the professional development of high school chemistry coordinators

3Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1): 3–24, 2004©2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

The Professional Development of High School ChemistryCoordinators

Avi Hofstein, Miriam Carmeli, & Relly ShoreThe National Center for Chemistry Teachers, Department of Science Teaching,The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

The implementation of new content and pedagogical standards in science educationnecessitates intensive, long-term professional development of science teachers.In this paper, we describe the rationale and structure of a comprehensive andintensive professional development program of school-based leaders, namelyschool chemistry coordinators. The year-long program was designed so that thechemistry teachers who enrolled in the program were able to develop in threeinterrelated aspects: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, andleadership ability. Several strategies for the development of these aspects wereadopted from Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles (1998). The evaluation ofthe program focused on the changes that participating teachers underwentregarding their personal beliefs and their functioning as school chemistrycoordinators in their schools.

Introduction

New standards in science and mathematics education are being advocated,standards that reflect the current vision of the content, classroom environment,teaching methods, and support necessary to provide high quality science educationfor all students (National Research Council, 1996). These standards provide adirection for further reforms in science and mathematics education.

The 1960s and the ’70s were the golden ages of reform in curriculumdevelopment in science and mathematics. At present, the reform in science educationis highly characterized by the special attention given to the development of scienceand mathematics teachers as professionals (Corcoran, Shields, & Zucker, 1998;Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). This new focus is based on experience derivedfrom the previous intensive and comprehensive efforts invested in curriculumdevelopment, where it became apparent that a good curriculum is necessary, but is,by no means, sufficient in itself since teachers rarely use curriculum materials asoriginally intended by their developers (Ganiel, 1995; Romberg, & Pitman, 1990;Yager, 1992).

Educators now recognize the central role that teachers have in determining theways in which science is taught and learned in schools, a role that no curriculum byitself can fulfill. Such a role involves setting teaching goals that are locally relevantand creating a classroom environment in which these goals are pursued. In such aclassroom environment, students encounter, develop, and use scientific concepts

4

and skills in the context of genuine problems and situations; and teachers chooseappropriate ways to represent the subject matter by asking questions, suggestingactivities, and guiding discussions.

Past experience suggests that knowledge of only the subject matter, even atan advanced level, is not enough to equip teachers with the tools that will enablethem to fulfill their role, nor is their mere acquaintance with ready-made curriculummaterials or adequate teaching aids sufficient. Thus, teaching in the classroom ismuch more complicated than a straightforward implementation of a curriculum. Itinvolves close attention to the wide range of social backgrounds and intellectualabilities of the students. Classroom discussions must be conducted by payingspecial attention to overt and covert messages conveyed by students’ responsesto teachers’ questions; this requires special skills. In addition to content knowledgeand curriculum knowledge, teachers also need to be familiar with the pedagogy ofscience teaching.

Knowledge of the pedagogy of science teaching is required to include methodsthat vary the instruction, such as including inquiry techniques, cooperative learning,monitoring and guiding students’ projects, and implementing different questioningtechniques. Eraut (1995) suggested that professional classroom teachers arecharacterized by continuing the development and the adaptation of their repertoire,utilizing ongoing learning from experience, reflecting, and theorizing how best tomeet students’ needs and abilities, as well as utilizing ongoing learning throughcooperation with their colleagues. Traditional ways of conducting pre-service andin-service teacher education have not always proven to be adequate for attainingthese goals (e.g., Van den Berg, Lunetta, & Finegold, 1995). It is well documented inthe professional development literature that such a demanding goal could only beattained by providing science teachers with comprehensive, supportive, life-longprofessional development experiences (Bell, 1998; Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Loucks-Horsley, Bybee, & Wild, 1996; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; Pellicer & Anderson,2001; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). Several research studies (e.g., Birman,Desimone, Porter, & Garret, 2000) have suggested that the duration of professionaldevelopment is related to the depth of a teacher’s change.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to present an extensive review of theliterature regarding effective models and frameworks that have been developedaround the world. However, for the purpose of this paper, we chose to present themodel for professional development, Learning in Science Project, developed inNew Zealand (Bell, 1998; Bell & Gilbert, 1994). This project is characterized by itslong-term duration and by its focus on different dimensions that seem essential forteachers’ development. The rationale behind this project was that teachers’development should be seen as a form of human development involving thefollowing interdependent components: professional development, socialdevelopment, and personal development. The professional development componentincludes knowledge of science education, subject matter, teaching activities andskills. In addition, it includes the teacher’s beliefs and conceptions regarding thesecomponents. The social development component involves renegotiating andreconstructing what it means to be a science teacher. It also involves skills of

HOFSTEIN, CARMELI, & SHORE

5

working with others, skills that, we suggest, are vital for the development ofleadership. Finally, the personal development component involves the teacher’saffective development regarding the change process that he or she is undergoing.Bell (1998) suggested that, for a significant change in teachers to occur, professionaldevelopment should include all these of three interrelated and interdependentvariables. We found this model highly relevant in its structure and philosophy forthe herein described project with chemistry teachers conducted in Israel.

The first goal of this paper is to describe the development of an innovativemodel developed specifically for the professional development of school chemistrycoordinators in Israel. In addition, the paper presents the results of an evaluationproject aimed at probing the teachers’ perceptions of the success of the programand its implementation. It is suggested that this professional development model isinnovative since it integrates the three components necessary for a teacher tobecome a school-based leader: the development of the chemistry teacher’s contentknowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and leadership skills. The developmentof these domains was done using the professional development strategies thatwere advocated in the literature (e.g., Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998) as effective andvalid to develop school chemistry coordinators. In the past, most of the in-serviceprograms emphasized the content knowledge aspect, along with some pedagogicalaspects; however, the development of leadership skills were neglected. Thus, theultimate goal was to support the attainment of reform in chemistry education in highschools in Israel. The project described here was conducted in recent years in Israelin the context of a comprehensive reform of science education (Superior Committeeon Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education in Israel, 1992). The primarygoal of this reform was to improve the way science is taught. More specifically, itreflects our vision regarding the content and pedagogy through which we plan toprovide scientific literacy for all students.

It is assumed that, although the education system in Israel differs from that inthe United States and other countries, there are many similarities regarding the ideathat the science teacher is the key variable in our effort to implement reform inscience education.

Reforming School Science

Israel has a centralized education system. Thus, the syllabi, final examinations,and educational projects, as well as support for teachers’ professional development,are conducted and regulated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport.Since the mid-1960s, the Ministry has been responsible for a long-term, dynamicprocess of science curriculum development that has been conducted mainly inCenters for Science and Technology Education located in several academicinstitutions throughout the country. This process of curriculum development hasalways been accompanied by implementation and evaluation (viz., diagnosticresearch and formative and summative evaluation).

In 1992, the Israeli Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport (SuperiorCommittee on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education) released the

HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY COORDINATORS

6

report, Tomorrow 98, on reform in science, technology, and mathematics education.The report included 43 recommendations for new programs and special projects. Itsuggested changes and improvements, both educational and structural, in the areasof curriculum development and its implementation, pedagogy of science andmathematics teaching and directions and actions to be taken in the professionaldevelopment of science and mathematics teachers. The report acknowledges thecentral role that the science and mathematics teachers play in instruction: “Thebest programs and the best-equipped laboratories will not prove themselvesworthwhile without good teachers. Eventually, every subject in the education systemstands or falls on the quality, qualifications and dedication of its teachers” (p. 6).

To bring about a change in the way science is taught, the Ministry of Education,Culture, and Sport in Israel established National Science Teachers’ Centers. Theprimary aim of these centers is to encourage educational reform by providing astrong framework to support teacher development. These centers are responsiblefor the following activities:

• Developing teacher-leaders who will initiate, support, conduct, and lead in-service professional development programs in regional centers, as well as inlocal schools.

• Developing teacher-leaders who are trained to adapt the science curriculumand implement it to suit the needs and student populations of their schools.

• Providing counseling and support for the Regional Centers for ProfessionalDevelopment of Science Teachers and other regional professionaldevelopment activities for teachers.

• Establishing and developing high standards in the pedagogy of science,teaching, and learning.

• Constructing models for effective professional development of scienceteachers.

• Establishing a clearinghouse for computer-assisted instruction, specialexperiments, instructional methods and programs, and curricula from all overthe world.

• Disseminating relevant information regarding professional developmentthroughout Israel.

Development of School-Based Leadership

In this paper we describe the rationale and structure of a comprehensive andintensive professional development program for school chemistry coordinators(school-based leaders) that was conducted in the National Center for ChemistryTeachers (NCCT). The basic idea is that, in order for a change to occur, there is avital need to develop leadership capabilities among chemistry teachers. It shouldbe emphasized that the development of leadership is a very demanding and complexprocess requiring a change in all aspects of teachers’ intellectual activities. Accordingto Friel and Bright (1997), it requires explicit attention, clear expectations, andresources (time and expertise). Support for the idea that developing school-based


7

leadership is vital was recently presented by Pellicer and Anderson (2001), who, onthe basis of examination of the work conducted by others and on their observationsof many teacher-leaders, arrived at two major conclusions:

First, if schools are to be restructured successfully, teachers must assumea variety of instructional leadership responsibilities. Second, manyteachers are willing to assume these responsibilities, but have not beenadequately prepared in terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitudesrequired to function as instructional leaders. (p. 14)

The Project for Development of School Chemistry Coordinators

Rationale of the Project

In the Israeli education system, each school has a coordinating teacher foreach of the disciplines. In general, the coordinating teacher (coordinator) is expectedto conduct the following activities:

• Plan the teaching and learning (pedagogical) program (Pellicer & Anderson,2001). It is anticipated that in the future, these kinds of activities will beconducted in cooperation with the team of chemistry teachers in the school.

• Expose the team to new curricula, new learning materials, new pedagogicalinterventions, and instructional techniques. Also, in this capacity, thecoordinator is expected to introduce and discuss with the team in theirschools new assessment tools and the implementation of alternativeassessment methods (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998).

• Provide guidance and assume leadership for the team of teachers, in general,and for new teachers, in particular, regarding curricular issues, such as theimplementation of new curricula that has been tailored to the needs of aspecific school, specific student population, and characteristics of thescience teachers (Miller, 1998).

• Plan school-based professional development to improve both teachers’content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome &Lederman, 1999; Miller, 1998; Pellicer & Anderson, 2001; Shulman, 1986).

• Act as a link between the school management and the team of teachers andbecome involved in improving the school in terms of instruction andorganization.

From this list, it is seen that to attain goals of reform and to implement newcontent and pedagogical standards in school science and, especially, in chemistry,coordinators have increasingly more complex roles to play in fostering the effectivechange.


8

The Structure of the Program

A program that was designed for the professional development of coordinatingchemistry teachers was held during the academic year 1998–1999 at the NationalCenter for Chemistry Teachers. Twenty-one teachers from all over the country,representing different types of high schools in Israel, participated in a weekly, full-day meeting for a total of 224 hours. Selection criteria for participation in the programwere as follows:

• Teachers who currently function as coordinators or are due to becomecoordinators in the future.

• Teachers with at least 5 years’ experience as high school chemistry teachers(10th–12th grades), including experience in preparing students formatriculation examinations (final examinations set centrally by the Ministryof Education, Culture, and Sport), and who have reputations as successfulteachers.

• Previous participation in at least five in-service professional activities. Theseare usually week-long, summer programs provided for chemistry teachers,mainly designed to introduce the teachers to the content and pedagogy ofnew textbooks, new curricula, or new programs.

• A recommendation provided by regional tutors or the school principal asbeing creative and open to curricular changes.

In planning the program, we seriously considered the assertion made by Bybee(1993) that the development of leadership among science teachers should includeall the components that comprise the long-term professional development of scienceteachers. In addition, the program should include those components that supportthe development of leadership.

In general, the program consisted of three interrelated key components aimedat developing the chemistry coordinating teachers’ subject content knowledge,pedagogical content knowledge, and leadership ability. In a way, this is a partialadaptation of Bell & Gilbert’s (1994) approach to teacher training in the context ofteacher-leaders’ development.

A multiple-strategy approach was assumed for the program. These strategieswere mainly adapted from Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998). A detailed description of theprogram structure, content, and teachers’ activities is presented in the next paragraphand summarized in Table 1.

The Development of Content Knowledge

This part of the program was intended to update and enrich the potentialcoordinators with scientific chemistry content. It was based on Kempa’s (1983)claim that the future development of teaching and learning materials in chemistryshould include the following six dimensions: the conceptual structure of chemistry,the processes of chemistry, the technological manifestations of chemistry, chemistry


9

Tabl

e 1

Pro

gram

Con

tent

and

Act

ivit

ies


10

as a “personally relevant” subject, the cultural aspects of chemistry, and the societalimplications of chemistry. More specifically, it was suggested that, in the teachingand learning of chemistry, students should be exposed to recent investigations,namely, the frontiers of chemistry. Chemistry should be viewed as an inquiry-baseddiscipline, giving rise to new knowledge and insights. To this end, problems mightbe solved both in the classroom and in the laboratory, using inquiry-type activitiesand methods. This approach enables the students to ask questions, plan andconduct investigations, think critically, construct and analyze alternativeexplanations, and express scientific arguments (Bybee, 1997). In addition, to makechemistry more relevant to the students’ lives and to the society in which they liveand operate, chemistry should be taught as an applied science of major economicand technological importance.

This approach to high school chemistry makes a great demand on the chemistryteachers. Traditionally, most of the teachers, both in their preservice training and inmost of their in-service experiences, are exposed to only the first two components:the conceptual structure and the processes of chemistry. The other components,presenting the technological application of chemistry, its influence on society, andits cultural characteristics were usually neglected or received only limited attention.

On planning and implementing the program, we took into consideration that anew syllabus was being introduced in high schools in Israel. The new syllabusemphasized all the dimensions of chemistry education mentioned above. In thedevelopment of the content knowledge, we adopted the strategy that Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998) called “the partnership with scientists” (p. 132). In this strategy,teachers interface directly with practicing scientists; this interaction enables themto improve their content knowledge. During the program, the teachers were exposedto new research areas in chemistry by attending lectures and by visiting laboratoriesin which research in various areas of chemistry were conducted. To enhance theparticipating teacher’s content knowledge, some of the chemistry topics wereintroduced by using the examining-students’-work strategy (Loucks-Horsley et al.,1998). The idea is that teachers learn the subject matter in the way their studentslearn it. Support for this idea was presented by Kennedy (1998), who found thatsuch programs are successful in improving the teachers’ ability to learn a specificsubject matter and, as a result, improving the students’ achievement.

The Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Mason (1999) wrote that most of the novice teachers, even the ones who areaware and knowledgeable of teaching strategies and who are well prepared in thesubject matter, are not provided with the opportunity to apply pedagogicalknowledge to specific scientific concepts and issues. Thus, very often, teachersare not able to decide what particular teaching strategy should be used to teach aspecific topic or concept and to choose the appropriate pedagogical interventionto be used to implement the most effective teaching method for their students.

However, in Israel, one of the major problems in teaching high school chemistryis the teachers’ lack of pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 1999;


11

Shulman, 1986). In regard to the pedagogical content knowledge category, Shulmanwrote: “It represents the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, themost powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations,in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make itcomprehensible to others” (p. 9). Similar ideas, but in the context of scienceeducation, were presented by Mason (1999), who wrote that

The preparation of teachers continues to be embroiled in controversy.However, with the recent knowledge that we have gained about teachingand learning, it logically appears that we need to blend contentcompetencies with pedagogical effectiveness; that is guide teachersinto developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). (p. 279)

The general message to those who are involved in professional development isthat teachers need to be provided with the knowledge that enables them to varyand improve the ways and methods used to teach a certain topic or subject.

Hofstein and Walberg (1995) and Tobin, Capie, and Bettencourt (1988)suggested that instructional techniques in science should be matched with thelearners’ characteristics and needs to maximize the effectiveness of the teachingand learning processes and to increase student motivation. Hofstein and Kempa(1985), in postulating that a certain relationship exists between students’ motivationaltraits and their preferences for particular teaching and learning strategies, supportedthis idea. This was confirmed in a quantitative research study conducted in theUnited Kingdom by Kempa and Diaz (1990). In practice, it is obviously difficult torespond to the needs of each individual student. However, students’ achievementsand motivation can be greatly improved if teachers use a wide repertoire ofinstructional strategies instead of limiting themselves to only a few. In the describedprogram, the participants were involved in diverse ways of integrating the chemistrysubject matter with the literature dealing with students’ learning styles andpreferences of learning methods (Hofstein & Kempa, 1985).

Implementing diverse means of classroom instruction implies the use ofalternative methods for assessing students’ progress and achievements (Gittomer& Duschl, 1998); this means that teachers need to be aware of different modes ofassessment. For example, research on achievements in chemistry (Hofstein, Ben-Zvi, Samuel, & Kempa, 1977); in biology (Tamir, 1972); and, more recently, in generalscience (Yeany, Larusa, & Hale, 1989), has clearly shown that achievements usingpaper and pencil tests are not necessarily correlated with achievements in practical-type tests. The participants of the program learned to use alternative assessmentmethods to obtain a comprehensive and objective picture of their students’achievements and progress.

The teachers were also introduced to typical students’ misconceptions thatoccurred in the chemistry matriculation examinations. They were asked to discussand analyze in groups the reasons for and the sources of these misconceptions(based on the literature that was provided) and to suggest pedagogical remedies toovercome them.


12

In the program, the participants were taught different instructional techniquesto enhance their ability to vary the classroom-learning environment. Among themethods used were cooperative learning techniques, inquiry learning in the classroomand in the laboratory, simulations, field trips to research laboratories and variouschemical industries, critical reading of scientific articles, questioning techniques,and students’ miniprojects. To implement these novel methods requires managementskills, flexibility, and the ability to devise an appropriate response to specific schoolcharacteristics, teaching goals, and various student populations.

The Development of Leadership Skills

Senge (1990) defined leaders in education as those who design learningprocesses whereby people throughout the organization deal productively withissues and learn the disciplines. Bybee (1993) claimed that developing leaders aswell as curriculum developers among teachers is vital in an era of reform in both thecontent of science teaching and in the ways in which science is taught. Based onresearch on professional development, it is clear that a highly qualified leadershipis required to foster changes in teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 1991;Pellicer & Anderson, 2001). The central goal of the program was to develop chemistryteacher-leaders (school chemistry coordinators) who will be, in the future, in aposition to foster changes in chemistry education. More specifically, the schoolchemistry coordinators should be able to facilitate communication and cooperationamong teachers and initiate school-based curriculum development, implementation,and evaluation.

In recent years, there has been a trend to encourage what is fondly calledschool-based (or teacher-based) curriculum development (see, for example, Ben-Peretz, 1990). The experience that the teachers obtained during the program providedthem with the know-how to alter the curriculum, both in its content and in itspedagogical components, so it will be more appropriate to the school and its studentpopulation. For many years, science teachers were exposed to top-down experiencesin which the teachers passively received knowledge and curricular ideas; in contrast,the emphasis in this program was on the active participation of the teachers in theirlearning and on coaching them to adopt, whenever necessary, bottom-up strategies(Frechtling, 2001).

In this phase of the program, the participants were also involved in programsfor the development of decision-making ability, team-building and management,resolving conflicts, problem solving, and better social understanding. Another aspectthat was dealt with in the program was the need to maintain relationships with othermanagerial-function personnel in school, as well as with higher authorities outsideschool.

During the program, with the help, guidance, and support of instructors andpeers, the participants were given opportunities to try in their schools the newideas discussed in the program and, consequently, to reflect on their fieldwork,provide evidence on what was done, and obtain feedback from their peers in theprogram.


13

The program provided an atmosphere of support and collegiality that createdthe ability to share, critically evaluate, and openly discuss new ideas. In this phase,we adopted the study-group strategy (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998) in which teacherswere given the opportunity to engage in collaborative interactions regarding topicsand issues identified by the group, reflect on their practice, and analyze experiencesand data collected in the schools in which they work. Consequently, the participantswere guided in methods of conveying the ideas discussed in the program to theircolleagues in school. To sum up this section of the paper, it is suggested that theparticipating teachers were provided with opportunities to develop personally,professionally, and socially, as advocated by Bell and Gilbert (1994) and Bell (1998).

Project Evaluation

Evaluation Goals

The purpose of this program was to improve the participants’ functioning asschool chemistry coordinators. The evaluation focused on the changes theparticipants of the program underwent and addressed two main questions:

1. How did the program influence the participating teachers’ perceptionregarding their role as coordinating chemistry teachers?

2. How did the program affect the coordinating teachers’ daily functioning intheir schools?

Instrumentation

The data on teachers’ perceptions and beliefs was obtained using bothquantitative and qualitative measures. These were gathered at various stages ofthe program and a year after its termination. Data were collected using the followinginstruments.

Preprogram Questionnaire (Questionnaire A). This questionnaire wasadministered at the beginning of the program and consisted of two parts: In the firstpart of the questionnaire, the participating teachers were asked to report on theextent to which they are involved in different aspects of high school chemistryinstruction. This was a Likert-type scale ranging from 1-not at all involved to 4-highly involved and containing 19 items (for the full list of the items, see Table 2).The same questionnaire was administered at the end of the program.

The second part was a open-ended-type questionnaire in which the teacherswere asked to report on their expectations from the program. The questions addressedthe expected contribution of the program to the work of the participating teachers intheir own classroom and to their behavior as school chemistry coordinators.

Midterm Questionnaire (Questionnaire B). This questionnaire wasadministered in the middle of the program. Its aim was to obtain the participants’opinions regarding the contributions of the program and the pedagogical changesthat the teachers had introduced thus far in their daily functioning as coordinatorsand as classroom teachers. The questions were open ended and analyzed using


14

qualitative methods, focusing mainly on the teaching of chemistry and on theparticipants’ roles as teachers and as coordinators. The following are three examplesof item that were included in this questionnaire:

• In your opinion what is the contribution of the course to your work?• Please describe changes you made in your practice in school.• What changes would you recommend should be incorporated regarding the

continuation of the program?

End- of- Year Questionnaire (Questionnaire C). At the end of the program,Questionnaire C was administered. The first part of the questionnaire was a repetitionof Questionnaire A (Table 2). The second part probed the teachers’ perceptionsregarding changes they made in their schools and in their classrooms. The open-ended questions focused primarily on whether they felt that their expectations fromthe program had been fulfilled. They were also asked to report on their perceptionsregarding different components of the program and the relative contribution ofthose components to their work in school.

Follow-Up Questionnaire: What Do You Do Today? (Questionnaire D). Thisquestionnaire was administered to the program participants 18 months after theend of the program. The participants were asked to describe the ways in which theydeal with different aspects of the coordinator’s role and to reflect on the effect thevarious activities they experienced in the program had on their daily functioning ascoordinators and classroom chemistry teachers. All questions were open-ended.For example, it included questions such as

• Are you presently a coordinating teacher?• Are you conducting regular meetings with your team of teachers?• To what aspects of high school chemistry do you devote these meetings?• Can you report on changes in the ways/strategies that chemistry is taught in

your school? If your answer is positive, please provide examples.• Are there changes in the way in which students are assessed regarding their

progress and achievement?

Teachers’ Tasks and Activities in Schools. Information on the teachers’activities and assignments was also gathered through reports they had presentedthroughout the program (see Table 1). Each of the teachers was asked to conductan activity or a pedagogical intervention (e.g., inquiry teaching) in their schools.Following that, they were asked to report (both orally and written) to the wholegroup on the implementation of these activities and to discuss their effectiveness.These reports were additional sources of information on the teachers’ professionalenhancement.


15

Data Analysis

The study employed the basic method of data reduction used in qualitativeresearch (i.e., defining categories that emerged from the revealed data). Each questionin the open-ended questionnaire was analyzed separately. This resulted inidentification of the themes and patterns regarding the developmental process ofthe participants. To improve the validity of the analysis, each of the programparticipants’ responses was analyzed by two of the researchers (Lincoln & Guba,1985). Following this procedure, the results were compared and discussed for mutualagreement.

The quantitative questionnaires A (pre) and C (post) were analyzed forcomparison using a series of t tests. To obtain an overall picture regarding thedifferences between the teachers’ responses for the two events, a combined pvalue using X2 statistics was conducted (Winer, 1971). The Bonferroni adjustmenttechnique was used to detect items that show significant differences between thepre- and posttest (see Table 2).

Results

At the Beginning of the Program

At the beginning of the program most of the participants expressed theirexpectations for professional development in terms of learning new teachingstrategies and being updated in the most recent research topics in chemistry (contentknowledge and pedagogical content knowledge). When asked to describe theirfunctioning as coordinators, they mainly emphasized daily teaching matters, updatingteachers in new programs, controlling the pace of instruction, or preparation ofexaminations. Only eight participants mentioned that they expected the programwould provide them with tools and know-how for providing guidance andcounseling to their colleagues for whom they are responsible as coordinatingteachers.

It seems that, at this stage, most of the participants perceived themselvesmainly as senior chemistry teachers who are responsible for the smooth ongoingchemistry instruction in their schools. Such issues as team management, leadershipskills, and the coordinator’s status seemed to be of lesser concern.

Halfway Through the Program

Half way through the program (based on the midterm Questionnaire B), theparticipants were asked about the contribution of the program up to that point. Atthis stage, most of the teachers reported that the program was very influential in thearea of classroom instruction. They reported that they already used a variety ofinstructional techniques in their classroom, such as critical reading of sciencecolumns in daily newspapers and articles in science journals. They reported thatthey had begun to incorporate inquiry-type techniques and also started to use


16

alternative assessment techniques to match the change in pedagogy. They broughtwritten (e.g., reports) evidence from their students.

The following are some of the teachers’ quotes:

I am aware of the importance of using a diversity of teaching strategies,and I try to use them whenever possible.

In addition to assessing my students by written examinations, I havestarted to assess my students’ ability to conduct inquiry-type experiments,critically read a scientific article, and search for more informationthrough the Web and the library.

At this stage, all of the program participants reported that they had learned totreat differently individual students (in heterogeneous classes) and to give thempersonal attention based on their abilities and interests. Two participants claimedthat they did not yet feel confident enough to use the novel instructional strategiesand that they needed more training to be able to implement those strategies in theclassroom.

About two thirds of the teachers said that the program affected the way theyperceive their role as teachers. One of the teachers wrote:

The teacher’s role in the classroom is like the navigator’s on a ship. Iknew it beforehand, but the program strengthened this view.

To summarize at that stage, the teachers reported that their main concerns werestill very much focused on their needs as teachers in their particular classroomsand, to a lesser extent, on their role as school chemistry coordinators. Thepedagogical content knowledge appeared to be the predominant factor shapingtheir perceptions.

Toward the End of the Program

Considering the results obtained from the midterm questionnaire, in the secondhalf of the program, special attention was given to various aspects of the coordinator’srole, namely, those related to leadership ability. Table 2 presents the mean value ofthe pre- and postprogram responses of the participants to items regarding the degreeof involvement in different aspects of the chemistry coordinator’s work in school(Questionnaires A and C).

A comparison of pre and post means produced X2 = 127 (df = 38), p < .00001.This is an indication that there was a significant improvement in the participants’reports regarding their overall functioning. A significant increase was manifested intheir perceptions regarding their responsibility for the professional development ofthe team of chemistry teachers in their schools (items 17 and 18). The table alsoshows that the program was influential in determining the degree of their involvementin school life and in enhancing their perception of coordinators being part of the


17HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY COORDINATORS

Table 2

Teachers’ Involvement in Their Function as Coordinators (N = 18)

18

entire school system (items 15 and 19).Analysis of their descriptive answers in the end-of-year questionnaire

concerning the coordinators’ role revealed that 13 teachers claimed that they changedtheir attitude toward their fellow teachers and gained a better understanding oftheir needs. Here are a few quotes regarding this issue:

Every teacher comes with his own beliefs and needs, and it seems that Iwasn’t aware of it before the program.

I learned to be more patient with my staff members, to adapt to theirpace, and to make suggestions according to the spirit and nature of thepeople with whom I work.

I understand now that being a coordinator means you have to be aleader, and I do not have to do all the work by myself.

Six participants reported that they felt differently about their status ascoordinating teachers in school; and, as a result, they have cooperated with otherschool subject coordinators. One of them claimed that

The major change that occurred to me is my cooperation with thephysics and biology coordinators, and it may lead to interdisciplinaryenrichment.

In the follow-up questionnaire (1 1/2 years after participating in the program),the program graduates were asked to describe the changes they had made in theirdaily functions as both teachers and as coordinators (Questionnaire D). On thebasis of the program graduates answers, it seems that the program had a significantimpact on several aspects of the individual coordinator’s work. Most of thegraduates reported that they organize and conduct regular staff meetings, whichare now much better organized and focused on important topics concerning notonly administrative matters, but also school policy, adaptation of new teachingstrategies, and planning special projects. The coordinators reported that the programin which they had participated helped them to establish better work relations withtheir staff; as a result, their colleagues became more cooperative, active, had initiativeand were willing to contribute to the development of new ideas.

In addition, all graduates mentioned taking care of administrative duties, suchas deciding on test timetables, and checking the pace of instruction. No significantchanges were reported regarding the guidance given to new teachers. The sevencoordinators who had new teachers on their staff mentioned working with themprimarily on planning lessons and preparing tests. One coordinator mentionedcarrying out reciprocal visits in classes.

All the teachers who returned the questionnaire (N = 18) reported oninstructional changes that they had implemented in their classes as a result of theirparticipation in the program. Most of them mentioned that they had incorporated


19

critical reading and analysis of scientific articles, as well as the incorporation ofinquiry-type laboratories into their teaching. Several teachers reported that theymade use of films, worked with the Internet as a source of information, and guidedtheir students with miniprojects. All these were included in the chemistry students’assessment of progress and achievements. Note that, before the program, most ofthe students’ grades were mainly based on written, paper-and-pencil tests. As aresult of the program, the teachers reported that they had incorporated newinstructional techniques and, also, new assessment methods.

A survey conducted recently among the participating teachers revealed that15 of the 21 teachers function as coordinating teachers. Two of the teachers becameregional tutors, 1 became a teacher educator, 6 are involved in advanced professionaldevelopment programs regarding shaping the syllabus and the chemistry curriculum,and 4 enrolled in graduate programs in science education.

Discussion

The aim of the program described here was to develop school chemistrycoordinators, who are expected to provide school-based leadership. It was assumedthat, to become school-based leaders, the teachers have to undergo professionaldevelopment to improve their content knowledge, as well as their pedagogicalcontent knowledge and their leadership skills.

In their comprehensive review on the professional development of teachers inscience and mathematics, Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto (1999) reported that manyof the studies that have attempted to assess outcomes of professional developmenthave focused on participants’ satisfaction and their perceptions regarding thecontribution of these programs in terms of an increase in their knowledge. Since ourmain goal for conducting this program was to develop coordinators who will beable to impose changes in the way chemistry is actually taught in schools, ourevaluation study focused on domains related to this goal:

• Coordinator’s role perception,• Coordinator’s daily functioning, and• Teaching chemistry in the classroom.

The following discussion will be presented around these three key domains.

Coordinator’s Role Perception

At the beginning of the program, participants expressed their expectationsfrom the program mainly in areas regarding their own teaching. It seemed that theirprofessional identity at this point was basically one of an experienced teacher, notof a school chemistry coordinator. Since being a school subject coordinator in theIsraeli high school system is an appointment additional to regular classroominstruction, this is not surprising. Very often this appointment is temporary anddoes not carry extra benefits. Thus, most of the coordinators’ time and effort were


20

still devoted to teaching chemistry in their classroom. Gradually, during thecontinuation of the program, the teachers felt more and more confident abouttaking part in activities in which they would have opportunities to act as leadersand be responsible for the functioning of other chemistry teachers in their school.This was feasible after they, themselves, gained confidence regarding the contentknowledge, pedagogy of education in chemistry, and leadership skills.

Coordinator’s Daily Functioning

With regard to their daily functioning, it seems that, in the long run, thecoordinators adopted diverse leadership skills and team management abilities andmade them part of their routine work with their colleagues. Moreover, they acted asrepresentatives of their team toward the school management and the school systemas a whole and felt confident enough to initiate contacts with coordinators in otherdisciplines and to become part of the school educational leadership.

Teaching Chemistry in the Classroom

Most participants mentioned that they adopted and frequently use a broadrepertoire of new teaching strategies in their classrooms. However, many of themclaimed that it raised a constant conflict within the high school system betweeninteresting and relevant teaching on one hand and preparing for the matriculation(final examination set centrally by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport)tests on the other hand. The teachers were aware of the importance of makingchemistry studies interesting and relevant and the necessity of varying theclassroom instruction; however, they felt that it was time consuming and that theyhad to compromise between coverage of topics and the introduction of pedagogicalinterventions.

Nevertheless, we have evidence that shows that the coordinating teachersmake substantial efforts to introduce changes in the way chemistry is taught eventoday. For example, recent discussions held with the group of teachers whoparticipated in the program revealed that most of them had introduced inquiry-typelaboratories as part of the chemistry curriculum in their schools. It should be notedthat such learning experiences are highly student centered and require radicalchange in a teacher’s role and behavior in the classroom. In such research, thestudents conduct open-ended-type experiments, ask relevant questions,hypothesize, design new experiments, and arrive at conclusions. (For moreinformation on this approach, see Hofstein, Kipnis, & Shore, 2004.) In addition, thecoordinating teachers also guided other chemistry teachers in their schools in theimplementation of the inquiry approach.

We are aware of the limitations and drawbacks of a study that is based mainlyon information gathered from teachers’ reports. However, since data were gatheredseveral times throughout the year and teachers reported regularly, both orally andin writing, on their tasks and activities in their own schools and classes and sincethey included examples of students’ assignments, the information should be


21

considered reliable. In addition, anecdotal data, which were gathered informallyfrom the participants, as well as from peers in their schools, supported the informationobtained from the questionnaires and, thus, increased the reliability.

Summary

In this project, we assumed that, since we are entering an era in which school-based curriculum development is advocated, there is a vital need to develop teacher-leaders capable of implementing new content and pedagogical standards in theteaching of high school chemistry. This study presented evidence that thecoordinating teachers who have participated in the intensive professionaldevelopment that was offered acquired the necessary understanding, skills, andtools to implement changes in the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of highschool chemistry. In addition, we tried to increase their capability to act as leadersin their own schools (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). Today, these coordinators playan important role in the improvement of school science learning beyond the limitedboundaries of chemistry in their schools.

Thus far, the literature is limited in models and case studies that can help inbuilding an educationally effective framework of professional development,especially the development of leadership. It is suggested that, to better understandthe processes and educational effectiveness of this and similar models, futurestudies should investigate additional aspects, such as classroom teacher behavior(this should be done via observations), assessment of students’ achievement andprogress, and the classroom learning-environment. To better understand school-based leadership, we recommend observing and analyzing the types of interactionsand dynamics that exist among the teachers inside the team and between the teamand the teacher-leader. In addition, since teacher-leaders do not work in isolation(Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001) but, rather, in a complex system, in a researchstudy one must also identify and consider variables that can enhance or inhibit theimplementation of this and similar reforms.

ReferencesBell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G.

Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 681–694).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as personal, professional, andsocial development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 483–497.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). Teachers as curriculum makers. In T. Husen & N. T.Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International encyclopedia of education (pp. 6089–6091). Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon.

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garret, M. S. (2000). Designingprofessional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28–32.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives andpersonal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Meeting the challenges of achieving scientific literacy. In


22

Proceedings of an international conference on globalization of scienceeducation (pp. 39–62). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational DevelopmentInstitute.

Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P. M., & Zucker, A. A. (1998). Evaluation of NSF’s statewidesystemic infinitives (SSI): The SSIs and professional development for teachers.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Eraut, M. (1995). Developing professional knowledge within a client-centeredorientation. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional developmentin education. New York: Teacher College Press.

Frechtling, L. O. (2001). What evaluation tells us about professional developmentprograms in mathematics and science. In C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K.Pugalee, A. Courtny-Miller, & W. J. DiBiase (Eds.), Developing teacher leaders(pp. 17–42). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Friel, S, N., & Bright, G. W. (1997). Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancementin K–6 mathematics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). New meaning of educational change. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Ganiel, U. (1995). Fostering change in science education: Creation, implementation,evaluation, and research: The Israeli experience. In A. Hofstein, B. Eylon, & G.J. Giddings (Eds.), Science education: From theory to practice. Proceedingsof a conference conducted in Jerusalem. Rehovot, Israel: The WeizmannInstitute of Science.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical contentknowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gittomer, D. H., & Duschl, R. A. (1998) Emerging issues and practices in scienceassessment. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook ofscience education (pp. 791–810). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Hofstein, A., Ben–Zvi, R., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Modes of instruction inhigh school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433–439.

Hofstein, A., & Kempa, R. F. (1985). Motivating aspects in science education: Anattempt at an analysis. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 221–229.

Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Shore, R. (2004). Providing high school students withopportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A casestudy. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.

Hofstein, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B. J. Fraser & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education: An international perspective:NSSE Yearbook (pp. 1–20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kempa, R. F. (1983). Developing new perspectives in chemical education. In A.Rambaud & H. W. Heikkinen (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh InternationalConference on Chemistry, Education, and Society (pp. 34–42). Montpellier,France: Universite des Sciences et Techniques.

Kempa, R. F., & Diaz. M. (1990). Motivational traits and preferences for differentinstructional modes in science. International Journal of Science Education,12, 195–203.


23

Kennedy, M. M. (1998, April). The relevance of content in in-service teachereducation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association (AERA): San Diego, CA.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Loucks-Horsley, S., Bybee, R. W., & Wild, L. C. (1996). The role of community

colleges in the professional development of science teachers. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 26, 130–134.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designingprofessional development for teachers of science and mathematics. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional developmentfor teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Scienceand Mathematics, 99, 258–271.

Mason, C .L. (1999). The TRIAD approach: A consensus for science teaching andlearning, In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogicalcontent knowledge (pp. 277–292). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Miller, L. (1998). Redefining teachers, recapturing schools: Connections,commitments, and challenges. In A. Hargreaves, M. Liberman, D. Fullan, & D.Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: Author.

Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (2001). Teacher leadership: A paradigm for improvinginstruction in science and mathematics. In C. R Nesbit, J. D Wallace, D. KPugalee, A. Courtny-Miller, & W. J. DiBiase (Eds.), Developing teacher leaders(pp. 4–16). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Romberg, T. A., & Pitman, A. J. (1990). Curricular materials and pedagogical reform:Teachers’ perspective and use of time in the teaching of mathematics. In R.Bromme & M. Ben-Peretz (Eds.), Time for teachers: Time in schools from thepractitioner’s perspective (pp. 189–226). New York: Teachers College Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learningorganization. New York: Doubleday.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating schoolsleadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30,23–28.

Superior Committee on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education in Israel.(1992). Tomorrow 98 (English Ed.). Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education,Culture, and Sport.

Tamir, P. (1972). The practical mode, a distinct mode of performance in biology.Journal of Educational Measurement, 6, 175–182.

Tobin, K., Capie, W., & Bettencourt, A. (1988). Active teaching for higher cognitivelearning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 17–27.


24

Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies forscience teachers. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teachingand learning (pp. 49–53). New York: Macmillan.

Van den Berg, E., Lunetta, V. N., & Finegold, M. (1995). Introduction to strand B: Afocus on the teacher. In A. Hofstein, B. Eylon, & G. J. Giddings (Eds.), Scienceeducation: From theory to practice (pp. 175–192). Rehovot: Israel: TheWeizmann Institute of Science.

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Yager, R. E. (1992).What we did not learn from the 60s about science curriculumreform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 905–910.

Yeany, K. H., Larusa, A. A., & Hale, M. L. (1989, April). A comparison of performancebased versus paper and pencil measures of science process and reasoningskills as influenced by gender and reading ability. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the: National Association for Research in Science Teaching(NARST), San Francisco.

This manuscript was accepted under the editorship of Craig Berg and Larry Enochs.

the professional development of high school chemistry coordinators

Documents