demonstrated how an understanding of teacher beliefs can influence the devel-opment and enactment of a staff development program. The PASD program, grounded in atten-tion to teacher beliefs, was developed to be an open-ended in-service program that “was designedto help teachers examine their own beliefs and practices, change and develop new beliefs, and ex-periment with new practices” (Richardson & Anders, 1994, p. 204). As a result, PASD participantsfrequently explored their practices and beliefs with a facilitator throughout the program.

Recent studies on in-service science teachers have also provided new insights about teacherbeliefs (e.g., Gallagher, 1991; Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996; Hashweh, 1996; Martens,1992; Salish Research Consortium, 1997). For example, Martens’ case study revealed how thebeliefs that a teacher held influenced the degree of implementation of a problem-solving ap-proach in science. Hashweh’s study of 35 science teachers found constructivist beliefs corre-sponded with constructivist behaviors. Salish researchers found new science teachers held be-liefs inconsistent with their practice, but over time both practice and beliefs aligned. Haney,Czerniak, and Lumpe concluded that understanding and acknowledging teachers’ beliefs whenforming an in-service program is critical to the success of the in-service program. These stud-ies suggest that beliefs can influence behavior, teacher beliefs need to be recognized by in-ser-vice coordinators, and the modification of beliefs takes time.

Methods

Research Frame

In this study, capturing teachers’ beliefs was important to understanding the PSDC in-ser-vice program. Yet, the lack of previous research on demonstration classrooms and the novel in-service methodology being advocated reinforced a qualitative approach (Wilson, 1977). Fur-thermore, a quantitative format might have imposed limitations not desired in this study(Cronbach, Glesser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam, 1972), such as designating parameters of assessment,measuring topics of interest to the researcher, and missing topics important to participants.

Understanding beliefs, according to Pajares (1992) and Richardson (1996), is best com-pleted through a process of interview and observation. To capture teacher beliefs about thePSDC in-service program, participants engaged in focus groups about the PSDC in-service pro-gram; they were interviewed throughout the course of the PSDC in-service program, observedin the PSDC, and observed implementing SSCS problem solving in their classrooms. In addi-tion, documents created by participants as they visited the PSDC were collected.

Participants

The PSDC in-service project included participants from three sites in a midwestern state inthe United States. Each site had teachers who had received previous training in SSCS problemsolving and used SSCS problem solving in unique ways. Teachers at each site who were willingto develop a PSDC in-service program were trained as lead teachers and financially supported toenact a PSDC in-service program. Two sites were located in rural areas, while the other site waslocated in a university town. PSDC in-service participants from the two rural sites were used topilot and reevaluate emergent themes in the research, while PSDC in-service participants fromthe university town were the primary population of study within this research project.

144 LUFT

Eighteen teachers from a small midwestern school district in a university town initially vol-unteered to participate in a yearlong in-service program that emphasized mathematics and sci-ence integration through SSCS problem solving. Attrition after the summer workshop loweredthe final number of participants to 13, and all elected to participate in the research project. Ofthe 5 teachers who did not participate, 1 was assigned different instructional responsibilities, 3indicated that they felt the model would not work for them, and 1 did not have enough time toparticipate because of afterschool commitments.

The 13 participants were instructors in the upper elementary level: Grades 3–6. Teachingexperience among the 12 women and 1 man ranged from 2 to 25 years, with the mean being11.3 years. Nine of the participants held bachelor’s degrees, four held master’s degrees, and noneheld a degree within the field of science. As teachers, 6 spent approximately 1.5–2 h on scienceper week, while 7 spent more than 2 h on science per week. All were active participants in work-shops and indicated that they enjoyed learning about new practices, and three had limited ex-perience with SSCS problem solving.

Teachers who volunteered to participate in this program were provided with 4 release daysduring the school year to attend a SSCS problem-solving demonstration classroom, and they re-ceived compensation for attending the 4-day summer workshop.

Data Collection

To capture participants’ beliefs, interviews, focus groups, and observations were conduct-ed throughout the school year (10 months, August through May). In addition, notes that partic-ipants took while they attended the PSDC were also collected. Multiple methods of data col-lection were used to eliminate some of the bias that can occur when either method is used alone(Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Mathison, 1988) and improve the validity of the research findings.

Data collection began with focus groups of PSDC in-service program participants who werelocated at rural sites and had visited a demonstration classroom. Three focus groups, two at onesite and one at the other, were used to generate ideas and hypotheses that would be exploredfurther with the PSDC participants who were the focus of this study. Each focus group was or-ganized and facilitated by the researcher of this study or a research assistant. The focus groupproceeded according to guidelines by Wanat (1993), which entailed: (a) an introduction to thistype of research and group rules, (b) a discussion of two open-ended questions, (c) a request fornew ideas, and (d) a summary of the key points. Each 6–8-person focus group lasted 1–2 h andwas audiotaped, then later transcribed.

From the focus group data, a semistandardized interview was developed, then piloted andrefined to ensure appropriate wording and sequencing that provided opportunities for partici-pants to discuss their beliefs (Berg, 1998; Fontana & Frey, 1994). When the interview schedulewas refined, 13 midwestern PSDC in-service participants were interviewed following the firstdemonstration classroom visit in the fall. Interviews lasted 45 min to 1 h, were conducted bythe researcher of this study, and were audiotaped and later transcribed. Both the focus group andinterview schedules can be found in Wilson (1994, pp. 171–176).

A second round of focus groups was conducted in the spring with two groups of 10 teach-ers from each rural site who were participating in the PSDC in-service program and had visited a demonstration classroom. The emergent themes from the first focus groups and firstinterviews were emphasized in the second round of focus groups. These focus groups wereused to stimulate the thinking of the researchers and to be reflective of the type of knowledgethat was being sought (Calder, 1977). Focus groups were not a substitute for interviews orparticipant observations, but they were used to find information that is difficult to obtain fromeither interviews or observations (Morgan, 1988). The focus groups lasted approximately


1.5 h, were conducted by the researcher of this study, and were audiotaped, then later tran-scribed.

The final interview was semistandardized (Berg, 1998) and was conducted with PSDC par-ticipants after they attended the spring demonstration classroom. The interview reflected previ-ous themes, yet provided opportunities for participants to discuss relevant areas in-depth. Finalinterviews lasted 1–2 h, were conducted by the researcher of this study, and were audiotaped,then later transcribed. The final interview schedule is located in Wilson (1994, pp. 177–180).

Participant observations were collected to complement the verbal expressions found in theinterviews and the focus groups (Alder & Alder, 1994; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). As partic-ipant observers, the researcher of this project or a research assistant took extensive notes dur-ing the follow-up sessions (two sessions), the summer workshop (4 days), each day of the falland spring demonstration classroom (10 days each, 20 days total), and when participants en-acted SSCS problem solving in their classes (46 observations). The observers adhered to a strictpolicy of nonintervention so that the participants would be captured in their true state through-out their involvement in the PSDC in-service program. The notes were later transcribed intowritten documents that represented the demonstration classroom and SSCS problem solving ineach participant’s classroom. In addition to participant observations by researchers, observationsby participants were collected (52 documents). Specifically, notes written by participants as theyobserved the demonstration teacher in the demonstration classroom were collected as a partici-pant observation from the participant’s perspective. While these documents provided informa-tion for discussion between the demonstration teacher and the participants after an observation,they also revealed the participants’ perspective about SSCS problem solving and the PSDC in-service program. As unobtrusive and solicited documents, these participant observations pro-vided information that was unobtainable through any other means (Berg, 1998) to allow the re-searcher to experience the reality of the demonstration classrooms as the participants did (Alder& Alder, 1994; Marshall & Rossman, 1989).

Data Analysis

The constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1994) wasused to analyze the focus group, interview, and observational data. Specific analysis procedureswere drawn from Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and Marshall and Rossman (1989): specifically, theformat for labeling raw data and the recording of emerging themes. During each analysis ses-sion, the researcher of this study and two research assistants were present to label and discussthe emerging data. Each label received consensus from all researchers before it was accepted.The final emergent themes about participants’ beliefs were derived by the researcher and oneresearch assistant.

Triangulation of the emergent data was completed through multiple sources, multiplecoders, and repeated data collection (Maxwell, 1996). Multiple sources included interviews andfocus groups, participants, and observations. Three researchers analyzed all data that was col-lected repeatedly throughout the year. Triangulation was emphasized for the reason of present-ing meaningful propositions that represented the convergent beliefs of participants, while al-lowing an examination of the inconsistencies and contradictions that became evident in the datacollection (Mathison, 1988). Furthermore, triangulation was used to reduced the bias inherentin qualitative research, and to present findings representative of participants’ beliefs.

Results and Discussion

The responses of participants were highly individualized and demonstrated that each par-ticipant held a different perspective about the PSDC in-service program. Although several dif-

146 LUFT

ferences among the participants became apparent during the research process, a number oftrends pertaining to beliefs were revealed. At the completion of the constant comparative analy-sis, 44 categories were revealed that represented participants’ beliefs about the PSDC in-serviceprogram. These categories were further examined and consolidated to represent participants’salient beliefs about the topic. This section contains the six emergent teacher beliefs, with pseu-donyms used for all participants throughout the discussion.

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program ExperiencedInstructional Strategies Important to Their Implementation of SSCS Problem Solving

The teachers who participated in this in-service program were interested in learning to usethe SSCS problem-solving model in their classrooms. For these teachers, attending the PSDCprovided opportunities to observe SSCS problem solving in the classroom and to note severalof the demonstration teacher’s instructional strategies used to facilitate its enactment. Partici-pants often shared the importance of specific instructional strategies to their own implementa-tion of SSCS problem solving. For example, Mary was specifically interested in observing howCathy (the demonstration teacher) assisted students as they selected and refined their researchquestion. In the following statement, Mary reveals how she is uncertain with the assistance sheprovides students in revising their questions. She specifically states that she would like to seehow Cathy assists students in refining their questions.

I wanted to select a day where I thought, “Okay, I really just want to see how the studentsdevelop that one final research question.” And I really want to see how the demonstrationteacher goes about helping the students clarify their question. You know, I am unsure howmuch guidance to really give the kids. I have the tendency to say, “Well, now, if you wordit like this—it will make more sense.” I have a tendency to do that rather than let the kidscontinually refine and revise their own question. So I wanted to go on one of the daysCathy refined questions. (3.I2, p. 2)

Two weeks later, Mary incorporated some of the techniques that Cathy used during the ques-tion refining phase. “Mary,” the participant observer wrote, “is beginning her question refine-ment session just as Cathy did—she is listing unrefined questions on the overhead. During thesession Mary occasionally refines the students’ questions, but for the most part she is asking stu-dents to think about their questions and what the students are trying to investigate” (3.O4, p. 3).

Mary’s identification and use of a strategy was not unique. Other PSDC in-service programparticipants discussed observing the collection and analysis of data, the questions the demon-stration teacher asked the students, the use of cooperative learning techniques, the integrationof mathematics with SSCS problem solving, and management techniques that allowed severalgroups of students to conduct different investigations. Follow-up observational data indicatedthe presence of these strategies within participants’ SSCS problem-solving lessons. Participantsdid implement in varying degrees the instructional strategies they observed in the PSDC. It ap-pears that participants anticipated their needs pertaining to SSCS problem solving, observed thedemonstration teacher’s use of their preindentified strategy, then enacted the observed instruc-tional strategy in their own classroom. Luft and Pizzini (1998) reported that teachers who wereinvolved in the PSDC in-service program did make changes in their instruction, albeit often or-ganizational in nature. The opportunity to observe another teacher more than likely contributedto the changes that participants enacted.

The variety of responses about the instructional strategies that were observed suggests thatthe PSDC in-service program provided each participant with an opportunity to observe the in-structional strategy that each participant needed to understand to enact SSCS problem solving.


Specifically, the live demonstration provided an opportunity for participants to address self-iden-tified instructional needs in regard to SSCS problem solving. Ultimately, while one lesson wasobserved by several participants, each participant extracted information from the lesson that wasrelevant to a self-identified instructional need.

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program Experienced Several Constraints to Implementing SSCS Problem Solving in Their Classroom

As participants discussed the use of SSCS problem solving in their classrooms, they alsoshared the constraints they perceived as they implemented SSCS problem solving. For exam-ple, participants frequently spoke freely about their time constraints in regard to SSCS problemsolving. They specifically commented that there was not enough time to implement an SSCSproblem-solving lesson. Participants felt that they did not have enough time to plan SSCS prob-lem-solving lessons, class periods were not long enough to implement SSCS problem solving,class periods were not long enough to address the needed mathematics or science concepts, andthere was not enough time to find the materials that students needed to complete SSCS prob-lem solving. When time was available, the shorter amounts of time presented more of a chal-lenge to complete an SSCS problem-solving cycle. June, a fifth-grade teacher, was often con-cerned about both the length of the period and the preparation needed to bring in the integrationof mathematics lessons. June stated more than once that she did not have a long enough classperiod to get around to each group and address each group’s questions or problems, and thatthere was not enough time to pull in the needed science or mathematics lessons (5.I1, p. 4).

If time did not hinder the implementation of SSCS problem solving in participants’ classrooms,then district and school associated constraints did. Participants felt constrained by the district be-cause they wanted to implement problem solving, yet it was not included in the district curriculum.For several participants, adhering to the district curriculum was important to their classroom in-struction. Sally, for example, felt that if her students did not cover the required district topics, theywould not have the needed science and mathematics understandings to succeed in middle school(9.I2, p. 4). Like the district mathematics and science curriculum, the district kits were also con-sidered to be limiting to SSCS problem solving. Teachers felt that they needed to complete the sci-ence kits as they arrived in their classrooms. Unfortunately, one kit was quickly followed by an-other, so there was little time to enact an SSCS problem-solving cycle. Within their schools,participants discussed the need for the support of the principal as they implemented SSCS problemsolving. The knowledge the principal had about SSCS problem solving indirectly sanctioned its usein the class. Kim, for instance, wanted her principal to know about the model and expect a highlevel of activity in the classroom when she observed Kim’s science class (6.I1, p. 3).

In addition to time and the district and school, participants were constrained by their sci-ence background and instructional philosophy. For some participants, the lack of a science back-ground made it hard for them to provide the correct answer to students. John, for example, feltif he could not provide the correct answer to students about their investigation, he would be hes-itant to use SSCS problem solving (7.I1, p. 3). Other participants could not shift the control ofthe lesson from themselves to the student and allow the lesson to be student directed. For theseteachers, the need for extensive daily lessons plans for each group of students was extremelytaxing and hindered their implementation of SSCS problem solving. Interestingly, these teach-ers did realize the need to be more student centered, but were unable to accommodate this phi-losophy at this time.

Throughout the PSDC in-service program participants shared the constraints they experi-enced pertaining to SSCS problem solving. For some participants, the same constraint was pres-

148 LUFT

ent throughout the entire in-service program. For other participants, when a constraint was elim-inated, a new constraint emerged. For example, one participant was initially unable to overcomethe student-centered nature of SSCS problem solving. When she was finally able to enact themodel, she was concerned that she was not meeting the current district standards. Yet, eventhough participants expressed their concerns about implementing SSCS problem solving, 75%of participants implemented SSCS problem solving two times or more in their classrooms (Luft& Pizzini, 1998). Clearly, participants were not constrained to a degree that they became non-participatory; instead, they did implement SSCS problem solving.

Previous studies about science teachers suggest that beliefs are important to a teacher’spractice (e.g., Abell & Roth, 1994; Hashweh, 1996; Martens, 1992), and the PSDC teachers areno different. The PSDC teachers held strong beliefs pertaining toward student-centered instruc-tion, as they elected to attend the PSDC in-service program to learn a method of student-cen-tered instruction. These teachers were developing a new practice, and their constraints becameevident as they mediated their prior practice with a new practice. The constraints these partici-pants experienced allowed for an interaction of beliefs and practice (Richardson, 1996) and areframing of their beliefs and practice; with participants progressing individually. For profes-sional development coordinators, it is important to acknowledge participants’ perceived con-straints, as they are critical in reframing participant beliefs which ultimately affects practice.

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program Reflected upon Their SSCS Problem-Solving Instruction

Throughout the PSDC in-service program, participants examined, framed, and attemptedto understand the dilemmas within their own instruction. Furthermore, they took part in cur-riculum development in regard to SSCS problem solving. Zeichner and Liston (1996) statedthat these are features of reflective practice. Throughout the PSDC in-service program, partic-ipants were reflective practitioners as they compared and contrasted their practice to that of thedemonstration teacher, and as they discussed how the PSDC clarified and nurtured their futureplans for using SSCS problem solving. All participants found the time to reflect about class-room practice to be valuable, especially because so little time is available during the normalschool day.

Reflective practice through comparison or confirmation was evident as participants dis-cussed their practice and that of Cathy, the demonstration teacher. When participants comparedtheir practice to Cathy’s practice, they spoke about her skill in handling her students and voiceda hope to acquire at least some aspect of her talent. Mary, for instance, began with the state-ment, “I wish that I was half the teacher that she is in class” (3.I1, p. 10), and then expandedwith a comparison of the questions that the demonstration teacher asked of students versus thequestions she asked of her students. For Marsha, the comparison led to an understanding thatshe was not letting the students tackle their own problems as they engaged in the investigation.These problems included telling the students what materials to use and how to reconfigure ex-perimental apparatus. Marsha simply stated, “As I watched her [the demonstration teacher] Iwas able to identify with the pieces of problem solving that I was not doing well: specifically,letting students solve their own problems” (13.I2, p. 4). While most participants compared theirpractice with that of the demonstration teacher, a few confirmed their current use of SSCS prob-lem solving. For these participants the act of confirmation reaffirmed their ability to use prob-lem solving as well as or better than the demonstration classroom teacher. Concisely and to thepoint, Jane said, “My students can do a much better job of problem solving than the demon-stration classroom students” (11.I2, p. 9).


The PSDC in-service program also provided participants with an opportunity to clarify anddirect their own SSCS problem-solving practices. Participants explored their own instructionand planned for future cycles as they watched the demonstration teacher and interacted with theteacher and other participants in the PSDC. During interviews and the postobservation sessions,participants thoughtfully shared clarified ideas about their own instruction and future cycles.Chris, for example, shared how she was more aware of the possibilities for the integration ofmathematics in her SSCS problem-solving cycles and how she could integrate the mathematicsto better meet the needs of her students (12.I2, p. 1). Likewise, Mary discussed how she un-derstood the importance of exploring misconceptions that students revealed in their journals; be-fore, she had felt that students’ misconceptions meant she was a “failure” (3.I2, p. 19). Maryrecognized student misconceptions and planned to use them to direct the inclusion of mini-lessons on specific topics throughout future SSCS problem-solving cycles.

As reflective practitioners, participants compared, contrasted, and reframed their instructionwhich improved their understanding of SSCS problem solving and its enactment. Visiting thePSDC and attending the large-group follow-up sessions were essential in providing participantswith an opportunity to engage in reflective practice. When participants enacted SSCS problemsolving, they created their own theories about their practice. However, when they observed thedemonstration teacher, discussed their practice, and processed their observation of the demon-stration teacher, they encountered alternative theories to their practice. Examination of theirpractice and that of others created an avenue for reflection through which they focused on re-viewing and revising practice—an essential component of being a reflective practitioner (Zeich-ner & Liston, 1996).

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program Experienced a Collegial and Mentoring Environment

Each participant found the informal and formal discussions that occurred in the PSDC in-service program to be valuable. The informal discussions were unplanned and occurred ran-domly among the participants, while the formal discussions were scheduled and involved thedemonstration teacher and participants engaging in conversation about the demonstration class-room observations. In either case, the interactions participants had with their peers provided col-legiality and mentoring that reduced the isolation they found in their teaching and gave themconfidence to enact SSCS problem solving in their classrooms.

The feeling of collegiality was fostered as participants had the ability to talk, watch, plan,and share with one another during the PSDC. Participants discussed with one another their ex-periences with SSCS problem solving, their observations of the demonstration classroom, thelessons they were planning, and the practices they used which were conducive to implementingSSCS problem solving. Similar to Little’s (1982) findings, talking, watching, planning, and shar-ing created a collegial environment that offered reassurance, renewed confidence, and encour-agement to all participants. John, for example, was relieved and encouraged to hear that his col-league was also having problems enacting SSCS problem solving. He specifically stated, “I wasrelieved to hear that Chris was having as many problems as I was during the cycle. I thought itwas just what I was doing, but it is a challenge to do something new” (2.O3, p. 3). Similarly,Mary was encouraged as fellow participants shared their plans for future SSCS problem-solv-ing lessons. She found it valuable to hear about lessons that she might be able to use, and it as-sured her that “problem solving is good and valuable science instruction” (3.I2, p. 2).

Mentoring was evident as the demonstration teacher and researcher of this study offeredsuggestions to the demonstration classroom participants. As is found in genuine mentoring sit-uations, the participants felt at ease in asking for advice and assistance from the demonstration

150 LUFT

teacher and researcher, because they were helpful, encouraging, sensitive, and enthusiastic(Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992). Participants often turned to these professionals toaddress their concerns and questions pertaining to SSCS problem solving. Sally recalled the ad-vice that was given to her pertaining to her desire to use direct instruction to solve a student’sproblem. “The demonstration teacher suggested that you have two options when a student’sSolve does not match the student’s question: You can refer them back to the question or you canindirectly point it out to them” (9.I1, p. 2). Sally continued to add that the demonstration teacherstated that just pointing out the inconsistency did not resolve the dilemma in the student’s mind,and that it was best to have the student recognize the inconsistency and resolve it personally.Sally added that it was difficult to enact an indirect approach, but the advice was valuable andshe had referred back to it each time she encountered a similar instructional situation.

In addition to the personal conversations, the sessions that followed the PSDC provided amentoring environment. Participants found the dialogue during this time conducive to the col-legiality between the participants and the demonstration teacher. During these sessions, partic-ipants had opportunities to clarify their observations and to provide feedback about their obser-vations to the demonstration teacher. Participants described the sessions as “rewarding” and“enlightening” as the demonstration teacher discussed her rationale and the decisions she madein the demonstration classroom. Participants specifically commented on the demonstrationteacher’s suggestions pertaining to cooperative learning and identifying a topic during an SSCSproblem-solving cycle.

The PSDC in-service program provided a collegial and mentoring environment for partic-ipants. This environment existed in formal settings when participants’ observations, questions,and dilemmas were discussed within a group. This environment also existed informally as par-ticipants discussed their experiences, observations, and lessons with one another during thedemonstration classroom. Formal opportunities for dialogue are common among typical in-ser-vice programs, while the informal opportunities for dialogue are not. Importantly, both settingscontributed to participants’ knowledge about SSCS problem solving, both provided support asparticipants enacted SSCS problem-solving lessons in their classrooms, and both provided op-portunities for participants to discuss and refine their beliefs about problem solving. Collegial-ity and mentoring are important within in-service programs (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991;Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998), and the combination of collegiality and mentoring (in both the for-mal and informal setting) may ultimately have played a significant role in supporting the teach-ers as they engaged in SSCS problem solving throughout the PSDC in-service program.

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program Modified Their Understanding of SSCS Problem Solving and Student-Centered Science Instruction

During the summer workshop, all participants constructed an initial understanding of SSCSproblem solving. Throughout the remainder of the PSDC in-service program, participants con-tinued to modify their understanding of SSCS problem solving as they visited the demonstra-tion classroom, implemented the problem solving model in their classrooms, and attended fol-low-up sessions. The different opportunities that participants had to modify their knowledge ofSSCS problem solving resulted in changes in their problem-solving lessons and in the pedagogythat accompanied problem-solving lessons. Participants discussed and demonstrated their abil-ities to modify their problem-solving lessons, while the participants who evolved their pedagogyspoke ardently about their newfound abilities.

Participants demonstrated continual modification of their understanding of SSCS problemsolving as they discussed a variety of lessons implemented and as they experimented with theplacement of their lessons. For most participants, the types of SSCS problem-solving lessons


implemented in the classroom began as extensions of typical science and mathematics lessons,such as light and force. Over time, participants broadened the scope of their lessons and incor-porated music, food, exercise, and the microworld—topics unique to the participants’ instruc-tional repertoire. Yet, this was not the only modification made by participants; they also dis-cussed and demonstrated a variety of instructional situations in which SSCS problem solvingwould be applicable. Throughout the year, participants incorporated SSCS problem solving intotwo different units: They used problem solving prior to a unit to develop a knowledge base, andthey used it for an extended period of time to develop in-depth knowledge within a topic.

In addition to participants modifying SSCS problem-solving lessons, they also modified thepedagogy that accompanied their problem-solving lessons. The pedagogical change that partic-ipants most frequently experienced entailed being facilitators of student learning. As facilitators,participants described themselves as guides, observers, questioners, and classroom participants.Furthermore, these roles required that participants be active in student learning and relinquishsome of their control in the problem-solving lesson. Mary described how she saw her role as afacilitator:

I think that it is important that a student see that there is a process in solving a problem.For me to have a student do this, I have to let go of the some of the control I have. Thisalso requires that I become more of a facilitator in the class. As a facilitator I also needto be a good kid watcher. By doing both I am able to see a need, in either math or sci-ence, and address it. I am really active as I do this. Identifying these needs by being ac-tive in the class was really clear to me in the demonstration classroom. Being active in-cludes being on your toes to ask the right question. You should never give kids patanswers, but you should give them more questions. For me, this is a new role. I had noidea about the role I should have as a teacher. During college I was always told that I hadthe answers and I should pass them on. Personally, I would much rather question the stu-dents. As I do SSCS I see that my instructional role has changed. (3.I2, p. 7)

For Mary and others, the PSDC reinforced the importance of monitoring students, while SSCSproblem solving advocated an environment that was question posing. Both assisted participantsin clarifying and modifying their roles as facilitators during their problem-solving instruction.

While the PSDC in-service program provided opportunities for participants to modify as-pects of their problem-solving instruction, they were also modifying other classroom practices.Participants felt they began to open up more of their science lessons, use brainstorming tech-niques more frequently, and use students’ ideas to direct science lessons. Kim described a changethat was salient among other participants. “In the past I gave the students the question that theywere to investigate. Furthermore, I would give them a new question each day. Now I let themcome up with a question, and I let them investigate it over several days” (6.I2, p. 11). After Chriscompleted a problem-solving lesson, she shared “how I think about science and the rest of myteaching has been affected. I realize that students have not been at the center of my instruction”(12.O2, p. 2). For these participants and others, learning how to create environments in whichstudents generate questions and define investigations became a practice that influenced otherforms of science instruction.

The PSDC in-service program provided several opportunities for participants to modifytheir SSCS problem-solving practice. Participants were encouraged to conduct their own SSCSproblem-solving lessons, they observed a demonstration teacher who was using SSCS problemsolving in her classroom, and they had numerous occasions to process the use of SSCS prob-lem solving. Experiencing SSCS problem solving through these different avenues may have fa-cilitated interaction between participants’ beliefs and practice, and ultimately influenced their

152 LUFT

instruction regarding SSCS problem solving and student-centered science. Participants in thisprogram modified their practice throughout the year and demonstrated changes that were con-sidered preliminary (Luft & Pizzini, 1998). Yet, it is clear that changes were occurring amongparticipants that extended beyond behavior. Beliefs of participants regarding SSCS problemsolving and student-centered science were also changing: fundamental philosophies pertainingto science instruction were being modified.

Participants in the PSDC In-service Program Developed a View of the Student in the Context of SSCS Problem Solving

Within the PSDC in-service program, participants had two different opportunities to ob-serve students participating in an SSCS problem-solving investigation. Participants observedstudents in the demonstration classroom and within their own classrooms. Both experiences andthe follow-up sessions contributed to each participant’s understanding of the student during anSSCS problem-solving investigation. Participants spoke intently and at length about their ownexperiences with students and the experiences of the demonstration teacher with students. Theexperiences revealed were vast; they encompassed the role the student took during SSCS prob-lem solving, the benefit of SSCS problem solving to the student, and the different abilities ofstudents during SSCS problem solving. Each contributed to participants’ views of students inthe context of an SSCS problem-solving lesson.

According to participants, students took on individual roles of being responsible teammembers, leaders, and cooperative group members. Participants felt the roles that students heldwere always present, yet subject to a change in emphasis throughout SSCS problem solving.Participants viewed students as responsible team members when they helped the group find andcollect the materials needed for an investigation and when students tried to answer their ques-tions first, then used other resources if the answer was not clear. In addition to roles of respon-sible team members, participants felt students demonstrated leadership roles. As leaders, stu-dents directed one another during the investigation and coordinated efforts among all studentsin the group. Finally, participants felt that students became cooperative team members. Partici-pants discussed how students organized materials for the group investigation, encouraged oneanother, sought to clarify and understand what other members said, and informed members whowere absent about the progress of the investigation.

Participants also described the benefits that students derived as they engaged in SSCS prob-lem solving. Participants felt strongly that SSCS problem solving allowed the students do sci-ence, be actively involved, work with equipment found in science, and learn about the natureof science. In addition, all participants felt that students benefited tremendously by researchingtheir own questions. Amy recounted these feelings in a discussion of her own problem-solvingexperiences:

I think its definitely made me see the power of letting kids research their own questions.Often their questions are probably better than the ones the I’d come up with, and they gettwice as much out of it—if not more because it is relevant to them. They are motivated;they want to research a question that’s relevant to their life. . . . I feel that the more prac-tice they seem to get at a process like this, the chances are greater that they will becomelifelong learners. They will continually ask questions like “Why does this work?” or “Whydoes this happen?” Questions not just about science, but about everything. (1.I3, p. 4)

Like other participants, Amy saw the benefit of letting students engage in their own science in-vestigations as a way for students to know that they can find answers and ask important questions.


As participants described their students and the demonstration teacher’s students, they dis-cussed the different abilities students revealed during SSCS problem solving. For participants,seeing student differences allowed them to recognize that all students come to the classroom asindividuals with a variety of experiences and conceptions. These participants remarked on stu-dents’ misconceptions, abilities to question one another, and limitations due to background ex-periences. For example, during an SSCS problem-solving lesson, Sally found out that some ofher students could not measure, while others were trying to understand the concept of heat. Forother participants, seeing the abilities of students during SSCS problem solving revealed thattheir instruction did not capitalize on students’ prior knowledge, abilities, or experiences. Chrisstated, “I’m seeing that students are more capable that I thought, and I have not been givingthem enough credit for what they really can do” (12.I2, p. 5). June remarked, “My studentsseemed capable to come up with an investigation and to use both math and science skills. I sawthis when I used the SSCS cycle. I would not have thought this previously” (11.I2, p. 8). Likeothers, these participants experienced the fact that students were more capable than they hadpreviously thought as students engaged in a SSCS problem-solving investigation.

Observing students in two different settings is uncommon in traditional in-service pro-grams. Participants in this program observed students in the PSDC and their own students whowere engaged in SSCS problem solving. Participants’ observations allowed them to form a viewof the student in the context of SSCS problem solving. It is unclear how viewing the student af-fected participants’ SSCS problem-solving practice, but it is clear that participants constructeda more expanded view of the student during SSCS problem solving. Constructing this view ofthe student may have clarified participants’ beliefs about student roles, abilities, and benefits,and ultimately influenced their practice (Guskey, 1985). It may have allowed participants to re-flect on actions which influenced beliefs and practice (Richardson, 1996). The salient nature ofthis belief suggests a benefit not captured through previous analyses of the PSDC in-service pro-gram. Including classroom observations during an in-service program may be beneficial to in-service participants, especially if participants are unsure of the effect of the in-service method-ology on students.

Significance and Implications

Three significant points can be made from this study. First, this study suggests that thePSDC in-service program provided an opportunity for participants’ beliefs and practices to in-teract. During the summer workshop, participants clarified their own beliefs about SSCS prob-lem solving while learning about the practice of SSCS problem solving. Throughout the year,as participants implemented SSCS problem solving in their classrooms and observed the demon-stration teacher, they had opportunities to explore their experiences with their peers, in-servicecoordinators, and the demonstration teacher. The varying forms of interaction provided numer-ous opportunities for participants to reveal and reframe their beliefs and practices. Reflecting onbeliefs and practice is important if instructional change is to occur (Richardson, 1996). The in-terchange that participants experienced between beliefs and practice would not have occurredin a traditional in-service program where participants primarily receive instruction about a spe-cific methodology.

Second, the structure of the PSDC in-service program allowed participants to personallyconstruct their understanding of SSCS problem solving in different areas (e.g., students, in-structional methods, the SSCS problem-solving model). As participants observed the demon-stration teacher, they focused on areas of importance to them. As participants interacted withpeers and the demonstration teacher, they had the opportunity to expand directly and indirectly

154 LUFT

upon their own personally constructed view of the SSCS problem-solving model. As partici-pants attended follow-up sessions, they had the opportunity to hear about the methods or prac-tices used by teachers experienced in SSCS problem solving. These different avenues of in-struction provided participants with different perspectives about SSCS problem solving.Furthermore, they were conducive to different learning styles and allowed participants to indi-vidually construct their own knowledge of SSCS problem solving at their own level of readi-ness.

Third, the highly interactive nature of the PSDC in-service program provided in-service co-ordinators with an understanding of participants’ beliefs, an important component of in-serviceprograms (Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996; Loucks-Horsely et al., 1998; Richardson, 1994).As the coordinators observed and listened to participants throughout the PSDC in-service pro-gram, the beliefs of participants became salient and provided in-service coordinators with an un-derstanding of participants’ current instructional philosophies. Ultimately, in-service coordina-tors and demonstration teachers facilitated follow-up sessions or visitations that addressedparticipants’ beliefs, thus supporting the continued advancement of their SSCS problem-solvingpractice (Luft, 1998).

In the future, the use of demonstration classrooms within in-service programs should be ex-plored. While visiting another educator’s classroom is not a panacea for increasing the proba-bility of implementation of an innovation, it does offer participants an opportunity to exploretheir beliefs and practices. It also reduces the isolation found in teaching by providing partici-pants with opportunities for informal and formal discussion; it offers a place for participants tohave their questions about the espoused methodology answered; and the demonstration class-room provides a representation of the in-service methodology that involves students. Ultimate-ly, participants can experience various forms of instructional support as they attempt to imple-ment a different model of instruction.

References

Abell, S.K. (1988). The effects of a problem solving in-service program on the classroombehavior and attitudes of middle school science teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Abell, S.K., & Roth, M. (1994). Constructing science teaching in the elementary school:The socialization of a science enthusiast student teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 3, 77–90.

Alder, P.A., & Alder, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Needham Heights,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Butts, D.P., Anderson, W., Atwater, M., Koballa, T., Simmons, P., & Hairson, R. (1993). In-service model to impact life science classroom practice: Part one. Studies in Science Education,113, 294–321.

Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research. Journalof Marketing Research, 14, 353–364.

Constable, H., & Long, A. (1991). Changing science teaching: Lessons for a long-termevaluation of a short in-service course. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 405–420.


Cronbach, L., Glesser, G., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of be-havioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.

Crudup, D. (1993). Dwight D. Eisenhower mathematics and science education program factsheet. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Ed-ucation.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Re-search, 38, 47–65.

Fontana, A., & Frey J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361—376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fullan, M.G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowl-edge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–133.

Glasser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qual-itative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Guskey, T.R. (1985). Staff development and teacher change. Educational Leadership, 42(7),57–60.

Haney, J.J., Czerniak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regard-ing the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 33, 971–994.

Hashweh, M.Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47–64.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development. WhitePlains, NY: Longman.

Klapper, M.H., Berlin, D.F., & White, A.L. (1994). Professional development: Startingplace for systemic reform. Cognosis, 3, 1–5.

Korinek, L., & Schnid, R. (1985). In-service types and best practices. Journal of Researchand Development in Education, 18, 33–38.

Lawrenz, F. (1984). An evaluation of the effect of two different lengths of in-service train-ing on teacher attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 497–506.

Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions andschool success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professionaldevelopment for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luft, J.A. (1998). Alternatively assessing an in-service program. School Science and Math-ematics, 98, 26–34.

Luft, J.A., & Pizzini, E.L. (1998). The demonstration classroom in-service: Changes in theclassroom. Science Education, 82, 147–162.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Martens, M.L. (1992). Inhibitors to implementing a problem-solving approach to teachingelementary science: Case study of a teacher in change. School Science and Mathematics, 92,150–156.

Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B., & Meyer,K.M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle-grade teachers. Ele-mentary School Journal, 94, 498–517.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

156 LUFT

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 19, 317–328.O’Brien, T. (1992). Science in-service workshops that work for elementary teachers. School

Science and Mathematics, 92, 422–426.Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and education research: Cleaning up a messy con-

struct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.Pizzini, E.L., Huber, R.A., & Shymansky, J.A. (1988). Science odysseys for the journeys

in science program. River Forest, NJ: Laidlaw Educational.Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in

reading instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula

(Ed.), The handbook of research in teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York:Macmillan.

Richardson, V., & Anders, P. (1994). A theory of change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacherchange and staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 199–216). New York:Teachers College Press.

Salish Research Consortium. (1997). A final report of secondary science and mathematicsteacher preparation programs: Influences on new teachers and their students. Iowa City: ScienceEducation Center, University of Iowa.

Shepardson, D.P., & Pizzini, E.L. (1992). A Comparison of the classroom dynamics of aproblem solving and traditional laboratory model of instruction using path analysis. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 29, 243–258.

Shepardson, D.P., & Pizzini, E.L. (1993). A comparison of student perceptions of scienceactivities within three instructional approaches. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 127–131.

Showers, J., Joyce, B., & Bennet, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77–87.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Asso-ciation for Supervision and Staff Development.

Sparks, G.M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Ed-ucational Leadership, 41(3), 65–72.

Sparks, G.M. (1986). The effectiveness of alternative training activities in changing teach-ing practices. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 217–225.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Den-zin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Suter, L.E. (Ed.). (1993). Indicators of science and mathematics, 1992. Washington, DC:National Science Foundation.

Senate Committee on Appropriations. (1992). Federal efforts in science and mathematicseducation: Special hearing. Washington DC: US GPO. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 348 226)

Wade, R.K. (1984). What makes a difference in in-service teacher education? A meta-analy-sis of research. Educational Leadership, 42(4), 48–55.

Wanat, C. (1993). Nominal and focus group process. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Iowa, Iowa City.

Wildman, T., Magliaro, S., Niles, R., & Niles, J. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis ofroles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 205–213.

Wilson, J.L. (1994). The effects of a demonstration classroom on elementary teachers in-


volved in a problem solving in-service program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Iowa, Iowa City.

Wilson, J.L., & Pizzini, E.L. (1994). A new perspective for science in-service: Problemsolving demonstration classrooms. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 30(3), 3–11.

Wilson, J.L., & Pizzini, E.L. (1996). A paradigm for developing a demonstration classroom.In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science education (pp. 214–220). Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association.

Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review ofEducational Research, 47, 10–15.

Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

158 LUFT

Documents

Teachers' salient beliefs about a problem-solving demonstration classroom in-service program