Content uploaded by Meilan Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Meilan Zhang on Aug 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs
for Professional Development
Meilan Zhang
1
•Joyce Parker
2,3
•Matthew J. Koehler
2
•
Jan Eberhardt
3
Published online: 31 May 2015
The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2015
Abstract Prior research has mainly focused on what makes professional devel-
opment effective from the program design perspective. However, there is a lack of
understanding about what teachers need for improvement in the context of educa-
tional reforms and curricular changes. This study used the pedagogical content
knowledge framework to examine teachers’ needs for professional development
situated in specific science topics. Data were drawn from a total of 118 science
teachers who participated in a professional development program over 3 years.
First, this study identified a list of common science topics that teachers needed to
improve in life science, physics science, and earth science. Also, teachers perceived
the needs to improve teaching of certain topics for different reasons: themselves,
students, and curricular changes. Moreover, data analysis showed that teachers
needed improvement in multiple areas of pedagogical content knowledge: learners,
instructional strategies, curriculum, and assessment. In particular, inquiry teaching
was one of the greatest challenges for most teachers.
Keywords Teacher professional development Inservice science teachers Needs
assessment Teacher learning Pedagogical content knowledge
&Meilan Zhang
mzhang2@utep.edu
1
College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso, EDUC 801D, 500 W. University Ave.,
El Paso, TX 79968, USA
2
College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
3
College of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
123
J Sci Teacher Educ (2015) 26:471–496
DOI 10.1007/s10972-015-9433-4
Introduction
There is little argument that teachers hold the key for the success of educational
reforms. Research shows that teacher effectiveness is a strong predictor of student
academic achievement (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). The recognition that
teachers are at the heart of educational reforms led policy makers and national
standards to demand high-quality professional development (PD) opportunities for
teachers. To improve teacher quality, each year the US federal government, states,
and school districts invest billions of dollars in PD for inservice teachers.
Unfortunately, the results of PD efforts have been largely disappointing. Too often,
teachers find PD irrelevant to their work in classrooms and misaligned with their
needs for improvement (Borko, 2004; Rotherham, Mikuta, & Freeland, 2008).
Lieberman and Mace (2008) criticized that ‘‘Professional development, though well
intentioned, is often perceived by teachers as fragmented, disconnected, and
irrelevant to the real problems of classroom practice’’ (p. 226).
A fundamental problem of traditional PD is that it fails to address teachers’ needs
(Borko, 2004; Rotherham et al., 2008). Thus, researchers call for PD programs to be
responsive to teachers’ needs for improving their practice. For example, Rotherham
et al. (2008) urged that ‘‘To strengthen professional development, the federal
government should draw on examples of well-tailored professional development
programs based on teachers’ needs’’ (p. 248). Therefore, more research is needed to
understand the needs of science teachers for improvement.
To fill the gap, this study aimed to examine teachers’ needs for PD. The context
of this study was a PD program for science teachers. To clarify, teachers’ actual
experience in the PD, while undoubtedly important, was beyond the scope of this
study. To tailor our PD to teachers’ needs, we asked teachers to choose two science
topics in their teaching that they felt were in great need for improvement. Teachers
were also asked to identify specific areas they hoped to improve in the two units. It
should be noted that teachers are situated in an ecological teaching system and have
to navigate through multiple demands posed by the school, community, district,
state, and national requirements and policies (Zhao & Frank, 2003). Therefore, what
teachers perceive to need improvement may be a reflection of external requirements,
rather than their own internal needs. Nonetheless, teachers’ self-perceived needs can
still provide valuable insights into the priorities and challenges in science teaching,
considering the central role of teachers in the ecological teaching system (Zhao &
Frank, 2003). The following research questions guided this study.
1. What science topics were perceived to need improvement by K-12 inservice
science teachers and why?
2. What aspects of knowledge did inservice science teachers need to improve for
the selected science topics?
3. How did teachers’ needs vary depending on teacher backgrounds including
teaching experience, grade-level, and gender?
472 M. Zhang et al.
123
Hewson (2007) argued that there are two essential focal points for discussing PD for
science teachers: programs and teachers. On one hand, from the perspective of
program design, there is a growing body of literature on characteristics of effective (or
high quality) PD. On the other hand, from the focal point of teachers, a significant body
of literature has examined what teachers need to know and should be able to do in the
climate of educational reforms. In theory, it makes sense that these two lines of
research should go hand in hand—effective PD should teach teachers what they need
to know and help them deal with challenges arisen from practice. However, research
on effective PD is largely disconnected from research on teacher knowledge. We
argued that understanding of teacher knowledge provides a useful framework for
considering teachers’ needs for PD, which serves as a basis for designing effective PD.
The following section provides an overview of the two bodies of research.
Literature Review
What Makes PD Effective?
Recent research has yielded important insight on what makes PD effective. Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) analyzed survey data from a national
sample of 1027 math and science teachers who participated in the Eisenhower PD
Program. The researchers found three structural features that helped to set a positive
context for a PD activity to take place, including extended study time, collective
participation, and emphasis on reform-oriented activities (e.g., study group, mentor-
ing) rather than traditional activities (e.g., workshop). In addition, the authors
identified three core features of PD activities that could enhance teacher learning and
improve classroom practice, including focus on subject content knowledge, oppor-
tunities for active learning (e.g., observing other teachers or being observed), and
coherence with teachers’ other PD experiences and state and district standards.
Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) examined the effectiveness of
characteristics of PD in fostering curriculum implementation using a sample of 454
science teacher participants. Their findings were largely consistent with what Garet
et al. found. In particular, this study highlighted the importance of coherence of PD,
defined as ‘‘teachers’ interpretations of how well aligned the PD activities are with
their own goals for learning and their goals for students’’ (p. 931). Among all the
variables studied using hierarchical linear modeling, coherence was the strongest
positive predictor for change in teacher knowledge and classroom practice. Coherence
was also found to have a positive impact on curriculum implementation. This study
provided strong evidence that PD should be responsive to teachers’ needs.
In addition, several large-scale studies on the Local Systemic Change (LSC)
through Teacher Enhancement Initiative shed some light on features in high-quality
PD (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). The goal of LSC
was to improve teaching of science, mathematics, and technology through teacher
PD, with a focus on preparing teachers to implement designated exemplary
curriculum materials. These studies emphasized that effective PD should be
content-based, situated in classroom practice, and sustained over time.
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…473
123
Taken together, there is a broad consensus that effective PD should include the
following features: (1) informed by learning theories, (2) intensive, sustained and
ongoing learning, (3) focus on content and curriculum, (4) opportunities for rich and
active learning, (5) collaboration with other teachers, preferably from the same
school, (6) connected to teachers’ daily practice and their own learning goals, and
(7) aligned with local, state, and national standards and objectives (Banilower et al.,
2007; Borko, 2004; Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner, 2010; Garet et al., 2001; Loucks-
Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003; Penuel et al., 2007; Supovitz &
Turner, 2000).
The studies aforementioned made important contribution to the knowledge base
of teacher learning and pointed out critical principles for PD design. However, some
of these characteristics of high-quality PD are still too broadly defined to provide
detailed guidance for PD design. PD should be relevant to teachers’ needs and
coherent with their goals—a key feature of effective PD. Yet, we know little about
what those needs are.
In addition, research on characteristics of effective PD rarely connects explicitly
to research on teacher knowledge, although teacher learning is the common subject
in both areas of study. To understand teachers’ needs for PD, it is important to
analyze the task of teaching—what teachers need to know and should be able to do.
What do Teachers Need to Know and Be Able to Do?
A significant body of literature has examined what teachers need to know and
should be able to do in the context of educational reforms. In a review of research on
science teacher knowledge, Abell (2007) developed a model of teacher knowledge
that includes four types of knowledge base: subject content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, knowledge of context, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).
Subject content knowledge includes important facts, concepts, principles, theories,
and procedures that are interconnected in a science discipline. Much research has
shown that deep, structured, and accessible subject content knowledge is necessary
for effective science teaching (Kennedy, 1998). Indeed, a teacher cannot effectively
teach any topic without solid content understanding. Therefore, in this study, we
examined teachers’ needs for improving their own content understanding.
Pedagogical knowledge includes general knowledge of teaching and learning,
such as learning theories, instructional principles, and classroom management. An
important aspect of general pedagogical knowledge is classroom interaction and
organization (Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999). Knowledge of context represents
background knowledge of students, school, community, and district (Grossman,
1990), also referred to as classroom knowledge by Barnett and Hodson (2001),
which is ‘‘entirely situational and particular’’ and ‘‘rooted in the day-to-day
experience of particular educational situations’’ (Barnett & Hodson, 2001,
pp. 438–439). In this study, we did not focus on knowledge of context because
this type of contextual knowledge is most likely to be gained and accumulated from
a teacher’s daily interaction with students and local communities, rather than from
external PD.
474 M. Zhang et al.
123
Of particular importance is PCK, which is commonly believed as having the
greatest impact on teachers’ classroom practice (Gess-Newsome, 1999). Therefore,
this study adopted PCK as the theoretical framework to understand teachers’ needs
for professional development. The notion of PCK was first introduced by Shulman
(1986,1987). According to Shulman (1987), PCK ‘‘represents the blending of
content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or
issues are organized, represented, and adapted to diverse interests and abilities of
learners, and presented for instruction’’ (p. 8). In addition, a teacher needs to
understand what makes a specific topic difficult to learn and know how to build on
students’ prior knowledge. The hallmark of PCK is knowledge of teaching specific
topics to learners, which distinguishes a teacher from a content specialist or a
pedagogical generalist.
There is a growing consensus that PCK should be the focus of teacher PD
(Bausmith & Barry, 2011; Hashweh, 2013; Van Driel & Berry, 2012). However,
few PD programs seem to have focused on the topic-specific nature of teacher
knowledge. Yager (2005), for example, criticized that ‘‘One of the most serious
problems concerning professional development is the fact that schools often plan
general workshops with general leaders—all seemingly having little to do with
specific curriculum components or day-to-day teaching’’ (p. 99). Similarly, based on
a review of different models of teacher learning and PD, Hashweh (2013) found it
surprising that ‘‘Research on teacher learning and development…still views teacher
learning as a generic activity and neglects the domain or discipline specificity of
teacher learning and development’’ (p. 136).
In order to design PD that focuses on the development of topic-specific PCK, we
first need to understand teachers’ topic-specific needs for improvement. To fill the
gap, in this study we investigated K-12 science teachers’ needs for PD with respect
to specific science topics that they hoped to improve, rather than asking teachers
about their needs for improvement in general. We analyzed teachers’ needs
according to the PCK framework. Next, we clarify the specific aspects of PCK that
this study focused on, given various interpretations of this framework.
Since its introduction, the notion of PCK has stimulated a rich body of research in
teacher education and has been interpreted, refined, and extended by numerous
researchers (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,
1999) (see Hashweh, 2013, for a more comprehensive review on the evolvement of
PCK conceptualization over the past 25 years since Shulman introduced the
concept). For example, Grossman (1990) added two additional categories to PCK,
namely knowledge and beliefs about purposes, and knowledge of curriculum
materials. Gudmundsdottir (1995) argued that the value-laden and narrative nature
of PCK should also be included in the notion. Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed a
PCK model that included five components, namely orientations toward science
teaching, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students’ understanding
of science, knowledge of assessment, and knowledge of instructional strategies for
teaching science. The authors argued that ‘‘Effective teachers need to develop
knowledge with respect to all of the aspects of PCK, and with respect to all of the
topics they teach’’ (p. 115). The model by Magnusson et al. was a broader
conceptualization of PCK than its original focus on topic-specific knowledge.
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…475
123
Lee and Luft (2008) analyzed nine different conceptualizations of PCK models.
Despite some variances in the categories of knowledge included in the different
PCK models, most models agree that PCK involves (1) knowledge of represen-
tations and instructional strategies for teaching specific science topics, (2)
knowledge of students, including students’ prior knowledge, misconception, and
ways to connect science to students’ real-world experience, (3) knowledge of
science curriculum for particular grade levels and science topics, and (4) knowledge
of assessment, including what to assess and how to assess. These aspects of teacher
knowledge provide a useful framework to consider what teachers need to learn, and
in turn what responsive PD should offer. Therefore, this study examined teachers’
needs for professional development in line with these four aspects of PCK
(instructional strategy, students, curriculum, and assessment).
In addition, the work of teaching is further complicated by the national reform
initiatives. Prior research has documented that teachers had great difficulty
implementing inquiry-based science teaching as demanded by the national standards
(Germann & Aram, 1996; Martens, 1992), considering that many teachers did not
experience inquiry-based learning themselves as students and lacked the knowledge,
skills, and beliefs needed to teach science as inquiry. Now more than a decade has
passed since the publication of reform documents (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). Great efforts
have been made in both teacher preparation and PD programs to prepare teachers for
inquiry-based teaching (Crawford, 2007; Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004;
Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005). It is unclear where teachers stand now in
their needs for improving their ability to teach science as inquiry. Accordingly, this
study examined teachers’ perceived needs for improving inquiry-based science
teaching, a critical instructional strategy for science education.
Teachers’ needs for improvement may be associated with their teaching
experience, the grade level they teach, and their gender (Davis, Petish, & Smithey,
2006; Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012). For example, beginning
teachers may have a stronger need for improving their PCK than more experienced
teachers (Davis et al., 2006). Elementary school teachers tend to view teaching as
‘‘activities that work’’ (Appleton, 2006). Such a view may affect their perceived
needs for improvement. They may also benefit more from PD in improving their
science content knowledge than secondary teachers (Shin et al., 2010). In addition,
prior study found that male teachers held a more positive belief about science
teaching than female teachers (Lumpe et al., 2012). Therefore, we were interested in
whether teachers’ needs varied depending on teacher backgrounds such as teaching
experience, grade level, and gender.
Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a survey research design to understand teachers’ needs for PD.
This method allowed us to gain insights into teachers’ self-perceived needs for
476 M. Zhang et al.
123
improvement, revolving around the critical aspects of what teachers need to know
and do as described in the literature. Prior research suggested that self-report
surveys provide a low-cost and relatively accurate portrait of teacher belief and
practice (Ross, McDougall, Hogaboam-Gray, & LeSage, 2003). Survey methods
have been widely used in research that focused on teachers, such as teachers’
perceptions of job satisfaction (Liu & Meyer, 2005), self-efficacy as teachers
(Bleicher, 2004), technology integration in classrooms (Proctor & Marks, 2013),
and standards-based classroom practice (Ross et al., 2003).
Limitations of the Study
Before we describe the details of participants, data sources, and analysis, several
limitations of this study should be noted. First, the teachers in this study were self-
selected for participating in the PD. This group of teachers may be more motivated
to improve their practice than other teachers. Second, this study reflected teachers’
self-reported needs for improvement, which may be different from their actual
needs. For example, teachers might believe they had stronger science content
knowledge than they actually did. Third, the findings of this study were based on
teachers’ survey responses only, without triangulation using data from multiple
sources and multiple methods such as interviews with teachers or PD facilitators.
Finally, the sample size of this study was relatively small. These limitations may
affect the generalizability of the findings of this study.
Participants
This study was situated in a PD program hosted by a science education division at a
large Midwestern university in the USA. We recruited teachers for the PD in a
variety of ways. We mailed the program description brochures and application
materials to local schools and distributed them at the school district centers and
local science education conferences. In addition, the previous PD participants also
helped to recruit peers in their school. Teachers who applied before the deadline
were all enrolled to the PD. Participation was voluntary. Participants received a
small amount of stipend and continuing education credits as compensations for their
effort in the PD.
Participants in this study included a total of 118 K-12 inservice science teachers
who voluntarily participated in our PD program over 3 years. One PD cycle,
including a 2-week summer workshop and a school-year teacher research project,
was completed in 1 year. Some teachers chose to participate again to improve
themselves as teachers, as they worked on different content and pedagogical issues
in another year. Among the 118 teachers (96 females and 22 males), 84 teachers
participated in the project for 1 year, 22 teachers for 2 years, and 12 teachers for
3 years, which resulted in 164 participants over 3 years. Because this study did not
focus on the impact of the PD, we treated each participation by the same teacher
separately. The teachers were divided into three groups according to years of
teaching experience: beginning teachers with 0–3 years of teaching experience;
established teachers with 4–10 years of experience, and veteran teachers who had
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…477
123
more than 10 years of experience. Also, 62 teachers taught science at the middle
and high school levels, and 102 teachers taught science as part of their load at an
elementary school. Table 1describes the teachers’ backgrounds.
Data Sources
The PD took place in the summer and the following school year. Teachers submitted
their application for the PD from February to March prior to a PD cycle. By the time
Cohort 3 teachers applied for the PD, the state implemented a new curriculum
standard called the Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs), which has now
been replaced by the Common Core State Standards.
In the application form, the teachers were asked to select two science unit topics
from their teaching, one as the first choice and the other as the second choice, to
improve in the PD. The teachers were asked to rate to what extent they thought the
selected topics needed improvement in nine aspects on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1
indicating ‘‘needs no development’’ and 5 indicating ‘‘needs a lot of development.’’
The nine aspects measured content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),
and PCK, including: (1) my own understanding of big ideas in the subject (CK); (2)
my interactions with my students (PK); (3) teaching this unit with inquiry or
scientific reasoning (PCK: Strategy); (4) building concepts through a series of
activities (PCK: Strategy); (5) my students’ grasp of big ideas in the subject (PCK:
Learner); (6) addressing students’ misconceptions (PCK: Learner); (7) relating unit
content to students’ lives (PCK: Learner); (8) developing effective assessments
(PCK: Assessment); and (9) finding good resource materials on the Internet (PCK:
Curriculum).
Table 1 Teacher participants background
Year 1 (N=44) Year 2 (N=43) Year 3 (N=77)
Gender
Female 33 37 69
Male 11 6 8
Grade
Elementary (K-6) 30 29 43
Secondary (7–12) 14 14 34
Race
White 41 41 73
Minorities 3 2 4
Average teaching experience (in years) 8.7 12.4 11.5
Beginning (0–3 years) 16 5 7
Established (4–10 years) 14 13 38
Veteran ([10 years) 14 25 32
Age (in years) 39.3 42.9 39.5
478 M. Zhang et al.
123
In addition to the rating scale, for each unit topic, the teachers were asked two
open-ended questions: (1) Why have you chosen this unit topic for improvement?
and (2) What would you most like to improve? Because teacher responses to these
questions were situated in the specific topics that they chose, we considered the
areas for which the teachers perceived the needs for improvement to be different
aspects of PCK.
Data Analysis
We analyzed the teachers’ ratings and provided descriptive statistics on teachers’
needs for improvement in the nine areas. We used one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and ttests to examine whether teachers’ needs in their first-choice unit
were related to their teaching experience, grade level, and gender.
All teachers’ open-ended responses were entered into a spreadsheet and
organized by cohorts and units. Analysis of these responses was an iterative
process guided by the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through
repeated readings of these responses, the first author developed and refined a coding
scheme to categorize teachers’ responses based on the PCK framework. The unit of
analysis was defined to be a thematic unit in the responses that represented a single
idea. This definition was common in content analysis research (Rourke & Anderson,
2004; Strijbos, Martens, Prins, & Jochems, 2006). Teachers might specify one or
more areas they wanted to improve for their selected topic in their responses. For
example, a high school teacher chose to work on a unit called ‘‘organizational living
things.’’ Her response to ‘‘What would you most like to improve?’’ was ‘‘How to
teach this through inquiry? How to make this relevant to the students?’’ This
response was coded as ‘‘PCK: Learner: Relevance’’ and ‘‘PCK: Strategy: Inquiry,
PBL.’’ The coding scheme was revised in the iterative coding process. For example,
at first, inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning (PBL) were considered
separate categories under PCK: Strategy. However, it turned out that many teachers
did not differentiate the two strategies as they often put them together in their
responses. Therefore, it seemed more reasonable to combine the two strategies in
one category. Once the coding scheme became stable after numerous revisions, the
first author used about 10 % of the data to train another researcher who was not
involved in developing the coding scheme. Two researchers coded about 40 % of
the data independently, and the inter-rater reliability was 91 %. Disagreement was
resolved through discussion. The first author coded the remaining data. Table 2
presents the coding scheme for teachers’ open-ended responses.
Results
What Science Topics were Perceived to Need Improvement by Science
Teachers and Why?
A total of 230 science topics were selected for improvement by the teachers in three
cohorts. Not all teachers selected two topics. Some just selected one. In Table 3,
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…479
123
Table 2 Coding scheme for teachers’ needs for improvement
Type of
knowledge
Code Explanation Example from teacher responses
CK Content Improve teachers’ content understanding of selected topic I would like to expand my knowledge of this topic
PCK:
learner
Student
understanding
Improve or deepen student understanding of selected topic I would like to improve students understanding of the major concepts
of plate tectonics, earthquakes and volcanoes
Interest Engage learners; Improve student interests in the topic I’d like to improve my ability to plan lessons that spark students’
interest and engage them in learning
Relevance Make science relevant to students; connect to students’ real-
life experience
I would like to find and learn more ways to make science in general
more relevant to the student life
Age-
appropriateness
Design lessons that is age-appropriate or grade-level
appropriate
Our first-grade unit needs to be rewritten to make sure it is
developmentally appropriate and prepares students for fourth-grade
light ?color unit
Differentiation Differentiate instruction for different learners I would like to work on Big Idea, as well as a tiering [misc.]
differentiated approach to teaching either of these units
Misconception Address student misconception in the selected topic I would like to address student misconceptions in this topic
PCK:
strategy
Inquiry/PBL Use inquiry-based learning or problem-based learning
approach
I want to incorporate more inquiry into this unit
Hands-on
activities
Use hands-on activities, laboratories, experiments I need more hands-on activities/laboratories/experiments
Representation Improve presentation of information More examples, resources, visual aids
Connection Make connection between activities and concepts, or
between concepts
Student connections between activities and concepts
Technology Use technology to enhance teaching We need time to develop lesson plans using (CBL)/lab pro software
we recently acquired through a technology grant
General Improve teaching strategy in general My knowledge of this topic, and how to teach it
480 M. Zhang et al.
123
Table 2 continued
Type of
knowledge
Code Explanation Example from teacher responses
PCK:
curriculum
Alignment Align instruction with state and district curriculum standards I want to make sure this unit is aligned with state standards
Resources Need to find more resources or learn to use existing
resources, in addition to text book
I need more resources
Organization Improve organization of a unit; identify big ideas of a unit;
improve lesson flows, sequencing, and continuity between
lessons
I want to improve the organization of this unit, the sequence of
activities
Cross-subject Integrate other subjects into science lessons Incorporate literacy into science
PCK:
assessment
Assessment Design assessment to evaluate student learning I would like to improve assessment
Test outcome Improve students’ performances in standardized tests Student outcomes on MEAP
Overall All All aspects need to improve We are starting from scratch and would like to create a unit to use in
the classroom
Other Responses that did not fit the categories above I want to teach my students problem solving skills outside of math
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…481
123
these topics were presented according to science areas (life science, physics science,
and earth science) and grade levels.
Specifically, in life science, ecosystems, plants and animals, and human body
were some common topics across grade levels. In addition, in Grades K-2, five
senses and life cycles were common science topics for improvement. In secondary
grades, cells, genetics and heredity, and bacteria were common topics. In physics,
force and motion was the most common topic across grade levels. In addition,
matter and energy and light and shadow were also common topics that the teachers
selected for improvement in all grade levels. In earth science, rocks and minerals,
weather, solar system, and the changing Earth were common topics mentioned by
the teachers across grade levels.
Table 3 Types of unit topics and areas
Grade
level
Life science Physics science Earth science
K-2nd Five senses
7
, Life cycles
4
,
Plants
4
, Animals
3
,
Ecosystems
2
, Organisms
2
,
Organization of living
things
2
, Food chain
1
, Needs
of living things
1
Force and motion
5
, Light and
shadow
3
, Magnets
3
,
Matter
3
, Sifting through
science
3
, Light and color
1
,
Simple machines
1
Rocks
5
, Weather
4
, Earth
surface
3
, Geosphere
2
, How
does water move?
2
,
Recycling and trash
1
3rd–5th Ecosystems
10
, Plants
3
,
Heredity and evolution
2
,
Human body
2
, Animal
classification
1
, Organisms
1
,
Plant classification
1
,
Scientific method
1
,
Transfer of energy through
food chain
1
Force and motion
19
, Matter
and energy
6
, Simple
machines
6
, Light and
shadow
3
, Electricity
2
,
Light and sound
1
,
Newton’s Laws
1
, Sound
1
Solar system
7
, Weather
6
, The
changing Earth
2
,
Geoshpere
2
, Space
2
,
Astronomy
1
, Moon cycle
1
,
Planets
1
, Atmosphere
1
6th–8th Cells
4
, Ecosystems
3
,
Genetics and heredity
3
,
Plant classification
2
,
Human body
2
, Plants
3
,
Animals
1
, Bacteria and
viruses
2
, Protists
1
Force and motion
4
, Matter
and energy
3
, Chemical
changes
1
, Electricity and
magnetism
1
, Light
1
Weather
5
, Rocks and
minerals
3
, Plate tectonics
2
,
The changing Earth
2
,
Geology
2
, Hydrosphere
1
,
Rock cycle
1
, Solar system
1
,
Space
1
, Water cycle
1
,
Weathering and erosion
1
9th–12th Cancer
2
, Cell
2
, Ecology
2
,
Geckos
2
, Human anatomy
2
,
Chemical basis of life
1
,
Energy flow in
environment
1
, Evolution
1
,
Genetics
1
, Heredity
1
,
Marine bio-structure and
class
1
, Skeleton
1
, Using
vignettes
1
, Viruses and
bacteria
1
Force and motion
4
, Matter
and energy
3
, Chemical
changes
1
, Electricity and
magnetism
1
, Light
1
Rocks and minerals
3
, Global
science
1
The number in superscript next to the topic represents the total number of teachers who selected the topic
482 M. Zhang et al.
123
There were four major reasons that the teachers explained when asked why
they chose certain unit topic for improvement. First, about 23 % of teachers
reported that the selected topic was their weak area due to a lack of content
knowledge, training, or interest. It was not uncommon that teachers had to teach
outside of their field. Examples of the teachers’ responses were as follows: ‘‘This
is an area [force and motion] that I know the least about. I would like to capture
students’ attention in this area;’’ ‘‘I feel this is an area [solar system] in which I do
not have as much background knowledge in. Most of my undergraduate work was
focused on the life sciences,’’ and ‘‘Being a biologist, I am not as interested in this
area of study [weather]. I need to build my interest in order to inspire the interest
of my students.’’
Second, the teachers selected a science topic to work on because the topic was
too difficult for students to learn, or because it was an important topic. About
10 % of teachers indicated that their selected topic was too complicated and
abstract, which cannot be seen and students tended to have misconceptions.
Examples included: ‘‘I have chosen this unit [ecosystems] because many of my
students have a difficult time placing animals in the correct [habitat], thus making
it hard for them to make correct choices when making a food chain.’’ ‘‘Both of
these units [weather or rocks and minerals] are conceptually difficult for 11- to
12-year-old students. Students love the laboratories but don’t see the connection
with the concepts,’’ and ‘‘I would like to improve our unit on protists because they
are confusing to the students and easy to get mixed up.’’ In addition, about 5 % of
teachers indicated that they selected a topic because it was important or appealing
to students, for example, ‘‘Kindergarten children have high interest in this topic
[magnets],’’ and ‘‘I chose this topic because the advanced rock cycle is a major
concept in the new HSCE [High School Content Expectations] for earth science. It
is also related to many other topics such as plate tectonics and the formation of
geologic features.’’
Third, the most common reason was that the teachers hoped to refine an existing
unit to engage students and improve understanding. About 38 % of the teachers’
explanations fell into this category, for example, ‘‘I have chosen this unit topic
[energy and its transformations] as I don’t feel I necessarily give students good
concrete examples of everyday energy changes,’’ and ‘‘I’ve been teaching it
[ecology] the same way for so long; I want new ideas for investigations.’’ In
particular, many teachers mentioned that they wanted to improve the unit by using
inquiry-based or problem-based approach, for example, ‘‘I want the genetics unit in
my biology class to be more hands-on and inquiry-based.’’
Finally, 24 % of teachers, most from the last cohort, reported that they chose a
topic because it was a new unit that they needed to develop to align with the new
GLCEs that were implemented in the state during that year. The teachers often
mentioned that they had to start from scratch and asked for help, for example, ‘‘We
have new K-level GLCEs for this area and I don’t know where to begin!’’ and ‘‘A
big section of the GLCEs focus on this [force and motion] and I do not have a lot of
knowledge about this information.’’
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…483
123
What Aspects of Knowledge did Inservice Science Teachers Need
to Improve for the Selected Science Topics?
Analysis of Teachers’ Ratings
The descriptive statistics for teachers’ needs for improvement based on their ratings
are presented in Table 4. First, teaching a unit with inquiry or scientific reasoning
was the most needed area for improvement for the teachers. For both units, there
were about 80 % of teachers who rated 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale, indicating
that most teachers believed that they needed substantial improvement in this area.
The other three areas that the teachers identified as needing significant
improvement were fostering conceptual understanding, building concepts through
activities, and developing effective assessment. In addition, over half of the teachers
reported that they needed considerable improvement in addressing students’
misconceptions, finding resources on the Internet, and connecting unit content to
students’ lives.
On the other hand, the teachers were confident in their interactions with students
and they rarely mentioned their needs for improvement in this aspect in their open-
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for teachers’ needs for improvement from rating-scale questions
First-choice unit Second-choice unit
NMean SD 4/5*
(%)
NMean SD 4/5*
(%)
Teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific
reasoning (PCK: strategy)
161 4.10 0.86 79 144 4.06 0.78 80
My students’ grasp of big ideas in the subject
(PCK: learner)
155 3.90 0.77 72 142 3.92 0.78 74
Building concepts through a series of
activities (PCK: strategy)
161 3.86 0.91 70 144 3.88 0.88 71
Developing effective assessments (PCK:
assessment)
159 3.82 0.94 68 143 3.86 0.87 72
Addressing students’ misconceptions (PCK:
learner)
159 3.74 0.88 59 143 3.81 0.83 63
Finding good resource materials on the
Internet (PCK: curriculum)
159 3.69 1.00 59 143 3.61 0.93 55
Relating unit content to students’ lives
(PCK: learner)
118 3.58 0.94 57 103 3.72 0.86 65
My own understanding of big ideas in the
subject (CK)
160 3.07 1.07 34 143 2.97 1.08 29
My interactions with my students (PK) 157 2.76 0.99 24 142 2.70 0.95 20
On the 5-point Likert scale, 1 =‘‘Needs no development’’; 5 =‘‘Needs a lot of development’’
There were missing responses for certain questions, so the ‘‘N’’ was different
CK = content knowledge, PK = pedagogical knowledge, PCK = pedagogical content knowledge
* 4/5 Percentage of teachers who rated 4 or 5 on the item
484 M. Zhang et al.
123
ended responses. The teachers were also relatively confident in their own
understanding of big ideas in the subject, indicated by the low mean scores of
3.07 and 2.97 in the two unit choices, respectively, which were the second lowest
rating in both units.
Overall, the teachers’ needs for improvement in different areas were fairly
consistent in the first-choice unit and the second-choice unit. Paired sample ttests
found none of the mean differences between the two units in the same area were
statistically different.
Analysis of Teachers’ Open-Ended Responses
When asked what they would most like to improve in the two unit topics they
selected, the teachers indicated their needs for improving their content knowledge
and PCK in four aspects: learners, instructional strategies, curriculum, and
assessment. Table 5presents the frequency count and percentage of teachers who
indicated their needs for improvement in each aspect.
Table 5 Teachers’ needs for improvement from open-ended responses
Type of
knowledge
Code Cohort 1
(n=44)
Cohort 2
(n=43)
Cohort 3
(n=77)
Total
(n=164)
CK Content 17 (39 %) 19 (44 %) 50 (65 %) 86 (52 %)
PCK: learner Student
understanding
18 (41 %) 6 (14 %) 31 (40 %) 55 (34 %)
Interest 12 (27 %) 17 (40 %) 23 (30 %) 52 (32 %)
Relevance 10 (23 %) 9 (21 %) 17 (22 %) 36 (22 %)
Age-
appropriateness
4(9%) 3(7%) 5(6%) 12(7%)
Differentiation 4 (9 %) 0 (0 %) 2 (3 %) 6 (4 %)
Misconception 1 (2 %) 1 (2 %) 1 (1 %) 3 (2 %)
PCK: strategy Inquiry/PBL 21 (48 %) 15 (35 %) 47 (61 %) 83 (51 %)
Hands-on
activities
23 (52 %) 14 (33 %) 31 (40 %) 68 (41 %)
Representation 5 (11 %) 3 (7 %) 7 (9 %) 15 (9 %)
Connection 4 (9 %) 0 (0 %) 5 (6 %) 9 (5 %)
Technology 4 (9 %) 2 (5 %) 0 (0 %) 6 (4 %)
General 1 (2 %) 6 (14 %) 8 (10 %) 15 (9 %)
PCK:
curriculum
Alignment 12 (27 %) 10 (23 %) 62 (81 %) 84 (51 %)
Resources 14 (32 %) 10 (23 %) 8 (10 %) 32 (20 %)
Organization 6 (14 %) 11 (26 %) 9 (12 %) 26 (16 %)
Cross-subject 2 (5 %) 1 (2 %) 0 (0 %) 3 (2 %)
PCK:
assessment
Assessment 5 (11 %) 5 (12 %) 15 (19 %) 25 (15 %)
Test outcome 3 (7 %) 2 (5 %) 3 (4 %) 8 (5 %)
Overall All 2 (5 %) 4 (9 %) 15 (19 %) 21 (13 %)
Other 3 (7 %) 2 (5 %) 6 (8 %) 11 (7 %)
Total 171 140 345 656
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…485
123
Content Knowledge Although the teachers’ average rating for their needs for
improving ‘‘My own understanding of big ideas in the subject’’ was only 3.07 out of
5 on the Likert scale question, in the open-ended responses, a considerable
percentage of teachers said they needed to improve their own content understanding
about the science topics they selected. Overall, 52 % of teachers explicitly
mentioned their needs for improving their content understanding. In particular,
65 % of teachers in Cohort 3 reported this need. For example, one fifth-grade
teacher in Cohort 3 stated: ‘‘Even though I have taught this topic [atmosphere], there
are many things I don’t truly understand. I feel uncomfortable with much of the
content.’’ One possible explanation for the gap between the ratings and open-ended
responses was that the teachers might believe they had a good understanding of ‘‘big
ideas’’ in the subject, but lacked an in-depth content understanding.
PCK: Learners The most frequently mentioned needs were improving students’
content understanding and making science engaging and relevant to students by
connecting science to real life. In fact, all other needs that the teachers expressed
were intended to serve these goals, a finding elaborated later. Some teachers also
reported needs for designing age-appropriate lessons, differentiating instruction for
different learners, and addressing student misconceptions.
PCK: Instructional Strategies Consistent with the teachers’ ratings, inquiry
teaching was among the greatest needs for improvement reported by the teachers in
the open-ended responses. For example, a middle school teacher in Cohort 1 stated,
‘‘I find this topic [genetics/heredity] difficult to teach using problem-based/inquiry-
based, and I’d like to do a better job of this.’’ Because the PD project used the
problem-based learning approach for teacher learning, about half (83) teachers
became interested in using problem-based learning for their students. It seems that
the teachers did not differentiate inquiry-based learning from problem-based
learning, as they often mentioned the two approaches simultaneously. Another
frequently mentioned need was to find hands-on activities to engage students, a need
reported by 68 teachers. Fifteen teachers wanted to find better ways to represent the
science topic, and nine teachers wanted to help students make better connection
between activities and concepts. Six teachers wanted to incorporate technology in
science teaching. Fifteen teachers indicated that they needed to improve their
pedagogy in teaching the science unit in general.
PCK: Curriculum The greatest need that the teachers reported in this category was
aligning their teaching with state and district curriculum standards, particularly in
the last cohort due to the implementation of new state curriculum standards. The
teachers also needed to find more resources or learn to use existing resources to
improve their science units. Some teachers had to teach without a textbook. In
addition, the teachers needed to improve the organization of a unit, focus on big
ideas, and improve lesson flow and sequencing between lessons. A few teachers also
wanted to integrate literacy and mathematics into science lessons.
486 M. Zhang et al.
123
PCK: Assessment The teachers reported needs for designing assessment to
evaluate student learning and improving student performances in standardized tests.
For example, a teacher in Cohort 3 stated, ‘‘I would like to see my team work on
assessments for this unit. If we work on the assessment piece, the content and
lessons will fall into place.’’
Also, 21 teachers, with 15 from the last cohort, indicated that they needed
improvement in all areas. For example, two teachers in Cohort 3 commented, ‘‘This
[ecosystems] is a new topic for us. We are starting from scratch and need
everything!’’ and ‘‘I have not taught this unit [matter and energy] before, so
everything will need development and improvement.’’
Relationships Between Different Needs
It is also important to note the relationships between different needs. It appears that
the teachers ultimately wanted to achieve two goals: improvement in student
interest and content understanding. Other needs, such as improving teachers’ own
content knowledge, use of inquiry or hands-on activities, use of good resources, or
better ways of representation, were all means to achieve these goals. The following
teacher responses reflected the relationship.
I hope that the benefit of this professional development would be to increase
student interest thereby increase student learning. If student interest and
learning is increased then I am being fully fed as a teacher. [10th grade teacher
in Cohort 1]
More hands-on activities, to really help engage my students and increase their
understanding. [Kindergarten teacher in Cohort 2]
I have not taught force and motion for many years. I’m looking for good
problem/inquiry-based lessons to increase the depth of student understanding
and allow the students to enjoy the lesson. [6th grade teacher in Cohort 3]
How did Teachers’ Needs Vary Depending on Teacher Backgrounds?
We examined the relationship between teaching experience, grade level, and gender
and teachers’ needs for improvement using ANOVA and ttests.
Teaching Experience
The descriptive statistics of teachers’ needs for improvement by teaching experience
are presented in Table 6. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to
compare the needs of teachers with different levels of experience. As shown in
Table 7, there was a significant effect of teaching experience on teachers’ needs for
improvement in four aspects: my own understanding of big ideas in the subject [F(2,
157) =3.442, p=.034]; teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific reasoning
[F(2, 158) =5.133, p=.007]; relating unit content to students’ lives [F(2,
115) =5.025, p=.008]; and addressing students’ misconceptions [F(2,
156) =5.267, p=.006]. As shown in Table 8, post hoc comparisons using the
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…487
123
Table 6 Descriptive statistics of teachers’ needs for improvement by teaching experience
NMean SD SE
My own understanding of big ideas in the subject
0–3 years 23 2.96 1.107 0.231
4–10 years 60 3.03 1.057 0.136
[10 years 60 2.9 1.115 0.144
Total 143 2.97 1.084 0.091
My students’ grasp of big ideas in the subject
0–3 years 24 3.96 0.806 0.165
4–10 years 58 3.86 0.687 0.09
[10 years 60 3.97 0.863 0.111
Total 142 3.92 0.782 0.066
My interactions with my students
0–3 years 24 2.79 0.779 0.159
4–10 years 58 2.79 0.987 0.13
[10 years 60 2.57 0.981 0.127
Total 142 2.7 0.953 0.08
Teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific reasoning
0–3 years 24 4.17 0.868 0.177
4–10 years 60 4.07 0.71 0.092
[10 years 60 4.02 0.813 0.105
Total 144 4.06 0.777 0.065
Relating unit content to students’ lives
0–3 years 9 3.89 0.928 0.309
4–10 years 47 3.82 0.804 0.117
[10 years 47 3.6 0.901 0.131
Total 103 3.72 0.86 0.085
Addressing students’ misconceptions
0–3 years 24 4 0.834 0.17
4–10 years 59 3.89 0.826 0.107
[10 years 60 3.65 0.82 0.106
Total 143 3.81 0.831 0.069
Developing effective assessments
0–3 years 23 3.91 0.9 0.188
4–10 years 60 3.82 0.833 0.108
[10 years 60 3.89 0.898 0.116
Total 143 3.86 0.866 0.072
Finding good resource materials on the Internet
0–3 years 23 3.74 0.864 0.18
4–10 years 60 3.38 0.99 0.128
[10 years 60 3.8 0.86 0.111
Total 143 3.61 0.933 0.078
488 M. Zhang et al.
123
Tukey HSD test indicated that veteran teachers with more than 10 years of teaching
experience were more confident in teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific
reasoning and addressing students’ misconceptions than beginning teachers and
established teachers with 4–10 years of experience. Also, veteran teachers were
more confident in relating unit content to students’ lives than established teachers.
Grade Level
The descriptive statistics of teachers’ needs for improvement by grade level are
presented in Table 9. An independent-sample ttest was conducted to compare the
needs of elementary and secondary teachers. As shown in Table 10,ttest results
showed that the elementary teachers who taught Grades K-6 reported greater needs
for improving their own content understanding,developing effective assessments,
Table 6 continued
NMean SD SE
Building concepts through a series of activities
0–3 years 24 4.04 0.751 0.153
4–10 years 60 3.87 0.853 0.11
[10 years 60 3.82 0.965 0.125
Total 144 3.88 0.884 0.074
Table 7 One-way ANOVA of teachers’ needs for improvement by teaching experience
Sum of squares df Mean square FSig.
My own understanding of big ideas in the subject
Between groups 7.684 2 3.842 3.442 .034*
Within groups 175.239 157 1.116
Total 182.923 159
Teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific reasoning
Between groups 7.233 2 3.616 5.133 .007**
Within groups 111.326 158 .705
Total 118.559 160
Relating unit content to students’ lives
Between groups 8.316 2 4.158 5.025 .008**
Within groups 95.169 115 .828
Total 103.485 117
Addressing students’ misconceptions
Between groups 7.744 2 3.872 5.267 .006**
Within groups 114.684 156 .735
Total 122.428 158
*p\.05; ** p\.01
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…489
123
and finding good resource materials on the Internet than the secondary teachers who
taught Grades 7–12. On the other hand, elementary teachers were marginally more
confident in teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific reasoning.
Gender
No significant difference was found between male and female teachers in any of the
nine aspects of teachers’ needs for improvement.
Discussion
Prior research has mainly focused on what makes PD effective from the program
design perspective (Garet et al., 2001; Penuel et al., 2007), while there is a lack of
understanding about what teachers need for improvement in the climate of
Table 8 Post hoc comparisons of teachers’ needs for improvement by teaching experience
Dependent variable (I) Teaching
experience
(years)
(J) Teaching
experience
(years)
Mean
difference
(I -J)
SE Sig.
My own understanding of big
ideas in the subject
0–3 4–10 -.521 .242 .083
[10 -.113 .240 .885
4–10 0–3 .521 .242 .083
[10 .408 .183 .070
[10 0–3 .113 .240 .885
4–10 -.408 .183 .070
Teaching this unit with inquiry
or scientific reasoning
0–3 4–10 .181 .193 .617
[10 .536 .190 .015*
4–10 0–3 -.181 .193 .617
[10 .355 .145 .041*
[10 0–3 -.536 .190 .015*
4–10 -.355 .145 .041*
Relating unit content to
students’ lives
0–3 4–10 -.557 .292 .142
[10 -.024 .289 .996
4–10 0–3 .557 .292 .142
[10 .533 .177 .009**
[10 0–3 .024 .289 .996
4–10 -.533 .177 .009**
Addressing students’
misconceptions
0–3 4–10 .150 .200 .735
[10 .538 .197 .019*
4–10 0–3 -.150 .200 .735
[10 .389 .149 .027*
[10 0–3 -.538 .197 .019*
4–10 -.389 .149 .027*
*p\.05; ** p\.01
490 M. Zhang et al.
123
educational reforms and curricular changes. This study used the PCK framework to
examine teachers’ needs for PD situated in specific science topics.
First, this study identified a list of common science topics that teachers needed to
improve in life science, physics science, and earth science. For example, both
elementary and secondary teachers reported that they needed improvement in
teaching ecosystems, human body, and cells in life sciences, and force and motion
Table 9 Descriptive statistics of teachers’ needs for improvement by grade level
Grade level NMean SD SE mean
My own understanding of big ideas in the subject K-6 99 3.23 1.084 0.109
7-12 61 2.82 1.013 0.13
My students’ grasp of big ideas in the subject K-6 96 3.94 0.751 0.077
7-12 59 3.85 0.805 0.105
My interactions with my students K-6 97 2.79 1.05 0.107
7-12 60 2.7 0.889 0.115
Teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific
reasoning
K-6 100 4.01 0.911 0.091
7-12 61 4.26 0.751 0.096
Relating unit content to students’ lives K-6 71 3.52 1.026 0.122
7-12 47 3.67 0.796 0.116
Addressing students’ misconceptions K-6 99 3.83 0.904 0.091
7-12 60 3.6 0.827 0.107
Developing effective assessments K-6 100 4.01 0.893 0.089
7-12 59 3.51 0.935 0.122
Finding good resource materials on the Internet K-6 99 3.82 0.983 0.099
7-12 60 3.47 0.999 0.129
Building concepts through a series of activities K-6 100 3.86 0.888 0.089
7-12 61 3.87 0.939 0.12
Table 10 t-test results for difference between elementary and secondary teachers’ needs for
improvement
tdfSig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
difference
SE
difference
My own understanding of big ideas in the
subject
2.368 158 0.019* 0.408 0.172
Teaching this unit with inquiry or scientific
reasoning
-1.854 159 0.066 -0.257 0.139
Developing effective assessments 3.361 157 0.001** 0.502 0.149
Finding good resource materials on the
internet
2.172 157 0.031* 0.352 0.162
*p\.05; ** p\.01
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…491
123
and matter and energy in physics science. These topics are also among the
disciplinary core ideas emphasized in the Next Generation Science Standards
(National Research Council, 2013). It is important to note that even some of the
experienced teachers with over 10 years of experience still perceived some of these
topics difficult to teach. For example, one high school teacher in Cohort 3 with
14 years of teaching experience hoped to improve his teaching of energy because ‘‘I
don’t feel I necessarily give students good concrete examples of everyday energy
changes.’’ Prior research suggested that in general teachers grow their PCK with
more experience (Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Schneider & Plasman, 2011). However,
this study showed that it cannot be assumed that the growth will happen in all
science topics.
Second, this study further showed that teachers felt the needs to improve teaching
of certain topics for different reasons: themselves, students, and curricular changes.
The topic might be teachers’ own weak area due to a lack of training and interest.
The topic might be too abstract or complicated for students to understand. Also,
when new curriculum was implemented, many teachers had to design new units to
address the change. Opfer and Pedder (2011) argued that teacher professional
learning should be conceptualized to reflect ‘‘the complex teaching and learning
environments in which teachers live’’ (p. 377). Consistent with this view, this study
suggested that teachers’ needs for improvement were shaped by a complex teaching
system that involved both microcontexts (e.g., teachers, students) and macrocon-
texts (e.g., district- or state-level policy changes in curriculum and assessment). This
finding deepened our understanding of the complexity in teachers’ needs for
improvement.
Third, this study found that teachers needed improvement in various aspects of
PCK: learners, instructional strategies, curriculum, and assessment. In a review of
over 100 empirical studies on the challenges facing new science teachers, Davis
et al. (2006) found that the vast majority of the studies focused on preservice
teachers, with only a few looking at early-career teachers. Research on mid-career
and experienced teachers’ needs for improvement is also limited. This study
contributed to the literature by examining the needs of beginning, mid-career, and
experienced inservice science teachers. In addition, few studies have systematically
analyzed teachers’ needs for improvement using the PCK framework. This study
enhanced understanding of what inservice teachers needed to improve, what needs
were more common than others, and what the relationship among needs was. For
example, most teachers ultimately wanted to improve student content understanding
and engage students in learning. Other needs intended to help to achieve these goals.
This study found that inquiry teaching was one of the greatest challenges for
most teachers. Teaching science as inquiry has been advocated for over a decade
(National Research Council, 1996) and is emphasized in the Next Generation
Science Standards (National Research Council, 2013). Teacher preparation and
professional development programs have invested great effort to help teachers
understand and use inquiry teaching (Oliveira, 2010; Schneider & Plasman, 2011).
However, inquiry teaching remains difficult to most teachers. Although well-
prepared beginning teachers were able to implement inquiry-based science
instruction in their first year of teaching (Avraamidou & Zembal-Saul, 2010), this
492 M. Zhang et al.
123
study suggested that for most teachers, including experienced teachers, inquiry
teaching was still their greatest challenge (see Tables 5,6) and required significant
support from PD programs. This finding is consistent with previous research that
documented the challenges of inquiry teaching (Crawford, 2007; Johnson, 2006;
Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007).
Moreover, teachers’ needs may be affected by their teaching experience and the
level they teach. Beginning teachers and elementary teachers reported greater needs
for improvement in content, learner, curriculum, and assessment than did
experienced and secondary teachers. This finding provided additional evidence to
the particular challenges facing beginning elementary teachers. In their review,
Davis et al. (2006) found that mixed results were reported on preservice secondary
teachers concerning their content knowledge, but ‘‘in almost all of the studies
reviewed here, the [preservice elementary] teachers were found to have unsophis-
ticated understandings of science’’ (p. 614). Our study suggested that similar
differences remained between inservice elementary and secondary teachers.
In particular, the Cohort 3 teachers reported greater needs for improving their
own content understanding and student understanding, using inquiry-based
approaches, and aligning with standards due to the implementation of new state
curriculum standards. For example, 81 % of teachers in Cohort 3 reported that they
needed to improve their units to better align with the standards, compared to only
27 and 23 % in the previous two cohorts, respectively. A sizable number of Cohort
3 teachers reported that they had to design a new unit from scratch and had to teach
unfamiliar topics, which made them frustrated and anxious. In fact, the number of
participants in the last cohort increased dramatically from the first 2 years, mainly
due to the change of curriculum standards. This finding reinforced the importance of
PD support in helping teachers to adapt to curricular changes (Jones & Eick, 2007).
Implications of the Study
Effective PD that aims to improve teachers’ classroom practice should be aligned
with teachers’ needs. If the areas that teachers need to improve can be clearly
identified, then it will be easier to develop responsive PD programs to address these
needs. Thus, the findings of this study have important implications for educational
researchers, teacher educators, and PD providers by pointing out promising
directions to invest their valuable time and resources. First, PD designers should
target the common topics that many teachers find difficult to teach, such as
ecosystems and force and motion. Second, many teachers in this study perceived
inquiry teaching to be the greatest challenge in their science instruction. Therefore,
more efforts should be made to help teachers, particularly those who lack teaching
experience, learn to use inquiry to teach specific science topics. Third, PD design
should take into account teacher background in teaching experience and grade level.
PD programs that focus on beginning elementary teachers are much needed. Finally,
this study showed that teachers needed considerable PD support when adopting new
curriculum standards. This finding has important implications because both the
Common Core Curriculum Standards for mathematics and literacy and the Next
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…493
123
Generation Science Standards are currently being implemented in the USA
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010; National Research Council, 2013).
References
Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K.
Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary
issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2010). In search of well-started beginning science teachers: Insights
from two first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 661–686.
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the
standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s Local Systemic Change
through Teacher Enhancement Initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 375–395.
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what
good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.
Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college
readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40,
175–178. doi:10.3102/0013189x11409927
Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary
teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383–391.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33, 3–15.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional
development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 7, 548–556.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 607–651.
Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009).
Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an
alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 915–945.
Germann, P. J., & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data,
analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33, 773–798.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-
Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and
its implications for science education (pp. 3–17). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1995). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. In H. McEwan & K.
Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and research (pp. 24–38). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
494 M. Zhang et al.
123
Hashweh, M. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: Twenty-five years later. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer
& J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a
research community (Vol. 19, pp. 115–140). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1179–1203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science
teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150–161.
Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and
practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91,
492–513.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 35, 249–263.
Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science
for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,
1021–1043.
Lee, E., & Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical
content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1343–1363.
Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. H. P. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59, 226–234.
Liu, X. F. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: A multilevel analysis of the
teacher follow-up survey for 1994–95. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 985–1003. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9620.2005.00501.x
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science:
Ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41, 370–391.
Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: The
relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student
achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 153–166. doi:10.1080/09500693.
2010.551222
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp.
95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Martens, M. L. (1992). Inhibitors to implementing a problem-solving approach to teaching elementary
science: Case study of a teacher in change. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 150–156.
Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 21–50). Boston, MA:
Kluwer.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change,
learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional
development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422–453.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational
Research, 81, 376–407.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional
development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational
Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of
computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers and Education, 62,
171–180. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.022
Understanding Inservice Science Teachers’ Needs for…495
123
Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & LeSage, A. (2003). A survey measuring elementary
teachers’ implementation of standards-based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 34, 344–363.
Rotherham, A. J., Mikuta, J., & Freeland, J. (2008). Letter to the next president. Journal of Teacher
Education, 59, 242–251.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 52, 5–18.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The
range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42,
283–312.
Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81,
530–565.
Shin, T. S., Koehler, M. J., Lundeberg, M. A., Zhang, M., Eberhardt, J., Zhang, T., & Paik, S. (2010). The
impact of problem-based learning professional development on science teachers’ self-efficacy and
their teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research
Association, Denver, CO.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they
talking about? Computers and Education, 46, 29–48.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content
knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41, 26–28.
Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and
challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63–89.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student
achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11,
57–67.
Yager, R. E. (2005). Accomplishing the visions for professional development of teachers advocated in the
National Science Education Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 95–102.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.
496 M. Zhang et al.
123
